San Mateo County Committee on School District Organization. Regular Meeting February 3, 2014 APPROVED MINUTES

Transcription

1 Date: Place: San Bruno Park Elementary School District Board Room 500 Acacia Avenue San Bruno, CA County Committee on School District Organization Members Present: Virginia Bamford; Greg Dannis; Lory Lorimer Lawson; Bill Lock; Hilary Paulson; Laura Rich; George Robinson; Robert Stelzer; Marc Tarpenning Committee Members Absent: Melchior Thompson Staff Present: Tim Fox, Deputy County Counsel; Nancy Magee, Secretary to County Committee and Administrator for Board Support and Community Relations Call to Order: Chairperson Stelzer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and welcomed all members present. Approval of Agenda Chairperson Stelzer asked for a motion to approve the agenda for the, meeting. Member Rich made a motion and Member Paulson seconded. The motion was approved by a vote of nine in favor (Bamford; Dannis; Lawson; Lock; Paulson; Rich; Robinson; Stelzer; Tarpenning), none opposed and one absent (Thompson). Approval of the Minutes Chairperson Stelzer asked for a motion to approve the minutes of the December 9, 2013, meeting. Member Bamford made a motion and Member Rich seconded. The motion was approved by a vote of eight in favor (Bamford; Dannis; Lawson; Lock; Paulson; Rich; Robinson; Stelzer; Tarpenning), none opposed, one abstaining (Dannis) and one absent (Thompson). The minutes of the December 9, 2013, meeting were approved. Chairperson Stelzer asked for a motion to approve the minutes of the January 27, 2014, San Mateo County Community College Transfer of Territory Public Hearing. Member Rich made a motion and Member Paulson seconded. The motion The motion was approved by a vote of six in favor (Lock; Paulson; Rich; Robinson; Stelzer; Tarpenning), none opposed, three abstaining (Bamford; Dannis; Lawson) and one absent (Thompson).. The San Mateo County Community College Public Hearing minutes were approved

2 General Staff Report Committee Secretary Nancy Magee began her staff report by thanking the Committee for all their hard work over the course of the last year and welcomed the new members. She announced that while the committee roster is nearly full, there remains a vacant seat in Trustee Area One, Supervisor Pine s District. Ms. Magee encouraged the members to recommend possible candidates who might be interested in a Superintendent appointment to fill the one year remaining of the four-year term. Ms. Magee also reported that a potential petitioner who has been seeking guidance regarding how to go about crafting a petition has contacted her. Ms. Magee said she had a phone call scheduled for later in the week with the interested party and would know more at that time. Finally, Ms. Magee stated that a point of business that the Committee would need to re-engage in was around the topic of the realignment of trustee areas. Ms. Magee said that about a year ago, the Committee had formed a Sub-Committee and that Sub-Committee had done work to address the disproportionality in population within the seven trustee areas represented by the County Board of Education. Though the Sub- Committee had worked on some solutions no action had been taken. The deadline to file re-alignment data with the State Board of Equalization is March 1 st of a given year. Ms. Magee offered that the Committee might want to set as a goal a re-alignment of trustee areas by March 1 st of Ms. Magee addressed the fact that the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors had just recently concluded their process to re-align the Supervisorial districts and that during that process, a citizen, Mr. Nakamura, had put forward his own recommendation for how the districts might be re-aligned. He drew up maps and presented them to the Supervisors as they were undergoing their process. Ms. Magee informed the Committee that Mr. Nakamura had in fact, contacted her and offered a similar solution to the County Committee and that he had already submitted proposed maps reflecting his ideas. Member Lawson asked whether the Supervisor re-alignment was based on population. Deputy County Counsel Fox replied that it was. Member Lawson then asked why the Committee wouldn t just align the County Board Trustee areas to match the Supervisor Districts. Mr. Fox replied that while the Supervisors are five in number, the County Board includes seven members. He then went on to explain that it might be possible to re-align the trustee areas into five, similar to the Board of Supervisors, but that the difference between the two bodies is that the County Board must represent 23 school districts that cross municipal boundaries presenting additional challenges. Mr. Fox also added that San Mateo County is a charter county and as such, may require different processes before significant changes to the existing system could be made. Mr. Stelzer added that where the County may be looking at city as its smallest entity, the County Committee is looking at elementary school districts. Mr. Stelzer explained further how difficult it is to re-align these areas without splitting elementary school districts into parts, and that the previous Sub-Committee had put a good amount of effort into the work and found it challenging, especially in lieu of the topographical changes that exist in San Mateo County. 2

3 Mr. Stelzer went on to say that if the Committee were to go forward with a Sub-Committee, that he would suggest it allow a window of at least six months to accomplish the work. Ms. Magee said staff would place the topic of forming a Sub-Committee to address the re-alignment of trustee areas on the March agenda for discussion and possible action. Ms. Magee shared two business reminders with the Committee Members, regarding completion of Form 700 and mileage reports. Public Comment There were no members of the public who wished to speak. Discussion on the San Mateo County Community College Transfer of Territory Petition Mr. Stelzer stated that after a discussion with staff, it had been decided that further action on the Community College Petition would be limited to discussion for this evening. This was decided given the fact that some Committee members were only hearing the testimony of the Public Hearing just prior to tonight s meeting. In addition, the statutory timeline allows a window of three months in which to take action. Mr. Fox offered additional reasoning that supported that decision. Mr. Fox recommended the Committee consider the CEQA question as well as take action on the petition at the March meeting. Mr. Fox then addressed the fact that typically determining the area of election is often part of the action item on a petition, but he clarified that in this particular petition that would not be the case. Because the parcels are uninhabited land and the petition itself was accompanied by signed Board resolutions of all the affected districts, the petition is exempt from an election requirement. Review, Discuss and/or Adopt Revised Bylaws Secretary Magee directed the Members attention to the Revised Bylaws before them. Ms. Magee stated that all the changes reflected in red are the outcome of the discussion from the November meeting. Ms. Magee reviewed each of the proposed changes. Chairperson Stelzer asked if there were any questions regarding the changes. There were none. Mr. Stelzer then asked for a motion to adopt the bylaws as presented. Member Rich made a motion. Member Robinson seconded. Mr. Stelzer then conducted a vote. The motion carried with all members present voting aye. (Bamford; Dannis; Lawson; Lock; Paulson; Rich; Robinson; Stelzer; Tarpenning) and one absent (Thompson). 3

4 Review and Confirm Upcoming 2014 Meeting Dates Ms. Magee directed the Committee s attention to the handout listing all the dates of 2014 meetings. Ms. Magee clarified that meetings are typically held on the first Monday of the month, but there are a few exceptions where holidays are a factor. Ms. Magee also stated that in the event there is no business before the Committee for a particular meeting date, that meeting would be cancelled. Member Lawson reviewed the discussion from the December meeting that the Committee would attempt to combine its regular meeting dates with required Public Hearings whenever possible. The Committee agreed that all 2014 meeting dates were clear and correct. Member Comments Chairperson Stelzer suggested that since this meeting is the Committee s first with all newly elected and appointed members present that the Committee Members go around and introduce themselves. Robert Stelzer: a 19-year member of the Committee, former trustee for Las Lomitas School District, currently a broker with a real estate company in Palo Alto, previously served as a high school teacher, school psychologist, and site administrator at the high school level Virginia Bamford: ( Ginger ) formerly a school board member in the Woodside School District, previous roles: School Site Council member, PTA officer. Elected to CCSDO three years ago and plans to run again in 2014 Hilary Paulson: Redwood City School District trustee, Sequoia High School Education Foundation George Robinson: lives in Daly City, former trustee with Jefferson Union High School Board, a two-term member of the CCSDO Lory Lorimer Lawson: new to the CCSDO, just beginning her third term in the San Mateo-Foster City School District Board, prior experience includes School Site Council, Education Foundation, runs the San Mateo Community Leadership program Marc Tarpenning: newly appointed member, current trustee in the Woodside School District, Laura Rich: currently in second year of service on the committee, served 13 years on the Menlo Park School District Board having only retired a few weeks ago Bill Lock: newly elected member from South San Francisco, education has always been a priority in his work 4

5 Greg Dannis: in the middle of his second term on County Committee and is a current trustee in the Hillsborough City School District Tim Fox, staff to the Committee as Deputy County Counsel Mr. Stelzer asked the Members if they had any additional questions before adjourning. Member Bamford asked about the potential petition and how many times the same petition can be brought to the Committee. Mr. Fox responded that there is no limitation to the number of times a petition can be brought to the County Committee, but that he does believe that the State Board has limitations. He also cited the fact that some petitions in the past had been brought to the Committee several times before the petitioners were able to gain approval for their petition. Member Bamford also asked if the Sub-Committee being formed at a subsequent meeting would be subject to the Brown Act. Mr. Fox responded that in order for the Sub-Committee to operate without the restrictions of the Brown Act, the Committee must meet three criteria. 1) Be comprised of a number less than a quorum 2) Must be formed Ad Hoc 3) Meets for a limited duration. As long as the Committee meets these three criteria, its members are not subject to the Brown Act. It is also possible for the Committee to create a sub-committee and specifically ask that it be subject to the Brown Act. Mr. Fox explained that this is rare, but can be done. Member Dannis asked whether the potential petition might have anything to do with Tinsley. Ms. Magee replied that it did not, but rather was a petition that had been through the Committee process as well as the state appeal process. Adjournment Chairperson adjourned the meeting at 7:40 p.m. 5