001This has happened. We had the benefit of of being here when he was still alive. But having this maintained after he's gone showcases that education is primary. And he instilled the message that education for African-American children of Oakland is the number one goal. This is beautiful to have. And, um, this will keep his memory living on. He he's going to live on. And all of these children this this is keeping him alive. Um welcome to the special meeting of the measures and and 8s, uh, college and career readiness Commission of the Oakland Unified School District. Uh, today s Tuesday. JUNE 16th, 2026. Meeting is now called to order, and we will start with the roll call of uh commissioners. On the roll call to establish coral. Commissioner Zhuangy Seth PRESIDENT Commissioner Yee Secretary Harris Vice
002Chair Deoyo PRESIDENT. Chair Perkinsson Kakashiba. Coon present. Items on this uh special meeting agenda, uh take up the um. Take uh you want to take up the first one since. Area and. Yeah, take it up first ok, so, uh, if it s ok with, uh, commissioners, uh, like to these two items, I like to flip the new business. to do that first before unfinished business. Because that s our action item. And I believe there s certain folks here uh. That are here for that item. Ok, so we re gonna take up uh under new business, that s uh 261-515, and this is a, a discussion and adoption of uh the use of $7 million. In mesarin and h s contingency fund. Uh, and, um yeah, so we ll begin, I is there gonna be a
003staff presentation and then we ll go into uh discussion. Sure. Um, uh, thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners and members of the public and team, um, tonight what we are this afternoon what we re presenting to you is a proposal, uh, for the commission to consider adoption of two items, uh, first being, um, measures nnh contingency fund allocations for the 2025 26 school year and proposed, uh, 25, 26 contingency fund expenditures, um, aligned with those allocations. So um, really the us this evening is, uh, there s no slides, you have the packet in front of you, um, but the ask, uh, is for the commission to review both of these proposals in your packet, um, that would first allocate funds to school sites, both ousd and charter schools, um, and then aligned uh with that, uh,
004position expenditures, uh. For the spenddown of their site s, uh, contingency fund allocation. So just by way of context, uh the reason why this request is coming to the commission today is that um the fiscal department at the request of our ousd board of directors, um, directed measures nnh staff on JUNE 1st to identify general fund expenditures, uh, that MAY be eligible to be charged to the measures nnh contingency fund. They asked us to do that before, or the direction was to do that before JUNE 30th, uh, so that these expenditures would um be part of the 2526 fiscal year budget. Um, so as part of this request, the fiscal team provided measures nnh staff a list of personnel expenditure. So we re only talking about personnel, no, um, so that s salaries and benefits,
005um, they provided us a list of personnel expenditures that are currently funded out of the general fund, which for the district uh includes resources 0000 through 0006 and asked staff to identify expenses, to charge to the contingency fund. Um, and so in order to do that, staff identified pathway aligned positions, um, we applied the standard allocation methodology under which at least 90% of funding, uh are allocated to school sites, uh, based on the site s proportionate share of Oakland residents for, uh, the prior academic year. Um, and we re bringing these to you because uh in alignment with our oversight processes uh for measures nnh any allocation and expenditures of any funding from the parcel taxes must first be reviewed and approved by the commission. Um, so we have two, key things to present to
006the commission this evening. So first, um, our contingency fund allocations, which begin on page 3 of your packet. Uh, those contingency fund allocations show what the starting balances are, so we re starting with measure n, um, our contingency fund balance uh for measure n at the end of last fiscal year was $1,0464,877.63 accordingly, there s a, a 10% allocation for the administration of the parcel tax funding, the remaining balance was then allocated to both ousd and charter school sites, um. By the number of uh pupils for a per pupil allocation rate of $1147 the far right column shows you the measure and contingency fund allocation per school site. You also see the total amount going to uh all schools 1.3 million, uh, with ousd sites receiving 71% of the total allocation, uh, in charter schools
007receiving approximately 19% of the allocation On page 4, you see contingency fund allocations for Measure h, the uh measureage contingency fund balance at the end of last fiscal year was $5,535,000 120 $55,535,122.37 the distinction between uh the measure n and measure h contingency fund allocations, um, both include an administrative 10% alloc ation but also, uh, within measure h, uh, staff recorded um or proposes, uh, allocating 9.5% to maintain, uh, to use as a reserve in the event the funds are needed to maintain the $850 per pupil allocation, the remaining balance was then allocated across um all 2425 Oakland resident students for a per people allocation of $388.24. So, uh, the reason why we allocated funding um by school site is because in accordance with our, uh, allocation methodology, uh, we cannot allocate funding, uh, just
008blanketly, uh, funds need to be allocated at a per pupil rate, um, and so we had to determine first the uh amount that each site was eligible for before, um, identifying, uh, what potentially would be left over if they contingency fund allocations were used to, uh, pay for general fund positions that are pathway aligned. Um I think I ll, I ll briefly go through the, the last, um the pages with site-based, um, positions and then uh open up for, uh, questions and uh comments just to um just to offer a bit more context before getting into discussion with the commission, um. The measure and contingency fund allocation has also has a list of potential funding shifts with positions that are pathway aligned, uh, what is listed and what s in your packet shows the school
009site, the position control number, the type of position, the position description, um, the cost of the position and the current funding source and so again, um, these are positions that are pathway aligned, um as part of this process, um, we simply identified positions that were pathway aligned, um, and leaving it up to the commission to discuss the permissibility of these positions as we were directed to identify positions that um that were aligned. Um. Under measure h, you also see a a bit of a longer list of positions that could be charged, um. That our pathway aligned along with their 2526 funding sources so you ll see um a variety of funding sources, but these are all considered general fund, um, positions, uh, and they run through Resources er through 6, though most of the positions
010that you see on this list are Resource Zero, Resource 5, which is lcff supplemental, uh, Resource 6. Uh, which is also, uh. I m sorry, Resource 4, which is lcff concentration. So these are positions that are funded through a mix of general purpose dollars, lcff supplemental, and lcff, uh, concentration, um, and then finally for reference, uh, we also included copies of the parcel text language for both both measures and and measure h um for the commission in case though that referen would be helpful. Um, so again, just the ask of the commission is first to um uh, at the request of staff based on the direction received from um ousd Fiscal and uh through the board to consider the uh contingency fund allocations and proposed contingency fund expenditures that would be part of the 2526,
011uh, fiscal year. So I will pause and open it up for questions and any discussion, um, as the commission chooses. Thank you very much, so if we could like uh what do you call it? Uh get this Saxon item on the floor. Somebody could move in a second, so then we could have full discussion. Yeah And move adoption 2nd, ok, so we moved to 2nd it, so it s on the floor, open up to commission or discussion and they will have a public comment. So anybody have any questions or uh comments or anything on this? what s being proposed Sure, yeah Yeah, go ahead Uh, thank you for the presentation. Uh, I appreciate the work on this and the detailed methodology you laid out. Um. The positions that are listed here. They, how are the
012schools get assigned these positions in the first place. Uh, the, so the positions that are part of the list that you see, um, in this packet, our positions that sites have funded using um the base uh full-time equivalent, uh, so these are positions that are allocated to school sites, um, automatically that are based on, uh, enrollment and any additional uh elements like um a through g, uh, courses, uh, fte that s required to fulfill a through g requirements to fulfill, uh, electives for, um, English learners, um, and also for um electives, uh, for students, uh, particularly in high school. So every position on here was allocated as a part of the the district s general funding allocation. Right? Yes, that s correct. And so to replace them with measure n. Would be like with measure
013n or h dollars. Would be to supplant resources that were already allocated to the school under the current practice. Um, that is our current interpretation, um, those are positions that sites receive based on their just uh their court for their to run their core academic program. And this is something, this is not a question but a comment. This is something that when I walked for measure n 14 years ago, and when we renewed measure h after that, one of the core elements that we brought forth to the vote, the Oakland voters. Was that this was something that was going to be in addition to. The core academic program It was written in the language specifically for that purpose, so it was written in the language specific for h because we said that this was directed
014to high schoolers because we had a specific need. And then when you want to measure like you when you went to measure n, we re able to craft that those allocations based on that formulation. We went to measure h, we re able to point to the results we saw as a result of protecting that and ensuring that the district didn t simply take the voters like the voters allocation. And replace the money that would have otherwise gone to the school in that. So that additionally so like that guarantee, I think was a central part. Of what the like what the uh the messages went to the voters on this. And part of the, I mean, another part of that was also the insight into it. Right? So we re this school educational like improvement plans
015updated as a result of this. These allocations Uh no, given the timing, we were not able to ask sites to update their education improvement plan so this list is, um, separate from, uh, the school s EIPs and currently approved plans. Right when the eip comes in, and this is a laying that this is also required by this is also required by the, by the measure is that schools come up with a theory of action and they come up with allocations that are going towards the theory of action. And that is to provide transparency to say, when we have this additional resource coming in that that the taxpayers are promised. That you have additional insight that says not only is this extra being maintained by the school district, but there s a theory of action in
016a particularized way of, of addressing that theory of action, and here it is. And so when we have a counselor or a teacher or anybody else that s being paid for us as a bus trip. That s being paid for this, the school sites have to go through and say, this is how many students are being impacted. This is how they re going to be impacted. This is the timeline at which you re going to be impacted. And then they come back to the commission and say, were those students impacted? Did the timeline end up I can I can have it impacted. Right? And so here, the only outlet, the only transparency we see is just a flat assertion that each one of these is pathway aligned. Right? Without like and it s understandable given
017the, given the fact that this was given to you approximately 2 weeks ago. Right? But that level of insight and transparency about the like the taxpayers were out like were given. I think is sorely lacking in thinking about this move. So like the slips supplementing it as well as the transparency that goes along with it. Um. The reserve amount that s coming in the all like the, the, the the allocation was for. Uh $850 for like a piece. The reserve that we re holding back was for $500,000. Right? But that was a one, that was a one time, one, a one year reserve. Right Correct, so the, the amount that s currently proposed to be held in reserve for Measure h was based on a one year s worth of, um uh, the percentage of
018funding that was the highest percentage of funded that funding that we ever had to pull from measure n, uh, from the contingency fund in order to maintain the $850 per pupil, um, allocation, um, and we use that as a reference point. And how many more years are left on measure h? Uh, the parcel tax expires in 2037. So we have more than one year in which like because like the purpose of the of the reserve then was to hold, hold steady. The school, like the school balancing so just so that the schools could look at this and count on a certain amount every year. Whether or not the tax receipts came in like at that point. And so, yeah, I m glad that we included that in here, but I think it s like whole,
019I think it s wholly insufficient to look out of like, you know, from now to the next 10 years to say that we have 1 year worth of reserve to cover that amount of time. Um, I m gonna stop there because I m talking to a bunch. And so I want to turn over to other other folks and then we can come back and. Any other person to come up um. You want me to will we have I got to repeat what I just said because my mic was on. Ok, so we re just, uh, we re um the, the item is on the floor, so it s been moved in a second and we re in uh commissioner discussion. So, uh, Commissioner Yee, thank you and I apologize for being late and also I
020m quite hoarse, but um, there were, there were a couple of things that I, uh, heard from, uh, the vice, uh. Uh vice chair, um, to Foya, um, that referred to really the supplanting supplementing, um, um. Premise that we built into both measure and and measure h that this was not to be used as a supplanting of general purpose of dollars. And so, you know, we ve been faithful with that for. 14 years now, um, and pretty rigorously. And the second thing is I I accept that, you know, we, we and um in evaluating the EIPs and the appropriate expenditure of funds, we were looking to the funds we had and whether they were in fact spent according to their um according to the rules established by Measure n. So actually, this is one of
021the first times uh this document, I appreciate you preparing it, that we got to see the whole funding of all the different positions with the general purpose funds and the and the and the uh additional funds. And so, you know, going through the list I noticed that there were positions that are uh like a 0.16.83.6.2, and so forth, you know, that you allocated uh potentially uh as monies that could be uh transferred over uh to um to measure n and measure h. And uh, it was really curious to me, uh, those, those amounts. So, so, you know, based on my own personal experience, my guess was we allocated funds to each of the schools at the beginning of the year. And um those funds were allocated as the base program and those funds were then
022spent by the schools, knowing and the schools if I were a principal, I would know. I wouldn t get those monies in the upcoming years. So if I don t spend it, I m going to lose it at the end of that year. So if I m an intelligent and uh responsible um principal, I would make sure that we spent those monies out before we spent any others and does that s why I m assuming that we get these point. You know, the. 019, 0.22, 0.2. That s not a real position. That s the money that that uh they had leftover probably to spend in those funds. I, I mean, I d be interested because we have two principles here, but that s my guess on what I would do if I were the principal.
023So, so what that suggests to me is that in the general purpose funding that was on the uh on the one pager last year about this time when the schools got their money to spend, they allocated the money the best they could to use up those funds with the understanding that the measure n measure h bunnies would be coming later and that they, those are monies that were so precious because if they didn t actually spend it all, they could carry it over the next year. So that whole sense of trust between the district and the commission and the community and the public and the schools was based upon that, uh, that faithfulness in, in those uh expenditures. And so I m just curious whether that in fact is what happened and if it was,
024I m just making the assumption of what s happening. That was based upon um uh decisions that were made at the beginning of this last school year, 2526, or even before that in the planning. And so what you re doing now is clearly on what is being proposed now. Let s put it that way, not what you re doing, what is being proposed now is pretty clear that um as the uh as the uh as the agenda item says, you know, to possible adoption of the, the charge back on, on these general purpose funds using the measure n and measure h monies. You know, from my own perspective. Um, I don t believe that lcff lcap. And the state of elab money is sufficient to adequately fund any of our schools, whether the high schools,
025middle schools or or elementary schools, and we ve in the past been very uh intentional as a, as a community of educators to try to spend the money as best we can, uh, and and and so I m making that assumption so that when the effort is to balance the budget with these monies, it, it just seems very awkward. I, I personally could under and the main reason it is, is because we never actually were able to see what was considered the base program as in terms of dollars. And so, I mean, this suggests going forward. My guess is that you would reduce the number of dollars that you re allocating to the schools for this coming year. And I don t know if that happened or not. If the schools are all getting less
026money out of lcap. Per pupil, and then that s a different story than using this money as a, as a um as a uh correction for an error in planning for in the last year. I m assuming, in fact, that s in this coming year that each of us will then receive an adequate understanding of the base program. We have no idea whether the base program. Is how it s allocated, but it would be helpful for us to know that base allocation and what the, what the, especially in this case, the, the uh staffing allocation is so that we can make intelligent, informed decisions about the eip going forward, but that eip schedule is, you know, is not coming for, you know, several months, so hopefully we ll be able to do that. Did that
027make sense or is that just kind of rambling? I mean, but that s what I, that s what I see in the documents that you ve presented. So, could you let me know if that s in fact what you think happened? Um, so I, the reason why you see um a number of, of different partial FTEs represented on both the lists is because in some cases what you described is what likely happened during budget development principles, uh, leverage the resources that were at their disposal and you agreed, you encouraged them to do that. Uh, those were positions that were reviewed by uh during the budget development process and were subsequently approved for, uh, last spring for the 2526 fiscal year. So that s, that s part of the reason why you see some of the
028fiscal, uh, some of the fte, uh, in partial, uh, decimal points. Some of the other reasons why you see partial FTEs is because only a portion of the teachers, uh, or the staff persons, uh, costs or responsibilities fall within pathway alignment so we might have a teacher who teaches 6 classes, you know, 6 classes, uh, total on their teaching line, but only 4 of those 6 classes are pathway aligned and so that would lead us to a partial fte, um, in other cases we see partial FTEs because um the site didn t have sufficient carryover I m sorry, contingency funds within there, the proposed allocation to cover the entirety of the fte so the allocation was made such that it would cover as much as possible of what the pathway aligned, uh, work or portion
029of that fte was. So there s a variety though I would say that there s maybe at least 3 reasons absolutely, yes. So then would you consider that this propos al um fiscal and or educational best practice in terms of our expenditures for this past year. Um, I, my, we gonna do this next year as well, uh, yeah, I, I don t have a, a crystal ball, so I can t look into the future. Um, I, I think what our, our team experienced as we were going through this process was one where, um, the, the process, uh, was very, it had a very quick turnaround, um, and so we were able to consult with uh principals, but albeit like on a very limited basis, um, and, uh, this wasn t as uh vice Chatofoya mentioned
030earlier this is not reflected in the eip, um, which is the, the standard expectation for how expenditures come forth to the commission for consideration and approval. So, um, it was, it was a different process than what we have, um, experienced in the past and with the commission, um, has laid out his expectations. So in, in that context, uh, it was not normal practice. I would not like our staff and our principals to go through this process or a similar process again in the future, so I would not recommend it, uh. Because I don t think we were able to go through as much, um, uh, with as much transparency as we have in the past. So, so these positions, the way they re outlined here we re not actually in the eip. No, uh, some
031of them are already reflected in a school s EIPs. On the fractions that we approve. Correct. So these fractions we can assume were part of the general led. Responsibilities of the district and and and I mean, I m, I m just making that assumption, but these if, if I were looking at this position you know, a full position we would not have, we didn t fund, we didn t agree to fund that position. So uh, none of these positions have come forth, uh, in these, these portions of these positions have not come forth. This is the first time that these are coming to the commission for consideration. I have 4 questions. Uh, so, first in terms of uh looking at the the two charts for n and 8, and we ve got the per pupil
032allocation to all of the um high school district and charter schools, uh, but the expend the expense expensing. Of the school side allocations only applies to district schools. Yes, that s correct. So then it s not it s not stated in here, but what happens to the charter school allocations. Uh, the charter school allocations would, uh, sit in the contingency fund and subsequently should the allocations per site be approved would then be allocated, um, would be made available to school sites, both ousd and Charter, if there s any remaining balance, uh, for them to, uh, for them to allocate accordingly within our permissibility guidelines. But the charter schools, uh based if we re going by, uh, both n and h, what s in the uh ballot measure languages. Since we are making a per pupil
033allocation and then in fact allocating to district schools, charter schools, I think would have a good case in saying we need to get paid. Yes, they could make that, um, they could make that request, um, because the, uh, the request was to allocate these funds and um attach expenditures for the 25, 26 fiscal year. Ok, so that s something we haven t really kind of strategized No, uh, staff did not prepare a proposal for, uh, disbursement to charter schools, uh, given the tight turnaround, uh, we wanted to get to the commission, the proposed expenditures that impacted the ousd requiring. Or asking charter schools to contribute to the payback of the general fund. No, that s not part of this proposal. Ok. Um, ok, second question is, uh, on the, on the cover of the memo
034itself on the background. Uh, it says that the uh Oakland Unified School District Fiscal department at the request of the oeoc board of directors was directed Messr n and 8 staff to identify general fund expenditures that MAY be eligible to be charged to the measure nnh contingency funds. Bide soon 30th, 2026. Um. And then thereafter there s no explanation as to why this request is being made by uh fiscal department and requested by the board. Why is this a request being made? Why do they want um these contingency funds to be expended right now in this way. Um my understanding is that the request is to remove expenditures from the general funds. Um, I m not sure exactly what would be, uh, what the next steps would be once the expenses were moved out of
035the general fund into the nnh contingency, uh, but I hypothesize that it has to do with closing of the um closing of the books for the fiscal, uh, the 2526 fiscal year. Purpose i mean, the general fund expenditures have been allocated and spent by the school sites now in the school year is over. Why do they need the contingency fund? What s the, what is the purpose of this request? I have not received that level of detail. Chair Kakashiba, you ve not been shared that Rassau. Um, I, we, our staff has been asked to um identify expenditures broadly to support the, uh, the district s broader budget needs, um, but was not given specificity around what would happen once our, uh, once the these, let s say these positions or any positions in the general
036fund would be, um, charged to the nnh contingency. Ok, so somewhat related is um uh in the particularly a measure 8s, are specific language that says the district MAY not require uh MAY MAY not require that an ousd school expend any funds from the college and career account, which is this fund. To which it is allocated in one fiscal year in a way that supplants district-directed funding to that school in the prior fiscal year. Now we re not talking about prior fiscal year. We re talking about in the same fiscal year. But did in it, when you receive this directive from fiscal department. Did you get any context or guidance. From fiscal, from the superintendent s office or for the office of the general counsel. As to whether the fiscal department s request. Uh is
037aligned and in compliance with this clause in the Messr h ballot language. Um, so the additional guidance that we received, um, beyond identifying uh potential positions was that general counsel would review the list on a case by case basis to determine uh the permissibility of the positions. But that speaks to the permiss permissibility of the the expense, but this speaks to supplanting. Specifically nobody provided you any information about that Uh, no, we didn t get, uh, additional guidance. Well, but the the intent of general counsel reviewing the list to check for permissibility was to also check for um supplanting or the, the language, um, that s in the parcel text. Around supplanting ok. And the last question is, um, in both Me n and 8, Mes proceeds shall be distributed to schools upon the submission,
038review, and approval of each school s annual education improvement plan. Uh, and in merates they say specifically or an amended version of the plan. Uh, I, I, I do know that you received this directive pretty late in the fiscal year, uh, like we re we re just talk probably weeks ago, a couple of weeks ago, um but as this document has these are, we do have uh a budget amendment process. Um that staff follow and schools follow, uh, but this memo seems not to include uh any evidence that schools submitted a um a budget amendment, uh, to their eip for 2526, that accounted for the specific dollar allocations that they received. Uh, is that is that because of time and what have you, is that true? Do we have any schools that have done that
039or no schools have done that? Um, so just to clarify, we received the list of physicians on JUNE 1st, uh, the ask to identify positions came, uh, I believe sometime in FEBRUARY, but the list did not come to us until JUNE 1st, um, and given the time, uh, to prepare a list and to submit in order to call this special meeting, uh, we were not able to ask sites, uh, to go through the amendment and the budget modification process, so, uh, no, uh, sites have not gone through that process. Ok, thank you. Yes, vice chair Um so how s the general counsel then signed off on this list to say they re all permissible expenses. No, general counsel has not, uh, not yet. Given the expedited timeline. That when the commission reviews to see permissibility,
040which again we go back to is there a goal, is it aligned? What s the student impact, you know, things like that, is the general counsel being provided with additional package information with which to assert these are permissible expenditures under. The council. Um, can you, uh, clarify or just add more context about additional, uh, the additional information. I think that it would be insufficient. If this packet was handed to the council, like, you know, handed to the commission and said, is this a permissible expenditure? Right? So in order for us to determine whether something s in a permissible expenditure, we have to look at, is there a goal? Is it aligned to the goal? What s the action is aligned to? What s the justification that s being provided within the context of an eip,
041which is why we have an eip, right? So, how would a general counsel make a determination that this is a permissible expenditure if they don t have access to an updated eip that a cover that covers all the various fractions. Of positions that are being contemplated here because you can also see, for example, one of the reasons maybe uh principal said we only want half of this person s time to be allocated to measure n is because the other half of their time, they re going to be doing yard duty. Which is not impermissible expenditure Maybe they re going to be doing art with either part of there, which should not be permissible expenditure, but if I only had a list of fractional positions, I would not be able to determine what that is. So
042is there, there s general counsel have access to the specific budgetary line items. That would be necessary to make that determination. Um, general counsel was provided with the list that, uh, was also provided to the commission along with, uh, both the language of the parcel taxes, uh, we did not provide, uh, copies of EIPs, um, in advance of, uh, in aance of this meeting, uh, but those could be shared pretty easily with that with the central team.P these, these specific portions. No, so the EIPs have not been, do not reflect anything that s in this packet. Um, it s only what has come forth to the commission and then subsequently what was approved by the board for 2520 as required by the. Thank you Any other discussion Yeah. Well. Um, well, the two comments, the
043one about the supplanting and supplementing and also um the, you know, the, the reason this is difficult is because we re, we are responsible for the measurement and measure h appropriate expenditures. And so this is sort of like. Um. Did we make a mistake by allocating the expenditures that we did. And, and, and this is more awkward for me to ask. But did you make a mistake by allowing these positions to be funded by general purpose. So, in my opinion, you didn t make a mistake because these, these expenditures were made within the context of the general purpose budget. So then to recoup it, it s difficult or to recapture it for the purpose of of uh of um of a general purpose budget correction. is really awkward to go to the community and say
044this was an expenditure that s going to increase the graduation rates, increased the a to g rates and reduced dropouts. Because it seems like we would be saying basically that how much was it? 6, 3000, 3 million? I mean, the amount of money that you re, that s going to be proposed to be recaptured was the 3 5.5 million, but this $5 million which would probably be the biggest expenditure of any measure and measure age initiative is going to improve graduation rates and dropout rates in the future. Let alone in the past So I mean, I m not trying to put you on the spot about you making an error, but that s the way it s going to seem. To me that we would have to justify that this is in fact an expenditure
045that s going to meet the requirements of of, uh, that we put the the voters, and I, I don t want to say that because then we are all complicit in that. In that uh mistake in terms of what we did. And I, I personally believe it has to do. With the general purpose budget. Um allocated at the beginning of the year to principles in good faith and spent in good faith. There s nothing in the general purpose budget that says principals can t spend the money in this way. But but uh it doesn t say that um that it is for this purpose. It is for the purpose of the maintenance of effort. That the district is committed to, to making for high school students, given the limited budgets. We have So that s
046what, that s what I think. We are put into that position or I am put in that position of being uh of being saying you made a mistake I don t believe you made a mistake Um, I, I would say sites did not make any mistakes as it relates to allocating positions to the general fund in the record that in fact you re not holding the sta sta the sites responsible. No, because, uh, I think for a couple of reasons. First, as you mentioned, there s nothing that uh prohibits. There s no guidance, no policy that prohibits principles from leveraging, um, the resources at their disposal to run linked learning pathways at their school sites. Uh, correct. Uh, so principals make do with the variety of resources that are both unrestricted and restricted and piece
047together the programs that are gonna best meet the needs of their students, um, more often than not, the resources that school sites receive, uh, from their general fund allocation is not sufficient to run the full gamut of linked learning pathways and all the elements of that program and so that is what then prompts principles to, uh, tap into their other restricted resources that do support linked learning, uh, programming, both inside and outside the classroom, um, so there s, I, I don t think there s a mistake. I would not say that there was a mistake or an error in allowing sites to allocate fte or portions of fte to the general fund because that is the core program that we run in ousd high schools. It is linked learning pathways and so it is at
048their discretion to allocate the funds that, um, they are. Given to, to run the academic programs that we say we prioritize in the district, and are they basically given the same amount of money this coming year. That was to follow. That s what I was trying to say earlier. Are they being, is there, is there a regular budget non measure n and measure h had shrunk. Then in this coming year for pupil allocation wise to so that this doesn t happen again? Um, oh yes, school sites, if you recall, I forget how many months ago, maybe 23 months ago, I presented to the commission that impacts, uh, comparisons of 25, 26 versus 26 271 pagers and we did see both reductions in centrally funded positions at the high schools in a variety of areas including
049Teach fte, um, but also, um, restricted, uh, supplemental dollars, um, for school sites as well. So, so this in fact MAY be a discussion we re going to have to have going forward in this coming year with the EIPs about whether that shrinking and backfilling of it is supplemental or. Supplanting or supplemental So I mean, I m just, I m just saying that s what you would expect us to be doing in the coming year. I, I, I think you re making an assumption as to what the purpose of this legislation is, and when I asked what, what is the purpose of rationale? There is no, there is none And so it s kind of hard to determine sort of like all that, but I, I mean, I agree that there s more, a lot
050more discussion in the eyeballs we have to have overall, uh. But um I, I m not sure if that s quite what is leading to this. Well they just to underscore that and I that I m done with it, is I m trying to figure out if there s any justification based upon the, the measures requirements if there s any justifications for the 6.5 million allocations. That s a big chunk to say that money is going to increase graduation rates, decrease dropout rates and increase ag. How can you justify to people that you made the $6.5 million to do that. That s, that s what I can t get my my hands around. I mean, in terms of our responsibilities as commissioners, as citizens in the community and all that and people who were, who
051have been following the, the, the overall budget we we re sympathetic, but that s not our responsibility. Any more questions ok, why don t we, uh, open up for a public comment. We have 3 registered speaker, Sam Davis. Camelita Reyes, and Ali Khan. Polani. I do apologize if I mis mispronounced your name. Uh, good afternoon. Hi, I m Carmelita Reyes. I m principal at Redsdale Continuation and have had the privilege of being a principal in ousd since 2007, which makes me one of two principals who actually remember the days before, um, measure in and h. And, and so I wanted to speak a little bit about that and how important and fundamental this money is, um prior to the passage of Me n every high school in Oakland had 1/6 period day. And we did
052not have reading intervention. We did not have pathway cte dual enrollment, none of that existed. And it is only with the infusion of cash, um, that we re able to do those things and all of the high school s fundamentally look very different than when they did before this measure was passed. And so I just like it is so important to protect this money. And um so I will stop that there. And then I wanted to sort of address um Commissioner Yee s comment of like, how is this operationalized from a principal s perspective what was happening. And so, um, when I came to Redsdale last year. It was a wasp year, which is a year of self-reflection analysis, and you set your goals, um, for the next 5 years to 6 years, and, um,
053one of the things you and you find your strengths and your weaknesses, and then you create an action plan to address those weaknesses. And one of the ways where we have flexibility is what are the electives that we offer. And so we could decide to offer ceramics. We could offer dual enrollment, we could offer a pathway aligned elective, we have some options. And so how do we leverage our base allocation to, to achieve um you know, success for our kids. And so one of the ways that we, we, we said it s like we re gonna take our base allocation of elective fte and ensure that they re doing either pe because that is a graduation requirement. It is, or a pathway aligned elective, a dual enrollment or wasc identified student leadership as being a
054growth area for us. So we created electives using our base allocation that did one of those 4 things. Then we used our measure in to do above and beyond. And so the positions that are mentioned in this list were base funded positions that students need these classes in order to graduate. Um, and so that s sort of a little bit of how this is operatiolized at the at the school site level. If that answers your question, Commissioner Yee. Yeah, ok. Um. So I, uh, I mentioned earlier before you got here, that our principles are largely not in Oakland at the moment. Uh, there s two different conferences. There s a principal in Japan. There s somebody on top of a mountain and so it s the two of us that have been getting like really
055long texts about please read all of this. Um, I m on top of a mountain. I m in Japan. I m, yeah, so we re gonna do that, um, and, but first, this is a letter that, uh, we sent to the school board this afternoon and to Superintendent Sadler, um, it was long, so this is a shorter version that I m going to read into it, but it s the gist. Um, and all of the ousd principles at the high school level signed it. Uh, we principals of Oakland Unified School District high schools are united in opposing the proposed district budget action that would illegally redirect funds from measure n and h, parcel taxes passed by Oakland voters to cover general operating expenses. This proposal constitutes supplanting using restricted funds to pay for costs the
056district is already obligated to cover? Both measures explicitly prohibit this practice. It also bypasses the independent college and career readiness commission, which voters created specifically to ensure these dollars are spent as promised. Oakland voters didn t write ousd a blank check. When they passed measure in in 2014 and measure h in 2022. They invested in a specific vision, college and career pathways, career technical education and student support services that go above and beyond the district s baseline allocation obligations. Redirecting these funds, betrays the trust and jeopardizes future ballot measures, Oakland schools will need. This action also continues a troubling pattern, using one time and restricted funds to paper over a structural budget deficit rather than making the difficult permanent decisions that real fiscal stability requires. We are calling upon the board and superintendent to one
057reject the proposed journal entries and protect measure nnh reserves. Affirm the commission s independent oversight authority and commit to an honest structural solution to the district s budget deficit. Our students, voters, our voters, and our obligation to both demand nothing less. My name s Ali Khan Bulani Ali Ali Khan Bulani. I m the principal at Life Academy, um, as Carmenlita said, we re here representing all of our voices as high school principals. We ve been talking about this quite a bit. Um, I have a statement here from Principal uh Rebecca Wang at uh Skyline, um, who she s in the, in a plane somewhere and asked me to read it. Uh, before I do, I just, I want to make mention of some of the stuff that Carmelita said from their perspective of, of my
058perspective at Life Academy. Um, I, I m just thinking about how much intention and like rigorous intention is put into the planning of our EIPs and um and how much rigorous work it takes to make adjustments. Um, and I think that stands to a certain ethical standard, um, that we re jeopardizing um by by pushing money around in this way. Um, it s surprising to me as a principal to be asked, um, about a real reallocation of of of our general purpose funds towards this, um, with no rigorous process. It really, it s surprising to me. And so I think that speaks to um the way in which we have uh generally respected this important um voter funded measure. Um, but I ll read from Rebecca Uh, I m so sorry I could not be
059there in person with you today. Uh, I strongly oppose the district s proposal to re-appropriate measure hnnh funds to pay for the general purpose fund expenditures. Under this proposal, Skyline High School would lose $618,0882. It s 123,000 for a Life Academy. Uh, in the funding, uh, that would, uh, that was thoughtfully planned and budgeted in alignment with the voter approved purpose of these measures, um, our site plan invests these resources into student internships, dedicated case nagement, truancy and social emotional supports, academic tutoring, and other targeted services that directly impact the student outcomes that you were talking about, Commissioner Yee. Um, the impact of these investments is clear. Skyline has experienced significant academic gains and was recently recognized by the sf Chronicle for outperforming admission expectations to top uc campuses. Uh, these successes are the result
060of intentional planning and responsible stewardship of measure n and h funds. Uh, I urge the commission to protect the integrity of these voter approved resources honor each school s approved plan and reject the proposed use of measure n and h contingency funds to cover general purpose fund expenses. Thank you. Thank you Shalanda Gregory s. Um, I am not Shalanda, but it says my name is Doctor Shalander Gregory, and I am the proud principal of Metwest High School. I m here tonight to respectfully and firmly urge you to vote no on this proposal. She was uh crafting this, trying to get online, but she couldn t. So she texted it to me, uh, measure in and h were approved by Oakland voters with the promise that these funds would expand opportunities for high school students through
061college and career readiness, work-based learning, internships, mentoring, counseling, and the support students need to thrive beyond graduation. The proposal before you asks this commission to use nearly $6 million from the contingency fund to addressed ousd s structural deficit by shifting general fund expenditures into measure nnh. While I understand the financial challenges facing our district. This is not what the Oakland voters intended when they taxed themselves to invest in our young people. At MetWest, these funds are not sitting untouched in reserve s account. We use measure nnh dollars to bring our educational model to life. We are a school built around learning through interest where students spend 2 days each week engaged in internships throughout Oakland, exploring careers, building professional skills and connecting their passions to their futures. These funds ensure that our students have meaningful
062opportunities for college and career exploration and exposure that many of them would not otherwise have access to. I use these funds to support our internship coordinator position, the person responsible for cultivating partnerships, identifying internship placements and ensuring students are successful in those experiences. We also use these dollars to invest in teacher, um, development, so our staff can continue refining the real world student-centered practices that make MetWest unique and effective. Under the proposal met West stands to lose $99,000 in contingency funding. That is not a line item in a spreadsheet that is support for internships, that is professional learning for teachers. That is investment in the systems that help our students discover who they are and who they can become. Especially in the midst of ongoing budget cuts, it is imperative that schools receive these funds
063as intended. When we ask voters to trust us with public dollars, we have an obligation to honor both the letter and spirit of the commitment, redirecting these funds undermines public trust, weakens the purpose of of the measure and sends a message that promises made to our students are negotiable when times get difficult. Our students did not create this budget crisis, they should not bear its burden. I urge the commission to protect the integrity of measure n and h, uphold the intent of Oakland voters and vote no on this proposal. Thank you for your time, your service, and your commitment to Oakland s young people. Thank you. Um, good afternoon, commissioners. I m Sam Davis. I m here today uh with my friends of Oakland Unified Schools hat on. I m where I m a member
064of the board Um, so that s the committee that inherited the mantle of the Friends of Oakland Public Schools, um, from Jean Zajas of Blessed Memory, um, Friends of Oakland Public Schools passed Measure b, Measure j, measure y, n, g. Um and there are also some measures that didn t pass. Who remembers Measure l in 2012, very narrow loss, right? Um, so I had the privilege of uh leading the committee when we passed Measure h or supported measure h to its passage in 2022. Um, it passed by 82%, only 18% of Oakland voters voted no. Um, Compare that to measure e, right, which earlier this month. Uh failed with a 55% no vote and ask yourself why did the same Oakland voters turn on and I think it s because they ve seen many broken
065promises from the city, you know, oh we re going to tax sugar, sugary beverages and give you health programs. We re gonna have attacks to clean up illegal dumping. We re going to have a tax for violence prevention, and then a lot of those funds end up getting swept and being used for other purposes. And that s what causes the voters to lose faith and to decide not to support a measure, and I ve I ve seen a lot of articles in the press or a lot of, you know, posts on social media, oh this was e. I supported Measure e, but um 55% of voters did not, and a lot of people blame in power, but, uh, look at League of Women Voters, not a radical right organization, right? Um, they, uh, endorsed a
066no vote on Measure e, endorsed a yes vote on Measure h. Why did they support Measure h? Because they ve done a study uh, showing that this commission was one of the strongest parcel tax commissions, if not the strongest parcel tax commission. In Oakland and school district. Um, and so it s because they had faith in institutions like this to provide strong oversight that they said yes on h. It s because they didn t have faith in the city that they said no on e. And so as we in Oakland think about 2028 um, I got a call from Cliff Hong, a coup a couple months ago saying, how do you pass a tax measure anyway, um, because, you know, there isn t necessarily institutional memory in ousd for that these days, um, and so
067I explained it, you know, and he s like, yeah, we need to, we need to renew it in 2028. So if you want the voters to renew Measure g1, I strongly recommend that you push back against uh this swiping of the funds for general purpose. Thank you. Thank you. Any others No, that include pub, I mean, registered speakers. Ok, thank you. Uh, ok, uh, any any discussion I say I just really appreciate the commentary and um I think that, you know divorcing this from the real world impact of what it means to, uh, forego those funds as it relates to being able to provide the experiences that measure nnh has provided over the years, I think it s been really important part of this. Um, and as is, I think this is, you know, looking
068at the future um, just maintain that trust of the voters, and it s just absolutely critical. Like I said, as someone who walked and called a lot of voters. Uh for Measure n that trust was not just sitting like that trust is not there as a matter of course, that trust is earned over time, it s earned the results and it s earned over a following through. And so I think that s critical that we uh protect the integrity of the processes and the promises that were made. Ok, anybody else I just wanted to, uh, take the opportunity to, uh, apologize to the principles that we have here about the sluggishness of the getting the money out to the people, but at least we get the money out to you. And so um I know
069that we have a lot of things to improve and, and us and in our work, but you can see um diligence and respect for the voters uh for the integrity of this expenditure and the expense is uh is really important to each of us who s been on the commission. Ok, anybody else I m, I m gonna, my, my comments is, uh, I think we re really more into the debate, uh, phase of this discussion, so, uh, I, I, I just want to share, uh, with, uh, uh, fellow commissioners and and the public, uh, I will be voting no on this item. Um, I, I think there s a, and I just want just lay out at least a couple of reasons why, but I, I think it s a problematic that the official public
070document memo uh is uh silent as to why this request is being made by the fiscal department. Uh, and while it s not here in the, in this particular memo, um, the, uh, this is a um an intended action that was established in the budget, uh, the school board approved budget balancing solutions, uh, back in last fiscal year in 2425. So this has been on the table as a board approved, uh, direction for about 1516 months, uh, and it was um uh reiterated, uh, in NOVEMBER, um, at a, a public school board meeting when then chief business Officer Lisa Grant Dawson, uh, had presented a presentation uh to the board where the $7 million of Messr n and Ace monies. She was going to pull that back, that it was not going to go into
071the general Fund, which then elevated the um uh. Or reduce uh the um unrestricted uh. Uh reserve for economic uncertainty, uh, down to close to zero. And the board actually at that time then said, no, you re not going to do that. That s not going to happen. And so it was maintained, uh, and then was later confirmed when the 2nd interim report for 2526 was issued, I think, in MARCH, uh, just a few months ago where uh deep in the suction called the Moer uh projections, stated that up to $15 million of parcel tax, uh, reserve funds will be used to fill the budget gap in 20 fiscal year 206 27. So there have been a number of documented uh uh areas and board action and administration recommended to, to do exactly this. Uh,
072and uh, that is not a overall eligible use for either Messrn or eights, taxpayers and not paying extra money on their tax bill to uh uh financial bail out a struggling school district. It is the, the money is to go to high schools and so high schools uh can deli deliver a, a more enriched product for their students. Um, so, uh, number one for on, on the basic purpose, it, it just, it just doesn t fit with the legislative intent of Mezzer n or a Me h. Uh, the second reason is that both measures, but in particular measure 8s as much more explicit language about supplanting, and that this memo in terms of the allocate per pupil allocation and the identification of eligible expenses, uh, and knowing these eligible expenses. Or have already been paid
073for, have already been expended and paid for by the general purpose fund. This is a direct uh supplanting using parcel tax money to supplant uh general fund expenditures that were given to schools directed by the school district by uh their uh um what do you call it? They budget development policy. Uh, and then the last reason is that in terms of process, and I, I, I deeply sympathize with our networks, uh, high school superintendent, uh, but to get a uh uh uh a direction for fiscal on JUNE 1st. Uh, and a list of eligible expenses when this was in motion 15 months ago. You re doing this when school is over when principals are leaving, you have not read the me or I, I shouldn t say that because I don t know. I m
074just projecting, but knowing what the process is, you put our network superintendent in a, uh, extremely difficult and uncomfortable uh position. I think it s highly unprofessional to do that, knowing what the steps need to be, need to happen in order to to present to this commission a package of uh of budget amendments that uh fit what has been our practice for 12 years. Um, and so I feel in terms of process, we are not in compliance, and and I can t support the legislation based on that, uh, either. Um, so, you know, I, I would urge, uh, uh, my colleagues vote no on it if we approve this and it goes to the board and the board uh approves it, uh, we, we, um uh deeply betray, um, um, Oakland taxpayers and most importantly,
075we deeply betray um high school students. That s my comment. Um, I got an, uh, a text from a Commissioner Harris just briefly, he said he tried to get on and he couldn t. He said, I had my hand raised, but don t need to speak. I definitely encourage you to vote. I would recommend not reading his statement because due to Brow a violation, his address was in Agen, I mean, was a part of the agenda. Ok. Any anybody else or we can go to the vote. You want to call the vote ok, uh, roll call in the most simple way. On the motion to adopt 2526 measures nah contingent fund allocations and contingency fund expenditures as described. Commissionerhuang Viet. No. Commissioner Yee. No Secretary Harris absent. By here for you. Chairperson Kakashiba. No. The
076motion is not agreed to ok thank you very much. Uh, thank you very much, uh, members of the public for, uh, speaking, we re going to go on to our last item on the agenda. We re going back to old business or unfinished business. And that is a um adoption of the uh 2024, 25 uh annual report. Um, hello, commissioners. This is a continued discussion from our last meeting earlier in JUNE, um, on the 24, 25 annual report, uh, per the request of the commissioners to provide a more equitable lens on this report, uh, by adding, um, more aggregate data regarding um. The African American students and Latinx students in the district. So I, I ve included the original report and um, as well as more aggregate data as and on top of that, we
077ve also, I ve also included the percentage change. Uh, in one year change, 2-year change, and 3, 3-year change and 4-year change, um, all the way back from 2020 to 2021, uh, to really see um how we fluctuated in our um goals are 4 main goals, which are the high school dropout rate in uh decreasing the high school dropout rate, increasing high school graduation rate, increasing high school student readiness to succeed in college and career and increasing the middle school s successful transition. Um and so now you, it s all aggregated not just by year but also between African-American and Latinx students. One additional context note the data is here. It s been added, uh, for reference so that it s on the record, um, attached to the 2425, um, annual report, but, uh, we
078will also update the prepared version, uh, and bring this back to the commission in the fall so that all of the data is, um, included in the finished product. So you will see this come back to you again, um. With the new data sets included. Yes, we ll make it pretty again, but in terms of submitting it in time for the turnaround for this meeting, um, I was only able to include the spreadsheet version, um, but actually the version of that includes the spreadsheet in a graphics kind of ways actually already done. I just couldn t have it in time for this meeting, but um it s a uh we already updated the website actually with the new graphics version that includes the um aggregate data. Ok, is there a motion to approve? Well, uh,
079we ll put it on the floor first and then we discuss. Is there a second 2. Here, you want to say something So I can t quite find it here, but I m sure you have it because uh I, I sought this morning. So I was looking for the graduation rate, you know, and how we had that. Us that uh drop off this year compared to last year. I think it s uh and the things that jumped out to me. Was I, I, you know, I was focused on why the drop off in the in the 2425 data. But actually it, it looks like the 2324 data is the one that seems out of place. Because uh it s on the top of, I think the 2nd page. You see it goes 71.7, 74.4, 74.4,
08079, and then back to 74. So I just wonder if there was something in 2324, that was the, that seems to be the one not of out of place. And then the other thing I looked at is the you know, the graduation African-American graduation. I appreciate your disaggregating it seemed very solid, right, right through and the drop off or the, the, the data that was off was the Latinx data in 2324. You see the 23, 24. Jump from 67.1 to 75.8 and then back down to 67.5. And so that just I mean that gives me a little bit of a. Uh for forensic clue to look and see what happened in that 23, 24 year, and I just wonder, you know, I kept thinking that there must have been a problem. In the 74 that
08124, 25, but maybe it was actually in the 23, 24. I ve been watching too many pbs, you know, uh, detective movies, but this is the kind of work that you know, that all those guys do, you know, they look at the data and they find something a little, so anyways, that s, that was my comment about it. But the way you presented the data really gave me a way to take a look at this. So thank you. Oh, I would have to give the kudos to our data team, uh, Kevin and Tomoyo. They re amazing and they helped me put this together. Check on that Sony, that 2324 Latinx data. Ok. Because that that just jumped out of me as being. The, you know the one that maybe, maybe that that they maybe they
082didn t jump up on you and jump down. If that data point was, there s some aberration in it, then, then the line is very smooth. Thank you. Ok, any other questions or discussion? Ok, let s uh any members of the public wishing to speak? No public comment, chair. Ok, call on the. On the motion to adopt measures in an age 24, 25 annual report. Commissioner Yee. Commissioner Dhuang we said Yes Commissioner, I mean, excuse me, Secretary Harris is absent, vice chair for you. Yes and Chairperson Kakashiba. The motion has adopted. Ok I think with that, uh, meeting is adjourned.