001We will now convene our board of education special meeting. Today is August 27th, 2025 and the time is 7 o'clock. Miss Taylor, will you please lead us in the pledge of allegiance? Thank you. Can I get an approval of the agenda motion, please? >> I'll move approval of the agenda. >> Second. All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion passes 40. Miss Wesca, do we have any public comments? >> We have no public comments. >> Thank you. Okay, moving on to E1, the selection of the clerk. Um, Miss Hamill was elected clerk last December, but now that she's resigned, we need to have a clerk. Um, we need to have a clerk to sign our documents tonight. So, is there a motion to nominate a clerk? >> I will nominate Eric Aliggria to be
002our new clerk. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion passes 4. >> Thank you. Congratulations. >> Get my hand ready. >> Okay. >> E2, a discussion of the method to fill Julie Hamill's seat. Um, and we'll start with an introduction and then a board discussion and a vote. So, Dr. Serrano, on August 22nd, 2025, board member Julie Hamill submitted her resignation to the LA County Superintendent to school superintendent of schools with an effective date immediately. The provisions of California Education Code section 5091A1 read as follows. Whenever a vacancy occurs or whenever a resignation has been filed with the county superintendent of schools containing a deferred effective date, the school district or community college district governing board shall within 60 days of the vacancy or the
003filing of the deferred resignation either order an election or make a provisional appointment to fill the vacancy. Filling a filling a vacancy through appointment or election is governed by education code sections 5090 to 59 5095 unless the board me unless the board makes a provisional appointment or orders an election within 60 days of the vacancy in this case October 21st 2025. The Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools must must order an election to fill the vacancy. If an election is ordered, it shall be held on the next regular election date, not less than 130 days after the occurrence of the vacancy. In this case, the next established election date is possibly not until June 2026. The county of Los Angeles registar of voters has been contacted to provide an estimate for the cost of the
004special election. We will provide that to the community once we receive it. We have heard from um LA County Office of Education that similarsized districts who have had a special election and don't have trustee boundaries, so similar situated districts to ours, the cost of a special election runs between $500,000 and $1 million. And this depends on what's on the ballot. A provisional appointment made pursuant to subdivision A1 of education code section 5091 confers all powers and duties of a governing board member upon the appointee immediately following his or her appointment. However, the person appointed to the position holds office only until the next regularly scheduled election for district governing board members, and that is November 2026, or until a petition with sufficient signatures is approved by the Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools. If the
005petition is determined to be legally sufficient by the LA County Superintendent of Schools, the provisional appointment is terminated and the county superintendent shall order a special election to be conducted no later than the 130th day after the determination. Again, this is at the district's cost. So, if there is a petition and that is accepted, the district picks up the tab of the um special election in in any regard. The board will determine pursuant to education code section 5091 whether to make a provisional appointment or or order an election to fill the vacancy. So that is what's before you um on this item. If the board determines to make a provisional appointment, it has 60 days to do so. And with that, I'll turn it back to you, President Kurt. >> Thank you. Eric, would you
006like to start? >> Yes. No, thank you very much. Um and thank you for for the summary, Dr. Sorano. Uh I'll make some comments and I'll make sure that my colleagues have a chance to as well and I'll sort of wrap up. But um I want to thank the the community because I think they've given you know a lot of thoughts and feedback. Um obviously um board member Hamill's uh um transition was unexpected for all of us and and certainly puts our current board in a position of having to evaluate sort of what those next uh be best steps are. how we handle this in my opinion as a board is really really important to to our community. Um I think that's reflected in some of the comments that we received but um of course
007I know that board member Hamill was three years into her um cycle uh with one year remaining. This board has a lot of good work to do. Um I think in the last meeting we talked about our goals and our you know very robust strategic plan uh that over the summer that our executive team helped uh refine and we have some wonderful and ambitious goals and work to do. So certainly my feeling is we absolutely do need that fifth member to round out our board member rather our board rather and and help us in the work that we do. We just talked a moment ago about a couple of committees and all of us have lots of assignments and lots of um important work to do for the district that need to continue on. So
008I think it's ideal to have someone um and I think it's ideal to have somebody that the community has previously supported and who knows the district really really well uh and can come in and help us and assist right away. Um I believe in representative democracy and and don't feel comfortable personally making a decision that uh by appointing someone in such a manner that essentially would elect them. I mean the reality is we appoint someone and make them a school board member they would likely be elected in the following cycle. Um therefore uh I should add one more thought which is say also know that our resources in our community are essential. I think we talked about that this last fall. Uh, I'm excuse me, this last spring as we went through the budget planning
009cycle, $500,000 to a million dollars for an election that would be scheduled for likely June of next year, just a mere five months prior to the uh, natural election cycle that's upon us already. uh just makes no sense to me when I think about the teachers in our community uh and our programs in our schools and making sure that every dollar that we have can be as thoughtful and efficiently spent uh and directed towards services that the district renders. So, uh, with all that in mind, uh, my sort of initial thought to to put out to my board colleagues is that we look to see if we have a prior board member who would be willing to to fulfill the the last year of this uh, particular um, uh, seat and that we leave it
010to the voters to decide in the 2026 election what they think is appropriate for uh, the open board seats that we're anticipating for our school board for next year. So, those are my initial thoughts and I'll uh pass it back to you, President Kirk. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mommy. Thank you. Um, I think the first question is just talking about election versus I'm just going to kind of separate the two out. So, the first question I think is whether we should have an election or go through the appointment process. Um, for that part, um, I 100% agree with, um, board member Aliggria knowing that the next election would not be possible till June of 2026, which means, um, even if we went through that process, the person serving would serve from June of 26
011to November to get through a second election cycle. Um, and the cost being from 500,000 to $1 million. Um, I I don't think that makes sense. So, I would also agree that we should move forward with an appointment. Um, given the current climate and the importance of considering our community's needs, um, I um, I I think appointing a former board member for this short interim period could be a practical solution and we do have precedence in doing so because it's been done in the past. um since the election is only a year away, it makes sense to put someone with experience for the interim and then leave the final decision to the voters. So that's that's my thought. >> Thank you Sarah. >> Um so I think as to the question between um the board
012pursuing an appointment or running a special election, I think I'm in agreement with my colleagues. Um this is a year where we had to make cuts. I appreciate that my colleagues remain committed to keeping those cuts as far away from students and their learning experience in the classroom. That was the right decision. Um so similarly, I just don't see how we can um spend half a million dollars. I'd rather put that towards our our students. Um and then I hadn't even done the timeline calculation. The person if we did a special election, we'd be without a board member, a fifth board member until June. And that's untenable. um I don't think that's a good idea for us to function as a four-person board that long. So, I'm also in support of um pursuing an open
013appointment process the way we've articulated to our community. And as I did the math, if we elect someone in June, it takes the the registry three or four weeks to process that and certify a winner. So, now we're in July and this last year we were dark in August. So we would be spending $500,000 to a million dollars to have someone start in August and be here August, September, October, November. So 500,000 to a million dollars to elect someone to serve for four months and have to then pay for another election. Yeah, I agree. Makes makes no sense to me and would be an irresponsible use of our dollars. Um I am open to considering an application from a prior board member. um the old form that Miss Wescott edited to prepare this one had
014a place where we could say that if you were a prior board member and you were interested in the position, you just needed to submit your name and I would be open to that. Um I do feel that it's important. We received several public comments and I received many emails, I'm sure you did too, thanking us for our transparency and so I would not want to divert from the plan that we have which right now is we're going to have applications. We're going to look at the applications. we're going to choose out of that applicant pool who we think is the best person to move us forward. Um, so I would want to stay with that. Um, I would we do need to if we're going to do interviews, we do need to change the
015interview date. Um, when I looked at my calendar and I looked at October 1st, October 1st had nothing on it. And it was pointed out to us yesterday by several members of our community that October 1st at sundown is the beginning of Yong Kumor. And if I had just looked at the next day of my calendar, I would have seen that. So large apologize to our Jewish community. But of course, we do not want to hold interviews on October 1st. So if we proceed down this path, um I would suggest that we move our interviews to the previous night, which is a Tuesday, um September 30th. Um but because we also have a uh measure SOS meeting that night, instead of starting at 5:30, it would need to be at at 6:00. Um, but in
016looking at all of these pieces, if we go down the we want to appoint somebody, um, we would need to change um, that date in order to allow all of our community members access. Um, certainly >> and I'm just I think we want to consider do we want a a board a pre a prior board member shortcut on our application and do we want to change the interview date from October 1st to September 30th or another date? Um, and please, >> um, I'll just share my thoughts on the two questions you just asked. I completely support changing the interview date. Um, and I support the, uh, previous board member shortcut. Um, especially at this time, u, measure SOS is all of our little baby and measure SOS is still somewhere in the infant toddler stage.
017Um, there's a lot of work to be done. Um, and it would be very helpful. Um I don't know that we have bandwidth to onboard a board member. I know I went back and watched a couple of old board meetings my first couple of months as a board member and um you quickly remember it takes at least a year to get into the swing of things and we have a lot going on right now. I also wanted to clarify I was at um the Peninsula High PTA meeting last night and a question was asked there and I've gotten the question several places but when I got it in person at a PTA um I shared an answer and I wanted to share the answer here as well so everybody in the community has the same
018um information. So I was asked by a parent if there is a rule or precedent that the runnerup in an election has to be appointed if a seat opens up after the runner up has lost. Um, so I wanted to share uh we actually have great precedent to answer this question. Uh, Jeannie Han lost our local school board race in 2018 by 107 votes. Um, in 2020 when board member Frankle passed away and the board of education pursued an appointment to fill the vacancy. Jeanie Han applied for the appointment. At that time, no claim was made by any appointment candidate, community member, nor board member that Jeanie was owed the board seat or inherently deserved it. Jeanie was not appointed and board member Gandhi was appointed after an open appointment process by the board of
019education. Jeanie has remained an active volunteer in the penh high community for which especially our robotic students are very grateful. So elections are not like abstract art. They are not subject to interpretation. A candidate either wins the community support and the seat or doesn't. Every political candidate, myself included, has to be ready for the fact that you either win or lose an election. There is no honorable mention trophy awarded for a loss. That being said, and hopefully understood, I do appreciate everyone who is stepping up to serve and willing to put themselves out there for public scrutiny because the public is not always nice. So, I really appreciate people willing to put themselves out there um for the cons for the board consideration through the appointment process. I'm really grateful for a community that is
020um willing to step up, full of people willing to work for our student, staff, and community. Uh my pri priority as a single vote in the appointment process will be selecting someone who is the best to serve our students above all else. And I think I've answered your questions, right? >> Um I think so. Okay. I had one more comment if I could jump in. Um because my appointment was mentioned, I'm glad you mentioned it because I forgot to mention it. Um as a board member that was appointed to my seat, um I did want to clarify I do believe in the appointment process. Um that's how I ended up here. So um with my suggestions of how we were going to move forward, um I was really focusing on the fact that it is
021a really short time frame that we're looking at. So to keep the business of the district moving forward, that's how I came up with my suggestion. So I and you can correct me wrong, correct me if I'm wrong, um if I'm confused. I feel like at this point we have two options because everybody is saying we're going to go with the appointment process, but our two options are an open appointment process versus picking a previous board member. Is that right? Is that where we are at this point? I suppose we could choose to pick a previous board member, but I feel we outlined this process. Um, and the community has read that and the community is expecting us to follow those steps. And I wouldn't in any way want to discourage a prior board member
022from applying. But I think if we were to say tonight, oh, I nominate retired board member X and it's seconded and we vote. I feel like we're not doing for the community what we said we would do, which is allowing an applicant pool to form. >> Sure. So, we may end up we may not end up choosing a prior board member. I imagine when you were selected, I don't know if other prior board members were in the pool or not. And that's not part of my conversation, but I think at this point we've told the community we're looking for a pool and I feel that we need to honor that. >> Okay. So, a few more points of clarification just so we're all on the same page. my understanding that this was guidance and not
023um a I thought this was guidance for us to discuss tonight like is this how we want to proceed or do we want to take a different route so uh if either Miss Wescott or Dr. Srano could clarify that. >> Sure. I think um the first issue for the board to decide is whether or not you want to do a special election or you want to go through an appointment process. So maybe um you want to pause there and then we can move on to the >> Okay. So you would like us to make a motion to approve resolution one which is to appoint because I've heard nobody advocate for resolution two. Correct. So if we but resolution one includes those subsequent documents I believe. >> Thank you. Okay. So can I get a motion
024to approve resolution one which is the board will appoint the successor. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Okay. >> All in favor? I. >> Any opposed? Motion passes 40. >> Okay. So now I think we have >> now we're moving on to E3 which is our timeline for provisional appointment >> and as we've discussed this with uh Los Angeles County Office of Education. My understanding is that the board does have the option to forego the application and interview process and to appoint um if you choose uh a former board member um or to go down the path of an application process and um call for including former board members and anyone else who's interested in um applying for the appointment. And the only one other thought process that I have here for us to consider
025is that um I think it would be unfair if we opened up the process and had everybody submit applications but then said board previous board members um just you know you don't you just submit your name. So that's why I thought again I'm open to the discussion but I just thought it makes more sense for us to have the discussion on which route we want to take. Um because my understanding is that is more guidelines on this is how we could have done it but we can also come up with our own method. >> Other thoughts over here I think board member brings up good points. I I guess it's you know it's thoughtprovoking to consider if we're opening up a full open process and we're also allowing for and it sounds like there's precedent
026for having done this in the past from what I understand from what you express President Kurt where there's a um modified application process if you will for uh former board members. Is that am I understanding that correctly? Um, Miss Wescott had the form that was used. Was it 2021 that was edited to make the rough draft for the form that's presented tonight? And I think it was 2021. I may have the year wrong. And there was a place on there where it says if you were a prior board member, you just need to check this box and submit your name. And they didn't have to do the application. >> They didn't have to do the application. They didn't have to interview as well. Well, They had to submit their name, but they did not have
027to complete the written packet. They did participate in the night of the interviews. >> Thank you, >> Sarah. Um, I'll just share my thoughts on this too. Kind of similar to what board member Allegria expressed. I think we all have an understanding that um a board appointment elevates a a candidate in a upcoming election. Um and that makes me very uncomfortable. Um second to that is the fact that like I said we have a lot going on right now. Um some things that are you know that we are handling in close session. So, I also see great merit in bringing back a previous board member who, you know, we have previous board members that are still engaged and helping the district out in various ways. Um, so I see great merit in that. To me,
028that seems most responsible in terms of keeping the district functioning, moving forward, and supporting our students with minimal disruption and the least amount of political theater in the community. Um the dilemma where I'm feeling stuck is our bylaw as it's been approved by the board seems restrictive. It seems to say that we shall that we have to um open the appointment process and publish it publicly. So to me um that's where I feel a little stuck that I'm very uncomfortable setting aside a bylaw um because that does set a precedent. However, looking at the language of resolution uh three, there does seem to be some flexibility. Reading point five on page two of the resolution. It seems like the way the resolution is written, um we would ask for applications. People would submit applications. Looks
029like there's precedent for a previous board member shortcut. the board would receive the applications and then the board can decide whether or not they'd like to interview or how they want to move forward. So maybe that offers us an in between ground. I I don't know. >> I think if I understand what you're saying, board member, um you're talking about a bifurcated process where potentially prior board members have the first opportunity to apply. If we don't get any interest, then we open it up. Is that sort of what you're suggesting? You just said it more elegantly. >> I But you you were expressing the concept which which um I gravitate to because I I think I expressed my thoughts earlier. I think we have a lot of work to do. We have an election that's
030coming. There's going to be I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of the board sort of um through an application process if it's not necessary. And because of this community and the benefit that we have of so much wealth of knowledge and so many prior board members, I think we have the opportunity to go to a board member who will have no intent prior board member rather who has no intention of serving beyond the one year uh and respectfully come in and do that and then step down and and let the um election process we're anticipating for 2026 occur. So that's what I gravitate to. Um, I would be open to a process like that if we could determine how to do it. >> So, to clarify real quick, oh, sorry, you had a question. Go
031ahead. Okay. Um, so to clarify for myself, we're coming up with an option C. Um, open appointment um picking a previous board member and then now this option C is let previous board members come forward if they are interested and then if nobody comes forward, we do an open application process. Is that what you guys are suggesting? >> We're saying yes. >> I I hear you. And if we had more time, >> I might be comfortable with that. But if we said, for example, that we're going to give a week and a half or two weeks for prior board members to apply, and let's just say the only board member that applies was a board member 40 years ago, that person, even though they wore an elected board member, may not be as up to
032speed as some else in our community. And then we might have lost the opportunity to say, "Oh, and now we want because there isn't another equal window out there." I I think however we'll have the discretion at that point to determine still right it'll still be >> I would be most comfortable if we were collecting all these names >> and we had October 21st >> but I think that's what board member Allegria was saying he was saying we can solicit the applications we receive them from whoever if we see that we've gotten some from previous board members then we can bifurcate and walk down this different path that's what I was understanding >> yes essentially so you you're saying collect applications from everybody ready and if we and I think we we can have a
033chance in open at some future meeting date prior to October no o September 30th we can have an open after the applications are in a chance to sit here at the dis and say looking at all the applications we've had two people apply we want to interview both of them or looking at the interviews we've had 57 people apply we can't possibly talk to all of them we need to narrow it down >> well said President Kern I think I'm glad you articulated that way because I think what you're saying is affirming that the board will still have the discretion to determine what to in terms of the applications we see which ones we're going to interview. Is that is that sort of what you're saying? >> Or if we're even going to have interviews,
034correct? >> Correct. And we'll do it in open session. So it'll be in front of the public like we received >> because it says we may interview people which means we do not have to. >> Dr. Serrano >> just the entire process needs to be an open session. None of none of this can be enclosed. I just want to make that point for the community um that all of these discussions are in open. >> I think resolution three still works languagewise. >> Does it? >> I think we need to change a date or two. Um but I think so. And so we can have at the last regularly scheduled board meeting before September 30th, which might be the 24th I see you looking. I could look too, but I'm >> Oh, September. >> That's a
035th >> Thank you. Okay. So, the 20 >> 25th. >> Thank you. So, on se the applications, I believe, are due September. >> So, then we can't review them the 25th. So, we would need to change the application deadline and move that earlier. Do we need to add that board member carveout and somehow when we when it was utilized in the past, was it accommodated in the resolution? >> Would you like me to read the part from the resolution? >> And also, I think if we were going to do a questionnaire that everybody every candidate has to fill out, I think we need to update the questionnaire. >> Miss Wescott did change the last question to change it from measure PV to measure SOS. Okay. >> But otherwise, it is the same questionnaire that was
036used before. Um but yes, we can make suggestions, changes >> that that was the >> um so I see that our our meeting is September 25th and so we would need in in order to discuss it that day in open session in order to decide if we want to hold interviews September 30th. We would need applications due the previous week. So we would need to change the application deadline. I will say also speaking with LA County Office of Education, they recommended that we move the timeline up slightly um just to provide us more flexibility on the back end should the board reach a point that you wanted to do a second round of interviews, for example. >> So, I don't think that's going to be an issue in our community, but >> Right. It gives
037us a little breathing room. Yes. So, Miss Wescott, would you recommend that we have the applications due Thursday the 21st or Friday the 22nd of of No, I'm on the wrong month. >> And just a reminder, we have all the way till October 21st to make a final decision. So, I don't know that there is a really big rush, you know, >> but our last scheduled board meeting before that is October 8th. And so ideally at October 8th we would be able to we have October 8th as our last scheduled meeting to approve. But you're right if we need more time we can go another week and a half past that. So you're right we built in there's some there's some comfort room. Okay. So if I was looking at the correct month would you
038want to have the applications due September 18th which is the Thursday or the 19th which is the Friday? I would really prefer the 17th, but because it's a regular meeting, we're going to have to put that packet together. But we could do um the 18th. >> The 17th would be the 17th is 3 weeks from today, which to me seems like enough time. >> Just given that we're going to be posting that agenda on the 19th, I would want to make sure if we had any issues with the packet that we have everything by the that I have time because you have to include include the written answers in that agenda. Correct. These are open to the public. >> Thank you. Okay. So then it sounds like we would like to have applications due September
03917th by 4:00. >> Five. >> Okay. We can do five. And we would then like to have it on our board agenda for the 25th to discuss having possible interviews on Tuesday the 30th at six o'clock. Am I good? Another another just note here is that the application um time and date is a firm deadline. So applications received even a minute after 5:00 p.m. on September 17th will not be considered. So it's very important that that's a hard deadline. >> Thank you. And maybe we could highlight that on the actual application. >> Okay. >> Can I of course >> ask for clarification? Are we adding the wording to the resolution regarding former board members? >> Thank you. I think we had at least three people say yes. Were Were you going to read that out
040loud so that everybody can hear it >> previously? And remember, we did have two provisional appointments. So, when it's speaking about the April, it's speaking about the provisional appointment earlier that year. So, this is why it's in that wording. Number four, that former board members and finalists from the April 2021 provisional appointment process may simply notify the district of their intent to apply. They will not have to submit application paperwork with the exception of an updated form 700. >> Okay. So, if we were to remove the part about the finalists because there are no current finalists, the rest of that sentence could stand as is. >> Yep. Thank you for asking. I'd forgotten that part. Okay. So, I think we need a motion and a second to approve um resolution three. >> So, moved. >>
041Second. All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion passes 40. Okay. Because the board has chosen to do an appointment and not an election, I think we can skip E4 and we're moving on to E5, the board reassignment of Julie Hamill's board representative positions. And my suggestion would be that because none of these positions run with the school year, that all of these appointments are only until December when we do our board reorg. And by then we should have a sitting fifth member of the board who then could have some of these responsibilities. So I'm suggesting we just make the appointments from now until December as compared to like some of our others which go for the entire entire school year. Um, and I'm willing to let you jump in and claim something. I
042would like to volunteer to be the board leaison to the city of rolling hills. Um I've been working with the palace for library and Dr. Zoe Uno is lovely but she doesn't seem to need much from us and so I could use a different group to interact with. So I would be very happy to take the the city of rolling hills. >> I'd be happy to do the Los Angeles County Committee. I don't know if there's anything that's coming up for it though. >> I'm already on SOS so I can't volunteer for it again. >> Would you like to do ledge rep because >> Oh, yeah. I could do Yep. >> Or sorry, were you jumping for that one? >> I was going to, but it's totally fine. >> Oh, take it if you want
043it. Whatever you want. >> Doesn't m >> Why don't you join? >> You can't do the It's that same weekend where I'm going to be out of town on the 30th. So, I don't mind doing it. I just can't make it to the I'll have to ask somebody else to fill in for me on the 30th which defeats the purpose then because we're getting shuffled in December. >> I'm okay doing measure SOS. I can do >> Thank you, President Kurt. >> Okay. So, I have SOS. Sar and Ammy, you are arm wrestling for ledge rep. >> You pick. You want to take it? >> S would love to be Yes. Amy, >> would you decide? I'm >> Do you want to spin? Do you want to spin that thing? >> You can have it. >>
044Spin. So, I'll take I'll take it. No, I've never been led rep. I have. So, go ahead. Okay. S will be >> I would like ledge rep. >> Good. >> Okay. Can I get you to take out the fancy spinner? >> Okay. Okay. Can I get a motion to appoint me to measure SOS, Sar Dean to ledge rep, Eric Algria to the LA County Committee on School District Reorganization, and me to the city of Rolling Hills liaison. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Jinx. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion passes for zero. Okay. With that we will adjourn our our special meeting and momentarily we will reconvene our regular board meeting on the same YouTube channel.