One intro approval of families education preschool and promise levy partnership agreement and funding for summer learning 2019 and 2019 2020 school year executive committee March 20th for consideration approval of this item would authorize the superintendent to execute a partnership agreement with the city of Seattle and to accept grant funds totaling $23 million nine hundred ninety eight thousand eight hundred and four dollars from the city of Seattle's family education preschool and promise levy FEP for the Seattle preschool program Seattle.
Promise program summer learning elementary middle and high school innovation middle school linkage and culturally responsive programming with any minor additions deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take any necessary actions to accept the grant funds.
Director Mack could you lead us off because you sent a very thoughtful email to your colleagues today and I'd appreciate hearing that.
Thank you.
Well thank you.
It feels really quiet in here.
Did the fans go off or something.
Anyway so I'm grateful to be part of the LOC and having read through the entire implementation plan document which just for clarification for folks that understand process or don't understand but I just want to clarify what the whole process is around the city's levy.
Thank you so much for it.
in general and for us being a part of it.
It's very exciting.
The city has a process of approving the implementation plan which they're currently in process of doing at their city council level and they had a committee meeting today that implementation plan is one hundred and some odd pages long and details all of the levy which is not just Seattle Public Schools related.
pieces but the entire levy for us we have this partnership agreement for the pieces that are related to Seattle Public Schools and it's a board approved document that lays out the foundation of what we're doing and so that's what this document is.
And.
When I was reading through it I was really grateful for seeing the hard work that went into it to resolve a lot of the issues that I've been hearing along the way and that there's been lots of great negotiation between the city and the district to resolve those issues.
And in the email I sent today I didn't get to say the thank you and I or I could have but I didn't I didn't take the opportunity.
But I do want to say thank you because I notice a lot of there were a lot of great points and a lot of good work going into that.
I raised a number of overarching concerns and kind of technical issues that I'm hoping that we can work through and I've talked with staff and it sounds like there's resolution to those things and there may be a little bit of back and forth negotiation but that we can work through those issues.
One of the primary ones was a clause around that there would be amendments made without the counselor district approval and I think that that was the intention behind that was something different.
Would it be appropriate to ask Mr. Nielsen to come and speak to that point.
And then the corollary to that is that there's a there's a clause around the amendment to the to the partnership agreement in general but then.
Clarification around the additional agreements that will be adopted and how those with the processes and what the approval process is for those were those were the one first question I had.
So good evening Stephen Nielsen deputy superintendent and.
Duane Chappelle director of education and early learning with our amazing staff our finance director Tim Wolfe and Marissa Roussel our levy coordinator.
That is a small representation of a number of people.
The same goes for our staff and for this before I directly address your question Director Mack I want to thank the city of Seattle.
I want to thank the Seattle voters on behalf of our students for the extraordinary support that we have.
This is a very unique opportunity for us in our city and it provides opportunity for our students and families something that others do not enjoy or even have a dream possibility that we have before you tonight.
Specific to Director Mack's question the partnership agreement has a number of sections and there is a section 3 in it which is located in the board action report and it discusses the detail of the intent.
And I will say what our intent from Seattle Public Schools staff is is that the intent is that.
any minor operational changes could be done without having to go back to the council and this board.
That is the that is the intent as we are interpreting it as you had earlier this evening you had discussion around intent.
So I will say that is our intent.
That said I will allow Mr. Chappelle to continue that discussion.
Yes, that's exactly what the intent is for that section right there.
But we also, one thing Mr. Nielsen didn't mention that he alluded to that we actually have been, we started this back like in September of last year and we've really made some great progress.
And ideally, the partnership agreement, kind of going to what you were just talking about, the implementation plan is like 159 pages.
So the partnership agreement is really like a high-level overview that folks who don't love policy like we all do could read and interpret.
So that's just where we are with that.
So I have a question to follow up.
Does that mean that our city attorney will put this in a legal opinion a written legal opinion unlike the charter school funding.
So I don't know if that's a rhetorical question or not.
It's not a rhetorical question is an absolute serious question.
So for this piece right here, the reality is whatever changes we make to the partnership agreement, we have been working with district's attorney and city's attorney, district staff, and city staff to really come up and fine-tweak the language that we want in there.
So whatever changes we do make to it, we'll definitely have to go back through that process.
I didn't get an answer to my question and I'm really not being rhetorical.
I'm a litigator by trade and a risk manager by trade.
There have been times when governmental entities have disagreed.
Now do I appreciate the voters.
Do I appreciate you.
Do I appreciate your staff.
All of those things.
However if this agreement turns to peanut butter Do we have a written legal opinion from the city attorney's office that protects the 53000 kids in our school district.
I would, without answering it like a yes or no question, part of me want to say yes, because our attorneys have been working on this partnership agreement, like I said, since September.
So if you want to interpret it that way, then yes, that is.
But I can go back and be specific to say, to find the information like where it is a legal opinion about that.
But I want to be clear.
District Attorney Ronald Boy I'm looking at Noel but I know it's been Ronald Boy has been part of this since September and we've had our city's attorney as well have been part of this partnership agreement since September as well.
So if that answers your question then I would say yes.
To be continued.
Other comments questions concerns Director Burke then Director Geary.
I just want to.
Be supportive of the concern that the director Mack brought up when I looked at that as well though the language in there looks pretty wide open to the point where.
You know without this context that we're having in our conversation it could be interpreted as this document could be rewritten without reapproval.
That was sort of my interpretation from reading it and that sort of gives me pause.
You know we've got some language in our board action reports that end with with any minor additions deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent.
So there's emphasis on minor it essentially States exactly what I heard from from you in that intent.
And so I just thought well we have some language around that that we're accustomed to.
And then this one seemed pretty broad.
So that was my concern.
Would it would it be all I mean just the recommendation is that maybe we can just take this back.
We like us could take it back in and retweak it just work with our work group to get the language to what it needs to be.
So when this takes action in a couple of weeks I think we will so we can be in a better place.
I like that.
Director Geary please.
I have a few questions about just what the discussion has been on a few topics.
One I do see that there's the list of records that and that it's guided by FERPA.
Has there been any you know there is an accountability of collecting and maintaining the law.
But if the law is inadvertently broken has there been discussion about who bears how the risk will be shifted around those types of activities and how that's being worked out.
I will speak to the Seattle school side.
So we will attend to FERPA requirements as we are looking at the release of data and will not be prone or doing any action that would violate any of those.
It's possible it could be done unattendedly but certainly not on purpose.
And so therefore we would curtail risk to that level before it got to the point.
And then once the.
information goes outside our door to others then they would own part of the liability.
I'm not adding to something that perhaps general counsel could.
I want to know what the discussion is around that.
It seems huge because we're we have a lot of partners and we're having a lot of community partners and we're sharing it says here we're going to share our information back and forth.
I just want to have a better understanding of that.
Good evening, Noel Treat, Chief Legal Counsel.
I wasn't in these negotiations, so I can't answer the question as to what was discussed, but what I can tell you is that in our, you know, we do have a number of data sharing agreements every year for different research and other types of educational programs, and we would have a similar agreement here.
It meets all the technical requirements of FERPA, but essentially, All the parties that are signatories to that agreement they have to be signatories to receive FERPA protected data first and foremost and then they would be obligated to comply with those obligations or the breaching party.
So for instance in this case if we gave the data to the city and the city didn't comply with our data sharing agreement it would be the city is the breaching party that would be face any potential liability.
OK and that will be included.
Yes.
OK.
There's nowhere in here that I see you know we're partnering and we're doing a lot of designing around K through 12. But is there anywhere in here that just acknowledges that SPS as the educational institution has some level of the ownership of the expertise around education.
The partnership agreement does not speak to that.
I can say that in our work with the city that there is a understanding at least from my perspective that the city deal staff knows that we are the educators and we are charged with free education for all of our students.
And to that end we've got a good relationship with them.
We will be it's my understanding that some of the money will be going out to community based organizations who will be then coming back into our buildings and I see some potential for conflict and I'm just wondering if there is a conflict as to the use.
Will there be something that says.
Seattle Public Schools is the one who gets to have the final shaping in line with the missions or the intent of the money.
But we are the education experts.
It's a very good question.
There are those in this room that know more of this than I.
So if someone would like to step up and add to that that's fine.
I would say that.
One of the things that we've talked with city staff about as we're implementing with CBO resources is to make sure that the schools principals the school leaders whomever are aligned with the work and that this isn't a congratulations we're here to do something that is outside of our strategic plan that you just approved.
So we want that alignment and we want to make sure that we're doing something that's value added not taking us sideways to a different direction that may be wonderful but not necessarily on the students best interest or in our own.
I come in at a time when there was stories of the Alliance for Education RIFs city RIFs and it seems to come down to these kinds of questions these kinds of conflicts.
Who owns the expertise around what needs to be done with our students.
This isn't a complete answer I don't think to the question you're asking but one part of it is when you asked about CBO's in our schools.
Remember even if they're funded by the city or feds or the state we control whether or not a CBO gets access to a school so that we do that we do have a gatekeeper goal in that capacity as well.
So that's another aspect of this.
Well once they're in and we know how resources come in and we establish something within our school and then a conflict develops it's not as easy as saying you're out.
It's how are these conflicts.
Is there something that's going to be built in that will give us ownership over the educational piece of the decision making.
So one of the aspects.
You know should there be.
I think there should be.
I am going to say my board thinks there should be and they can speak differently but that is my understanding of our board.
So how has there been discussions around this and if not when are they going to happen and how is it going to be resolved so we don't end up with a huge tangle in the future that leaves everybody feeling unheard misaligned burned.
Yes.
Excellent point.
The service level agreements that will be a piece of this work will have key performance indicators KPIs and those will be established ahead of time and those again will be aligned with the strategic plan with the purpose of the family and education partnership FEPP issue itself.
So all of the effort will be to avoid something happening after the fact and laying it out so the expectations are clear and accountability is clear and therefore the outcomes are clear.
I guess I'd like to see something under the K through 5 educational piece that just says it says that I don't know exactly how it's worded or what it is but something you know I'm from administrative law and at some point as an administrative law judge there was deference in a decision making.
They didn't tell us how to rule but there was a certain amount of deference you gave to the agency whose work you were reviewing.
And so it wasn't a hard bright line or you win you don't win.
But in those really tight cases and I'd like to see some deference around education here in this agreement maybe not under the health piece.
That's not where we are known to be the experts but the K through 12 educational piece I'd like to see some deference around our art.
So please think about that and see if we can do that.
Let me move on.
I'd like to also talk about the parent partnering with families and communities.
I'm this.
This doesn't sound like we're partnering with families and communities it sounds like we're partnering with community cultural language based organizations maximize partnerships with all these people and assure access to a diversity of resources that strengthen families and communities.
But I would think we would we'd want to also maximize partnerships with school based comma community comma cultural comma you know school based organizations parent based organizations.
If we're really trying to get to families and parents then it seems like we should be including the organizations that see their work centered around families and parents as well.
If we're really going to partner with families so we get away from we're doing things for people as opposed to getting to the place where we're doing it with them and that language in the partnering with families and communities sounds very much like a room of people who work for organizations telling Talking about what's best for families with no assurance that there's even one family of Seattle Public Schools or the programs that they're talking about there.
So I'd like to see something in terms of Section 11 that actually talks about organizations that we know are centered around families and school based families.
And those are my comments.
Thanks.
Director DeWolf then Director Burke no Director DeWolf please.
Yeah I just want to piggyback a little bit off Director Geary because I think that was one of the things I had had a conversation with.
I can't remember who but there's a policy particularly for school leaders that given some of their funding decisions they get to make will oftentimes work with the community organization.
They'll get some funding through for example FEPP and then that organization will apply.
and kind of outline the things they're going to do and it almost directs what's happening in the schools by way of their application for that thing and I think that was and I think James I see you over there I know that there's a policy that that has to do with and maybe I'm calling you out too soon and I apologize.
So what I'll do before James come up and speak is just talk a little bit about that.
We are so we have these workgroups set up.
We have a K-5 workgroup and a post-secondary workgroup and a sixth through a secondary workgroup.
We have three of them in a promise workgroup.
And so within what we're doing now is looking at processes to speak specifically to what you were just talking about Director DeWolf about when When community-based organizations apply for FEPP funding, what we do within FEPP is we make sure that there is alignment between central office and school building to make sure that the strategic plan and the goals that are going to be the focused on specifically around expanded learning is an alignment within the school and there has to be a mutual agreement.
We don't we don't just give CBO's funding and ask them to go find a school to partner.
And I also want to speak and just kind of go back one other comment.
That you mentioned director Gary of that line that sentence you were focusing on is specifically That's from the ordinance, but this information we are taking notes We'll take it back to the these the work group that we have and we'll you know see what we can do to address these I Just meant that
The folks that are applying I would hope that they're working with the school leaders before they apply.
Right.
Don't just I mean it's sometimes organizations there's a nonprofit industrial complex we all have to bring in our revenue.
Sorry I'm just saying.
And so they direct what they're going to do in that school without consulting with that school and I think that is one of the things that at least that's what I was picking up from and I've had a little bit of concern about to make sure that.
Particularly now we passed a strategic plan making sure that the educational institution is directing what their needs are and not a community organization saying here's the things we want to do.
Can we somehow make sure they fit.
And so historically that's what we've done.
We made sure that it's it's aligned with the school and the vision and everything.
Now that we have this new strategic plan we'll be working to make sure that those that are partnering are going to be aligned and centered to what the mission and vision is of the school.
Director Burke then Director Mack.
Clarification question which I my my brain thinks it might remember from a previous conversation around data sharing and the and then a question on Section 13 facilities.
So regarding data sharing my understanding is that.
The data sharing is not there will not be student identifiable data shared with the city.
Essentially it passes through to CBO's and the city data is aggregate non-student identifiable and I just wanted to confirm that and you know if that understanding is correct and appropriate.
So currently DEEL does serve as an intermediate so they do get that information right now but our goal is to build a system in the next year or so to kind of take DEEL out of that role of having it gather the information and direct it back to the schools.
We want to be in a position where CBO's are working directly with the school leaders to be able to get the data and do the assessment of the programs at the school level.
The data that deal I'm sure would love to be able to use is just the data that to how is the school doing.
How's the global community doing with the.
the investments at their their schools and we have some other stuff on the preschool side where we actually do want to get more detailed information from them.
So getting to a de-identifiable universe may be challenging but we have to work it through and there's a commitment to work that through as a team.
Great thanks for that clarification.
So it sounds like not yet.
Section 13 facilities is is very concise but I was wondering if we have a lot of existing collaboration with the city around facilities you know whether it's a joint use agreement whether it's the MOU that we have in place.
Is that something that is appropriate to include in here.
Essentially building on the shoulders of giants.
Excellent question.
And again I'm recalling maybe it's a scrivener's error.
In section 13 it says policy singular.
I suggest that it's it's policies and procedures and agreements because it gets exactly to that point.
The intent was to cover any obligations any of the board policies any of our work that we have underway already.
This agreement would be aligned with them rather than trying to list every single one that we may or may not miss.
Mack.
I really appreciate and underscore the other comments and concerns that have been brought forward and appreciate the the one around facilities and to drive that actually the home the language here is a little confusing on the facility section because it seems to be referencing make space available for staff.
And so then it doesn't really talk about the preschool spaces or the planning around that.
I mean I just I think a little bit attention to that section might be helpful to clarify and if it's not appropriate to put the actual partnership agreement reference in there make sure that some languages to existing agreements that kind of thing and to clarify around you know the collaboration on the planning.
Just really would like to make sure like you know stand on the shoulder of giants.
We already have agreements in place we have processes that maybe we need to make more robust but we don't want to reinvent the wheel and we do want to reflect back on our existing agreements.
Which leads me to the other kind of global question around agreements because as I'm looking at this whole document it's an agreement and then we have several agreements that are coming later.
And what it sounded like was the data sharing agreement was something that we've already developed and use and is not a board approved document.
Which you know I don't know if anyone else feels strongly about that but I think the clarity of like the process in the agreement section of this is you know going to be negotiated by staff and how just clarifying how those agreements come about would be really helpful.
But the points that Director Geary and Director Wolf were making around CBO's is. is something I don't quite understand is what agreements do we have besides the contract for a CBO who goes after one of the grants.
Is there a formal agreement with a CBO and a school every time.
And just that's that's one part of the question because the question is for the entire what is our entire policy and process around agreements with outside organization and who approves them.
Because the in this document there's reference to the Seattle King County Health Department for the health centers in our schools.
And so do we have an actual formal agreement between the district and Seattle King County.
Do we have a partnership agreement already in place on that or is that another one that's going to be coming forward because.
Based on the implementation plan the dollars come through to King County and then to us.
So I that is a that's a question that I think should be clarified in the partnership agreement and I'm wondering if we have the answer of what.
is in place now.
So I don't have all the details for the how the public health but all of those dollars Seattle the King County Public Health they put those out for bid for each of the school sites so that we have three new school sites that are going out for bid in the next week or so.
And those those if it's group held with Kaiser Permanente or whatever the groups are in neighbor care they actually have to go through a whole process with the county that the county manages.
Then they have to enter an agreement once They're awarded with the county where the school and the district is a part of the conversation.
Then they execute a contract at the school level.
But where do we have a district level agreement with King Seattle King County because it seems like the dollars are coming through them and then they're also funding nurses based on the implementation plan.
So at this point Brent and I in another separate conversation are working with the county on getting an overarching partnership agreement that is not in place yet.
There are maybe incremental stuff based on funding but we don't have an overarching agreement with the county managing this work.
It's school based work at this point.
Would that fall into the project agreements because the top the top the first bullet under additional agreements is project agreements and project agreements.
just for my clarity and for everyone's clarity are the specific projects of direct awards that are coming from the levy into Seattle Public Schools.
So it would include the preschool program and every year there's a project agreement and that comes through us.
There's a whole process and we we approve that and so Are you saying that Seattle King County would be a project agreement and a yearly thing or there there should be a there should be a partnership agreement developed between the district and the county agency.
Like I'm not sure which I care I just want to make sure we have our you know our agreements in line and that we're clear on who's doing what and the appropriate things.
So health is an annual project agreement and it's an annual project agreement and with between the city and the county and then the individual agreements at the schools between the county and the between the Kaiser Permanente and the schools those are renegotiated annually as well.
So that's awesome.
because it sounds like the systems are in place and that we have them.
What I was why I'm asking these questions and what's not clear from just reading the document because that's where that this is the policy that we're approving is in the project agreement section it doesn't actually call out the names of the specific projects.
And I think it would be really helpful to say These are the direct awards that we are expecting out of the implementation plan and the specific projects that are expected so that we have that clarity of we have Seattle preschool program we have the health one we have and we know which project agreements are part of this from it so that we're it's it's it's help.
I think it would be really helpful to be clear on the direct awards because the direct awards that are coming down are handled very differently.
They come to the district.
There's a project agreement.
We process all of this way versus the competitive grants which are school based and that's opened up to folks outside of the district as well and clarity on what are the direct awards and the projects that we're expecting and that we're agreeing that we're planning to work on because the implementation plan says it would create some clarity in my mind.
I don't know that this will help but let me try.
Clearly this were at the intro to a seven year process.
So it's not possible to put into a partnership agreement at the beginning all of the specific partners in the activities that will take place over the next seven years.
And the partnership agreement is a high level policy statement that is under review and approval by you and the city council.
To that end the systems that you're asking about which will unveil themselves over the next seven years will come up and they'll go through review in this entity based on grant size and the ability to make sure that it's aligned to all of our other activities.
So I hope that answers your question.
So when we're when we're back here for action we won't be able to say well in this section we'll be doing exactly these things.
I do want to emphasize a key point.
And this is what the last three months work between staffs has has has done and that is forgive the colloquialism we're trying to avoid random acts of goodness and we are very explicitly looking towards targeted effort to assist the needs of our students just like our strategic plan is designed to do.
And it will raise the boats for all of our students and it will be aligned and it will have various components that will unveil themselves as the work progresses throughout the next several years.
I hope that answers the question.
I think it does but what it does leave open is things like the original intent of the legislation for things for example like the family support workers and the intent around that legislation and the work to have 15 that the intent around that and that that actually be carried through and not forgotten by leaving it so open ended that we can change the projects as we go along.
I have a little bit of nervousness around the lack of definition and clarity.
So Dwayne reminds me and I was going to say the same thing.
Remember that this we're operating under an ordinance so we are required required to follow the same.
There is a certain amount of broadness in all of that.
Back to my point of being aligned and doing things that we need to do.
So hopefully that answers your question.
I am a little bit concerned from some of your comments that you're going to expect us to come back with a completely different version of this partnership agreement.
So.
No.
I actually don't think I'm I'm personally even requesting that I wanted clarity on some things and it sounds to me like I mean maybe we could say I don't know if there are any other comments or thoughts that other folks may have to reflect back but it might be helpful to summarize what you think you heard And what you've what maybe the potential changes that will be made and won't be made because that would be helpful for us to know.
So I will try to bifurcate it very simply.
So I heard a specific request around Section 3 that we would clarify wording in that to make sure that policies are approved by city council and this board that we will work on.
I heard the rest of the questions around how does this actually work.
which we are more than happy to spend time.
Perhaps we need another work session.
We can do more two by twos so that it raises your comfort about all these details some of which are unknown at this point without having to go back and renegotiate.
For those of you on the board that aren't fully aware I don't know how much time we've spent in meetings.
Many many many many hours.
And a lot of back and forth drafts on this partnership agreement.
I think there were 11 maybe more than that but 11 for sure.
And those have to go back and forth between lawyers et cetera.
And again so I want to be cautionary that we won't be bringing in an entirely different document in a couple of weeks.
I also heard consensus around some language around the deference to SPS for education.
Is that something do you think is possible.
We could put that in the intent language and we'll see what the city says.
And then also the school based organizations that that that I feel like there's like there's consensus around that language being added that Director Geary suggested and then the partnership like the changing the massaging of that.
Sorry.
It looks as though you've got questions.
Yes.
Gentleman.
Thank you.
Appreciate that.
Director Geary's point about the language in the section that is lifted straight out of the voter approved.
We won't change that obviously because — But you can add to it.
There's nothing that says that you can't add on authentic communication with.
parents and I would submit students as well in adding that collaboration that the ordinance doesn't restrict you.
You can do an and correct.
Is that.
Philosophy acceptable.
I'm looking at my partner here.
This is a two phase activity.
It's a two phase.
What you're saying definitely makes sense.
But what I was just notified by the partnership and implementation plan expert that a lot of the stuff that we're talking about is in like certain sections of the partnership agreement that's called out but it's just at a very high level.
So what you were just talking about what I was telling Mr. Nielsen was that is in Section 12 of the partnership agreement.
So again I'm wondering if I understand the board's desire.
I'm wondering if work sessions to clarify are helpful and how much in this policy document is necessary in order to add comfort for you and your support.
It would be helpful if you all could send us exactly where that information is and.
Being against authentic communication is like being against apple pie.
And.
If you're on a diet perhaps we have to never mind.
I'm going to rule you out of order Mr. Deputy.
Again I think we want the same things.
I think we want the clarity and and if we don't have it then two years from now we want to beat you with it.
OK.
That's fair.
Director Mack and then Director DeWolf please.
Director DeWolf's been waiting quite some time.
I just wanted to also mention that I felt like we had consensus around clarifying the facilities language in Section 13 to be more clear that it's not just making space available for staff and that there's collaboration and referencing other agencies.
Was that something that you think it's possible to do because that for me on our facilities that's really such an important.
aspect of this agreement that we actually honor the existing partnership agreement with the city on our planning processes and.
And reference it here that.
So to answer your question is everything that we've heard, we're going to go back and take a look and see if how we can as a group, you know, what makes the most sense for us with working with legal and everything to meet your needs.
But we're also going to, because a lot of the questions that we're asking, that you guys are asking, we want to make sure that we can highlight it in the partnership agreement.
And then, you know, we just kind of create that dialogue with you all.
Just to be clear we totally understand what you're saying.
We just want to make sure that the questions that you're asking that is highlighted and you guys can see where it is.
OK.
OK.
And then Mr. Deputy what do you see as the next steps for informing the board of those.
clarifications and or additions.
Because this comes back in two weeks.
Yes we don't.
Thank you.
We do not have a lot of time.
So I don't want to over promise here that you're going to be seeing an extremely different document.
We will definitely address the part in the third section and we will look at the other suggestions.
I'm assuming that those behind me have been taking notes to make sure that we do all of those.
I will say that our pension is going to be spare in the changes to the actual document just so that the city council who you also know has to go through the same process.
And I think it's important that we all try to stay as aligned as possible and still make both parties comfortable and satisfied.
I also think that a lot of the questions that you're raising tonight.
are not really policy partnership questions they're implementation questions and I want to keep those separate so we can answer them for you and you're comfortable with it but not try to wordsmith a document into a place where to rephrase your apt points two years from now we'll say oh we left something out.
Spare is often good.
So that will be our intent.
Director DeWolf at long last.
Thank you.
I we've been using the word consensus a lot and I just wanted to.
Director Burke has been working on policy and procedure 16 20 and in it it asks that in the spirit of collaboration board members are committed to sensitive workload issues etc. and will work with the chair.
So I want to be thoughtful about what are the things that are things we're just elevating that might need clarity and what are the things that we just need to follow.
the procedure of going through likely the exec committee to follow through on actual asks more just to flag.
I just I'm not sure how the process is.
The fact that I missed the line that you brought up And I'm embarrassed to tell you that in executive committee and it's a very good catch.
I don't know the answer to that.
I do think that we're all smart people I think we're collaborative people and we want the same thing.
And I think staff has heard us.
So I guess I'd like to see what comes out of this process.
And Lord knows we're very capable of speaking up.
And I just wanted to let you all know I don't know how I forgot tomorrow is our levy oversight committee and Director Mack and superintendent are our appointed members of — both shy violets.
And we'll be talking about this tomorrow then as well.
So I just wanted to share that with you.
Director Pinkham and then we're wrapping this up and moving on folks.
I'll just take another hour here.
No you won't.
Okay.
Five minutes for priority students and communities.
Students with disabilities aren't listed there but we do talk about since the disabilities and the SPP and SP plus does that almost like intentionally say oh we're only going to worry about since the disabilities in preschool.
What about beyond there.
So I was wondering if we can include the priority students include students with disabilities in Section 5. Also you say including you know what about foster students.
I know there's a bunch of different underrepresented students that we can look at that are underserved.
Who do we include.
And then other question is just as far as when we say Hispanic Latino do we need to make sure we say Latinx to be inclusive of gender issues.
Male female.
So you're talking about Section 5 and the priorities and I think there's this question parallels what we discussed in the strategic plan.
We don't want to try to name everyone because I'm sure we'll leave someone else.
So we're looking for something that is inclusive and that makes sure that we're not avoiding.
recognition of those that are requiring and needing and deserving the services.
But we won't be looking to include all groups if that works for you.
So could we probably put you know groups including but not limited to something that kind of a little bit of language as far as underserved.
And then about the Hispanic Latinx do we want to make that kind of scrutiny.
You're correct it should be Latinx.
Thank you.
OK moving on.
Thank you very much for coming down and hanging with us.
Much appreciated.
Number two board resolution 2018 19 dash 8 in support of interlocal procurement agreements using U.S. government contracts this came before A&F March 18th for.
Approval of this item would grant the superintendent the authority to delegate authority to district procurement management to enter into cost effective interlocal cooperative procurement agreements based on U.S. government contracts pursuant to the requirements of RCW 39.32.090 CFO JoLynn Berge take it away please.
Good evening JoLynn Berge chief financial officer.
So by way of background in May 2018 the state auditor's office issued a management letter to Seattle Public Schools regarding the need to improve practices around interlocal government cooperative procurement agreements to use federal government procurement contracts without needing to validate and document alignment of legal requirements and procurement thresholds.
A board resolution is required to authorize such activity.
Without this resolution the district can't efficiently use the U.S. government procurement contracts as allowed by RCW.
The resolution increases the procurement options the district can consider.
And the resolution was drafted to ensure that the district will be in full compliance with Washington law and receive the benefits of entering into interlocal cooperative agreements as part of its comprehensive approach to fiscally responsible purchasing practices.
Can you do that in plain language in one paragraph please.
Yeah we can't use federal contracts without the resolution.
OK.
Thank you.
Comments questions concerns from my colleagues.
This is a compliance issue correct.
Correct.
Thank you.
Director DeWolf please.
You look like you're going for it.
Seeing none.
Number three approval of amendment to Maxim Healthcare Services contract RFQ 0 2 7 5 8 came before A&F March 18th for.
Consideration approval of this item would authorize the superintendent to amend the contract with Maxim Health Care Services in the amount of five hundred forty six.
under the umbrella of RFQ 0 2 7 5 8. Parens regarding specially designed instruction for revised total contract amount of nine hundred fifty thousand dollars for behavior technicians and BCBA.
What's that acronym stand for please.
Oh that's a BCBA is a behavioral consultant.
I'll have to break it down I'll throw it to you.
Well when it comes back for action I'm going to call you out.
Acronym foul.
Support in the form of the draft contract amendment attached to the school board action report with any minor additions deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent take any necessary actions to implement the contract modification.
A quick recap of why we're looking at this and what it means to us please kind sir.
Board certified behavioral analyst is BCBA.
I'll get that broken down.
We'll get that modified for you.
This is again just a modified amount with a one of our many providers that provide support personnel under special education again as Mandated under the Individual with Disability Education Act we have to provide services that are listed on students IEPs in this particular case.
This particular service agency had additional personnel that specialize in helping with behavior technicians and again BCBAs.
So for them to work directly with students right now we're looking at 22 students.
Most of those students and those services are reimbursed actually by OSPI through the safety net process.
And do we not have our own staff that are BCBA folks.
Are they difficult to find etc etc.
They're difficult to find.
We're looking to add BCBA staff and actually PESB which is the board the.
section of OSPI which does board certification for professionals is looking around I believe September is what I was hearing around making them formally as a certificated member here in Washington State.
Will that help us.
Yes I like that.
Yes.
Why.
Because then it would be actually Straight honest it's going to be an identified certificated position that could be represented underneath the union.
So that's one thing that the union does look at.
Thank you.
Other questions comments concerns for Chief Jessee seeing none.
Thank you sir.
Number four BEX IV award construction contract P5 1 2 1 bid number B 1 1 8 2 3 to Jody Miller construction with Wing Luke Elementary School replacement project phase 2 came before Ops March 14th for.
Approval approval of this item would provide authorization for the superintendent to enter into a construction contract in the amount of thirty one thousand excuse me thirty one million.
Whoa.
We wish four hundred ninety six thousand seven hundred fifty dollars which includes the base bid plus alternate number one 2D 3B 4 5 6 7 8 and 9 plus Washington State.
I'll get you for that.
For the Wing Luke Elementary School replacement project phase 2. Take it away COO Podesta.
Fred Podesta chief operations officer.
This is a construction contract to replace Wing Luke Elementary School.
This may have come to the board before because this is the second time this project has been bid it was bid last fall bid against last month.
We were able to value engineer and get better bids this time around.
So it's more in line with our budget.
We've been working.
And a value engineer kind sir.
Value engineering is looking for opportunities to reduce construction costs and how things are designed.
And here the savings were found mostly in site preparation.
The original plan had had a lot of excavating and grading.
and building of retaining walls and we found ways to build a school without it.
The capital team has been working closely with the school design advisory team and has come up with a design that honors the traditions of the neighborhood and creates a opening welcoming open space for a lot of students who walk to school and a lot of parents who like to visit.
students during school hours so the classrooms are designed so you can observe classes from common spaces and that there are places to each classroom has display cases and cabinets to for students to kind of show cultural items.
So I think it's going to be a beautiful school and a great asset to that neighborhood.
Thank you.
Questions comments concerns Director Patu.
Is it normal to have more than one day of bidding going through a bidding process.
Now bids always open at a prescribed day and time.
So if you're asking the multiple bids no that you know we try to get our bids done once.
We didn't like the bids we got.
We had two bidders so we put it out again.
You know with some new specs we thought would save money.
We had four bidders the second time and we got the savings we were looking for.
Thank you.
Director Burke please.
For clarification either now or on the next round.
Can you share what was the budget amount.
What was the original bid.
Sure.
And then this thirty one million is the revised amount.
That'd be helpful.
Do you have a guesstimate now.
Well yes we were looking for about five million dollars in savings and we achieved that.
Thank you.
Other questions comments concerns.
Seeing none number 5 OSPI distressed school grant to award construction contract K 1 3 4 2 bid number 1 1 8 2 4 to CDK construction services Inc. for the Eckstein Middle School exterior sunshade installation project came before Ops March 14th for.
Approval of this item would provide authorization for the superintendent to enter into a construction contract in the amount of three hundred forty eight thousand dollars including base bid plus alternate number one plus Washington State sales tax and to authorize the superintendent to accept the distressed school grant funds for the Eckstein Middle School exterior sunshade installation project questions comments or concerns from my colleagues.
Director Geary.
I will have a very happy community around these sunshades.
This is one of these historic everybody's boiling up in the building.
I see Director DeWolf fanning himself so south the southern exposure in this middle school creates very very hot classrooms so being able to control.
I still I still have this vision that we take some of this asphalt out and we just plant a bank of trees on that south side.
I think it would be beautiful but I've been told that's not possible.
We do have other projects to help with the HVAC and the comfort level in that school.
Great.
To be continued.
Number six BTA IV award construction contract K 5 1 1 3 to King County Directors Association KCDA and Musco Sports Lighting LLC for the Garfield High School athletic field lighting project came before Ops March 14th for approval of this item would provide authorization for the superintendent to enter into a construction contract in the amount of four hundred $8,714 dollars.
There are no cents on any of these tonight.
Why is that.
Plus Washington state sales tax with any minor additions deletions and modifications deemed necessary by the superintendent and to take any necessary actions to implement the contract.
As you know athletic fields are a prized commodity in our system and with later bell times.
We need to work later into the evening to have practices so we've been lighting many of our fields.
Ballard High School, Roosevelt High School, Robert Eagle Staff Elementary and we'll do Garfield and Cleveland as well.
And so we are using a purchasing cooperative of King County administrators which gives us favorable pricing and given the city's energy code and Light dispersion requirements.
There's really only one manufacturer that that sells lights that will work in our application that we found and We can get those at an attractive pricing and efficiently through this purchasing cooperative
Questions comments concerns from my colleagues.
We have heard a fair amount of pushback from our neighborhoods and I believe that we are using less glaring.
We're using more focused lights now than we did in the past.
Is that correct sir?
Light emitting diodes for your acronym.
Thank you.
That produce something like less than two candle feet of light when you're within three feet of the edge of the lit area so.
These lights are meant to kind of control the dispersion of light, you know, where the light lands on the ground.
These are lights on high standards, so if you're far away, you still, you see some brightness.
It's unavoidable, but given the, you know, the constraints of physics, I think we're picking lights that will have the least impact on neighborhoods and the best benefit for our athletes and people that want to use these fields.
And we're good neighbors with the city and the athletic leagues as well.
Number seven BEX IV and BTA IV approval of the constructability report.
Didn't know that was a word.
Resolution number 2018 19 dash 19 certifying the intent to construct resolution number 2018 19 dash 20 certifying a five year use 30 year building life for the Daniel Bagley Elementary school modernization and addition project came before Ops March 14th for.
Consideration approval of this item would provide required approvals for the constructability report intend to intent to construct resolution in five year use 30 year building life resolution as required by the Washington Administrative Code.
Part of the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction OSPI and parents D as in dog form approval process to receive state funding assistance for the Daniel Bagley elementary school modernization and addition project.
Because the project has state funding this is a procedural step where we get outside engineers to review our designs and.
certified to the office of the superintendent of public instruction that our project is can be constructed that we will be able to have an educational purpose for the prescribed number of years.
And really it's an important QA step that we value.
The report is attached to the BAR if you're interested but to go and find go through with fine detail of our design and make suggestions and these Makes our projects better and and it's also required if we want this fund.
Richard Best gave us his tutorial on all the D forms about six months ago which was very helpful for us frankly.
We're rich in process.
Number eight BTA III BEX IV resolution 2018 19 dash 13. Excuse me.
Director.
Oh I thought you were wanting to talk about it.
Carol Merrill I like it.
OK.
Number eight.
Number eight and last I might add BTA III BEX IV resolution 2018 19 dash 13 final acceptance of contract K 5 0 6 9 with CDA construction services Inc. for the seismic upgrades at Salmon Bay K through 8 at Monroe school and the Decatur school project came before Ops March 14th for approval.
Approval of this item would give final acceptance of contract K 5 0 6 9 with CDK Construction Services Inc. for the seismic upgrades at Salmon Bay K through 8 and Monroe School and Decatur School projects.
Board approval allows the district to submit required documents to the state of Washington Department of Labor and Industries Department of Revenue and Employment Security Department and close out the project including authorizing the release of project retainee And let me just say something for the record.
We are a little punchy up here and we've made a few jokes but we take this extraordinarily seriously.
We have two folks on our board that have developed real expertise on this and that attend the BEX oversight committee.
We have a board director that goes through every change order on capital projects and has for the last several years.
So please do not mistake our good humor for being flippant about spending millions and millions of dollars of the public's funds.
Take it away COO Podesta.
And again this is a close out of this contract.
The work was satisfied satisfactorily performed at Salmon Bay and Decatur Elementary School.
These were seismic improvements and we need to close the contract and pay the contractor about seventy five thousand dollars in retainage.
And I think we should have a round of applause for every time we close out one of these.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Confetti.
I need to get those confetti things.
Oh shoot.
So I'll bring the confetti next week.
This meeting is adjourned at 9 0 4. Thanks folks very much for hanging with us.
Yeah, you have fun in Europe!
Yay!