For the entire agenda and reference materials, please see http://www.ccusd.org/ourpages/boe//994%202011-12%20(Current)/001%20Agenda/001%20English/2011-11-22.pdf
Friday, November 18, 2011
CCUSD School Board Meeting Preview
On Tuesday, November 22nd, the School Board meets at 7:00 at City Hall (9770 Culver Boulevard). The agenda will include:
A discussion about a no-bid contract issued by the school board to an architecture firm for approximately $400,000 to design the new sports complex. School district attorneys have written a legal memo outlining their views on the issue (see website below). Come Tuesday night to let the school board know whether they should be issuing large contracts without public bidding.
Changes to a board policy related to meeting conduct which includes most open meeting and brown act requirements. This policy is being reviewed because of an illegal section related to comments from the public.
Approval of the funding levels for the 4 capital improvement projects (elevators, athletic field renovation, robert frost auditorium, and solar power).
Approval of the 2012-2013 school year calendar with a start date of September 4th
Discussion related to the process for capital projects. This one is based on a proposal submited by an organization called ACE-Community (posted on this blog in an article by Jon Barton). The community organization is likely to want this process for the current projects and some members of staff seem to want it only for future projects. This should be interesting!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I absolutely oppose voting on these budgets at this time. Experts have NOT been hired for solar and Frost yet, so we have no idea if the proposed budgets put forward by District personnel are accurate. We involved an architect for the Athletics Complex to give us an accurate bid. Surely the solar and Frost projects deserve the same treatment? Best, Sarah Dry
ReplyDeleteIf funding for the four capital projects were independent -- they are not inasmuch as the District has a $12 million pot that is being divided among the identified projects -- then the question of budget level approval without expert architectural consultant feasibility plans & costs would not be at issue in the same way. However because the funding for these projects are entangled then it seems prudent that the Board/District have all available information on scope & costs for the projects before the vote. Also, not answered on the agenda is the degree to which the budget level approval fixes the final budgets and is binding. To be sure, I want to see the projects move forward as quickly as prudent and responsible, yet speed should not preclude informed judgement.
ReplyDeleteRespectfully,
Curtiss Rooks
I agree with the previous comments; it is too early to vote on the funding levels for all of the capital projecs. I think the ACE-Community organization is correct in wanting to see their proposed process applied to the current projects. Many of us voted for change because of the way things have been handled in the past; that change should begin now.
ReplyDeletePlease note an update from Jon Barton:
ReplyDelete"While the Superintendent accepted a number of our proposals, she has stated that it will only apply to 'Future' capital improvement projects, taking off the table the current projects and our communiy's proposals for these projects."