Hello Everyone - Hope you had a great weekend. In this update mainly I like to highlight the following:

1. Reminder: Tomorrow/Tuesday August 13th Regular Board Meeting at the DO. Speaker form here. Agenda here. Zoom link here. Hope to see you there! 
2. Agenda breakdown: Redflags with August 13th contracts proposed for ratification (more below)
3. Superintendent Performance Criteria: The August 1st notes do not elaborate on the Superintendent’s performance evaluation criteria (item D-3), nor do they provide any details on her compensation adjustments, if any. Additionally, the existing contract has not been updated to reflect the extension to 2028.
4. Reminder Trustee Area 3 Application open through August 20th. I encourage all Area 3 parents who are passionate about making a difference and positively impacting our children’s education to apply. There is a long road ahead with bringing stability to our district.
5. Important Upcoming Dates:

• • Tomorrow/Tuesday August 13th: Regular Board Meeting
  • Thursday August 22nd: BAC meeting. NOT open to the public. Committee not published
  • Tuesday August 27th: Special Board Meeting - Area 3 Selection
  • Thursday September 5th: BAC meeting. NOT open to the public. Committee not published
  • Tuesday September 10th: Regular Board Meeting

2 -  Redflags with August 13th contracts proposed for ratification

1.  Both contract lists include links to the respective executed contract pages. However, many of these contracts require permission to access. This information should be publicly available.
2. The July 2024 list:
   • An amount of $25,050.00 from unrestricted funds allocated to Leadership Associates for Superintendent Consulting for the Leadership Huddle. The link to this contract requires permission and is not publicly accessible despite being listed. It is crucial to understand the scope of this contract and its necessity given our current financial situation. Additionally, a justification is needed for why this expense couldn’t be managed in-house.
   • An annual amount of $28,000.00 from general funds is allocated for E-rate consulting services and form filing. It’s important to understand the scope of this contract, especially since the listed link requires permission and is not publicly accessible. Additionally, a justification is needed for why these forms cannot be filed in-house.
   • A one-time fee of $26,425.00 has been allocated for a Satchel renewal contract, aimed at conducting climate engagement surveys and reporting. Students will participate in climate and culture surveys throughout the year, with the data being used to inform decisions related to safety, MTSS, and other supports and interventions at both school sites and district-wide. This initiative directly aligns with one of the LCAP goals: LCFF / LCAP Goal 3.0. It is important to note that this survey has faced backlash from the parent community.
   • A one-time contract amount of $24,000.00 has been executed with Heather’s Behavior Support Services, in line with LCAP Goal 3.0.b, to provide Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS) Professional Development (PD) coaching. My main concern is whether the district has thoroughly evaluated all in-house options before engaging an external consulting firm for this service.
3. June 2024 Contracts List:
   • An annual amount of $40,718.00 is paid to the NWEA organization for MAP Growth Assessment testing from the LCFF fund. The main concern with this expense is its potential redundancy and overlap with the recently deployed and implemented i-Ready solution. Clarity on the purpose and effectiveness of this annual expense is needed.
4. There are significant costs associated with SPED contracts in June/July. This raises several questions: How does the SPED population in MHUSD compare to nearby districts? How much of the SPED population is served by MHUSD charter schools, and is the ratio consistent across all schools? Are there long-term strategies to employ SPED educators instead of relying on external consultants? Additionally, how do other districts manage to keep their budgets balanced while adequately serving their SPED populations?

In closing I like to leave you with another great concern: the unknown contract amount with MGT for BAC discussions.

As many of you may know, the formation of the Budget Advisory Committee was another result of a strong push from the community, not a proactive move by the district. The fact that this committee’s published members list and meetings remain closed to the public speaks volumes about the district’s culture of secrecy and lack of transparency.

Furthermore, the district has hired a controversial third-party consultant (more details on this here) to guide this advisory body. The contract amount is still unknown. This consultant is tasked with advising on nearly $26 million in expected cuts—a direct consequence of the district’s $17 million annual deficit spending under the current administration. The district’s unbalanced budget, with beyond 85% allocated to operational costs—a figure that has grown by nearly 10% over the last three years—highlights the poor management of one-time COVID funds, lack of sustainable expansion plan, and the overall financial mismanagement by this board and administration.