What we did versus county that will be live data. A district will be very personally speaking about their data and that is not what we proposed in november. Thank you, sandra. I appreciate the feedback. Madam chair, i forget the exact order, but i have the motion if you are ready, but dont want to rush it. Okay. But josh has completed his presentation on item 7. It is an action item. Im happy to entertain a motion. Mic please. I authorize the director contract authorization for regional lead county office of education in attachment 2. Second. Its been seconded. All in favor say, aye. Aye. Any opposed . Motion carries. Okay, item 8. Josh. [inaudible] [inaudible] this is the implementation of the pd plan. As i mentioned before we have 28 adopted plx. Some have facilitators, some cofacilitators. We have 40 facilitators that requires three plx coaches, 13 facilitators per plx. Two have been approved. We are very excited about those two individuals. We needed a third. So we reached out through a variety of sources from recommendations and they recommended that we work with a director from Ventura County office of ed, andy. This is a request to contract with the Ventura County office of ed not to exceed 60,000 plus travel and lodging for a third plx coach from the first of today through june of 2017. Okay, before i ask for any questions or comments, i neglected to ask whether there was any Public Comment on item 7 . Any Public Comment . Okay. Thank you. Back to item 8. Any questions or comments to joshs presentation . Okay, seeing none, i would entertain a motion on this item . Im making a motion to add the plx coach contract. Second. All in favor say, aye. Aye. Any opposed . Im supposed to ask for Public Comment before we do this. Im new at this. Im practicing. Any Public Comment on item 8. Okay. Item 9. Josh . As i mentioned in the remarks on item 6, we have worked with west ed to serve as a content consultant to help us develop the fall workshops and develop the content for the meeting next week. Their support has been essential to this success for what we have done so far. We want to continue to be able to work with them. We have used up almost all of the contract that we had with them, since they were so useful and important. So we wanted to one, continue our work, expand the scope to include component 4 around the support desk. Currently the scope is just the workshops and the content elaborate, and to increase the contract with additional optional entries of 30. The total potential amount would be 200,000. Any questions, comments. Any Public Comment on this item . Okay. Im ready to entertain a motion. I move, that we authorize the contract for content consulting services, for components 1, 2 and 4 of lcff professional Development Training implementation plan. May i suggest we we include the office of fiscal agent. We authorize the director and the fiscal agent. Second. Okay. Its been moved and seconded. Any Public Comment . All in favor say, aye. Aye. Any opposed . Any opposition . Thats passed unanimously. Are we done with you, josh . Item 10. I will be back. Aida . Thank you, good morning. Madam chair and board members. I will be presenting item 10. It is an action item. This is to ask, staff is requesting approval for our three additional pilot programs that districts Greenfield UnionElement School district, dos palos loma Unified School District and newark Unified School District. We had an opportunity to be at each of our districts for one or 2 days. I will start to talk a little bit about each of the districts. We began with actually dos palos. Socorro met with the district superintendent and had a presentation with the board and very happy to be a participating district. It is a small rural district in the central valley. Its in merced county. It has an enrollment of 2277 with an unduplicated count of 90 and a high latino population at 77 . 29 of the students are identified as English Learners and found the district to be amenable. The board did approve unanimously to participate in the program. It partners with ccee and new superintendent in position and we are very excited to be with him. Greenfield element, we spent two half days, suji myself, carl cohn, ed. D and we met with the community, parents. Its a Great Community to be working with. It also has a new superintendent. A very high latino composition. We also did receive unanimous support and they are also very excited for us to be there. Our next district was newark Unified School District. This district is also a new superintendent in the district. We made a board presentation carl cohn, ed. D and myself. We met with the board, a very involved board and really interested in how to support this issue of declining enrollment. In the last 5 years they have lost over 600 students. They lose their students to their neighboring school district, fremont district. Their goal is to be a district of choice. And the school collected selected in the county of alameda and a diverse population. Spanish speaking population is 53 and also about 26 of the students are English Learners. We are funding the districts as i mentioned before at 50 for their enrollment count and 75 for their unduplicated amount. Dos palos is 265 and greenfield 276 . Whats the process, lets say newark is getting half a Million Dollars. Whats the accountability for those dollars . The money sits in with ccee. We dont just put the money in the account. We begin with the process of where the support and areas there is need. Once we establish this, we look at their own plan, we look at the Funding Sources and the l cap to determine if in fact there is needed funding. We are going to find there are going to be areas where there are additional dollars needed in the areas where the money is already there. Specifically how well tell you how we spend the dollars, we wont know until we know what the area of focus is going to be and how much that is going to take. In the case they dont have the sources in their own budgets to do this work. Once you determine that area of focus, how are you going to accomplish that . Whats your plan for that support . Each district will have a lead and that lead will determine the support for the district. We are not looking at contracting anyone out yet. We are looking to manage the work. If there is an area specifically that we cant support, yes, we will contract out. But thats not where we are right now. We are looking at them determining their area of focus, building capacity at the district level. It can come in a variety of ways. It could be in governance. We have a district currently right now asking for support with their governing board. We have the capacity to do that and we have carl cohn, ed. D to support us in that area and that will not be any cost to the district. Thank you. You are welcome. Other questions or comments . Aida, can you just refresh my memory last time we approved four . Yes, we approved woodland Unified School District palos verdes and marin county and sauls alito. I want to say you have been a great advocate or you have been recruiting. Greenfield is one that sticks to me. The state board tried to take over greenfield and applied an academic trustee. Its been a challenging district. They have really the best interest of the students at heart. Im glad they are doing that and appreciate that. Both the geographic of diversity and the economically disadvantaged. I dont know the foster youth there. I am very small. I appreciate the work you have done to cultivate that. We are very interested in learning about them. Right. Im willing to entertain a motion. First, is there any Public Comment on this item . Okay, seeing none, i appreciate a motion please. In making a motion, i will also indicate the diversity of the location is great and it looks like you have large english learner and addressing this with the best approach is great. I move this item. Second. We have a motion and second. All in favor say, aye. Aye. Any opposed . It passes unanimously. Item 11. Josh . Still good morning. When esh and i sat down after the planning phase of the workshop and the workshop itself, we figured out that after the planning we need two additional staff people. We worked with the Hr Department and we came up with a new position, senior manager for training. This is an item to request actually two people to fill this position. Two senior managers for training. The need here is straight forward. Now we have a sense of what it takes to implement the pd plan. Workshop planning and implementation requires more staff. We want to continue this outreach with stakeholders. We need to be out at the same time. Including expanding the content library. The 200 files to be submitted and the maintenance of those files and views and dates. The trainings of individuals to access the library, and the support desk. While we are planning what that will look like, whether its someone actually getting on the phone and talking with the person, working with cde state board to develop a response to the inquiry, we think that these two positions will be critical over the next two 1 2 years to make sure that we can implement this as successfully as we have so far. Thats basically the presentation. I should mention that these two new positions dont require or dont involve any increase in towards spending. Its in the 2 0000000 budget and first year budget. 5 million was planned to be suspended approved by the board last month and its in that allocation for year one as well. Do you want to clarify that positions will be potentially termed out if additional funding is not . Yes. Thank you. Because the two positions are part of the 20 million budget. When the 20 million runs out at the end of 1819 school year, june of 2019. These positions will no longer be funded and the positions will be eliminated. So i will ask apropos of our conversation on item 5, whether you see these positions morphing into or dropping off or becoming something, we can see clearly what those steps look like when we see the Expansion Plan come back. Very much so. I wholeheartedly support the creation of these positions. I think it will allow us to achieve our mission and although things may a little bit over time based on the needs, one thing that will never change is the need for training and the need for professional development and the engagement in the field. So some of the tacticses and positions may change, i recommend we move forward. I move that we approve creation of new positions senior manager training. The accrual and the fiscal agent to hire those two positions. So moved. Second. Its been moved and seconded. Is there any Public Comment on this item . Seeing none, all in favor say, aye. Aye. Any opposed . Okay. Passes unanimously. Just to say thank you. For those who are watching, esh and i are really good to work with. Put that on the record. Great. Item 12. Josh. This does not involve a powerpoint. There was a miscommunication when esh was hired around the healthcare costs and when he was enthusiastically going to work for us, but in order to address the communication around the difference in what the healthcare premium contribution for the employee would be, we wanted to adjust the salary so what we committed to him is actually what he receives. This is a slight increase to his annual salary to understand what the healthcare cost would be. Any questions, comments . I would move approval of the item. Okay, its been moved and seconded. Is there any Public Comment on item 12 . Seeing none. All in favor say, aye. Aye. Any opposed . That passes unanimously. Thank you. Item 13, carl. Carl cohn, ed. D this item is an interesting one. It comes to us with a number of concerns. As you know the county office is the fiscal agent for the collaborative and in the last couple weeks or so had some very interesting conversations in history discussions about the origin of this road that the Riverside County office of ed has been playing for us. We were alerted a few weeks ago that there was a new conversation taking place between riverside and the cde with regard to the indirect cost associated with the ccee contract, and one of the things that we wanted to do was to bring this to the board for discussions in my communications with the county office of ed. They have indicated that their position basically is that they want to be held harmless for the work that they are doing to support the collaborative, and at one point the conversation was around an increase in indirect cost from 1 percent to 7. 19 . So this has been in the mix in the discussion. Yesterday when i met with jeff bell at the department of finance, he reminded me that the governors budget bill memorialized his role as the approver of all expenditures with regard to the ccee. He felt that these discussions should rightfully start with the department of finance, but there are also other issues, and i just want to say personally to ken young, i know he is leaving for a new position, how much i have appreciated the role at the Riverside County office has played and the help that they have been, but this may well be the beginning of a new conversation. Tim, do you want to talk about the issue . So a little bit of background. When the county office was first invited to submit proposals for the work along with other county offices to be the fiscal agent and i think actually it was even broader than that, the scope of work was, the agency didnt really exist more than on paper. And i think at the time there was an expectation that the county was going to play a role that would not have much cost affiliated with that. So, the county agreed to provide the indirect, the whole support service system, the collaborative for 1 . And as time went on, our cost up until this point have far exceeded over 1 overall. We have an agreement with the department to continue the existing contract work that was originally set up for 1 . Really what the indirect request for consideration has to do with i think its two amendments to the contract. Both of them have to do with the pilot work and with the other piece of work thats taking place. I dont know what the name of that is, josh . Professional development . I was thinking it was networks. [ laughter ] the question really applies to those two specific areas of the work. Some amendments to the contract, and the 7 whatever the exact rate is, thats the cde approved indirect rate. So, we are looking to ask the collaborative, the department of finance to consider a different indirect rate for that work from the original work. Thats still in contract and in this scope. Thats why the county Office Brought this up. We had began conversations with the department a few months back. The contract renewed in october . The contract goes through march. Okay. That contract i thought went through october. Thats where we are at this point. Okay. Just a question. This is on the indirect cost. Is there clarity or should more work be done to bring greater clarity to the direct cost . There is expenses that you have as part of the overhead which i understand is indirect cost and there are specifics that staff needs to come here. We are requesting some specific work item from the Riverside Office of education. Are those billed then directly reimbursed and is there initiative to work through along the bigger issue . Michael . You were looking for differentiation between direct cost and indirect cost. I think the indirect cost and by their nature are parts that are pretty hard to define because there are different level pieces to it. The direct cost would be the im trying to think off my head to what would be involved in the indirect cost that is not included in the 1 contract that was already established. Off the top of my head, i dont have the pieces to that but i understand what you are asking for. I think thats a reasonable request as we look at the staffing at ccee. So i have no issue with that request to the department of finance. My greater concern i think is your loss, ken, i want to again support your efforts with the ccee and your support with the county of supts as superintendent as you have been a leader with us. My understanding is your board has not chosen one yet, is that correct . Thats correct. The board will make that decision in february. I know if that person had been as supportive as you were at ccee is a question. Will they support the board of ccee . Thats my question to you, ken . My response to that and i appreciate it is that once a superintendent is selected, their work is to do the work in the office to do and the work in the office for the county superintendent to fill the contracts that we have. The county board, i dont know that this is an issue with the county board with one way or the other. There is many things that the county office is involved in. I dont see that this particular issue has raised to the surface with them or how they would be involved in taking this work into consideration for selecting a new county superintendent, but i certainly cant speak for them. They have not given me any inclination on the issues whether or not they are collaborative. I will add to that point and i want to share my sadness that you are leaving, ken. We wish you the best and appreciate all the work that you have done on our behalf. I wonder if its not too late to think about the position of the agent. Im talking to deputy superintendent glen price. When this collaborative was established and there is a question in my mind that is a little convoluted with how it works. An rfp was put out to all counties. There were a number of counties that replied. Riverside because of kens leadership on this, i think it was low bid, perhaps 1 and it looked like a good deal at the time. The total budget at ccee has gone up dramatically which means that 1 yield a lot more money than it did to begin with. In any event. I think if the contract is up in march, it might behoove us as part of the bigger conversation as to what the expansion should look like and what the organization should look like to us and should we do a new rfp and of course riverside is welcome to apply as well as other counties an