When “Charter” Is About Standing, Not Branding.

I keep coming back to the same tension in school governance. On the one hand, public schools are a local institution. They are supposed to be governed by local authority, accountable to local voters, and designed to serve the whole community. That is the baseline assumption most of us start with, and it is hard to improve on in theory.

On the other hand, the community that "the district" is meant to represent is rarely a single thing. It is a mix of parents, students, educators, administrators, unions, neighbors, taxpayers, and, increasingly, demographic and economic groups whose interests do not line up neatly. When a district moves under fiscal stress, or under institutional capture (sometimes subtle, sometimes not), the formal structures of local governance can feel less like a public forum and more like a narrow channel.

That is why the word charter matters. Not because it is magic, and not because it is a synonym for excellence, but because it describes a different allocation of authority. And when the stakes are high, authority is the only thing that really counts.

Adriana Gutierrez’s reporting in The Press Democrat describes a familiar scene: a crowded room, kids stepping up to a microphone, and adults trying to turn grief into public comment. On January 13, 2026, the Rincon Valley Union School District board voted 5 to 0 to close Douglas Whited Elementary Charter School at the end of this school year. The district framed the closure as a budget move aimed at making a significant dent in an $8.5 million deficit and saving about $1.2 million. (Gutierrez, "Rincon Valley trustees approve Douglas Whited Elementary Charter School closure", The Press Democrat (Jan. 14, 2026).)

The district’s narrative is straightforward. Interim Superintendent Mike Herfurth said the recommendation was not a reflection on Whited’s staff or families. Ron Calloway, a former Mark West superintendent now advising the district, presented an internal analysis and said the decision was not predetermined. Trustees were told Whited rose to the top because it had fewer students to relocate, the shortest travel to other schools, resale opportunities, and a path to defer about $10 million in upgrades. (Id.)

The objections in the room were also straightforward, and they were not just sentiment. Speakers demanded an accounting of real savings and pointed to the Santa Rosa City Schools experience where projected savings later moved. Students and parents pointed to what a closure does to working families, routines, and trust. The article reports that Whited has the largest number of English learners in the district and the third largest number of socioeconomically disadvantaged students, which makes any closure argument carry an equity burden whether or not the district wants that burden. (Id.)

The point of focusing on "charter" here is to understand what the community can and cannot do when the governing institution says, in effect, "this is necessary". Many people hear "charter" and assume "independent from the district". Sometimes that is true. Sometimes it is not. In California, the practical distinction that matters is whether a charter is governed by an independent board with its own standing, or whether it is functionally governed as a program within the district.

If a charter is independent, it is not simply another campus. It may be subject to oversight, but it has its own governance. That matters in a moment of conflict because it changes what the district can do unilaterally and what requires a formal process with grounds and procedural safeguards.

Education Code section 47607 sets out grounds and procedures for revoking a charter, and it contemplates an appeals path. (Educ. Code § 47607.) It is not written as a convenience clause for districts that need to move quickly. It is written as a set of constraints.

If a charter is dependent, those constraints become less meaningful in practice, because the district may be both operator and decisionmaker. You still have rules for closure mechanics, records, and closeout. California’s closure regulations include notice and record transfer requirements, and they anticipate an independent closeout audit after closure. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 11962.) But the deeper question is standing. Who gets to say "no" with legal effect, and who is left with only public comment.

That is why charters function differently depending on structure. A charter that can be shut down as if it were simply a campus is not a counterweight to district power. It may be a programmatic variation, and it may do good work, but it is not a distinct civic instrument. If the point of charter law is to allow communities to sponsor educational models that differ from the prevailing district equilibrium, then the meaningful question is whether the charter has enough institutional independence to survive the moments when the district’s interests and the community’s preferences diverge.

Put differently, "charter" is not a label of quality. It is a label of constitutional design. This is also where process comes back in. Process cannot erase the loss of a school. But process can limit the way that loss spreads. It can reduce harm, and it can preserve legitimacy.

The district has an obligation now that goes beyond defending the vote. It needs to publish a transition plan that answers practical questions and does so in plain language. That plan should explain how students will be assigned, what transfer priorities will apply, what transportation supports will be offered, and how English learner services will be maintained. It also should articulate how certificated and classified staff will be treated, and what commitments the district is making about reporting whether the projected savings were achieved.

The district should also say clearly what kind of charter Whited is in governance terms, and what closure procedures govern it, so that the public understands which safeguards do and do not apply. None of that reopens the vote, and none of it resolves the underlying dispute about whether this was the right campus to close.

It does something more basic. It tells families that the district understands it is exercising authority, not just managing a spreadsheet. And it tells the community that the difference between independent and dependent is not a technicality. It is the difference between having institutional standing and having only a microphone.

On the Naming of Roosevelt Roads.

Roosevelt Roads, 1996. 

Source: The U.S. National Archives

The name Roosevelt Roads has been coming up in the news again, largely in connection with U.S. military operations and planning in the Caribbean. It appears in briefings, in reporting about basing and logistics, and in the background of discussions about regional security. Each time it appears, the name itself is treated as unremarkable, as if it were simply another proper noun.

It is not. By the middle of the twentieth century, almost nobody was naming places “roads” anymore, at least not in the maritime sense. Ports were ports. Harbors were harbors. Terminals were terminals. The older vocabulary of anchorage had already been pushed aside by a civilian language that emphasized infrastructure, jurisdiction, and control.

And yet Roosevelt Roads exists. That makes the name worth examining on its own terms, especially now, because it does not fit the period in which it was chosen and it does not fit the language that surrounds modern military logistics. This was not a colonial survival or a linguistic accident. Roosevelt Roads was named deliberately, at a time when the word “roads” was already fading even within professional navigation. The question is not where the word came from. The question is why it was still usable, and who still had reason to use it.

In classical maritime usage, “the roads,” or roadstead, refers to a partially sheltered anchorage where ships can ride at anchor without entering a fully enclosed harbor. It is open water, but not exposed water. It is a place to wait, assemble, or stage operations without committing to shore facilities. Historically, that distinction mattered because fleets often needed flexibility more than protection.

By the early twentieth century, that way of thinking had largely disappeared from civilian life. Commercial shipping had become port-centered. Harbors were dredged, walled, administered, and priced. The language followed the infrastructure. Words that implied judgment or contingency gave way to words that implied permanence and control. The same limited vocabulary appears repeatedly: port, harbor, terminal, facility. These terms work well in contracts, statutes, and insurance policies. They leave little room for interpretation.

“Roads” does none of that. Roosevelt Roads was not named by a municipality, a port authority, or a developer. It was named by the United States Navy in the late 1930s and early 1940s, when the base at Ceiba, Puerto Rico was developed as a major Atlantic fleet installation. That institutional context matters, because navies do not name places the way civilian systems do.

Naval naming remains operational rather than managerial. It is concerned with what ships do in a place, not how goods move through it or how the place is branded. A naval anchorage does not need to promise efficiency or permanence. It needs to provide depth, maneuvering room, and options.

A roadstead is not a port. It is a space where fleets assemble, where ships wait for orders, where vessels can anchor without binding themselves to shore infrastructure. It signals flexibility rather than throughput. That is exactly what Roosevelt Roads was designed to provide, and that is why the term made sense to the Navy even after it had fallen out of civilian use.

Calling it “Roosevelt Harbor” would have been inaccurate. Calling it “Ceiba Naval Port” would have implied something narrower and more civilian than the Navy intended. The word “roads” signaled open anchorage, deep water, and fleet-scale operations. It described function rather than facilities, and it was a conscious choice.

What makes Roosevelt Roads especially revealing is that by the time it was named, most of the forces that eliminated older maritime language were already firmly in place. Cartography had standardized. Port authorities governed commercial waterfronts. Insurance markets demanded clean categories. Rail and highway networks had integrated ports into national systems. Civilian naming had little patience for words that sounded conditional or old.

Roosevelt Roads survived anyway because it bypassed those systems. It was federal property, so there was no municipal naming process and no competing civilian identity to overwrite it. The name entered circulation through military orders, base designations, and naval charts rather than commercial atlases or tourism materials. Once a name is embedded in operational documentation, changing it is costly and risky. Continuity matters more than linguistic neatness.

The base also became part of national defense history. Names associated with military installations acquire a kind of inertia that civilian places rarely enjoy. They are not casually rebranded, even when their function evolves or their operational status changes.

Timing mattered as well. Roosevelt Roads arrived too late to be modernized into “Harbor,” but too early to sound archaic even within the Navy itself. In the late 1930s, naval planners still understood what a roadstead was and still had a use for the concept. A generation later, radar, aviation, and electronic navigation would make that vocabulary largely unnecessary. You do not get another Roosevelt Roads after Roosevelt Roads.

This is why the name is more revealing than Hampton Roads. Hampton Roads survived because it was old, large, shared, and already embedded in regional identity. Roosevelt Roads survived because it was intentionally archaic, chosen by an institution that still spoke an older maritime language after most civilian systems had moved on. It is likely the last major American place deliberately named “Roads,” rather than inheriting the term from the age of sail.

After World War II, the conditions disappear. Strategic thinking shifts toward air power. Electronic navigation replaces anchorage lore. Ports become fully engineered systems governed by authorities and statutes. Naval bases are named after people or missions rather than water features. The vocabulary changes because the world it described no longer exists.

Seen this way, the reappearance of Roosevelt Roads in current reporting is not just a matter of geography or nostalgia. It is a reminder of how institutional language persists, and of who retains the authority to keep using an older vocabulary when everyone else has moved on. Railroads flattened names to serve schedules. Port authorities flattened names to assert control. Courts flattened names to reduce ambiguity. Insurers flattened names to price risk.

The Navy did not need to do that. Roosevelt Roads survived because it belonged to a system that still valued anchorage over infrastructure, flexibility over branding, and continuity over clarity. The name tells you who was doing the naming, and what they cared about, at the moment it mattered.

Press Questions, 11-25-24. Moody's Credit Downgrade of Sonoma Valley Unified.

 On Wednesday, November 20, Moody's downgraded the credit rating of Sonoma Valley Unified. The press release is here. I answered questions from the Santa Rosa Press-Democrat/Sonoma Index-Tribune regarding the downgrade today, which are below. Photos of are our new dog, adopted from the Marin Humane Society this weekend -- she's a sweetheart. 

---

1. The first two paragraphs state, “Moody's Ratings (Moody's) has downgraded Sonoma Valley Unified School District, CA's issuer rating to A1 from Aa3 and its general obligation unlimited tax (GOULT) rating to Aa3 from Aa2. The district has approximately $163 million in debt outstanding. The downgrade reflects the district's weakened available general fund balance providing the district with less financial flexibility.” Do these downgrades surprise you?

The downgrades by Moody's do not come as a surprise to me. For several years, I have expressed concerns about the district's financial practices, particularly our ongoing deficits and the failure to adopt balanced budgets. Two years ago, I advocated for the district to only pass balanced budgets to prevent the degradation of our general fund balance, which is essential for maintaining financial flexibility.

Despite my consistent refusal to approve unbalanced budgets, the majority of the board has postponed making the difficult decisions necessary to align expenditures with our revenues. This reluctance to address the structural deficit has led to a material weakening of SVUSD's financial condition, as now reflected in Moody's assessment.

The rating agencies have evaluated the District's financial practices over the past several years, and the downgrades are a direct consequence of not taking responsible fiscal actions when they were needed. This situation underscores the importance of promptly implementing measures to restore financial stability. SVUSD should take immediate steps to address these issues to regain the confidence of stakeholders and improve its credit standing.

2. What impact will they have on SVUSD? How serious is this situation?

The downgrades by Moody's will have significant implications for the District. First and foremost, they directly affect the value of existing bonds, making them less attractive to investors and potentially increasing the interest rates faced on future debt issuances. This means that any new borrowing will likely be more expensive, leading to higher costs for taxpayers through increased property taxes dedicated to bond repayment.

This situation also reduces financial flexibility. A weakened general fund balance limits the ability to respond to unforeseen events, such as natural disasters or unexpected state funding changes. For instance, in the past, the District has faced challenges like wildfires that required immediate financial resources to address damages and ensure the safety of students and staff. A robust general fund is essential to navigate such emergencies without compromising educational services.

The downgrades are a clear signal that current financial practices need adjustment. Continuing on the current path could lead to further downgrades, which would exacerbate the financial strain on the district and the community.The District must take decisive action to align expenditures with revenues. This includes making difficult but necessary decisions about consolidating campuses and right-sizing operations to reflect the significant decline in enrollment experienced over the past two decades.

By addressing these challenges promptly and collaboratively, the District can work towards restoring financial health. Doing so will help regain the confidence of investors and, most importantly, ensure that it continues to provide quality education to students without placing undue financial burdens on the community.

3. The second paragraph states that the district’s weakened available general fund balance provides the district with less financial flexibility. In what ways?

The weakened available General Fund balance limits the District's financial flexibility in several significant ways. Firstly, it restricts the ability to respond promptly and effectively to unforeseen events. For instance, natural disasters like wildfires pose a substantial risk to District facilities. In 2017, fires came perilously close to Dunbar Elementary School, causing minor damage. Had the campus suffered more severe harm, immediate funds would have been required to restore it, likely drawing from General Fund reserves. A healthier General Fund balance would enable the District to address such emergencies without diverting resources from other essential areas.

Secondly, a diminished General Fund creates challenges in navigating financial uncertainties at the state level. Economic downturns or changes in state funding can negatively impact revenue streams. During the Great Recession, many districts faced significant financial strain due to shifts in state budgets. While this District successfully navigated that period, future economic challenges could arise, and robust reserves would provide a necessary cushion to maintain operations and programs without drastic cuts.

Additionally, the weakened General Fund affects the capacity to manage long-term liabilities, such as pension obligations and other commitments to employees. Without sufficient reserves, the District has less flexibility to address these obligations without impacting current educational services.

Overall, the reduced financial flexibility hampers effective planning, investments in necessary improvements, and the ability to safeguard the quality of education provided. Rebuilding the General Fund balance is essential to restoring the capacity to handle unexpected challenges and ensuring stable financial footing for the District's future.

4. What is the difference between an issuer rating of A1 and an issuer rating of Aa3?

The difference between an issuer rating of A1 and an issuer rating of Aa3 lies in the level of creditworthiness and financial stability as assessed by Moody's. An Aa3 rating is higher than an A1 rating in Moody's hierarchy. Specifically, an Aa3 rating falls into the "high quality" category, indicating very low credit risk and strong financial health. In contrast, an A1 rating is considered "upper-medium grade," still reflecting low credit risk but with a higher susceptibility to long-term financial challenges compared to entities rated in the Aa category.

The downgrade from Aa3 to A1 suggests that the District's financial position has weakened, moving it down the ladder of credit quality. While the District remains investment grade, the shift signals increased concern from the rating agency about its financial practices and overall creditworthiness. This change not only affects the perceived value of existing bonds but may also lead to higher borrowing costs in the future, as investors might demand higher interest rates to compensate for the increased risk.

Moody's has also indicated the potential for further downgrades if the District does not address its structural deficit by 2026. This highlights the need for prompt and effective action to improve financial stability. Restoring a higher credit rating will require eliminating the structural deficit and rebuilding General Fund reserves, demonstrating a strong commitment to fiscal responsibility.

Overall, the difference between an A1 and an Aa3 rating reflects a decline in the District's financial health. Addressing the underlying issues that led to this downgrade is essential to enhance credit standing, reduce future borrowing costs, and ensure the trust of investors and community stakeholders.

5. What is the difference between a GOULT rating of Aa3 and a GOULT rating of Aa2?

The difference between a GOULT (General Obligation Unlimited Tax) rating of Aa3 and Aa2 highlights a concerning trend in the District's credit quality and financial stability as evaluated by Moody's. While both ratings remain within the "high-grade" category, the shift from Aa2 to Aa3 represents a decline in perceived financial health and increased exposure to potential financial challenges. An Aa2 rating reflects a stronger capacity to meet financial commitments, whereas an Aa3 rating signals a notable weakening in financial fundamentals.

This downgrade is not merely a technical adjustment—it serves as a warning of the District's deteriorating fiscal trajectory. The implications extend beyond current borrowing costs; the trend line suggests the potential for further downgrades if the underlying issues are not addressed promptly. Moody's has specifically cited the structural deficit and weakened reserve balances as key concerns, and the current stance of the Board appears to lack the urgency needed to reverse this trajectory.

Further downgrades would have significant consequences, including increased borrowing costs and diminished investor confidence, ultimately placing a greater financial burden on taxpayers. To prevent these outcomes, decisive action is required to stabilize the District’s finances. Addressing the structural deficit, rebuilding the General Fund balance, and implementing strong fiscal oversight are critical steps to halt this downward trend and restore financial stability.

The downgrade to Aa3 signals growing skepticism about the District's financial management. Without action, the likelihood of additional downgrades appears high, threatening the District’s ability to sustain its financial commitments and maintain public trust.

6. The weakened general fund reserves is also mentioned, and Moody’s email states that this is mainly due to the district paying for salary increases of over 24% over the past four years, with some of those increases bring paid for by using one-time funds. I realize the board felt a needed to increase salaries to attract and maintain quality teachers, but given the circumstances, why were such large increases approved by the board?

Over the past twenty years in Sonoma Valley Unified, student performance has steadily declined. The Board has recognized the importance of attracting and retaining quality teachers to maintain high educational standards. Understanding that competitive compensation is essential for teacher recruitment and retention, the decision to increase salaries was intended to benefit students by ensuring access to excellent educators.

At the same time, the District has experienced a decline in enrollment of approximately 40%. As a result, it continues to operate more campuses than necessary for the current student population. The failure to right-size operations has led to expenditures that exceed revenues.

Some trustees were hesitant to make the difficult decisions required to adjust the District's footprint, such as consolidating campuses. While raising salaries was a positive, popular, and necessary step, it was not accompanied by essential cost-saving measures. This reluctance to address structural issues resulted in the use of one-time funds to support ongoing expenses, further weakening the General Fund reserves highlighted by Moody's.

In essence, the salary increases were approved in an effort to improve educational quality but without implementing the necessary fiscal adjustments to sustain them. The Board failed to balance the commitment to competitive teacher compensation with responsible financial management. This failure includes avoiding the tough but necessary decisions to align the District's operations with its current enrollment and financial realities to ensure long-term sustainability.

7. The letter states, “Management is taking steps to align ongoing revenues with ongoing expenditures. This includes possible school closures and additional expenditure reductions. The district expects its declining enrollment, that was exacerbated during the pandemic, to continue to decline, but at a slower pace.” Do you feel that the district is taking sufficient actions to address its financial problems?

No, the District is not taking sufficient action to address its financial problems. Persistent mistakes in fiscal management continue to undermine its ability to achieve stability.

First, the District has delayed decisions on school closures, prolonging the process and preventing necessary cost savings. This delay hampers the ability to adjust operations to address the significant decline in enrollment effectively.

Second, the District is planning to spend additional funds to upgrade Altimira Middle School, despite uncertainty over whether remaining bond funds can cover the costs. There is no clear understanding of the project's scope, cost, or timeline. This approach ignores the availability of Adele Harrison Middle School, a newer campus where consolidation could occur more efficiently and with fewer expenses, conserving funds while expediting the process.

Additionally, the District is deferring further elementary school closures, relying on deficit spending to maintain operations. Credit rating agencies have made it clear that eliminating the structural deficit and rebuilding the General Fund reserve to at least 10% is essential to regain a higher credit rating. Continued deficit spending worsens financial challenges and risks further downgrades.

The District has also misrepresented budgets with a 3% reserve—the absolute minimum required—as balanced. In truth, reserves have been steadily declining, and these budgets have included deficits. Labeling such budgets as balanced contradicts fundamental fiscal principles and erodes credibility.

The refusal to act promptly, coupled with misleading fiscal characterizations and continued delays, prevents effective resolution of the structural deficit. While the best time to address these issues was years ago, the District must take decisive action now to meet community expectations and use resources wisely.

Moreover, prioritizing expenditures on aging campuses over consolidating into newer facilities strains the budget and potentially diminishes educational quality. Failing to reduce the operational footprint further increases management costs and decreases the efficiency of educational programs.

While the Valley's economic base remains healthy, declining student performance has a negative impact on home values and long-term economic growth. Addressing financial issues without improving educational outcomes will not fully resolve the challenges faced.

In summary, the District must make difficult decisions swiftly to right-size operations, eliminate the structural deficit, rebuild reserves, and enhance educational quality. Only through comprehensive and prompt action can these financial problems be effectively addressed, restoring confidence and meeting the community's expectations.

8. The letter also states, “The rating also incorporates the district's growing tax base with solid resident income and wealth indicators. The district's leverage profile is above average but should remain manageable given the district has no near term debt plans. What is a leverage profile and why is this important?

A leverage profile refers to the amount of debt a district holds relative to its financial resources. It encompasses total debt obligations, their structure, and the district's capacity to meet these commitments. A manageable leverage profile reflects financial stability and the ability to handle debt without overextending resources. This directly affects the District's credit rating, which in turn influences borrowing costs and financial flexibility.

For Sonoma Valley, an above-average leverage profile means the District carries more debt relative to its financial resources than is typical for similar districts. While the rating agency notes that this remains manageable in the absence of immediate plans for new debt, concerns persist regarding current initiatives that could disrupt this balance.

The District is considering significant expenditures, including geotechnical retrofits to Altimira Middle School, estimated at $4 to $9 million. These figures are not based on firm quotes, and with rising construction costs, actual expenses will probably exceed projections. The timing and funding of this project remain uncertain, and existing bond proceeds, previously committed to other projects, are unlikely to cover the full cost. Pursuing additional debt to finance these upgrades would further increase the District's leverage, potentially affecting its credit rating and overall financial health.

Additionally, the District has a newer middle school campus, Adele Harrison, built only 20 years ago, that could be utilized more effectively without incurring substantial new expenses. Investing heavily in an older facility requiring costly upgrades, rather than maximizing the use of existing assets, raises concerns about prudent financial management, particularly given the current leverage profile.

It is essential for the District to thoroughly evaluate its capital improvement plans in light of its debt levels. Avoiding unnecessary debt and strategically utilizing existing resources will help maintain a healthier leverage profile. This approach supports financial stability, preserves the District's credit rating, and ensures funds are allocated to best serve the educational needs of the community.

9. It also states these factors that could lead to an upgrade in rankings: 1) sustained improvement in available general fund balance to levels close to or above 10% of general fund revenue; 2) material reduction in long term liability ratio to levels close to 250% of revenue and 3) Deeper entrenchment into community funded status that improves financial performance. How difficult will it be for the district to achieve these things?

Achieving these factors will be challenging for the District but is necessary for improving its financial standing and credit rating. Increasing the general fund balance to levels close to or above 10% of general fund revenue requires eliminating the structural deficit. This means the District must stop deficit spending and make difficult decisions promptly, such as closing underutilized schools and reducing unnecessary expenditures. Delaying these actions only exacerbates financial issues and could lead to further downgrades by credit rating agencies.

Reducing the long-term liability ratio to levels close to 250% of revenue involves addressing obligations like pension liabilities and other long-term debts. The District's current staffing levels contribute significantly to these liabilities, especially when classrooms are staffed below contractual or industry-standard sizes. By right-sizing operations and adjusting staffing to appropriate levels, the District can lower long-term liabilities over time.

Deeper entrenchment into community-funded status that improves financial performance is somewhat beyond the District's direct control, as it depends on factors like local property values and student enrollment numbers. However, the District can influence this by improving the quality of education, which can enhance property values and attract more families to the area. Focusing on raising student performance to meet or exceed state averages can have a positive economic impact on the community and, consequently, on the District's financial position.

In summary, while it will be difficult, these goals are attainable with decisive action and strategic planning. The District needs to act now to stop deficit spending, optimize the use of its resources, and focus on improving educational outcomes. By doing so, it can work toward meeting these factors and restoring its financial health.

10. Regarding factors that could lead to a downgrade of the ratings, it states: 1) inability to successfully implement its plan to right size operations to successfully adopt a structurally balanced budget by fiscal 2026; 2) weakening of available general fund reserves to below 5% of general fund revenue; 3) material increase in long term liabilities to levels above 400% of revenue; and 4) sizeable decline in the district's tax base. Do you think the district is in danger of these things happening?

Yes, the District is indeed in danger of these factors leading to a further downgrade in its credit ratings. The inability to implement a plan to right-size operations and adopt a structurally balanced budget by fiscal 2026 is a significant concern. The District has been delaying critical decisions on school closures and continues to spend additional money on upgrading campuses without a clear understanding of the costs or timelines involved. This reluctance to make difficult choices jeopardizes the goal of eliminating the structural deficit within the specified timeframe.

The weakening of available general fund reserves below 5% of general fund revenue is also a real possibility. Ongoing deficit spending has been eroding the reserves, and the District has been presenting budgets that maintain only the absolute minimum reserve of 3%. Characterizing these as balanced budgets is misleading when, in fact, they continue to run deficits. Without immediate action to curb spending and rebuild reserves, the District's financial flexibility will continue to diminish.

A material increase in long-term liabilities to levels above 400% of revenue is put at risk by the District's staffing levels, especially when classrooms are maintained below contractual or industry-standard sizes. Overstaffing leads to greater pension obligations and other long-term costs. Right-sizing operations is essential to prevent these liabilities from escalating.

The District's tax base is strong, but the continued low levels of student performance are a threat to home values and economic growth in the Valley. By failing to improve student performance and educational outcomes, the District indirectly contributes to a weakening tax base, which could exacerbate financial challenges.

In summary, unless the District takes decisive and prompt action to address these issues, it is in danger of experiencing the very factors that could lead to a further downgrade in its credit ratings. Immediate steps must be taken to stop deficit spending, optimize resource use, and focus on enhancing educational quality to stabilize and improve the District's financial health.

11. Would you like to say anything else?

I would like to emphasize the importance of transparency and accountability in addressing the District's financial challenges. The community deserves honest communication about the state of the District's finances and the steps being taken to rectify the situation. Misleading the public only creates confusion and hinders the ability to make informed decisions.

It is essential for the District to take immediate and decisive action to stop unnecessary spending and focus on right-sizing operations. Delaying difficult decisions only exacerbates the financial strain and increases interest costs, which directly impact every resident and business in Sonoma Valley. These funds could be better utilized to enhance educational services rather than servicing debt.

Engaging the community in the planning process is critical. Parents, teachers, and stakeholders should be involved in discussions about school closures, budget adjustments, and strategies to improve educational outcomes. By fostering open dialogue, the District can build trust and collaborate on solutions that benefit everyone.

Additionally, forming partnerships with already-existing charter schools and other educational institutions can broaden the scope of services available to students. Recognizing and supporting parental choice in education strengthens the community and aligns with fundamental values of freedom and self-determination.

The District has an opportunity to improve both its financial health and the quality of education it provides. By committing to transparency, making responsible financial decisions, and embracing collaboration, the District can better serve the students and families of Sonoma Valley.

Questions from the Press, Tuesday, Nov. 19, 2024. School Consolidation.

After a further study session last night, I answered a series of questions from the Santa Rosa Press Democrat/Sonoma Index-Tribune today. Per past practice, I publish the answers for the public below.  The picture is from last week's board meeting, by Robbi Pengelly of the Sonoma Index-Tribune. 

---

1. What were your impressions of the discussion about consolidation at last night’s board meeting? Why did you choose to not attend the meeting?

I made the motion in closed session to accept the mediation proposal regarding the VMTA contract. I believe the board is making the best of a difficult situation, and last night’s discussion highlighted the complexities surrounding school consolidation, particularly with regard to the middle schools. While I don’t fully agree with consolidating at Altimira, I understand the necessity for the board to act given the circumstances we face. For the study session portion of the meeting, I felt it was appropriate for the five members who will ultimately vote on the resolution next month to have the opportunity to deliberate as a group, as they will bear responsibility for the decision and its consequences.

2. It seems that the board is ready to approve closing Adele Harrison beginning in the 2025-26 school year and consolidating its students at Altimira. What are your thoughts about this?

Closing Adele Harrison and consolidating its students at Altimira is not the outcome I would consider ideal, but it is a necessary step given the challenges the District faces. The District must address the situation as it is, not as it might be wished to be, and this decision represents a pragmatic response to urgent financial pressures and the difficulties of managing too many sites. Maintaining an excessive number of campuses limits the District’s ability to implement effective reforms and operate efficiently from an administrative perspective. While not an easy decision, it reflects the need to prioritize sustainability and the long-term interests of the schools and students.

3. Approximately how much money will the district save annually by consolidating the two schools at Altimira?

Closing a middle school offers significant financial savings, likely two to three times the savings of closing an elementary school. In 2022, when this matter was last considered, the estimated savings from consolidating two middle schools into one was $2.3 million annually. Given inflation and other cost increases since then, that figure is probably higher today.

4. As I understand, the earthquake retrofit at Alimira would be done in the summers of 2025 and 2026. Is that correct?

I would distinguish between a tentative plan and what may actually occur on the ground. The District hopes to complete the necessary geotechnical retrofits for earthquake safety during the summers, likely in 2025 and 2026, to minimize disruption. However, by reopening the RFQ process, the District is moving farther from, rather than closer to, a concrete plan. As a result, the idea that work will proceed during the summers of 2025 and 2026 should be considered aspirational at this stage.

5. What is the estimated cost and how can the district pay for it?

I expect the work will ultimately cost significantly more than the current estimates of $4 to $9 million. The District will need to consider various funding options to address these expenses. Fortunately, the District’s strong credit rating provides access to a range of potential solutions that can be pursued to meet the financial requirements.

6. Are any other improvements needed at Altimira?

Certainly, improvements are needed at Altimira, as it is a campus designed for a different era and requires updates to better serve the needs of students and staff. That said, the immediate priority is completing the earthquake safety retrofits to ensure the campus is secure and prepared for future use.

7. The board initially indicated it probably would not consolidate a middle school until the 2026-27 school year. Why was this the case?

Initially, the board planned for the consolidation to take place during the 2026-27 school year to allow more time for planning and preparation. However, due to financial pressures and administrative challenges, the timeline was accelerated to the 2025-26 school year to address these concerns more promptly.

8. It seems that the district will need to move quickly in finding a company to do the work at Altamira and be sure that all plans are in place. Is that correct?

The District will have to follow well established procedures. Unfortunately, nothing seems to go quickly with school district construction in California. 

9. Once the board gives its expected approval to consolidation at Altimira, this, too, will need to begin promptly, correct?

Yes, prompt action will be essential if the board approves the consolidation. This includes not only physical preparations at Altimira but also logistical planning to ensure a smooth transition for students and staff.

10. Are you concerned about the District needing to manage these two major changes simultaneously?

No, the construction process is well understood, and I believe little progress will be made on that front over the next six to nine months, during which time the majority of the consolidation work will be completed. Additionally, it is difficult to assess how construction will impact school operations until the consolidation work is finalized. Intensive planning for construction will likely begin in September or October of 2025. I would emphasize that the board is making the best of a challenging situation. While concerns about managing these changes effectively are valid, the board must address them to ensure financial stability and improve educational outcomes.

11. How would the district attempt to make the transition to Altimira as easily as possible for students and families?

Clear communication with students and families, including providing detailed plans and timelines, is essential. Focusing administrative efforts on fewer sites allows SVUSD to better support everyone involved. Additionally, involving parents and teachers in the planning process can help address concerns and facilitate a smoother transition.

12. When will the board need to make a decision on closing an elementary school in 2026-27? Do you expect the board to create a timeline for this at its Dec. 13 meeting?

The board will need to make a decision soon to ensure adequate time for planning for the 2026-27 school year. I anticipate that a timeline may be established at the Dec. 13 meeting. Forming a second, focused school consolidation committee with a clear mandate to make a recommendation within a defined timeframe—perhaps four to six months—would be a prudent and effective approach.

13. What is your reaction to the District's contract with VMTA being mutually ratified? Is the final contract any different than the tentative contract that VMTA approved? If so, how?

The most recent discussions between Dennis Houseman and Superintendent Chien, conducted exclusively with the state-appointed mediator and without attorneys or the CTA representative present, allowed the focus to remain on local issues rather than being driven by process or statewide politics. This collaborative approach emphasized shared challenges and practical solutions, resulting in a proposal that reflects the financial realities facing the District while addressing key union concerns. Direct communication helped make the negotiation process more solution-oriented, leading to a proposal that demonstrates a mutual commitment to meeting the needs of both the District and its teachers. The proposal from the mediation session now needs to be reduced to writing, reviewed, and ratified by both VMTA and the Board. Importantly, the proposal differs significantly from what VMTA previously reviewed, particularly in sections affecting teacher compensation, which is higher under this agreement.

14. It seems that with the ratification of the contract and a plan likely to be approved for school consolidation, the district has more of a clear plan to move forward. This must be a relief. What are your thoughts?

I believe the District currently has a "plan for a plan," with a great deal of work remaining before December 13. That date will likely mark the starting point for intensive efforts over the following nine months, as school consolidation becomes the central focus of the District office. At the same time, SVUSD will likely need to initiate a second school consolidation committee process, specifically focused on the elementary level, while also developing a comprehensive retrofit plan for Altimira. This represents a significant undertaking for the District.

15. Would you like to say anything else?

No, thanks.

Questions from the Press, Friday, Nov. 15, 2024. Responses regarding Sonoma School Consolidation Questions.

Sonoma Valley Unified is bringing its school consolidation process to a close, and I answered a series of questions from the Santa Rosa Press Democrat/Sonoma Index-Tribune regarding the process today. I publish the answers for the public below.  The picture is of my oldest daughter Siena, a junior at Sonoma Valley High, out on a hike with me. 

---

1. Did you expect that the board would make a decision on consolidation at yesterday’s meeting?

I thought a decision might have been made at yesterday's meeting, but I’m not surprised it didn’t happen. The original plan was to consider this matter in December, and while we moved the timeline up to facilitate an earlier decision, it’s clear the community and the board need more time to address all the issues thoroughly. Governance in a democracy depends on meaningful discussion, and everyone should have the opportunity to engage fully in the process. Last night’s discussions brought some previously less-considered options into focus, which now require proper evaluation. The board has recognized this and is planning additional study sessions and discussions to ensure we proceed thoughtfully. Still, if the District is to follow the advice of our attorneys, my understanding is that any decision must be made at the regularly scheduled December meeting, or be delayed by another year.

2. Several board members and people speaking during public comment seemed to think that more time is needed for the board to make a decision on consolidation. What are your thoughts on this?

Both board members and the public are rightly emphasizing the importance of thorough discussion, which is at the heart of democracy. Additional conversations are necessary, as the process is narrowing in focus, much like a gardener pruning a thriving plant to direct its growth. Some options are being set aside as the board and community collectively determine the best path forward. While there appears to be a 3-2 split among trustees regarding whether to consolidate at Adele Harrison or Altimira, the prevailing sentiment is shifting toward Altimira. This may not align with my personal preference, but it is vital that trustees listen, engage, and make independent judgments based on the input and deliberations.

Even when there is disagreement, a unanimous or near-unanimous decision would signify that trustees respected and fully engaged in the process, rather than implying that everyone agrees with every aspect of the decision. This distinction is important for the community to understand. None of us want to close schools, but the reality is that some difficult decisions must be made. The focus must remain on ensuring the process is robust, inclusive, and reflects the collective effort to arrive at the best possible outcome.

3. As I understand it, the board now plans to have staff members provide, among other things, more detailed information regarding making one school both dual immersion and standard, the costs of closing and consolidating schools, and whether or not students currently in the dual immersion programs would continue with the programs if they were moved to another campus. What information would you like to see the staff members provide before board members meet again this coming Monday, Nov. 18?

The idea of making one school both dual immersion and “standard” is not practical and detracts from our immediate priorities. As another trustee noted, successful programs like the dual immersion program are not typically strengthened by merging them with another school at a different site. Two years ago, I suggested dedicating Altimira as a K-8 campus to enhance Flowery, and while current considerations about closing Prestwood and Adele might create opportunities for future homes for the dual immersion program, our immediate focus should remain on consolidation.

At this stage, the District's task is to determine which sites will cease offering educational services, not to address the relocation or merging of programs. Those decisions require robust community engagement through processes such as the 7-11 committee and should not be made unilaterally by the board. Moving programs is a significant administrative challenge, far more complex than deciding which sites to close. Our experience with the Dunbar closure and Woodland Star’s relocation demonstrated the difficulties of handling closure and program relocation simultaneously. Focusing on one step at a time is essential.

Program relocation discussions are premature and risk overcomplicating the current process. For now, the board must focus on identifying which sites will close, deferring discussions about moving programs to a later stage when we can engage stakeholders effectively and plan comprehensively.

4. Will the meeting on Monday be considered a study session, with public access in person and on Zoom? What time will it start?

The meeting on Monday is a study session, with public access both in person and via Zoom. It is currently scheduled to begin at 4 p.m. at the District Office. However, there is a possibility of a closed session taking place before or after the study session, which could adjust the start time to 5 p.m. or later. At this point, the meeting remains set for 4 p.m., and the public is encouraged to attend.

5. Will the board be able to make a decision on consolidation before the next regular meeting on Friday, Dec. 13?

The board will not make a decision on consolidation before the next regular meeting on Friday, December 13. This decision must be made at a regularly scheduled meeting, and that date is the final opportunity to take timely action for the 2025-26 school year. By then, Jason Lehman, the trustee-elect, will have been sworn in and will participate in the decision-making process.

To prepare for that meeting, any resolution the board intends to present must be drafted in advance. I expect the upcoming study session on Monday to be pivotal in shaping that resolution. By the time we reach December 13, I would be surprised if the board's intentions remain unclear. The study session will likely address decisions about which elementary school to close, while discussions about Altimira and middle school consolidation appear to be moving toward consensus. Monday’s meeting will be an essential step in resolving these questions.

6. Trustees have previously stated that the board needs to make a decision by December to allow enough time for a consolidation to take place in the 2025-26 school year. Do you believe that a decision needs to be made by December?

Yes, a decision must be made by December. Our attorney, Harold Freiman, a recognized expert on public school consolidation in California, has confirmed that the December 13 meeting is the final regularly scheduled opportunity to act in time for the 2025-26 school year. I have full confidence in his expertise, and there is no practical alternative timeline.

The board appears to be coalescing around a decision regarding the schools under consideration, even if the implementation is phased over multiple years. This has been a thorough and extended process, and I am confident that the board will take the necessary action at the December 13 meeting to ensure progress.

7. Board members seem to be nearing a consensus on closing Adele Harrison in 2026-27 and consolidating its students at Altimira. Do you think this is the best idea for middle school consolidation, and why couldn’t this consolidation happen in the 2025-26 school year?

Board members do appear to be nearing a consensus on closing Adele Harrison in 2026-27 and consolidating its students at Altimira. However, I remain uncertain whether this is the best approach for middle school consolidation. One significant challenge is that Altimira requires geotechnical earthquake retrofits, identified in the Facilities Master Plan years ago, which have yet to be addressed. Staff estimate the cost of these upgrades to be between $4 and $9 million and suggest the work could be completed in one to two years, but based on my experience, such projects often take longer and cost more than anticipated. The Division of the State Architect and the complexities of school construction rarely allow for the speed we hope for.

This is why Adele Harrison should have been considered more seriously as an alternative. As a newer school, it does not require construction work prior to consolidation. While completing the upgrades at Altimira may not be strictly necessary from a structural or legal perspective, public confidence likely demands it. Moving forward without addressing these issues could undermine trust in the Board and District. This need for construction work at Altimira means middle school consolidation will likely be a protracted process.

To realize cost savings more quickly, we might have considered options like K-6 school sites and consolidating grades 7 and 8 at Adele Harrison. However, the board seems to favor Altimira, and even the school consolidation committee has stated that construction must be completed before using that site for consolidation. While this may not be the ideal solution, it represents progress. Sonoma Valley’s economic strength provides a foundation to manage the District's finances through a phased approach if necessary.

The critical step now is for the board to make a decision and begin the process. Consolidation involves significant administrative work, and the sooner we start, the sooner we can complete it. As the saying goes, the best time to plant a tree was yesterday; the next best time is today.

8. Regarding elementary schools, board members seem to most seriously consider 1) closing Prestwood; 2) closing Sassarini; or 3) closing Flowery and moving its dual immersion program to another campus. What are your thoughts on these three options?

The District is considering the closure of some of its most successful programs and sites, which I believe is a mistake. Prestwood has historically been the primary elementary school for the City of Sonoma, with Sassarini originally serving as an expansion to accommodate a larger student population. While the city's current student numbers may not justify maintaining both schools, folding Sassarini back into Prestwood could be a more viable approach. Similarly, Flowery, once considered a struggling school, has been revitalized by its dual immersion program, which has thrived for years. Its location, in the heart of a Spanish-speaking community, is integral to the program's success. Moving it elsewhere could undermine its progress and disrupt a well-established community.

The concerns raised about Flowery’s facilities reflect historical inequities in funding, not the value of its program or the dedication of its community. Closing a successful program like Flowery's dual immersion or displacing the Prestwood community would create instability and negatively impact the District and the broader Sonoma Valley. Prestwood is deeply tied to the identity of the City of Sonoma, and its closure would erode the community's sense of itself. Trustees should prioritize preserving and strengthening successful programs and minimizing disruption rather than making decisions based on convenience or limited District-focused criteria.

If the board were to close Prestwood, I believe it is essential to ensure that educational services continue at that site. For example, the District should consider engaging with Sonoma Charter School to explore whether they could offer programs at Prestwood, maintaining its role as a center for education in the community. Overall, the community is seeking less change than what is currently being considered, and the District should respect that sentiment in its decision-making process.

9. Do you think the board should still consider K-8 and K-6 options?

Considering K-8 and K-6 options is no longer practical. The opportunity to implement K-6 could have been viable if it had been coordinated with keeping Adele Harrison open, but the board does not seem to be moving in that direction. Our priority must now be to simplify this process into something administratively manageable.

Reducing the number of steps, sites, and changes involved increases the likelihood of a successful outcome. The focus should be on making decisions that are realistic and can be effectively implemented. At this stage, closing one elementary site and one middle school site and proceeding from there appears to be the most practical approach. Anything more complex risks overcomplicating the process and delaying necessary action.

10. It seems that contracts with the VMTA and CSEA will have a huge impact on the board’s consolidation decision. Is the board waiting on its decision to ratify the contract with VMTA and CSEA until a consolidation decision is reached?

No, the board is not delaying decisions on ratifying the contracts with VMTA or CSEA based on consolidation. The CSEA (California School Employees Association) contract is progressing as expected, and there is already a mutual understanding between the District and CSEA. Consolidation decisions have no direct impact on this contract, and the District's relationship with classified staff remains strong.

The VMTA (Valley of the Moon Teachers Association) contract is currently in mediation, governed by confidentiality provisions that the District is strictly adhering to, even as VMTA has chosen to engage publicly. In California, such confidentiality provisions often apply asymmetrically, creating some confusion for the community and challenges for the District’s negotiating team. Despite this, I am confident the District is meeting its obligations regarding transparency and public statements.

I commend Dennis Housman, co-president of VMTA, for his significant efforts toward finding common ground, and I appreciate Superintendent Jeanette Chien’s professionalism in collaborating with him. Their partnership exemplifies how teachers and administrators can work together effectively. While the VMTA contract does carry financial implications, it remains a separate matter from consolidation. Neither process is driving the other, and both are proceeding independently. I think the board is committed to resolving the VMTA contract as soon as possible while ensuring consolidation decisions are handled appropriately.

11. Would you like to say anything else?

This consolidation process has been ongoing for nearly four years, and I recognize that those just now engaging may not be familiar with its full history or the extensive data presented to the trustees. This has been a deliberate and methodical effort, rather than rushed, and it is understandable for the community to have questions about such significant matters.

Governance requires a substantial time investment, and it is unrealistic to expect community members to have attended the 200 or more hours of meetings that have shaped this process. The trustees have thoroughly reviewed all the aspects of the decision, and the framework and requirements of this effort are well understood. The District continues to involve the community through democratic discussion, and as is consistent with our representative system of government, the ultimate responsibility for these decisions will rest with the Board of Trustees. I am confident they will meet this responsibility at the meeting on Friday, December 13.

Fred Allebach on Sonoma's General Plan Meeting, June 25, 2024.

I received an email this morning from my friend, Fred Allebach, about tonight's City of Sonoma General Plan meeting, emphasizing the need for integrating equity into the city’s long-term planning. Fred stresses that "the General Plan is a 20-year blueprint for Sonoma planning and policy." He urges the City to ensure that the plan includes more explicit equity policies and accurate local data, particularly on demographics and socioeconomics, to address systemic discrimination effectively. He points out that "[t]he city proclaimed that systemic discrimination is a social ill and needs to be remedied in its recent Juneteenth Proclamation," serving as a foundation for these calls to action.

Fred argues that "the General Plan process is now a chance to walk the talk," referring to the opportunity to reflect these equity commitments in tangible planning policies. He highlights deficiencies in the current General Plan’s data and analysis, pointing out the lack of comprehensive local studies and the over-reliance on general data sources that do not accurately reflect local conditions. Fred is right when he asserts that accurate local data is vital for creating policies that genuinely address the needs of disadvantaged communities in Sonoma.

A significant concern he raises is the omission and underplay of local demographic, economic, and educational equity issues in the existing conditions baseline report. He warns that "if the existing conditions baseline report as initially written omits and underplays local demographic, economic, and educational equity issues, this will stand for 20 years," perpetuating existing inequities. Allebach cites the example of socioeconomic demographic stats from the 2023 Housing Element analysis, noting the  acknowledgment of disadvantaged communities in Sonoma Valley, which is not adequately addressed in the current General Plan.

Fred also questions the motives behind the apparent lack of detailed local data analysis in the General Plan and Housing Element. He notes that there are community fairness concerns, stating, "it's my contention that the Housing Element and General Plan are intentionally underplaying local equity issues." He believes that addressing these issues might disturb the status quo preferred by influential city stakeholders.

Fred calls for a comprehensive revision of the General Plan to include more localized and accurate data reflecting equity issues. I'm glad we have Fred doing this important work, and his meticulousness in addressing all the concerns comprehensively. More information on the meeting, including how to participate, is at the following link: 

https://www.sonomacity.org/special-meeting-to-continue-discussion-on-general-plan-update-on-june-25th-6-pm/

Questions from the Press, Friday, April 12, 2024, Community Resource Officer.

On Thursday, March 11, Sonoma Police Chief Brandon Cutting provided a comprehensive overview of the Community Resource Officer (CRO) program to the Sonoma Valley Unified Board, highlighting its development and the strategic focus on enhancing community and school interactions. He explained, "In 2022, the city agreed with the county, the Sheriff's Office, to add a community resource officer or community-oriented policing position to handle several different points of focus." This initiative was part of a broader response to community needs that evolved due to staffing changes and emerging local issues. The role was specifically designed to "develop relationships with our community residents, attend and provide crime prevention events at city events, and be a resource to provide referrals to support residents, our community partners, and business owners." Moreover, the CRO aims to "deter crime on or around campuses and build relationships with school staff and students," ensuring a supportive environment conducive to educational success.

Addressing potential concerns about the CRO's role in the schools, Chief Cutting clarified that the CRO's presence is fundamentally different from traditional School Resource Officers (SROs). He stated, "This position will not police the students as this role is only proactive in being a positive model of what law enforcement represents in the community." Emphasizing the non-punitive nature of the CRO, he reassured the community and school board, "We really need to have this agreement so we can have some general guidelines and some rules... The only thing we wanna do is continue that feeling of safety on the campus." The commitment to maintaining a safe and non-disruptive presence in schools was underlined by his promise of transparency and ongoing dialogue: "The Chief of Police will provide statistics and situational updates monthly at School Board meetings as requested." These efforts underscore a dedicated approach to fostering a secure and supportive environment for students, staff, and the wider community. After the presentation and public comment, the board discussed the matter and voted 4-1 to approve the MOU as presented, with Trustee Winders against.

Below, I answer questions from the Sonoma Index-Tribune/Santa Rosa Press Democrat regarding the meeting. The photograph is of my mom, Joyce, with my youngest daughter, Margaux Joyce Kelly,.

Questions 1 and 2 (combined): It seemed to me that you initially were in support of approving this item at the meeting, but later had some strong reservations. Is that a correct assessment? Please explain. You, along with three other trustees, voted to approve the item, correct? If so, why did you vote to approve it?

My position was the same the whole time. As I said last night, "[o]n balance, I'm inclined to support tonight the fact that we would adopt this MOU. Alternatively, I would be prepared for us to take a second read of it. But I think we need to make clear the relationship with law enforcement going forward." 

We have a critical need for stability and safety on our campuses, which has been underscored by my personal experiences and professional understanding of the benefits of having a well-defined relationship with law enforcement. That support is despite concerns about the sustainability and consistency of funding for the Community Resource Officer (CRO) program. I was also concerned about ensuring that contractual responsibilities were properly aligned and that the program's objectives were transparent and well-understood by all stakeholders. My emphasis on having everything in writing reflects my legal background and my commitment to clarity and accountability in how we implement such significant policies. 

I voted to approve the item along with three other trustees because, on balance, I believe the benefits of having a CRO on campus—especially in terms of building trust and safety among students—outweigh the potential drawbacks. The decision to support the initiative also came from a recognition of the immediate need to address security concerns and foster a positive relationship between students and law enforcement. I felt that approving the MOU was a necessary step to move forward, even as we continue to address and refine the program's funding and operational details. 

I did so being cognizant of the fact that the contract is for 18 months, without an out-of-pocket expenditure by the District, and should the program not work out, the District can exit on 30 days' notice with no financial penalty. This gives us a year and a half to evaluate the program, make necessary changes, and be in a position to, I think, have SVUSD shoulder some of the costs after that period should this initial timespan work as expected. As it was the City of Sonoma that defunded the program, that the costs of restarting not be borne by the District strikes me as fair, but after this period of re-engagement, I would expect the financial relationship to be along the lines of what existed previously, with SVUSD bearing a third of the cost. 

3. Do you think having a CRO is a good idea? Why or why not?

I believe that having a Community Resource Officer is a good idea. On January 8, 2020, two of our middle school students were sexually assaulted on the way to school and, given the close working relationship between our school staff and law enforcement, the perpetrator was identified and detained within approximately 90 minutes. The clear and well-understood relationship between our school staff and our sworn peace officers was something we relied on that day and, when in December 2020 that contract with the police was disrupted, SVUSD's resources to address school safety issues were seriously impacted; I observed this directly in the interim. 

Going forward, I believe the program will have a positive impact on the safety and well-being of our students. From my personal history and from observations within the district, the presence of a dedicated law enforcement officer can deter violence and provide a fundamental sense of security for a conducive learning environment. Moreover, a CRO can play an important role in educating students about law enforcement, thereby building a foundation of trust and understanding that can extend beyond the school grounds. However, for such a program to be successful and sustainable, it must be backed by clear policies, consistent funding, and ongoing community engagement to ensure it meets the needs and expectations of all involved. I had hoped that we could unanimously back the program, and I encouraged the trustees to take steps that might have allowed that, but on balance the trustees, I think, felt the time for action was now, and given that, my choice is to support the program. 

4. Do you think that the position, as described by Chief Cutting, is a good idea? Why or why not?

The position as described by Chief Cutting seems fundamentally to be a good idea, particularly due to the proactive approach of integrating law enforcement within the educational environment in a way that builds trust and security. This is in accord with my belief in the importance of establishing a safe and secure learning environment where students can thrive without the fear of violence. Chief Cutting's description emphasizes a collaborative and educational role for the Community Resource Officer (CRO), which is at the core of fostering positive relationships between students and law enforcement. This preventive approach can help mitigate issues before they escalate, contributing to a healthier school climate.

5. Do you feel that any areas of the job, as described by Chief Cutting, need to be changed or reconsidered?

While the description of the job by Chief Cutting covers many important aspects, one area that might need continued monitoring is the extent of the officer's involvement in disciplinary actions within the school. The CRO's role must remain focused on safety and education rather than disciplinary enforcement, to avoid any potential negative perceptions among students, except in those situations that are both criminal and disciplinary. Additionally, the mechanisms described for accountability and regular feedback from the school community, including students, parents, and faculty, should help ensure that the officer's presence is positively integrated and remains in line with the educational goals of the schools.

6. Now that the position has been approved, do you still see a need for additional input?  If so, from whom?

Yes. These 18 months are not funded by SVUSD, but past that point in time, the district will probably be called upon to shoulder some of the expense, and frankly, I think the school district should bear some of the cost. The next time this MOU is reviewed, I therefore think a price tag will be attached, and ongoing input will be needed to ensure the program evolves in response to the community's needs and concerns. Continuous engagement with a broad spectrum of stakeholders—students, parents, teachers, and community leaders—is necessary to assess the effectiveness of the CRO's role and make adjustments as needed. Particularly, student input is vital, as they are the most affected by the officer's presence. Their feedback can provide insights into how the officer is perceived and the impact on the school environment. Additionally, regular reviews and discussions should be incorporated to ensure that the CRO's integration supports not only physical safety but also contributes positively to the psychological well-being of our students.

7. Do you have concerns that the CRO will cause some of the same concerns among students that an SRO did?

There are valid concerns that the Community Resource Officer (CRO) could evoke some of the same apprehensions among students that were previously associated with the School Resource Officer (SRO) program. One of the primary concerns is the perception of the officer's role—whether it is seen purely as a safety measure or as an extension of disciplinary action within the school. To mitigate these concerns, we must communicate that the CRO's role is primarily supportive and educational, rather than punitive. The integration of the CRO should be handled with sensitivity to student diversity and with proactive measures to build trust, such as engaging students in discussions about their safety and rights. Continuous feedback from students should be sought to adjust the program and address any issues promptly.

8. Do you have concerns about approving an MOU that was somewhat different than the funding document that was approved by the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors? Why or why not?

Approving a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that differs from the funding document approved by the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors does raise concerns, particularly regarding transparency and consistency in implementation. It is essential that all documents related to such significant roles as the CRO align to prevent confusion and to ensure that all stakeholders—the school district, the law enforcement agencies, our students, and the community—have the same understanding of the program’s scope, responsibilities, and funding. Discrepancies between the MOU and the funding document can lead to challenges in accountability and might complicate future funding or program adjustments. Therefore, it is necessary to reconcile these documents to ensure they accurately reflect the agreed terms and conditions, especially when school district dollars are, I believe, inevitably called upon to support the program. This alignment also supports a clear, unified approach to the program's implementation and evaluation, fostering greater trust and cooperation among all parties involved.

9. Would you like to say anything else?

Yes, in the meeting last night, I shared some personal information, and it informed my decision-making. The quote is below. 

"When I was a kid, I was a victim of pretty severe domestic violence for many years. I don't know if I got it worse or my mom did, but it was awful. And I can tell you what it meant when a police officer showed up. It meant it was over. It meant the violence was over. That's what it meant. And thank God. Because when you're a small child and you're encountering violence, your entire world is turned upside down, and nothing works anymore. And that's the way it is on our school campuses when there's violence. Just one incident can prevent everyone from learning. It prevents everyone from doing what we are trying to do. Violence is an anathema to everything we do in education. And so when I see that officer, what I see is is that the violence is over. And that's what I knew as a kid about school. That's one of the reasons I loved school. Because I knew when I went to school, it was safe. That was the place it was safe. And for many of our kids at home, it's not safe. And we need to know in the future that they're going to be able to reach out to law enforcement when they need to to get the protection that they need to make sure that their life is protected. My mom eventually did that. And thank God it ended. And it took that to do that. So when I see the officer, I have to, as a person elected to do this job, draw on my personal experience to know what's going to happen. And so when I look at it on balance and I see us doing this, what I see is us starting to make sure that our students are able to build up that trust reservoir that will allow them to reach out in their lives and be able to make sure that they get the protection that they deserve."