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."