[00:00:08]

GOOD EVENING. CAN YOU HEAR ME? HERE WE GO. GOOD EVENING.

WELCOME TO THE VENTURA COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION SPECIAL BOARD

[A.1. Disclosure]

WE ARE NOW LIVE STREAMING. AND WE WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT THIS IS BEING STREAMED LIVE AND YOU MIGHT BE CAUGHT ON CAMERA.

THAT'S OUR DISCLOSURE. SO SMILE.

PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT TODAY'S MEETING IS BEING RECORDED AND LIVE STREAMED. A RECORDING MAY CAPTURE THE IMAGE AND VOICE OF MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO ADDRESSED THE BOARD OR OTHERWISE PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING.

[A.2. Pledge of Allegiance/Moment of Reflection ]

A MOMENT OF REFLECTION. >> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG TO THE NET A STATE OF AMERICA.

AND TO THE REPUBLIC WITH WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

[A.3. Roll Call and Acknowledgment of Guests ]

>> ALL RIGHT. LET'S START WITH A ROLL CALL AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF GUESTS AND I'LL START WITH THE TRUSTEES.

>> MIKE TEASDALE. >> GOOD EVENING.

RICHARD LUCAS. PARKS OF CAMARILLO.

>> GOOD EVENING. ARIEL FOUR, CIMA VALLEY AND

WHITE PARK. >> AND OCEAN VIEW.

>> GOOD EVENING. RACHEL ULRICH REPRESENTING

VENTURA HIGH. >> LET'S GO AHEAD AND START WITH

STAFF. >> LISA KLINE, ASSOCIATE SUPERINTENDENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND FISCAL SERVICES.

>> LISA SALAS BROWN, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT.

[A.4. Approval of Agenda]

>> AND THAT'S IT. ALL RIGHT.

I AM GOING TO CALL FOR AN APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.

>> MOVED TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.

>> MOVED BY TRUSTEES TISDALE, SECONDED BY TRUSTEE LUCAS.

ALL IN FAVOR. >> AYE.

[B. PUBLIC COMMENTS]

>> OPPOSED? HEARING NONE AND MOTION PASSES 5-0. WE WILL MOVE ONTO GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS AND I BELIEVE I HAVE -- SO WE ARE STICKING WITH OUR 3 MINUTES. YOU KNOW THE DRILL.

AND WE GOT OUR TIMER UP. >> IT IS NOT ON.

>> YOU CAN HEAR ME. EXCELLENT.

I WANT TO ADDRESS THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE ELECTION FOR THE SUPERINTENDENT. WE ALL KNOW HOW IT GOT THERE.

YOU KNOW MORE ABOUT HOW WE GOT THERE THAN ANYONE ELSE HERE.

YOU'RE ON THAT SIDE, RIGHT? I'VE NOTICED THAT SEVERAL OF YOU HAVE SWITCHED YOUR POLITICAL POSITION TO ACCOMMODATE A NEW SUPERINTENDENT COMING IN THAT IS BACKED BY MOVE THE NEEDLE WHICH IS A PAC THAT HAS THROWN MONEY FROM THE RIGHT ALL OVER CALIFORNIA. THEY ARE TRYING TO BUY THIS AND I AM SURPRISED HOW MANY OF YOU HAVE JUMPED ON THAT POSITION BECAUSE ONE OF THE TENANTS OF THEIR VISION STATEMENT, IS TO DESTROY THE TEACHERS UNION. DESTROY THE TEACHERS UNION! ARE YOU GUYS OKAY WITH THAT? ARE YOU ALL RIGHT WITH THAT? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING TO DO TOO? IS THAT WHY YOU SOUGHT AND ACCEPTED ENDORSEMENTS? FROM THIS PARTY? THE SAME PARTY THAT THINKS I.C.E. ARE HEROES? FOR WHAT THEY ARE DOING TO YOUR COMMUNITY, TO YOUR PEOPLE? DOES THAT FEEL ALL RIGHT? REALLY, DOES NOT SIT WELL? THIS IS WHERE WE ARE AND THIS

[00:05:03]

HIS SELF-SERVING ACTIONS. AND NOW I SEE IT.

EVERYONE SEES IT. WE ARE CIRCLING THE WAGONS.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT. I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT.

ARE YOU HERE FOR THE STUDENTS? ARE YOU HERE FOR THE PUBLIC? IS THERE SOMETHING WHAT'S GOING ON THAT WE DO NOT KNOW ABOUT? THERE WAS A MOTION UP HERE TO TAKE THE VOTE AWAY FROM THE PUBLIC. YOU APPOINTED THAT SUPERINTENDENT. AND NOW YOU WANT TO PUT IT TO ABOUT BECAUSE YOU FAILED BY APPOINTING HIM.

LACK OF OVERSIGHT, INVOLVEMENT. YOU PUT YOUR BLINDERS ON.

WE WILL NOT TAKE THE VOTE AWAY FROM THE PEOPLE.

THAT'S NOT FOR YOU TO DO. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT. I'M SEEING NO FURTHER GENERAL

[C.1. Forensic Audit Status and Follow-Up ]

INVITING TRAVIS WEAVER TO COME ON DOWN.

THANK YOU FOR COMING. >> PERHAPS BEFORE YOU BEGIN, TRAVIS KASTNER WITH EXPERIENCE DOING AUDITS FOR PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS INCLUDING SCHOOL SYSTEMS HERE IN CALIFORNIA AS WELL AS TEXAS. AND OTHER PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK. >> THANK YOU AND GOOD EVENING.

MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, AS TRUSTEE TEASDALE MENTIONED I'M HERE TODAY TO PRESENT THE FINDINGS FOR THE FORENSIC AUDIT THAT WAS PERFORMED BY WEAVER. SO YOU'VE EACH RECEIVED A DRAFT OF THAT REPORT AND I'M GOING TO WALK THROUGH THE FINDINGS FOR THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL AND ANSWER QUESTIONS. AND SO WE ARE GOING TO WALK THROUGH THESE FINDINGS AND FEEL FREE IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS GOING THROUGH THEM, FEEL FREE TO ASK THEM AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AT THE END SO I'M GOING TO START GOING THROUGH THE SLIDES TO COVER THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.

AND SO TO PROVIDE BACKGROUND ON THE ENGAGEMENT, IN MAY OF THIS YEAR, THE BOARD APPROVED A MOTION TO MAINTAIN INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL FIRM. TO INVESTIGATE ANY POTENTIAL VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA EDUCATION CODE FINANCIAL MISMANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT FAILURES, POTENTIALLY UNLAWFUL CONDUCT OVER THE PAST FOUR YEARS.

DURING THAT SAME BOARD MEETING IT WAS DETERMINED THAT TRUSTEES MICHAEL TEASDALE AND RICHARD LUCAS WILL BE ELECTED TO SERVE AN AD HOC COMMUNITY. SO WE COMMUNICATED BOTH OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS THROUGHOUT THE PROGRESS.

AFTER THAT BOARD APPROVAL, THE BOARD ISSUED A REQUEST FOR THE FORENSIC AUDIT. JUNE 19TH, WEAVER SUBMITTED A PROPOSAL IN RESPONSE TO THAT. WE WERE ENGAGED WITH THE AUDIT AND THE FORENSIC AUDIT AT THAT POINT.

TALKING QUICKLY THROUGH THE SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE FORENSIC AUDIT. THE THREE MAIN AREAS ARE OUTLINED ON THE SLIDE BUT ITS COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS REVIEW FOR THE FIVE YEAR PERIOD OF FY 2022 THROUGH FY 2026 AND SO THE COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS INCLUDED THE REVIEW OF SALARIES, BENEFITS, AS WELL AS SUPPLEMENTAL COMPENSATION AND THAT IT INCLUDE THINGS LIKE STIPENDS AS WELL AS ALL SCHEDULED PAYMENTS. WE ALSO LOOKED AT PROCUREMENT, CONTRACTING, EXPENDITURE REVIEW WHICH INCLUDED PAYMENTS TO VENDORS AND CONTRACTORS, THE LARGEST AREAS OF EXPENDITURES.

WE ALSO LOOKED AT CREDIT CARD EXPENDITURES AND AS WELL AS EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENTS AND TRAVEL EXPENDITURES.

REIMBURSEMENTS TO EMPLOYEES. IN THE THIRD SCOPE RELATED TO TRANSACTIONS AND FINANCIAL ACTIVITY WITHIN THE SPECIAL FUNDS AND OTHER POSTEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS WHICH SPECIFICALLY IS

[00:10:03]

AND JUST QUICKLY TOUCHING ON THE WORK STEPS PERFORMED, THE KICKOFF MEETING WITH D COP LEADERSHIP TO WALK THROUGH THE SCOPE OF WORK. DISCUSS THE POINTS OF CONTACT WOULD BE FOR THE VARIOUS SCOPES OF WORK.

OUR PRIMARY CONTACT WITH PCO E, HER AND HER TEAM WERE EXTREMELY RESPONSIVE THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS AND PROVIDED THOUSANDS OF DOCUMENTS. WE'VE HAD A LIST OF 30, 40 ITEMS TO START WITH AND THAT LIST GREW AND WE RECEIVED EVERYTHING THAT WE HAD REQUESTED SO WE APPRECIATE THAT.

WE CONDUCTED INTERVIEWS WITH 18 INDIVIDUALS WHICH INCLUDES CURRENT EMPLOYEES. WE PERFORMED A FINANCIAL REVIEW OF DATA AND RECORDS, THAT WOULD BE THINGS LIKE THE PAYROLL REGISTER, EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS. REALLY THE TRANSACTION LEVEL DETAIL TO DRILL DOWN IS -- THAT'S REALLY WHERE A FORENSIC AUDIT IS DIFFERENT THEN, YOU KNOW, YOUR ANNUAL AUDIT.

THE DEPTH OF LOOKING AT THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION, LOOKING AT OTHER SUPPORT IS REALLY A UNIQUE FEATURE.

WE ALSO LOOKED AT THE BOARD MEETING RECORDS.

WE'VE OBTAINED AND REVIEWED APPROXIMATELY 600,000 EMAIL MEDICATIONS TO UNDERSTAND HOW DECISIONS WERE BEING MADE.

AND THEN TAKING ALL THAT INDICATION EVALUATING COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA EDUCATION CODE. AS WELL AS CALIFORNIA PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE. AND THE SUPERINTENDENT POLICIES.

FINDINGS AGAIN AS YOU SAW THE DRAFT REPORT WHICH IS ABOUT 65,000 PAGES WHICH IS MUCH MORE DETAILED THAN WHAT WE ARE GOING TO COVER, THIS IS THE HIGH-LEVEL FINDINGS INCLUDED INTO THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BUT IF YOU DO HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT FINDINGS OR OBSERVATIONS, FEEL FREE. IF YOU BRING THOSE UP WE CAN TOUGH IT UP AS WELL. SO THE FIRST FINDING RELATES TO THE FAILURE TO ADHERE TO CALIFORNIA EDUCATIONAL CODE SECTION 1302. IT STATES THE COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS SHALL NOT INCREASE BY $10,000 OR MORE THE SALARY OR BONUS OF ANY EMPLOYEE OFFICE OF EDUCATION UNLESS THE MATTER IS BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR ITS DISCUSSION AT A REGULARLY SCHEDULED PUBLIC MEETING OF THE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION.

SO DURING OUR REVIEW OF COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS, WE IDENTIFIED 16 INSTANCES GOING BACK TO 2021 WHERE CABINET MEMBERS RECEIVED SALARY INCREASES, OVER $10,000.

COLLECTIVELY THOSE INCREASES TOTAL THREE TO $65,000.

>> THREE TO 75 A YEAR? >> THOSE WOULD BE THE SALARY

INCREASES PER YEAR. >> ADDITIONALLY EIGHT INSTANCES WHERE CABINET MEMBERS RECEIVED A APPLICABLE AND THE KEY POINT IN THE FINDINGS HERE IS THE OFF SCHEDULED NOT BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION IN A REGULARLY SCHEDULED PUBLIC MEETING.

>> YOU WANT TO LEARN 13-02-A, BRINGING IT TO THE COUNTY BOARD AT A MEETING, DOESN'T SAY TO APPROVE, ACCEPT, NOTHING LIKE

THAT. >> IT'S JUST FOR OUR AWARENESS.

[00:15:13]

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> IT STILL CALIFORNIA CODE THAT IT MUST BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION EVERY TIME.

>> CORRECT. THAT'S PRETTY CLEARLY WRITTEN IN THE ED CODE AND THAT'S WHERE THE BASIS OF OUR FINDING WHICH WAS THE BOE'S HISTORICAL PRACTICE OVER $10,000 TO THE ATTENTION OF THE BOARD. DO NOT APPEAR TO BE COMPLIANT OF CALIFORNIA ED CODE SECTION 320-A.

>> IT'S A DISCUSSION, NOT A VOTE.

HAD THERE BEEN DISCUSSION EVEN AT THE BOARD WE DO NOT THINK YOU SHOULD DO THAT. THEY'VE MET THAT DISCUSSION WHICH WOULD'VE BEEN MET AT THAT POINT.

THE SUPERINTENDENT COULD GO AND DO IT BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED. DOESN'T HAVE TO BE VOTED ON,

CORRECT? >> CORRECT.

THIS IS INTENDED TO BE INFORMATIONAL AND VISIBILITY AND TRANSPARENCY IS REALLY THE PREMISE WITH 1 1302-A.

>> IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE THE ONUS IS ON THE SUPERINTENDENT AND STAFF TO BRING THAT.

AT THE SAME TIME WE DID HAVE -- IT WAS BROUGHT UP THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE ON SCHEDULE AND WE DID DISCUSS IT AND I REMEMBER ASKING IT IF THE OFF SCHEDULED BONUS WOULD BE APPLIED BEFORE OR AFTER BECAUSE ALSO RECEIVE THE UNSCHEDULED RAISE.

IT WAS GOING TO BE OVER WITH A CHANCE TO DISCUSS THAT.

MAKING MORE THAN THAT BUT AT THAT POINT THE SUPERINTENDENT COULD MAKE THE DECISION TO ACCEPT OUR DISCUSSION IF IT'S

NOT IN. >> PRESIDENT ULRICH?

>> I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THAT AS I'M READING THIS IT'S THE SUPERINTENDENT AND THE COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION THAT'S BRINGING IT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE BOARD AND IT'S NOT FOR THE

BOARD -- >> IT IS ON THE SUPERINTENDENT'S

OFFICE TO HIGHLIGHT IT. >> BECAUSE OF CORRUPTION IN THE COUNTY, COUNTY SAN BERNARDINO, PUT INTO INCREASE TRANSPARENCY AND PROVIDING ENORMOUS RAISES TO THIS DIRECT REPORT. VERY SIMILAR TO PHRASES THAT WERE GIVEN HERE. IT IS THE ROLE OF THIS BOARD AND COUNTY BOARDS IN GENERAL TO ENSURE TRANSPARENCY, THAT THOSE MOVES ARE MADE PUBLIC. THAT IS AN IMPORTANT ROLE TO DISENFRANCHISE CORRUPTION IN EXCESS SALARIES.

NOT THAT WE DON'T HAVE AN APPROVAL ON THAT, IT'S INTERESTING. BUT THE LAW IS THE LAW.

IN EDC OH 1302-A, IT IS NOT LAW, THERE ARE 13 VIOLATIONS NOTED IN THE LAW. NOT EIGHT, NOT TEN, 26.

AT THIS TIME IT WAS REPORTED THERE WERE TWO MORE RAISES AT 10,000 AND MORE THAT THE ADMINISTRATION NEGLECTED OR FORGOT TO SHARE WITH US. THOSE ARE DISINCENTIVES.

IT'S UP TO THAT COUNTY, I DO NOT THINK IT'S TOO MUCH TO EXPECT AS A BOARD MEMBER THAT THE FINANCIAL REPORTS TO US OBEY THE

LAW. >> AND WE DIGRESS.

PLEASE. >> THREE OTHER POINTS ON OUR REVIEW OF THE SALARY INCREASES OVER $10,000, WE DID INTERVIEW THE NOW FORMER DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES MISTY KEY HOW THESE WERE BEING TREATED, WHY THEY WERE NOT BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE BOARD. AND HER RESPONSE DURING THE

[00:20:02]

I THINK IT'S INFORMATIONAL LOOP. THE BOTTOM LINE IS THOSE DETAILED SALARY INCREASES, THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL WASN'T PROVIDED TO THE BOARD. AND FINALLY WE DID SEE IN OUR REVIEW OF EMAILS THERE IS A COUNTY OFFICE LISTSERV, MY UNDERSTANDING WITH DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENTS WITH THE COUNTY OFFICES OF EDUCATION ACROSS THE STATE ARE ALL IN THIS LISTSERV.

RELATED TO CERTAIN ISSUES. ONE OF THOSE ISSUES BROUGHT UP THE LAST FEW YEARS, HOW DOES YOUR COUNTY OFFICE TO KEEP UP WITH THE COMPLIANCE. AND EVERY SINGLE COUNTY OFFICE THAT RESPONDED WHICH THERE WAS ABOUT 15-20 SAID THAT IN SOME FORM THEY PROVIDED AN AGENDA ITEM WITH INFORMATION THAT EITHER DETAILED THE EMPLOYEE BY NAME, BY EIN, OR BY TITLE TO MAKE THE BOARD AWARE OF THOSE SALARY INCREASES.

AND SO BASED ON THE INFORMATION IT DID APPEAR THAT PCO HE WAS UNIQUE IN OPERATING DIFFERENTLY THAN THE OTHER COUNTY OFFICES.

>> CAN I ASK... THIS WAS CIRCULATING AMONGST A ALL COUNTY OFFICES AND ONE WOULD THINK WE'VE SEEN THESE EMAILS.

>> THE REASON WE HAD IT WAS BECAUSE WE OBTAINED EMAILS FOR THE MULTIPLE PEOPLE INCLUDING THE FORMER DEPUTY SUPERI SUPERINTENDENT. WE FOUND THE EMAIL IN THAT INBOX. I THINK IT'S SAFE TO ASSUME THAT IT WAS BEING DISSEMINATED TO THE T THE LISTSERV IS A COMBINED GROUP NAME.

WE SAW THERE ABOUT 20 RESPONSES FROM OTHER COUNTY OFFICES.

WHO SAID THIS IS HOW WE DO IT AND AT SOME POINT IS HOW WE DO IT TOO. BUT THE KEY POINT WAS THERE WAS AN AGENDA ITEM, INFORMATIONAL ITEM TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION

TO THE BOARD, TO COMPLY WITH. >> IT'S SAFE TO SAY THAT IF YOU SAW THE EMAILS, SOMEONE THAT VCOE SAW THE EMAIL.

>> IT WAS IN THEIR INBOX. >> IF I MAKE? WHAT WE ARE SAYING IT WASN'T JUST THE SUPERINTENDENT AND THE CHIEF BUSINESS OFFICER BUT IT WAS THE WHOLE CABINET THAT WAS RECEIVING THESE EMAILS, AM I CORRECT?

>> I DO NOT KNOW... WHEN WE ASKED ABOUT THAT LISTSERV, I THINK THE RESPONSE THAT WE GOT WAS THAT THE SUPERINTENDENT AND DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENTS, AND POTENTIALLY ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENTS, AS WELL AS HR PERSONNEL.

>> IT'S A GOOD ASSUMPTION, THE PEOPLE IN THE CABINET RECEIVE THESE EMAILS AND PROBABLY 20 OF THEM OR MORE BECAUSE EACH TIME SOMEONE ADDED TO THE LISTSERV IMAGINE IT POPPED UP ON THE EMAIL. AND THEY ALL SAY THE SAME THING.

IN A SUMMARY I RECEIVED AN INTERVIEW WITH MISTY KEY, SHE USES THE EXPRESSION "HINDSIGHT IS 20/20." I FIND THAT VERY ODD FOR SOMEONE TO SAY THIS WHEN THERE'S A PRACTICE LIKE THIS VIOLATING THE ED CODE AND IN HER JOB DESCRIPTION SHE IS SUPPOSEDLY HAVING THE ABILITY TO PROVIDE

[00:25:06]

I DO NOT DRIVE THOSE TWO STATEMENTS TOGETHER.

THAT'S HER JOB. TO INTERPRET AND ENSURE

THAT COUNTY IS OBEYING THE LAW. >> THE COMMENT FOR HINDSIGHT BEING 2020. IN REFERENCE TO THE BOARD ASKING FOR MORE DETAIL AND WOULD'VE DONE IT.

AND ALSO 2020 OR IT'S REALLY CLEAR WHAT IS NEEDED TO BE DONE.

THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT THERE WASN'T COMPLIANCE OR

ADHERENCE TO THE 1302. >> MADAM PRESIDENT? I WANT TO GET US BACK TO A COMMENT.

SPECIFICALLY 1302-A, THIS WOULD ALSO INCLUDE PROMOTIONS.

IF SOMEBODY IS PROMOTED IN THAT MORE THAN 10,000 IN NEEDS TO BE EXPOSED ON THE REPORT MOVING FORWARD.

>> RIGHT. IT'S DETAILED IN THE REPORT BUT MANY OF THOSE INCREASES OVER 10,000, YOU TYPICALLY ARE AT PROMOTION OR AT PERCENTAGE FOR THE SUPERINTENDENT SALARIES.

THE SALARIES ARE TIED TO THAT. AT CERTAIN POINT IT WILL BE OVER $10,000 AT 5%. FOR THE PROMOTIONS, EACH YEAR WOULD'VE TRIGGERED THAT. CERTAIN OTHER EMPLOYEES AS WELL.

>> SINCE THAT IS THE RESPONSE OF MISTY KEY, AND SOME OF THESE BUDGET MEETINGS WHEN LOOKING AT SALARIES I HAVE ASKED THE QUESTION TO WHOM ARE THESE MANAGEMENT SALARIES ATTRIBUTED TO AND WAS TOLD IT'S TOO HARD TO TEASE OUT.

EXACTLY WHERE THE SALARIES ARE, THIS PERSON, WE DO NOT HAVE IT LINED ITEMS. WE DIDN'T ASK IT'S A LITTLE BIT

DISINGENUOUS. >> THE CONTRACTS, IT'S HIGH

SALARY AMOUNTS AS WELL. >> I REMEMBER A NUMBER OF RESPONSES FROM DIFFERENT BOARD MEMBERS.

THEY ONLY GOT THE LUMP SUM OF SALARY, CALLING THEM STEPWISE.

>> STEPPING COLUMN. THERE WAS NO RESPONSE.

THAT ANSWER SEEMS TO BE DISINGENUOUS.

>> AGAIN THE ISSUE WASN'T THE APPROVAL AND THE SALARY INCREASES WERE SOMEHOW NOT AUTHORIZED BY A CONTRACT OR OUTSIDE OF THE PAY SCALE BUT IT'S MORE OF THE INFORMATION BEING PROVIDED BY THE BOARD FOR 1302.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS FINDING?

>> GET MORE OF AN OBSERVATION. >> SORRY, MADAM PRESIDENT.

LOOKING AT 1302, IT DOESN'T BREAK DOWN WHETHER THAT WAS CAUSED BY A PROMOTION, SCHEDULE AND ADJUSTMENT.

THE TRIGGER, THE MECHANISM. >> IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER.

IT WAS THE FACT THAT IT'S OVER 10K.

>> THE SECOND FINDING RELATES TO A HEARING 1302-BE B, SHOULD NOTINCREASE THE RETIRS UNLESS THE MATTER IS BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR ITS USE OF DISCUSSION FOR A REGULARLY USED SCHEDULED MEETING.

APPROVING THE INCREASE. A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A REQUIREMENT WITH APPROVAL RELATED TO RETIREMENT BENEFITS.

WE DETERMINE AT THE DIRECTION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT AT FIVE

[00:30:02]

THAT SPECIFIC CONTRACT PROVISION INCLUDED IN THOSE CABINET MEMBER CONTRACTS IS LISTED HERE AND I WILL JUST READ AT LEAST THE FIRST SENTENCE OF IT. EMPLOYEES SHALL BE ENTITLED TO EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFITS AS A RETIREE UPON SEPARATION OF EMPLOYMENT FOR EMPLOYEE AND THE EMPLOYEE'S SPOUSE FOR THE DURATION OF THE EMPLOYEE AND THE EMPLOYEE SPOUSE'S LIFETIME.

I WON'T READ ALL OF IT. BUT THAT WAS THE SAME LANGUAGE THAT WAS INCLUDED IN ALL THOSE CONTRACTS AND I'M GOING TO WALK THROUGH SOME MORE DETAIL TO PROVIDE A TIMELINE OF WHAT WE FOUND IN THIS FINDING. THE START OF THIS WAS IN JUNE-JULY TIME PERIOD OF 2023 AS THE FOUR CABINET MEMBERS' CONTRACTS WERE EXPIRING FOR ANOTHER CABINET MEMBER.

SEPARATED AT THAT TIME BUT THERE WERE FOUR CONTRACTS COMING TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. AT THAT TIME IN THE SUMMER OF 2023, DR. MORALES DIRECTED THIS DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT TO PREPARE A NEW CONTRACT FOR THE CABINET MEMBERS SPECIFICALLY TO INCLUDE THE PROVISION FOR LIFETIME HEALTH BENEFITS FOR EMPLOYEES AND THEIR SPOUSE. WE DETERMINED THAT DR. MIRELES MADE THIS DECISION AND DIRECTED AS WELL AS THE EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT, BEARING THESE CONTRACTS.

INSIDE 2023, WHEN MISTY KEY -- SHE SENT THE EMAIL TO DR. MIRELES WITH THE FOUR NEW CONTRACT THAT HAD THE PROVISION FOR THE LIFETIME CONTRACTS. THROUGH JUNE OF 2026.

THERE WAS A FIFTH CABINET MEMBER THAT WAS PROMOTED IN AUGUST 2025 FOR THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT THAT ALSO RECEIVED THE CONTRACT WITH THE SAME PROVISION FOR THE LIFETIME BENEFITS.

AND IN MARCH 2026, ALL FIVE OF THOSE CONTRACTS FOR THE CABINET MEMBERS EXTENDING BENEFITS IN MAY 2026, THERE WAS A BLOG POST, THERE WAS A WEB POST THAT BROUGHT UP THE CONCERN RELATED TO THE LIFETIME HEALTH BENEFITS. AND SEVERAL MONTHS LATER, JULY 2026 WE DID SEE THE DOCUMENTATION SHOWING THE AMENDMENT TO ALL FIVE OF THOSE CONTRACTS THAT THE PROVISION HAD BEEN FORMALLY RESCINDED. THERE ARE NO LONGER LIFETIME HEALTH BENEFITS IN THE CONTRACTS SO WE DID CONFIRM ALL FIVE OF THOSE, WITH THOSE PROVISIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN RESCINDED.

>> CAN I CLARIFY, THE MINISTRY OF ASSISTANT AT THE TIME WAS

LISA BORK? >> WE DID SPEAK WITH HER AND HER ROLE IS REALLY MORE SHE HAD THE WORD NATIVE FILES FOR THE CONTRACTS. THAT'S HOW SHE WAS INVOLVED.

BUT FROM THE EMAILS IT APPEARED IT WAS MISTY KEY WAS PRIMARILY THE ONE FORMING THE LANGUAGE INCLUDED IN THE CONTRACT.

>> ALSO MY UNDERSTANDING IN READING THROUGH THERE AT THAT THIS WAS NOT REPORTED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS WELL?

>> CORRECT. WE HAVE SUMMARIZED THE SIX DIFFERENT ISSUES OF THE LIFETIME BENEFITS OF THIS SLIDE.

THE FIRST BEING THEY WERE NOT APPROVED BY THE BOARD WHICH VIOLATES CALIFORNIA EDUCATION CODE 1302-B.

THERE IS ALSO SUPERINTENDENT POLICY FOR 154/4254 WHICH PROHIBITS PAID BENEFITS FOR VCOE EMPLOYEES.

THE POLICY MENTIONS THERE IS A GROUP OF EMPLOYEES P PRE2000 WIH THE EXCEPTION OF THOSE EMPLOYEES, THERE IS CLEAR PROHIBITION OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS.

NEXT, WE ALSO NOTED THAT DR. MIRELES DID NOT SEEK

[00:35:03]

AND THE CABINET MEMBERS WERE AWARE OF THE CONTRACT FOR A LIFETIME BENEFITS THEIR SPOUSES. ONE OF THE ISSUES, AS A FUNCTION OF THAT, LEADS INTO THE NEXT ONE THE LIABILITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE LIFETIME BENEFITS WERE NOT INCLUDED IN VCOE'S ACTUARIAL STUDIES AS REQUIRED UNDER 7475 MEANING THAT THE FINANCE OFFICE, THEY WEREN'T AWARE OF IT AND THEY ARE WORKING THE ANNUAL AUDIT FOR THE ACTUARIAL STUDY, DIDN'T HAVE ANY INFORMATION.

THE LIABILITIES WAS NOT BEING FACTORED IN TO THE FUTURE COSTS AND LIABILITIES FOR VCOE WHICH AGAIN WOULD HAVE BEEN PROBLEMATIC HAD THESE COME TO A POINT TO BE PAID WHICH THEY HAD BEEN RESCINDED. BUT AGAIN, THAT IS CERTAINLY AN ISSUE. AND FINALLY HAD THE LIFETIME BENEFITS NOT BEEN RESCINDED IN JULY 2026, I THINK THAT'S NOTABLE THAT DR. MIRELES LIKELY WOULD'VE ALSO RECEIVED LIFETIME HEALTH BENEFITS UPON HIS RETIREMENT AS A RESULT OF HIS ENGAGEMENT TO MISTY KEY AROUND 2025.

I THINK THAT'S ANOTHER ASPECT OF IT THAT WE NOTED DURING THE REVIEW. ANY QUESTIONS RELATED TO THIS

FINDING? >> I NOTICED REREADING THIS THIS MORNING THAT THESE LIFETIME BENEFITS, THEY WEREN'T TO BEGIN UPON RETIREMENT WHETHER SOMEONE 65, SOMEONE 30 ORCS TEN YEARS UNTIL THEY WERE 40 OR 41. THOSE LIFETIME BENEFITS FOR THEM WOULD BEGIN WHEN THEY ARE BOTH IN THEIR 40S AND MAYBE THE SPOUSE WAS 25. THE COST OF THIS, HAVE YOU MADE ANY BALLPARK IDEA OF WHAT THIS COULD A COST AS A LIABILITY TO

THE VCOE? >> WE DID A VERY HIGH LEVEL WITHOUT KNOWING, WITHOUT BEING IN ACTUARIAL --

>> THE AGES... >> SPOUSE'S AGES.

THE PAYROLL REGISTER TO SEE WHAT THE BENEFITS ARE CURRENTLY SO EXTRAPOLATING THAT FOR 30 YEARS FOR EMPLOYEE AND SPOUSE COMING UP WITH AN ESTIMATE OF $305 MILLION FOR TEN PEOPLE OVER

30 YEARS. >> POTENTIAL LIABILITY OF 3-5 MILLION DOLLARS AND I THINK WE HAVE TO MENTION THAT THIS WAS NOT WILLINGLY RESCINDED. IT WAS RESCINDED WHEN THE INFORMATION THAT THESE BENEFITS WERE GIVEN AND ILLEGAL AND SO WERE FORCED TO BE RESCINDED. THEY WANT RESCINDED WHEN A MANAGEMENT HERE SAID OOPS, IT'S WHEN PEOPLE POINTED OUT AND IT BECAME PUBLIC. I THINK THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT.

>> MADAM PRESIDENT? >> TRUSTEE LUCAS.

>> TO ADDRESS THAT LAST COMMENT WHEN I WAS AWARE OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST WASN'T BEING COMPLIED WITH I REQUESTED THE BOARD ATTORNEY AND I REQUESTED, I WAS THE ONE WHO WENT IN THE COUNTY OFFICE. AND IT WAS SHOCKING TO SAY THE LEAST. TO REALIZE THAT THESE LIFETIME BENEFITS HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE CONTRACT WITHOUT THE BOARD'S KNOWLEDGE AND APPROVAL. AND ALSO THAT, YOU KNOW, THE INFORMATION WASN'T FREELY SH SHARED.

LEFT ME AS A TRUSTEE WITH THE FEELING THAT THERE WAS DIRECT KNOWLEDGE THAT THIS LIFETIME BENEFIT WAS IN DIRECT VIOLATION DUE TO NOT BEING APPROVED BY THE BOARD.

AND ONE OTHER PIECE OF INFORMATION THAT'S IN THE DETAIL OF THE REPORT BUT NOT ON ANY SLIDES.

WE DID INTERVIEW DR. MIRELES AND ASKED WHAT WAS THE BASIS FOR YOUR DIRECTIVE TO PROVIDE THESE LIFETIME HEALTH BENEFITS AND WHAT HE INDICATED WAS THAT HE WANTED TO MAKE SURE TO FIND A WAY TO RETAIN CABINET MEMBERS FOR TEN YEARS.

THIS WAS IN 2023. HE SAID HE WAS PLANNING ON RUNNING FOR REELECTION IN 2026 AND LIKELY AGAIN IN 2030 SO HE WANTED TO HAVE THIS 10-YEAR RUN AND THIS WAS ONE OF THE

[00:40:07]

AGAIN, THE ISSUE WITH THAT IT BOARD APPROVAL IS I THINK FIRST AND FOREMOST ALONG WITH THE OTHER ISSUES, YOU KNOW, I THINK HE DID ACKNOWLEDGE AGAIN AND IN HINDSIGHT THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN, YOU KNOW, MORE LEGAL REVIEW AS WELL AS FINANCIAL REVIEW OF THE POTENTIAL COSTS AND DISCUSSION AND APPROVAL BY THE BOARD AND NONE OF THAT HAPPENED.

SO THAT'S KIND OF THE HASTING THIS OF IT AND THE LACK OF VISIBILITY BY ANYBODY ELSE AT VCOE OTHER THAN 6-7 PEOPLE.

THE NEXT FINDING IS THE FAILURE TO ADHERE TO CALIFORNIA EDUCATION CODE SECTION 1209. THIS STATES THAT A COUNTER SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS SHALL NOT INCREASE HIS OR HER SALARY, FINANCIAL RENUMERATION, BENEFITS, PENSION IN ANY MANNER OR ANY REASON WITHOUT BRINGING THE MATTER TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR DISCUSSION AT A REGULAR SCHEDULED PUBLIC MEETING OF THE BOARD AND WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUC EDUCATION.

SO WITH RESPECT TO SECTION 12 OH NINE 1209,DR. MIRELES RECEIVED AN OFF SCHEDULE PAYMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,750 WHICH REPRESENTED 5% OF HIS SALARY.

AND HE RECEIVED THIS OFF SCHEDULE PAYMENT IN NOVEMBER BASED ON THE DIRECTIVE PROVIDED BY MS. KEY TO VCOE ABOUT YOUR PAYROLL SUPERVISOR. WE DID DETERMINE THROUGH INTERVIEWS AS WELL AS THROUGH NOTES THAT WERE TAKEN THAT MS MS. KEY PROVIDED THE DIRECTIVE VERBALLY TO PAYROLL FOR THE OFF SCHEDULE PAYMENT TO BE MADE, THE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AS WELL AS TO THE SUPERINTENDENT WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN PREVIOUS YEARS WHERE AROUND 2022 THERE WAS AN OFF SCHEDULE PAYMENT FOR 4% FOR ALL EMPLOYEES AND IN 2023 THERE WAS AN ALL SCHEDULE APPOINTMENT TELL MY PAYMENT FOR 5%. THE SUPERINTENDENT DID NOT RECEIVE THOSE IN THOSE YEARS BUT IN 2024, THERE WAS THE DIRECTIVE FROM MS. KEY TO MAKE THAT PAYMENT TO THE SUPERINTENDENT.

THAT PAYMENT WASN'T APPROVED BY THE BOARD AND APPEARED TO BE IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA EDUCATION CODE SECTION 1209.

WE DID CONFIRM THE OFF SCHEDULE WAS ULTIMATELY REPAID IN FULL BY DR. MIRELES IN MAY AND JUNE 2026 ABOUT 18 MONTHS LATER.

WE'VE GOT SOME ADDITIONAL DETAIL ON THE TIMING OF THAT ON THE

NEXT SLIDE. >> MAY I ASK.

TWO QUICK QUESTIONS. SO THE FIRST IS WITH THAT BE CONSIDERED A DOUBLE VIOLATION? BECAUSE IT WASN'T BOARD APPROVED AND IT WAS OVER 10,000? OR DO WE NOT CHARGE, NOT REPORTING THE OVER 10,000 BECAUSE HE WAS SUPERINTENDENT?

>> RIGHT. I THINK THE OVER 10,000, I DO NOT KNOW IF THAT WOULD APPLY TO HIM AS NOT BEING IN THE EMP

EMPLOYEE. >> JUST KIND OF THINKING ABOUT IT QUESTION. IS IT A DOUBLE VIOLATION? I DO NOT KNOW. THE SECOND THING IS DID YOU GO BACK FURTHER TO SEE IF THIS PRACTICE HAD EVER BEEN DONE BEFORE IN ANOTHER SUPERINTENDENT ADMINISTRATION?

>> WE WENT BACK TO 2021. I THINK WE SPOKE WITH REPRESENTATIVES FROM PAYROLL AND I THINK THE PAYROLL SUPERVISOR HAS BEEN IN THE ROLE FOR ABOUT 27 YEARS AND SHE SAID THAT THERE WAS NEVER A PAYMENT TO THE SUPERINTENDENT PREVIOUSLY.

SO THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE FIRST.

>> WHAT ABOUT CABINET MEMBERS? >> THERE WAS -- I DO NOT KNOW ABOUT PRE2021. BUT THE PAYROLL, WE HAVEN'T REVIEWED THE DOCUMENTS BUT TYPICALLY THE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AND THE CONTRACTED EMPLOYEES WHICH PRIMARILY THE CABINET MEMBERS DID NOT RECEIVE THOSE UNSCHEDULED PAYMENTS.

FROM THE PERIOD WE DID REVIEW THERE WAS INCONSISTENCY.

IN 2022 THE CABINET MEMBERS PERCEIVED IT IN 2023 THEY DID

[00:45:02]

THERE WAS JUST CLEAR DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT HAD RECEIVED IT.

>> HAD YOU SPOKEN WITH PREVIOUS SUPERINTENDENTS TO ASK ABOUT

THAT PRACTICE? >> NOT DIRECTLY, NO.

>> MADAM PRESIDENT? >> DR. FLOREZ

>> WOULD IT BE IN SCOPETO ASK E PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATIONS?

>> WE COULD DO THAT IF THE BOARD SO DECIDES.

I WOULD SAY THAT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO TALK TO AT THE

END OF THE REPORT. >> THANK YOU.

>> MAY BE A COMMENT HERE. I AM SOMEWHAT STRUCK BY THE EXTENSION OF PAYMENTS AS WELL AS THIS PAYMENT HERE.

I DID LOOK AT IT AGAIN. I SHOULD MENTION TO PEOPLE WATCHING, IT SOUNDS VERY COMPLICATED AND YOU MIGHT THINK THIS IS VERY COLLOCATED BUT THERE ARE SIX KEY ED CODES PERTAINING TO FINANCES IN THE COUNTY BOARD AND THEY ARE FAIRLY EASY LANGUAGE. THE BOARD SETS THE SALARY OF THE SUPERINTENDENT. BENEFITS CANNOT BE EXTENDED WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE BOARD. IT'S NOT SHAKESPEAREAN LEGALESE.

AND I FIND IT DEEPLY TROUBLING THAT IN EVERYONE JOB DESCRIPTION ON THE CABINET WHO RECEIVED THESE BENEFITS, THEY OUGHT TO HAVE KNOWN, THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO KNOW THE APPLICABLE ED CODE AND LOTS. AND THE BUSINESS LEADER WHO WROTE THE CONTRACTS, SUPPOSEDLY THE COUNCIL AND MUCH LIKE A COMPLIANCE MANAGER'S AND THE FINANCIAL MANAGER, I JUST WANT

TO MENTION THAT. >> I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO GO THROUGH THIS TIMELINE IN A LITTLE MORE DETAIL FOR THIS PAYMENT. BECAUSE OCTOBER 30TH 2024 WAS THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT WITH VCOE AND THE FEDERATION, OR THE UN UNION, WHICH WAS 5% ONE TIME OFF SCHEDULE, SALARY AUGMENTATION PAYMENTS FOR ALL EMPLOYEES. ESSENTIALLY THE LANGUAGE IS ONE TIME ALL EMPLOYEES, THE SALARY IMPLEMENTATION.

ABOUT A WEEK LATER, AFTER THAT AGREEMENT, THERE WAS AN EMAIL TO ALL EMPLOYEES TO NOTIFY THE PAYMENT AND THE SAME DAY WE DETERMINE AND FOUND THE HANDWRITTEN NOTE FROM THE PAYROLL SUPERVISOR BASED ON THE DIRECTIVE FROM MS. KEY TO INCLUDE CONTACT MANAGEMENT AS WELL AS A SUPERINTENDENT AND THE RECIPIENTS OF THAT PAYMENT IN 2024.

THE NEXT DAY, THE PAYMENT WAS MADE FOR THE 15,758 AT DR. MIRELES. AND FAST FORWARD ABOUT 18 MONTHS TO MAY 122026. AT THIS POINT THE WEB PAGE PUBLISHED A BLOG POST REGARDING THE OFF SCHEDULE PAYMENT IN SIDING CONCERNS ABOUT CALIFORNIA COLLEGE 809.

DR. MIRELES ISSUED A CHECK TO VCOE TO REPAY.

THAT CHECK WAS ISSUED FOR THE AMOUNT THAT WE ACTUALLY RECEIVED OUT OF TAXES AND OTHER DEDUCTIONS.

THE DAY AFTER THAT ON MAY 15TH 2026 DR. MIRELES ISSUED A LETTER TO THE COMMUNITY. INDICATING THAT THEY HAVE SINCE BEEN MADE AWARE THAT THEY REQUIRE BOARD APPROVAL AND THAT HE IS GOING TO HAVE REPAID IT. BUT THERE IS ALSO JUNE 30TH 2026 I THINK THE DECISION WAS MADE NOT JUST THE NET PORTION BUT THE ENTIRE PORTION NEEDED TO BE REPAID AND SO THE PAYROLL DEPARTMENT, THEY DID DO AN ADJUSTMENT OF HIS JUNE 20TH 2026 PAY TO ADJUST NOT THE NET PORTION THAT WAS REPLAYED BUT

[00:50:03]

IN THE LAST THING I WANTED TO MENTION ON THIS TIMELINE, ONE THING I DIDN'T MENTION IS THE BULLET POINTS.

THE INTERVIEW OF DR. MORALE IS HE INDICATED HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH MS. KEY STARTED AROUND NEW YEAR'S OF 2025.

BASED ON THE INFORMATION HE PROVIDED.

THAT WOULD'VE BEEN WITHIN A COUPLE OF MONTHS WHEN HE RECEIVED THE PAYMENT FROM THE DIRECTION OF MS. KEY.

AGAIN, THE TIMING OF THAT IS, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST RELEVANT FOR OUR REVIEWS BECAUSE WHY WAS THIS PAYMENT MADE.

INCONSISTENT, WASN'T MADE IN PREVIOUS YEARS BUT INCONSISTENT

WITH CALIFORNIA ED CODE. >> MAY I ASK...

DID YOU INTERVIEW ANYONE THAT WOULD INDICATE THE STAFF KNEW ABOUT THIS OR THE EMPLOYEES BECAUSE IT WAS PRESENTED AS EMPLOYEES WOULD RECEIVE THE 5% OFF SCHEDULE PAYMENT.

WHERE THE EMPLOYEES EVER AWARE THIS WAS GOING TO CAP? OR WAS THAT QUESTION NEVER ADDRESSED?

>> OUTSIDE OF PAYROLL, I DO NOT KNOW.

THE PAYABLE PEOPLE WE SPOKE TO OBVIOUSLY WERE AWARE OF THE INCONSISTENT YEAR-TO-YEAR CABINET MEMBER NOT RECEIVING IT, ONE YEAR WHERE THE SUPERINTENDENT ALSO RECEIVED IT.

BUT THEY WERE BEING DIRECTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT TO

MAKE THE PAYMENT. >> THIS MIGHT BE MY IGNORANCE BUT ARE CABINET MEMBERS CONSIDERED EMPLOYEES?

>> ONE OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS IS FOR A LEGAL REVIEW OF THAT BECAUSE I'M CERTAIN THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME CLARITY IN TERMS OF HOW THE ONE TIME PAYMENT WAS APPLIED AND FROM THE AGREEMENT WITH THE UNION TO DOES THAT MEAN EMPLOYEES, CONTRACTED EMPLOYEES.

>> I DO REMEMBER READING AND WENT BACK AND READ OUR MINUTES AND LOOKED AT OUR BUDGET STUDY SESSION AND PRESENTED AS REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES. IT WAS THE VERBIAGE USED AND THAT'S PRETTY SPECIFIC TO REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES.

>> AND WHEN WE SPOKE TO MS. KEY ABOUT THIS SHE SAID THE HISTORICAL PRACTICE WAS VCOE EMPLOYEES TO ALL EMPLOYEES AND THAT'S HOW IT'S BEEN DONE AND THAT'S WHY THEY DID IT THAT WAY.

>> THAT'S INTERESTING. REFLECTING SOMETHING TO DO IT.

>> HAVE BEEN PERSONALLY MANY CONTRACTS OVER THE YEARS.

THE OFF IT'S PRETTY MUCH STANDARD PRACTICE WHEN EMPLOYEE GROUPS GET AN UNSCHEDULED RAISE COME ON SCHEDULED BONUS, IT IS THEN APPLIED TO PRINCIPALS, MANAGEMENT, ET CETERA.

PRETTY STANDARD. >> IF THERE WERE HISTORICAL PRACTICE. THAT'S WHY IT WOULD BE INTERESTING GOING BACK. AFTER IT'S BEEN NEGOTIATED.

>> IF ALL THE EMPLOYEES WERE AWARE OF THAT.

>> IT'S NONETHELESS AGAINST THE LAW TO GIVE A $10,000 RAISE WITHOUT US BEING NOTIFIED WHETHER IT'S PART OF AN AGREEMENT OR ITS DONE IN EVERY SCHOOL SYSTEM THIS SIDE OF THE MISSISSIPPI. SO I THINK WE'VE GOT TO STICK TO

THE LAW HERE. >> I THINK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT

TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. >> I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.

SOMETHING THAT SHOCKED ME. IT WAS DISCOURAGED TO WRITE THINGS DOWN? THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT EMAILS OR WRITTEN PROOF OF DECISIONS ABOUT FINANCIAL DIRECTIONS OR...

>> THERE WERE THINGS WRITTEN DOWN.

>> WHY DID THEY DISCOURAGE THAT? >> THAT SOMETHING WE ALSO IN OUR RECOMMENDATIONS SPEAKING TO THE CULTURE AND DOCUMENTATIONS.

THERE ARE MULTIPLE PEOPLE WE SPOKE WITH WHERE THE ATTITUDE WAS, DON'T PUT IT IN WRITING. SO WE WANT TO LOOK AT VERBAL

[00:55:02]

IN THE ABSENCE OF WHAT YOU'D EXPECT TO SEE, A MEMO OR EMAIL TO CLEARLY INDICATE WHO HAD RECEIVED THESE PAYMENTS AND PROVIDE THE PROPER AUTHORIZATION IN DOING SO.

NOT WITH RESPECT TO THIS ISSUE BUT MORE BROADLY I THINK THERE WAS A FINANCIAL AND HR DECISION, OPERATIONAL DECISIONS, DON'T PUT IT IN WRITING, DON'T PUT IT IN THE EMAIL SPECIFICALLY.

LET'S TALK ABOUT IT OFF-LINE. AND I THINK THERE ARE CERTAIN SITUATIONS WHERE IT MAKES SENSE, ALSO SITUATIONS WHERE THERE IS A

NEED -- >> SEEMS TO ME MEASUREMENT 0-1.

ONE MY ASKING SOMEONE TO DO, WHAT IS THE NUMBER AND IF IT IS, YOU WANT TO KEEP A RECORD OF THAT IN CASE THERE IS SOME ISSUE LATER ON. I AM PUZZLED WHY THAT COULD BE

THE CASE. >> AND I THINK THAT SPEAKS WHAT WE SAW IN 2022. CONTRACT MANAGEMENT RECEIVED THE OFF SCHEDULED PAYMENT. AND THEN THEY DID, AND THEY DID IN THE SUPERINTENDENT DATED. GROUPS OF PEOPLE THAT RECEIVED THEM AND COMBINATIONS OF PEOPLE AND I THINK THAT IS -- THAT SPEAKS TO THE PROCESS, THESE VERBAL DIRECTIVES THAT WERE NOT DOCUMENTED CLEARLY, PROPERLY AUTHORIZED.

>> MADAM PRESIDENT? >SO I THINK TO SUM IT UP, THERES NO CAN SI CONSISTENCY, THERE'S O PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR OR HOW THEY ROLLED OUT THIS ONE TIME. I THINK THIS PART OF THE QUESTION AGAIN. HOW DO THEY MAKE THAT DETERMINATION HOW DO THEY THINK THE CABINET GOT UP AT SUPERINTENDENT DATED. AND THEN ONE YEAR THE SUPERINTENDENT DATED? I GUESS THEY'RE STILL AN OUTSTANDING QUESTION OF WHY DIDN'T THEY AND WAS IT.

>> THE OFF SCHEDULE MANAGER DID NOT RECEIVE THE CHECK.

>> BUT EMPLOYEES DID? >> RIGHT.

FROM OUR DISCUSSIONS, ESSENTIALLY IT'S THE DISCRETION OF MS. KEY, AND I THINK THERE WAS 2022, THERE WERE ARPA FUNDS.

AT ONE, MORE FUNDS THAT WERE LEFT OVER IN 2023, MAYBE NOT.

I DO NOT KNOW WHAT FACTORS WERE BEING WEIGHED.

BUT AGAIN, IT WAS A VERBAL AUTHORIZATION THAT WAS

INCONSISTENT EACH YEAR. >> JUST FOR MY CLARITY.

IS WHEN THE EMPLOYEES RECEIVE 5% AND MANAGER FEET MANAGER FEET DELICACIES 5%, IS A 5% MANAGEMENT IS RECEIVING TAKING AWAY FROM WHAT IS POTENTIALLY AVAILABLE TO EMPLOYEES.

>> OBVIOUSLY IT'S ONE POT OF MONEY.

MAYBE IN DIFFERENT POCKETS. BUT IT'S STILL ONE SET OF MONEY.

TECHNICALLY YES. BUT AT THE SAME TIME THE EMPLOYEE GROUPS NEGOTIATE AT SOME POINT THERE'S GOING TO BE A RAISE. THAT'S A GOOD HONOR OF SCHEDULE.

OR BOTH. AS I SAID I DON'T REALLY SAY I SUPER TELL MY GOES "HEY, BORED," SHOULD APPLY TO OTHER EMPLOYEES NOT REPRESENTED AND BE CLEAR IT WITH THAT, THAT DOESN'T MEAN IN OUR CASE THE ONES THAT WERE OVER 10,000 OBVIOUSLY SHOULD HAVE COME TO THE BOARD FOR DISCUSSION.

BUT THAT'S TYPICALLY WHEN I SEE THOSE AND SOMETIMES THEY GET LESS. SOMETIMES THEY GET MORE.

AND THEN EMPLOYEES, THEY GET MORE UPSET.

[01:00:03]

THE BOARD. >> UP TO THE BOARD AND SAYING AFTERWARD WITH THE GROUPS, WE GOT A 4% RAISE AND WE THINK EVERYBODY WHO ISN'T REPRESENTED ALSO GETS A 4% RAISE IN THIS

BONUS. >> THAT'S INTERESTING.

THAT IS THE NORMAL PRACTICE IN REGULAR SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO BRING IN THE BOARD, ASKING FOR THEIR INPUT.

IT'S PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE. >> AT THE SAME TIME, BEING ON A LOCAL BOARD, THE DIFFERENCE IS WITH OUR ELECTED SUPERINTENDENT, WHERE THE STATUTORY LIMITS LIE BETWEEN THE TWO.

>> WHAT THE MANAGEMENT IS GETTING.

>> ALSO VERY COMMON. A LOT OF DISTRICTS, CLASSIFIED ONE CALLING ME TOO BASICALLY SAYS WHATEVER THE CERTIFICATE OR GROUP CATS, YOU'RE GOING TO GET. WHICH OFTEN UPSET CERTIFICATE GROUPS, DOING ALL THE BARGAINING AND ALL THE WORK AND WILL GET WHATEVER WE GET AND IT'S BEEN INTENSE TO GET WHATEVER THEY GOT

TOO. >> EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT IS THE

PRACTICE. >> YEAH.

BUT IT'S NOT ALWAYS CONSISTENT. I'VE SEEN WHERE THE SUPERINTENDENT GETS THE 7% RA RAISE.

DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN IT, BUT IT GENERALLY FOLLOWS THAT

EVERYONE GETS SOMETHING. >> IT FEELS LIKE IT SO PRES

PRESENTED. >> IF I COULD ASK YOU A QUESTION ABOUT THAT. IN COMMON PRACTICE WHEN TRADITIONAL SCHOOL BOARDS ARE GETTING THOSE KIND OF BONUSES, HOW DOES THAT WORK WITH ANY KIND OF LAYOFFS.

I'M THINKING ABOUT THE BC OEE, DURING THIS TIME WHEN THERE WERE THESE UNSCHEDULED BONUSES, WHERE THERE ANY KIND OF LAYOFFS DUE TO NOT HAVING THE FUNDING OR THINGS LIKE THAT AND HOW DOES THAT PLAY

INTO IT? >> IN OUR CASE IT HAD WHAT I REMEMBER SOME OF THE LAYOFFS THAT WE HAD, THE NONRENEWAL'S HAD TO DEAL WITH THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS IF I BELIEVE.

LAST PROGRAMS, ET CETERA, I THINK OUR SITUATION IS LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN IF YOU HAVE A DISTRICT WHICH IS IN FINANCIAL STRAITS AND THEY WERE GOING TO LAY PEOPLE OFF BECAUSE THEIR BUDGET CAN AFFORD TO KEEP THIS MANY PEOPLE AND IT'S PROBABLY NOT A YEAR THERE'S GOING TO BE A RAISE.

RIGHT? WHEREAS THE COUNTIES SEEMS TO BE MORE -- SOME OF OUR PROGRAMS WENT BACK TO LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND A LOT OF THOSE EMPLOYEES WENT TO WORK WITH LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS. IT WASN'T IN THAT LOSS WE ARE NO

LONGER PAYING THOSE FOLKS. >> TRUE.

BUT WE CAN ALSO OFFER ADDITIONAL SERVICES WITH THAT MONEY.

>> IN THESE DECISIONS ARE BEING MADE AROUND THE TIME FISCAL YEAR IS CLOSING IN THE FINANCIALS ARE BEING CLOSED AND SO THERE'S A LITTLE MORE CLARITY WHAT LEVEL OF RESERVE FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE AND THIS WOULD'VE COINCIDE WHEN DECISIONS WERE MADE ABOUT TRANSFERRING FUNDS WHICH WE WILL TALK ABOUT HERE IN A LITTLE BIT.

>> I'M GOING TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ON OUR LIST IF THERE'S ANY

OTHER DISCUSSION. >> MADAME PRESIDENT.

JUST TO CONFIRM BECAUSE I KNOW -- I HAD SEEN SOME QUESTION IN PUBLIC THAT AT THIS POINT DR. MIRELES HAS MADE THE VCOE COMPLETELY WHOLE INCLUDING BENEFITS AND TAXES AND THE ACTUAL CASH PAYMENT UP AT THIS POINT.

JUST FOR THE RECORD, YOUR TEAM LOOKED AT THAT AND RECOGNIZE THE PAYROLL DEPARTMENT HAD GONE THROUGH AND EVERYTHING IS WHOLE

AT THIS POINT? >> CORRECT.

WE DID LOOK AT THE PAYROLL REGISTERING DETAIL FOR THAT JUNE INCLUDED THIS AS AN EXHIBIT. THE PAYMENT IN MAY WAS THE NET PORTION AND JUNE 30TH, ESSENTIALLY THE ENTIRE 15,750 WAS ADJUSTED WITH A DEDUCTION FOR THE AMOUNT HE ALREADY PAID.

IN EFFECT AS OF JUNE 30TH, THE ENTIRE 15,750 HAS BEEN PREPAID.

[01:05:09]

>> TALKING ABOUT SCOPE RELATED TO VENDORS AND CONTRACTORS.

WE LOOKED AT PAYMENTS TOTALING 128 MILLION DURING THE THREE-YEAR PERIOD FROM THE 24TH THROUGH THE 26TH.

APPROXIMATELY 35,000 TRANSACTIONS TO ABOUT 1800 DIFFERENT PAYEES MEETING VENDORS ARE CONTRACTORS AND ARE FUN OURS AT THE HIGH LEVEL, LACK OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION RELATED TO QUOTES FOR COMPETITIVE PRICING AND WHAT WE WANT TO LOOK AND SEE WHERE THERE ARE THREE QUOTES AND THE ONE SELECTED THE LOWEST. BUT WE DID DETERMINE IS THAT PROCESS WAS HAPPENING AND IT WAS BEING CONDUCTED BY PURCHASING AND THEY KEPT THE QUOTE FOR THE FIRM THAT THEY ULTIMATELY SELECTED BUT THEY DIDN'T MAINTAIN THOSE OTHER QUOTES AND SO WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION ABOUT THAT, THE RETENTION OF THAT DOCUMENTATION FOR PURPOSES OF TRANSPARENCY AND MAINTAINING THAT AS A RECORD. THERE WAS ONE VENDOR WE REVIEWED, A POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

WHICH WAS SERIOUS THERE WAS NO IMPROPERCONFLICT OE REASONS THAT SUPPORTED OUR CONCLUSION WAS ONE, THE BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VCOE PREDATED THE MARRIAGE OF THE VCOE EMPLOYEE AND THE VICE PRESIDENT AND IT WAS BY ALMOST TEN YEARS.

SO THIS WAS A LONG-STANDING VENDOR THAT HAD BEEN PROVIDING SERVICES TO VCOE PRIOR TO THEIR MARRIAGE.

THE EMPLOYER ALSO DISCLOSE THE AFFILIATION IN THE ANNUAL 700 FORM FILINGS AND WE DETERMINE THOSE ARE BEING PROPOSED APPROPRIATELY. IN THE PAYMENTS OF INVOICES FOR THIS VENDOR WERE REASSIGNED SO THAT THE EMPLOYEE WITH THE AFFILIATION WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE PROCUREMENT MATTERS RELATED TO THAT VENDOR. WE DID SEE THE AUTHORIZATIONS IN THE FLOW, THE ROUTING AND IT DID IN FACT EXCLUDE THE EMPLOYEE.

ULTIMATELY WE HAD CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS AN AFFILIATION BUT THERE WAS NO IMPROPER CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

>> MADAME PRESIDENT? >> DR. FLORES?

>> CAN YOU REMIND ME WHAT SERVICES THIS VENDOR WAS

PROVIDING? >> SERVICES PROVIDED, SOFTWARE?

>> ITS SOFTWARE FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION.

I THINK IT RELATES TO THE IED PLANS.

>> YOU DO NOT SEE THAT AS A CONFLICT SINCE THE EMPLOYEE IN QUESTION IS IN CHARGE? I'M JUST ASKING.

>> THERE IS CONFLICTS BUT I THINK THERE IS THE DISCLOSURE IN THE PROCESS TO APPROPRIATELY HANDLE THAT CONFLICT AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT HAS BEEN PUT IN PLACE.

BECAUSE THERE IS THIS THAT'S BEEN DISCLOSED AND THE QUESTION BECOMES DID THEY MAKE SURE THAT EMPLOYEES AUTHORIZING CONTRACT THAT VENDOR AND I THINK BASED ON THE FACT THAT IT WAS AN EXISTING VENDOR AND THE DISCLOSURE, I THINK THAT SATISFIES DEALING

WITH THAT TYPE OF ISSUE. >> THANK YOU.

>> I THINK YOU SAID TOO THE CONTRACT WAS IN PLACE FOR YEARS BEFORE THAT EMPLOYEE DEVELOPED A POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

>> I THINK IT WAS ACTUALLY THE VENDOR HAD BEEN PROVIDING SERVICES AS FAR BACK AS 2011. I BELIEVE THEY WERE MARRIED IN 2020, 2021. TEN YEARS THAT THEY HAD BEEN PROVIDING SERVICES PRIOR TO T THAT.

ONE OF THE OTHER VENDORS WE LOOKED AT AND PERFORMED FURTHER REVIEW WAS THE VENDOR PROVIDING PROMOTIONAL ITEMS TO VCOE STARTING FEBRUARY 2024. SO THIS IS A BAR CHART OF THE MONTHLY PURCHASES AND INVOICES. WHAT WE OBSERVED IS REALLY IN

[01:10:09]

SO THE INTENT WAS TO HAVE PROMOTIONAL ITEMS BULK PURCHASED FOR VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS AND EVENTS WITH VCOE BRANDING TO HAND THOSE OUT AT DIFFERENT EVENTS AND SO THERE WAS THE PROMOTIONAL INTENT AND BY COORDINATING AND ORDERING IN BULK THERE IS POTENTIAL COST SAVINGS FOR THOSE ITEMS AND THAT IS WHAT THAT EMAIL CORRESPONDS WITH SOME OF THE SPIKE OF FEBRUARY 2024. ALSO SPOKE WITH PURCHASING HOW THIS VENDOR CAME TO BE THE PRIMARY PROVIDER OF THESE ITEMS AND WHAT WE DETERMINED AND PRIOR TO OCTOBER 2022 THERE WAS ANOTHER VENDOR AND THE VCOE USED THE SMALL BUSINESS THAT WAS CLOSING. I THINK THE OWNER WAS RETIRING AND THEY WERE LOOKING FOR A NEW BUSINESS THAT WAS LOCAL.

THEY IDENTIFIED AMY KELLER AS BEING A LOCAL BUSINESS BASED IN VENTURA COUNTY AND CONTACTED THEM WHICH WE DID VERIFY THE EMAILS THAT SHOWED THAT AND WE ALSO DETERMINED THAT THERE WAS PURCHASES WHERE THEY DID HAVE MULTIPLE QUOTES AND DID HAVE THE LOWEST PRICE FOR THOSE ITEMS AND SO I THINK ONE OF THE OBSERVATIONS WE DO HAVE TALKING TO INDIVIDUALS AND EMPLOYEES AND THE ITEMS BEING PURCHASED IN BULK SITTING IN STORAGE CLOSET MULTIPLE YEARS AND I DO NOT KNOW HOW THOSE WERE BEING MONITORED AND ARE ESSENTIALLY BEING GIVEN AWAY LARGELY TO VCOE EMPLOYEES AND I THINK IT BECOMES MORE OF A QUESTION OF IS THIS THE BEST USE OF FUNDS FOR PROMOTING VCOE. IT'S ABOUT 950,000 THE TOTAL PAYMENTS TO AMY KELLER OVER THE THREE-YEAR PERIOD.

OVER $300,000 PER YEAR. >> MADAME PRESIDENT?

>> TRUSTEE TEASDALE? >> I THINK THE INFORMATION THROUGH SPEND ON EMPLOYEE SENIORITY REWARDS.

IT'S IMPORTANT TO DISTINGUISH WHAT MIGHT BE OVER ILLEGAL BEHAVIOR, OR APPARENT BUT ILLEGAL BEHAVIOR AND WHAT MIGHT APPEAR TO BE WASTEFUL OR BAD DECISIONS OR DECISIONS YOU DON'T AGREE WITH. MIGHT THIS BE ONE OF THE LATTER IF YOU THINK IT'S WASTEFUL AND NOT NECESSARILY ILLEGAL.

COULD BE VIOLATIONS OF POLICY WITH RESPECT TO THIS VENDOR.

IT WAS MORE OF WHEN UNITED BY WHICH VENDOR IS LOOKING AT THAT ONE PART OF IT IS BASED ON INFORMATION.

BASED ON QUESTIONS OF THESE PURPOSES.

PROPER AFFILIATION, WE DID NOT IDENTIFY ANYTHING.

>> I LIKE TO BRING UP THE FACT THAT THE COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT POSITION IS ELECTED AND WITH THE COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT'S NAME PRINTED LARGELY ON ALL THESE ITEMS STARTING IN 2024, THERE IS THE QUESTION OF IS IT PROMOTIONAL FOR VCOE OR IS IT PROMOTIONAL FOR THE PERSON RUNNING FOR ELECTION.

CANNOT SAY. BUT THAT IS A LOT OF PROMOTIONAL MATERIALS THAT I'M NOT SURE VCOE NEEDS TO BE PROMOTING ITSELF TO THAT DEGREE. AS WE PROVIDE, AS I'VE BEEN TOLD

VERY VALUABLE SERVICES. >> I THINK IT'S INTERESTING.

TOOK COMMENTS TO THAT, PRESIDENT ULRICH.

IF I UNDERSTOOD YOUR REPORT RIGHT, THE MENTION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT NEEDED TO BE ON THESE ITEMS.

[01:15:02]

JUST A QUESTION OF HOW YOU WANT TO SPEND THE MONEY.

>> MADAME PRESIDENT. DID YOU ASK HER, WAS HER INFORMATION -- EXCUSE ME, WHY THE VCOE STARTED SPENDING.

I'M LOOKING AT THIS BAR GRAPH, IT SUBSTANTIALLY AN INCREASE IN SPENDING. I THINK BACK TO BUSINESSES DOING PROMOTIONAL MATERIAL, IS TO PROMOTE THEIR BRAND, THEIR BUSINESS. BUT THAT'S BEING TAKEN OUT OF THE PROFIT MARGIN HERE AT THE VCOE, SPENDING ALMOST A MILLION DOLLARS, I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S THE BEST USE OF TAXPAYER RESOURCES. DID NOBODY GIVE YOU ANY REASON AS WHY THEY WERE SPENDING THAT KIND OF MONEY?

>> THE BEST EXPIRATION WE CAN POINT TO IS THE EMAIL FROM MISTY KEY FEBRUARY 2024 AND IT'S NOT IN THE SLIDE BUT IT'S IN THE REPORT AND I CAN READ THE FIRST COUPLE OF SENTENCES.

SHE SAID WE HAVE QUITE A FEW LARGE-SCALE EVENTS COMING UP TO PROMOTE THE WONDERFUL SERVICES BEING PROVIDED TO PUBLIC EDUCATION BY VCOE WITH BRANDED ITEMS FOR THE ITEMS WE SHARE FOR THE VCOE BRAND SERVING THE PUBLIC PURPOSE OF ALL THINGS WITH PUBLIC EDUCATION FROM VENTURA COUNTY.

THE MORE PEOPLE UTILIZING VCOE BRANDED ITEMS THE MORE MILES WE

GET FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION. >> THAT EMAIL DOES MENTION IF FOLKS ASKS THE CAN ORDER SPECIFIC ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL EVENTS, ALWAYS INCLUDING THE STANDARD VCOE LOGO FOR SCHOOLS AND DOCTORS. SO THE LOGO ITSELF WAS ALSO PART

OF THE EMAIL. >> I ALSO WANT TO STATE FOR THE RECORD THAT AGAIN, THE COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT IS ELECTED AND THESE TYPE OF PURCHASES ARE NEVER BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD BECAUSE IT IS NOT OUR JURISDICTION TO OVERSEE THE SPENDING OF THE MONEY RECEIVED BY THE COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION AND HOW THEY SPEND IT. THIS ISN'T SOMETHING THAT WOULD'VE BEEN BROUGHT ABOARD. AND, SORRY, I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT IT.

BUT THIS BOARD HAS NO ABILITY TO WEIGH IN ON IT.

>> THAT'S A GOOD DISTINCTION. THE LAST 20 YEARS I WORKED IN CONSTRUCTION, MY EMPLOYEES GIVE ME BALL CAPS, SWEATERS TO ADVERTISE A COMPANY NAME. I RECEIVED UMBRELLAS, I GOT AN UMBRELLA WITH THE VCOE LOGO, POWER BANKS.

DUFFEL BAGS, LUNCHBOXES. I GUESS AS A TRUSTEE, THE TAX DOLLARS, THEY USE MORE ITEMS LIKE PENS AND HIGHLIGHTERS.

THERE IS SOME OF THAT. THE VAST MAJORITY OF THIS SEEMS VERY MUCH LIKE SELF-PROMOTION. TO ME THAT'S JUST DEEPLY TROUBLING. GOT TO SPEND TAXPAYER RESOURCES TO PROMOTE SOMETHING THAT'S FREE AND ASSESSABLE TO ANYBODY WHO IS HERE IN OUR COUNTRY THAT IS NEEDING PUBLIC EDUCATION, IT'S

FREE AND AVAILABLE TO EVERYBODY. >> FROM THE INVOICES, THE MOST EXPENSIVE ITEM WAS THE YETI RAMBLER ENGRAVED MUGS WHICH WERE TYPICALLY $35. WHICH AGAIN WAS SEVERAL DOLLARS CHEAPER THAN THE OTHERS. THEY DID GO WITH THE LOWEST COSTS VENDOR IN THIS SITUATION. BUT FOR PURPOSES OF PROVIDING OUR OBSERVATIONS, THOSE INVOICES, THAT WHAT WE SAW.

>> TROUBLING THAT THE SUPERINTENDENT'S NAME IS ON THERE. THESE ARE LEGACY ITEMS. GIVING AN ANECDOTAL STORY, I WAS IN THIS RESTAURANT MAKING THIS LEATHER BOOKLET EMBOSSED WITH THE VCOE LOGO AND THE

[01:20:03]

VCOE, WHY ARE YOU POINTING VCOE? AND POINTS OF THE NOTEBOOK AND ITS EMBOSSED AND UNLESS YOU ARE LOOKING AT IT YOU DO NOT SEE THE LOGO. REACHES DOWN AND PULLS OUT FROM HER HANDBAG THE SAME LEATHER BINDER, THE SAME LEATHER NOTEBOOK. DEFTLY PERVASIVE IN THE

COMMUNITY. >> WE DID LOOK AT, WE DID HAVE EXPERIENCE, WITH ISSUES RELATED TO THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION OF -- I DO NOT THINK THERE WAS ANYTHING WITH A CLEAR

VIOLATION HAVING HIS LOGO. >> MADAME PRESIDENT, I WANT TO KNOW IF WE EXTEND OUR AGENDA. WE ARE ON THE FIRST AGENDA ITEM AND WAS GOING TO END AT 8:00. I SUGGEST WE EXTEND IT TO 9:00.

>> THERE IS A MOTION TO EXTEND THE MEETING TONIGHT.

>> IT ALREADY SAYS 9:00 P.M. 6:00 TO 9:00 P.M.

>> I THOUGHT YOU WERE PROACTIVELY SAYING THAT WE ARE ALL GOING TO BE HERE UNTIL TEN WHICH AT THIS RATE...

>> I WOULDN'T GO THAT FAR RIGHT NOW.

I'M NOT INTO THAT TIME INFLATION YET.

>> ALL RIGHT. PLEASE PROCEED.

>> WE'VE GOT FIVE MORE SLIDES. AND THAT HELPS WITH THE TIMING.

SO TOUCHING ON THE REVIEW OF THE CREDIT CARD EXPENDITURES WHICH ARE THROUGH THE PROGRAM, THIS TABLE SHOWS A SUMMARY OF THESE EXPENDITURES AND THIS IS SPECIFICALLY FOR THE SUPERINTENDENT AND CABINET FOR THE THREE YEARS, WHICH TOTALED 286,000 ORGANIZED BY CATEGORY. SO THESE ARE PRIMARILY BEING USED FOR TRAVEL PURPOSES WHICH MAKES SENSE AND THAT IS THE INTENDED USE OF THESE CARS, HOTEL, LODGING, AIRFARE, SO FORTH. WE DID IDENTIFY 84 TRANSACTIONS WE CLASSIFIED MISSING THE DOCUMENTATION.

THERE WAS SUPPORT FOR MOST OF THESE, REALLY, THE COMMON ISSUE OR OBSERVATION THAT WE HAD IS A LOT OF THE AIR FOR PURCHASES HAD THE FLIGHT ITINERARY BUT NOT THE DOLLAR AMOUNT.

WE WANT TO SEE THE DOLLAR AMOUNT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS THE SUPPORT FOR THE TRANSACTIONS THAT'S ON THE CREDIT CARD STATEMENT. WE DID LOOK AT THE CREDIT CARD STATEMENT AND THE SUPPORT FOR ALL THESE TRANSACTIONS AND WE DID SEE 41 TRANSACTIONS FOR THE EMPLOYEE REIMBURSED VCOE BECAUSE OF THINGS LIKE UBER CHARGES WHERE YOU INSTANTLY USED CALCAR IN THE STEAD OF A PERSONAL CREDIT CARD.

SO I THINK THAT'S A GOOD SIGN THAT THOSE ARE BEING IDENTIFIED IN THE REVIEW PROCESS AND THERE IS REIMBURSEMENTS BEING MADE

WHEN THOSE ARE IDENTIFIED. >> ANY QUESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO

THE CREDIT CARDS? >> THE NEXT AREA IS THE EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENTS WHICH TOTAL APPROXIMATELY 900,000 ACROSS ALL VCOE EMPLOYEES OVER THE THREE-YEAR PERIOD.

ABOUT $300,000 EACH YEAR. SIMILAR TO THE CAL CARD, THESE ARE RELATED TO TRAVEL EXPENDITURES AND ALSO MORE SO THE MILEAGE GOING ON CAL CARD BUT THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING SUBMITTED THROUGH AN EXPENSE REPORT.

A LOT OF THE MILEAGE IS BEING PAID THROUGH THE EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENTS. WE LOOKED AT 40 OF THESE WILL BE PERFORMED FOR THE REVIEW LOOKING AT THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION AND FOR 15 OF THE 40, WE WERE UNABLE TO IDENTIFY THE DOCUMENTATION SHOWING THE PRIOR APPROVAL.

SO THAT SOMETHING IN THE SUPERINTENDENT POLICY, ONE OF THE THINGS INDICATED IS THERE NEEDS TO BE DOCUMENTATION OF PRIOR APPROVAL. I THINK THIS IS A SITUATION IT MAY HAVE BEEN VERBAL. DOCUMENTATION FOR 15 OF THOSE, TWO TRANSACTIONS ON THE NATURE OF THOSE THAT DID NOT APPEAR TO MEET THE ALLOWABLE CRITERIA. THAT WAS PAID TO THE

[01:25:11]

IN OCTOBER 2024. >> DO WE KNOW WHAT Q DAY IS?

>> I DO NOT KNOW OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

>> IT REFERS TO THE INFORMATION THAT WE USE COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS THOUGH THEY HAVE A BIG ALL DAY WORKSHOP AND TRAININGS AND

ALL THE DISTRICTS COME TO IT. >> THANK YOU.

>> I WANTED TO TOUCH ON THE FINDINGS, SO WE REVIEWED ALL OF THE INFLOWS AND OUTFLOWS OF THESE TWO FUNDS FOR THE FIVE YEAR PERIOD 42022-2026 AND THESE ARE THE TABLES FOR THE FUNDS THAT SHOWS THE TOP 117 INCREASED FROM 2021 TO ABOUT 26.3 MILLION.

THERE WAS SOME REVENUES MAY BE PRIMARILY INTERESTS.

THERE WERE NOT ANY EXPENDITURES AND OUTFLOWS FROM THIS FUND AND THERE WERE $8 MILLION IN INTERFUND TRANSFERS THAT HAPPENED TYPICALLY IN THE SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER TIME PERIOD WITH THE CLOSING OF THE FINANCIALS.

IT'S KIND OF CLEAR THE RESERVE FUNDS, TYPICALLY TRANSFERRED INTERFUND 17 AND A SIMILAR PROCESS INCREASING 5.8 MILLION TO ABOUT 10.8 MILLION. SO NO EXPENDITURES OR OUTFLOWS, $4 MILLION IN TRANSFERS FROM THE GENERAL FUND INTO THIS FUND, IN TOTAL WE IDENTIFIED $12 MILLION TRANSFERRED FROM THE GENERAL FUND INTERFUND 17 AND FUND 20 OVER THE FIVE YEAR PERIOD.

WE DETERMINE THESE TRANSFERS WERE DIRECTED BY MISS KEY TYPICALLY DURING THE YEAR END CLOSING PROCESS.

AND THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION IN THE JOURNAL ENTRIES FOR THIS KARMA LIMITED DETAILS IN TERMS OF THE JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THE TRANSFERS AND WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION BEING PROVIDED TO THE BOARD, WE LOOK AT THE INTERIM BUDGETS AND THE OTHER AMENDMENTS TO THE BUDGET THAT ARE PROVIDED TO THE BOARD, WE DETERMINED THAT 2 MILLION OF THOSE 12 MILLION DOLLAR TRANSFERS WERE INCLUDED IN THE INTERIM BUDGET REPORT.

THE 10 MILLION OF THE 12 WERE NOT.

THEY WERE INCLUDED IN THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

BUT THIS WAS MORE OF -- THERE WAS NOT INFORMATION ITEM PRESENTED TO THE BOARD ABOUT TRANSFERRING $4 MILLION FROM THE GENERAL FUND INTERFUND 17. THERE WASN'T THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL. PART OF THAT IS A FUNCTION OF IT HAPPENING AFTER THE YEAR AND CLOSE.

THE BUDGET WAS CLOSED OUT. WE DO HAVE A RECOMMENDATION

RECOMMENDED TO THESE TRANSFERS. >> CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE SIGNIFICANCE OF FUND 17 AND FUND 20? AND CAN YOU HIGHLIGHT ANY MORE INFORMATION THAT YOU RECEIVED AS TO WHY THESE TRANSFERS WERE MADE?

>> FUND 17 -- LET ME JUST PULL THE OFFICIAL NAME FOR THE FUND.

FUND 17 WAS A SPECIAL RESERVE FUND FOR OTHER THAN CAPITAL OUTLINE PROJECTS AND FUND 20 IS THE SPECIAL RESERVE FUND FOR POSTEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS. AND SO BASED ON OUR INTERVIEWS WITH MISS KEY DURING THE PROCESS, ONCE IT WAS KNOWN WHAT LEVEL OF RESERVES WERE AVAILABLE DURING THE FISCAL YEAR, THERE WAS A TRANSFERRING OF FUNDS INTO THESE RESERVES FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS OR POSTEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS.

SPECIFICALLY WE DID TRY TO GET SOME CLARITY ON DID THESE POSTEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THOSE CONTRACT PROVISIONS IN 2023 AND I THINK WHAT WE DETERMINED WAS THESE WERE HAPPENING PREDATED ON THAT.

[01:30:05]

>> I HAD ASKED THAT QUESTION AND ABOUT WHY THE FUND BALANCE WAS INCREASING SO LARGE AND I WAS TOLD THAT IT IS A FUND WHERE YOU CAN PARK MONEY AND USE IT AT YOUR DISCRETION.

MY QUESTION WOULD BE IS A COMMON PRACTICE TO USE THE FUND AS A FUND WHERE YOU STORE MONEY? FOR CAPITAL OUTLAY OR WHATEVER

ELSE YOU MAY USE IT FOR? >> I TYPICALLY EXPECT TO SEE THAT IF THERE IS A JUSTIFICATION THAT A REPORT THAT SAYS LIABILITIES WERE UNDERFUNDED BY $3 MILLION, THAT WOULD BE THE JUSTIFICATION TO MOVE $3 MILLION INTO THAT FUND.

WE HAVE SEVERAL RENOVATIONS WE NEED TO RESERVE FUNDS FOR.

SO THE UNUSUAL PART FROM OUR REVIEW WAS THAT THERE WASN'T THAT INFORMATION BEING SHARED WITH THE BOARD AS FAR AS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR HOW MUCH AND WHAT IS THE INTENDED PURPOSE OF THESE FUNDS. I THINK THE BOARD CLEARLY HAD QUESTIONS AND WASN'T GETTING ANSWERS AS FAR AS THE WHY AND I THINK THAT'S THE ISSUE. AND THERE IS, WE HAVE IN THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THERE IS THAT TALKS ABOUT BUDGET AMENDMENTS. I THINK THERE IS SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER THESE TRANSFERS MEET THE CRITERIA.

BUT I THINK THERE CERTAINLY SHOULD BE INFORMATION WE PROVIDED TO THE BOARD WITH JUSTIFICATION.

>> MADAM PRESIDENT? I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR THIS CLIENT. THE ACTUAL STUDIES YOU HAVE DONE COME WITH IT SHOW THAT FUND 20 WAS SHORT AT ALL? BECAUSE I BELIEVE THERE'S ABOUT 13 EMPLOYEES.

ONE WOULD THINK JUST TO THE TIME AND AS YEARS GO BY THE NUMBER

WOULD SHRINK. >> IT HAS SHRINK SIGNIFICANTLY IN THE LAST FEW YEARS. WE CAN LOOK AT ALL OUR ACTUARIAL STUDIES AND IT DOES SHOW THAT. THEY DO NOT TAKE THE BALANCE INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN THEY DO THE ACTUARIAL'S SO THEY DON'T REPORT ON IT SO IT'S NOT IN A REVOCABLE TRUST.

YOU CAN USE THE FUND FOR ANY PURPOSE.

IT'S JUST CALLED THAT SO SOME PLACES MARK IT BUT LIKE US IF OUR ACTUARY AMOUNT DROPS, WE AREN'T STUCK WITH KEEPING IT FOR THAT AND WE CAN USE IT FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

WITH OUR CURRENT LIABILITY. >> IF MY EYESIGHT IS RIGHT, BEGINNING FISCAL YEAR 21, THIS FUNDING WAS PROBABLY WELL-FUNDED

AT THAT POINT. >> YES, I WOULD SAY.

>> CIRCLING BACK TO ASKING MS. KLEIN ABOUT THE TRANSFERS TO FUND 17 OR FUND 20 RELATED TO THE LIFETIME BENEFITS AND THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS DIDN'T KNOW THE LIFETIME BENEFITS WERE PART OF THE CONTRACTS BECAUSE SHE HADN'T SEEN THOSE CONTRACTS AND I THINK WE ARE AT THE LACK OF THAT DOCUMENTATION, THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION BASICALLY SIMILAR TO THE PATTERN OF THE DISCRETION OF THE FORMER DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT.

THE JUSTIFICATION OR VISIBILITY INTO WHY.

>> ONE OF THE ANCILLARY SCOPES OF WORK EMERGED SO WE DID IDENTIFY IN OUR REVIEW OF EMAILS, SOME OF THE INVOICES TO

[01:35:02]

WE DID CONFIRM THAT SHE HAD OBTAINED AUTHORIZATION FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT IN 2020. SO THERE IS A DOCUMENT THAT WAS SIGNED BY BOTH MISS KEY AND THE SUPERINTENDENT TO PROVIDE THE OUTSIDE CONSULTING WORK FOR VCOE POLICY FOR OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT.

AND IN THE EMAILS THAT WE REVIEWED RELATED TO MS. KEY, WE IDENTIFIED 18 INVOICES. TOTALED ABOUT $73,000 AND THIS IS A COMBINATION OF FEES AND EXPENSES.

SOPHIE'S WERE ABOUT 55,000 AND EXPENSES WERE ABOUT 8,000.

SO TRAVEL EXPENSES. SOME OF THE SITES THAT WE SAW IN MONTEREY AND IN FAIRFIELD WHERE THE COMMON LOCATIONS FOR THE CONSULTING PERIOD SHOWED THEY WERE 73 DAYS WHERE SHE PROVIDED CONSULTING SERVICES. AND 48 OF THOSE 73 WHERE WEEKDAYS SO WE LOOKED AT WHETHER WHEN WE SPOKE WITH MS. KEY, SHE INDICATED THAT HER VACATION TIME IN THE VCOE PROVIDING CONSULTING SERVICES, WE IDENTIFIED EIGHT DAYS WHERE MS. KATIE WAS PAYING FOR CONSULTING SERVICES BUT SHE DID NOT USE VACATION TIME AT THE VCOE. ALL EIGHT OF THESE WERE TYPICALLY TRAVEL DAYS SO TRAVELING TO MONTEREY OR FAIRFIELD ANYWHERE FROM FIVE TO EIGHT HOURS AS OPPOSED TO THE FULL ON-SITE DAYS THAT WE HAD SEEN THESE INVOICES FOR THE EIGHT HOURS, THOSE DAYS TYPICALLY THERE WAS VACATION TIME ON THE TIME SHEET, AND THEN IN LOOKING AT THOSE EIGHT DAYS WHERE VACATION TIME WAS NOT USED, WE DID DO AN ANALYSIS OF HER EMAIL TO GET A SENSE. NOT A PERFECT ANALYSIS BUT IT'S THE BEST WE CAN DO WITHOUT LOOKING AT SEND EMAILS AND EMAIL ACTIVITY AND SO TYPICALLY 7 OF 8 OF THESE DAYS THERE WERE EMAILS THROUGHOUT THE DAY WITH BUSINESS AND SO IT APPEARED SHE WAS TRAVELING ALSO WORKING REMOTELY ON VCOE RELATED WORK.

WITH EXCEPTION OF THE ONE DAY OF FEBRUARY 18TH 2025 WHERE SHE CHARGED TRAVELING TO MONTEREY AND DIDN'T USE VACATION TIME AND ON THE SEND EMAIL. SO THAT'S KIND OF OUR REVIEW OF

THOSE INVOICES. >> THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT.

DO YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU THE COST OF TRAVEL OR THE AMOUNT OF TIME SHE WAS CHARGING OFF OF THAT?

>> FOR THAT SPECIFIC DAY? >> ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR.

AS I WAS LOOKING AT THAT. IT'S ONE THING TO PROVOKE BUT IF

YOU DO THAT... >> WE DO HAVE THOSE INVOICES WHICH TYPICALLY WOULD SAY EIGHT HOURS ON SITE OR FOUR HOURS TRAVEL TO MONTEREY AND WOULD BE SUPPORTING HOTEL RECEIPTS.

AND SO SEPARATELY WE ARE LOOKING AT EMAILS AND SEEING THE TIME-STAMPS FROM THE FIRST OF THE LAST AND SO FOR THE MOST PART IT'S SPORADIC EMAILS AND I DO NOT KNOW IF MOST OF THESE WERE DRIVING. THAT FACTORS INTO IT.

[01:40:06]

I DO NOT KNOW. THE ELDERLY FILMIC HOURLY RATE, THEY CAN QUANTIFY THE NUMBER OF HOURS BASED ON THAT.

I SHOULD SAY THAT WE THINK THERE IS 25 INVOICES IN TOTAL BASED ON THE NUMBER OF 1-25. WE IDENTIFIED 18.

THERE IS LIKELY OTHER INVOICES THAT'S LIKELY NOT IN THE VCOE

REVIEW. >> JUST TO BE CLEAR THAT 64,538 IN FEES WHERE PAYMENTS TO MS. KEY FOR HER WORK?

>> CORRECT. THESE WERE THE INVOICE AMOUNTS THAT SHE INVOICED AND PRESUMABLY WAS PAID.

>> AND $8,048 WAS REIMBURSEMENT FOR HER TRAVEL?

>> YES. >> AND SOME OF THOSE DAYS SHE WAS IN THE CAR FOR FOUR AND A HALF, FIVE HOURS, SHE WAS ALSO WORKING? FOR VCOE?

>> THERE WERE EMAILS BEING SENT. >> WHILE DRIVING.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> MOST OF THE DAYS FOR THE 48 WEEKDAYS, SHE DID USE VACATION AND THERE WAS THE TRAVEL DAYS WERE THE ONES THAT WERE, THE VACATION HADN'T BEEN USED BUT WE HAD NOTE THAT WE AREN'T TALKING ABOUT ONE TO TWO HOURS OF TRAVEL. THESE ARE ALL LISTED FIVE, ANYWHERE FIVE TO EIGHT HOURS OF TRAVEL FOR THAT DAY.

>> SINCE I WASN'T PRIVY TO THE AD HOC MEETING WITH YOU IN SETTING THIS UP. HOW DID IT COME ABOUT THAT SOMETHING LIKE THIS WAS PART OF THE SCOPE OF YOUR REPORT? I'M JUST CURIOUS. OTHER THAN ED CODE VIOLATIONS

THAT MADE IT IN. >> I THINK PART OF THIS IS WHEN WE STARTED LOOKING AT THE EMAIL DATA AND WE FOUND SOME OF THESE INVOICES. AND ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WE HAD WAS WHERE ANY OF THE EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENTS OVERLAPPING WITH THE CREDIT CARD OR EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENTS THROUGH VCOE? WE ANALYZED IT FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WAS NOT ANY KIND OF DOUBLE-DIPPING WHICH WE DIDN'T FIND IN THAT. BUT WE DID LOOK AT THE INVOICES AND SUMMARIZED THOSE IN THE PROCESS OF DOING THAT.

>> THANK YOU. >> AND SO THAT IS THE END OF THE FINDINGS AND WE'VE GOT TWO MORE SLIDES.

GOING TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE ISOLATIONS IN THE FIRST ONE RELATES TO THE SALARY INCREASES TO THE BOARD.

RECOMMENDING THAT THEY START IN PERMITTING THE PROCESS TO INFORM THE BOARD OF SALARY INCREASES OVER 10,000, SUCH AS INCLUDING AN INFORMATIONAL ITEM WITH DETAILED SALARY INCREASES EITHER BY NAME OR POSITION. OR EIN.

WE AREN'T TRYING TO BE TO SPECIFICALLY CLEARLY THERE IS A NEED TO HAVE THAT PROCESS IMPLEMENTED GOING FORWARD.

THE SECOND RECOMMENDATION RELATES TO FORMALIZING THE PROCESS FOR ISSUING THE PAYMENTS WHICH SOME OF THE SPECIFICS WE MENTIONED IS PER CONSIDERATION OBTAINING LEGAL GUIDANCE FOR CONTRACT MANAGEMENT SHOULD RECEIVE THE OFF SCHEDULE PAYMENT. AGAIN WE NOTED THERE'S INCONSISTENCIES, EACH YEAR AND TILL FORMALLY DOCUMENTING TO PAYROLL FOR ADMINISTERING THE OFF SCHEDULE PAYMENTS, AND ALSO BRINGING THOSE OFF SCHEDULE PAYMENTS THAT ARE OVER 10,000 TO THE ATTENTION OF THE BOARD TO COMPLY WITH 1302-A.

>> THE THIRD ONE RELATES TO THE DOCUMENTATION WITH COMPETITIVE BIDDING AND PRICING. I MENTIONED THIS WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE PAYMENTS TO VENDORS AND CONTRACTORS LOOKING AT THE BIDS." THE THREE QUOTES WERE NOT RETAINED. IT WOULD JUST BE THE QUOTE FOR THE LOWEST COST AND SO FOR THE PURPOSES OF TRANSPARENCY AND

[01:45:05]

>> THE FOURTH ONE RELATES TO THE DOCUMENTATION OF PRIOR AUTHORIZATION FOR TRAVEL EXPENDITURES.

THIS RELATES TO OUR FINDING THAT THERE WAS 15 OF THE 40 TRAVEL EXPENDITURES THAT WE REVIEWED. THERE WASN'T A DOCUMENT THAT SHOWED PRIOR AUTHORIZATION AND SO HAVING SOME KIND OF STANDARDIZED FORMER APPROVAL JUST TO HAVE THAT IN WRITING THAT THIS TRAVEL IS APPROVED INTO HELPING TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH SUPERINTENDENT POLICY 3350.

THE FIFTH ONE IS THE DISCLOSURE OF TRANSFER FOR FUND BALANCES SO WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT THESE TRANSFERS AND THE LACK OF INFORMATION AND JUSTIFICATION FOR THESE.

WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT VCOE IMPLEMENT A PROCESS TO REPORT TO THE BOARD THE TRANSFERS ESPECIALLY THOSE IN EXCESS OF 25,000. THIS WILL ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH ED CODE AND THE LAST ONE RELATES TO THE CULTURE AND DOCUME DOCUMENTATION, NOT JUST ONE EMPLOYEE BUT NUMEROUS EMPLOYEES WHO SPOKE TO THE CULTURE OF DON'T PUT THINGS IN WRITING, DON'T PUT IT IN AN EMAIL. I THINK SHIFTING THE CULTURE OF THAT PRACTICE, YOU KNOW, I THINK WOULD BE CRITICAL AND IMPLEMENT AND PROCESSES TO ENSURE THE FINANCIAL AND OPERATIONAL DECISIONS ARE SUFFICIENTLY DOCUMENTED AND AUTHORIZED TO ENSURE ACCURACY AND CLARITY IN DIRECTIVES TO IMPROVE TRANSPARENCY, VISIBILITY, ACCOUNTABILITY.

FUTURE LEADERSHIP. THERE IS DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO IDENTIFY HOW AUTHORIZATION HAS BEEN MADE AND DECISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE AND SO FORTH.

I THINK FROM A BROADER CULTURE PERSPECTIVE I THINK IT'S ALSO WORTH NOTING, GENERALLY THERE IS BEEN THIS VIEWPOINT OF BEING THIS INNER CIRCLE AND LEVEL OF FEAR SPEAKING UP AND NOT SPEAKING UP TO AVOID REPERCUSSIONS, AND IF YOU ARE NOT IN THE INNER CIRCLE, I THINK THAT CULTURE, YOU KNOW, IT'S ONE OF THE OBSERVATIONS THAT CAME OUT OF THE INTERVIEWS WHICH DOESN'T DIRECTLY RELATE TO THE SCOPE BUT IT'S WORTH MENTIONING.

THAT'S THE SUMMARY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS.

>> I'M ASSUMING THAT YOU WILL MAKE THIS AVAILABLE TO VCOE?

>> CORRECT. IT'S IN A DRAFT FORMAT UNTIL NOW. WE WANTED TO PRESENT THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, HAVE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE BOARD.

AND IF THERE IS ANY FOLLOW-UP ITEMS THAT WE NEED TO INCLUDE IN THE REPORT BEFORE WE FINALIZE IT, OTHERWISE WE CAN SUBMIT IT WITHOUT THE DRAFT CONFIDENTIAL AND WE CAN SUBMIT THAT AND IT

ESSENTIALLY THE BOARD'S REPORT. >> I FOR ONE, I'M NOT SURE OF MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS WOULD BE INTERESTED IN HAVING A LITTLE MORE HISTORICAL INFORMATION ON IF THE ME TOO BONUSES WERE PRIOR TO 2022. OR 2023?

>> I LIKE TO POINT TO AT LEAST ONE DEMONS ADMINISTRATION'S HISL

PERSPECTIVE. >> WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT THE AD HOC COMMITTEE WOULD POINT OUT FOR THE FINAL REPORT?

>> WITH ONE MAYBE 22015, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, LOOK AT HOW OFF THE SCHEDULE BONUSES WERE. WE LOOK AT IT AND HOW THE RACES OF $10,000 OR MORE WERE REP REPORTED.

THAT WOULD BE THE HISTORICAL SCOPE AND THE TWO ITEMS THEY

WERE LOOKING FOR. >> I'LL GIVE EMOTION TO THAT

[01:50:01]

EFFECT TO HAVE THAT ON A SCOPE. >> GOING TO INCREASE THE COST OF THE CONTRACT OR IS THAT STILL WITHIN THE COST TIME FRAME?

>> I HAVE TO ASK OUR LEADER OF THE TEAM HERE.

I'M NOT SURE THAT'S THE PLACE TO DO IT RIGHT NOW.

BUT... >> GUYS, I THINK ONCE WE GET THE DOCUMENTS I DO NOT THINK THERE IS A WHOLE LOT OF TIME INVOLVED SO I THINK WE CAN INCLUDE THAT WITHOUT ADDING TO THE SCOPE THAT WE HAVE. I THINK ONE OTHER OPTION IS WE CAN HAVE THIS TO BE AN AMENDMENT OR AN ADDENDUM TO THE CURRENT REPORT FROM IF YOU WANTED TO KEEP THIS REPORT AND FINALIZE IT AND HAVE, YOU KNOW, AN ADDENDUM WITH THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

WE CAN ALSO DO IT THAT WAY. >> I'D APPRECIATE THAT AND I'D

LIKE TO TAKE IT BACK TO 2010. >> 2010?

>> TO THAT. >> BEFORE THE TIME MS. KEYS HAVE

BEGUN. >> I'D LIKE TO SEE MORE THAN JUST WHAT SPEED 27 KEY WAS INVOLVED WITH BUT EVEN PRIOR TO

THAT. >> 2010?

>> FROM A RECORDS RETENTION STANDPOINT?

>> AT WHAT POINT DO THE RECORDS ARE MAYBE NOT SO CLEAR OR IS

THAT NOT AN ISSUE? >> NOT SURE BUT WE HAVE THE CHECK. WHILE ALL OUR DISCLOSURES WITH COLLECTIVE BARGAINING DONE EVERY YEAR AND THOSE WERE IN PERMANENT RECORDS AND ALL ARE SALARY SCHEDULES AND WE SHOULD SEE WHEN IT'S RAISED, CHECKING IF THERE WERE NOTES GIVEN TO PEOPLE OR HOW IT WAS COMMUNICATED. WHO TO PAY, WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING WITH TRAVIS. WE WILL HAVE TO LOOK BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE HOW FAR BACK THE PERSONAL FILES THAT SHE USED ARE

WORKING, RIGHT? >> CAN WE TAKE A GOAL OF 2010 AND IF WE'VE GOT ALL THE DATA UNTIL THEN, LET'S GO THERE.

>> WE SHOULD IDENTIFY WHATEVER RACES WERE GIVEN TO STAFF VIA BARGAINING AND WHEN THAT WAS REPORTED IN THAT KIND OF THING.

IT'S JUST COMMUNICATION ON WHO SHOULD RECEIVE WHAT MAY NOT BE.

>> I DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO EVERYBODY'S EMAILS AND I DO NOT THINK YOU ASKED FOR THAT FAR BACK.

SO KIND OF DOING THAT STUFF. >> IT WOULD JUST BE NICE FOR HISTORICAL. I BELIEVE JUST TO SEE WHAT HISTORICALLY HAS BEEN THE CASE FOR A NUMBER OF DECADES SO WE

CAN PUT THIS TO REST. >> MADAM PRESIDENT.

I THINK 2008 IS A START SO GOING BACK TWO YEARS, ONLY GOING BACK

TWO YEARS, THOSE FOUR YEARS. >> WE CAN GO 2008.

IT'S WHAT LISA CAN HELP WITHIN REASON.

AND I'M FINE WITH IT BEING AN ADDENDUM SO WE CAN RELEASE THE

REPORT. >> WE CAN RELEASE WE HAVE NOW AND HAVE THAT AS AN AMENDMENT. I HAVE SOME GENERAL THOUGHTS AND QUESTIONS BECAUSE IT WAS QUITE STRIKING READING THIS BEFORE AND YOU'VE MENTIONED THIS. THE APPARENT VIOLATIONS IN THE ED CODE. THE CULTURE OF NOT WRITING THINGS DOWN. AND MAY AND APRIL WE SAW WHAT SEEMED TO BE DELAYS IN RELEASING INFORMATION TO US.

WE ALSO HAVE A TEAM WHO INCLUDE EXPERTS, WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO BE EXPERTS GIVEN THE JOB DESCRIPTION EVEN THOUGH IT IS RECEIVED WITH SOME OF THESE BENEFITS, ALSO I'M SUPPOSED TO KNOW ED CO. SIX OR SEVEN PEOPLE IN THE TIME THAT YOU'VE INTERVIEWED THEM. BECAUSE I HAVE NOT HEARD THIS.

>> HAVE NOT HEARD ANY APOLOGIES OR DID YOU SEE ANY ACTION? I'VE BEEN IN DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS WERE WE HAD 10,000 PEOPLE AND BAD THINGS HAPPEN. QUALITY ISSUES SOMETIMES.

AND GOOD LEADERSHIP TAKES RESPONSIBILITY FOR THAT.

AND THEN TAKES ACTION. YOU KNOW, HERE THERE IS A SERIES OF APPARENT VIOLATIONS OF ED COAND WAS THERE ANY TRAINING DONE TO ADDRESS WHAT SEEMS TO BE A SYSTEMIC ISSUE IN THIS ORGANIZATION? I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT.

>> SPECIFICALLY WITH 13, THE RESPONSES WITH MS. KEY AND

[01:55:06]

THOSE PROVISIONS. >> I DO NOT BELIEVE WE NEED A MOTION. OR DO WE NEED A MOTION, TO HAVE

AN ADDENDUM? >> I THINK WE CAN COME UP WITH IN AMOTION TO RECEIVE THE CURRET DOCUMENT WHEN YOU RECEIVE IT AND TO ASK WEAVER ASSOCIATES ACCORDING TO WHAT WE JUST SAID AS AN OUTLINE TO GIVE US THE AMENDMENT, A HISTORICAL OUTLINE OF SOME OF THE PAYMENTS BACK TO THE 2008, YOU SAID?

>> IF POSSIBLE I'D LIKE TO SEE 2006.

>> 2006? OKAY.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND. >> MOTION TO SECOND.

I WILL DO ROLL CALL. TRUSTEES FLORES? TRUSTEE TEASDALE? AND I VOTE AYE SO THE MOTION PASSES 5-0. WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR WORK AND YOUR TIME. AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO THE FINAL

REPORT. >> WILL SUBMIT THE FINAL REPORT.

WE WILL GET THE ADDENDUM GOING. WE'LL BE IN TOUCH WHEN WE HAVE

THAT READY FOR REVIEW. >> I WANT TO MENTION BEFORE I THOUGHT THE WORK WAS VERY PROFESSIONAL, VERY DATA-DRIVEN.

VERY COMPLETE. I WAS VERY HAPPY WITH YOUR TEAM AND HOW YOU RESPONDED TO OUR REQUEST.

>> I'D ALSO LIKE TO VERY APPRECIATED AT HOW QUICK YOU ARE RESPONDING TO QUESTIONS THAT TRUSTEE TEASDALE AND I HAD IN ONE OF THE REASONS WE CHOSE YOU FOR THE SIZE AND STATURE AND HOW QUICKLY WE BELIEVE THAT YOU'D BE ABLE TO TURN THIS AROUND FOR US.

BEING ABLE TO WORK WITH YOU AND HOW QUICK YOU WERE.

SO THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU TO THAT.

A LOT OF THE CREDIT GETTING THE DOCUMENTS FROM THE FINANCE AND BUSINESS OFFICE CONTRIBUTING TO THAT.

SO THANK YOU. >> AT THIS POINT I'M GOING TO CALL FOR A FIVE MINUTE BREAK. IT IS NOW 7:59 P.M.

WE WILL TAKE A BREAK UNTIL WE R? WE ARE GOING TO REOPEN THE

[C.2. Consideration and Possible Approval of Correspondence and Submission of the Weaver Report to the Ventura County District Attorney ]

8: ZERO 88 OH 8:05 P.M. YOU ARE BACK UP.

HELLO

>> HELLO. I'VE BROUGHT A LETTER TO SHARE WITH EVERYONE ON THE BOARD TO TODAY.

FROM THE POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION.

THIS IS IN REGARD TO YOUR LETTER WHERE YOU MENTIONED THE REPORT THAT WE JUST HEARD IN THIS LETTER WAS DRAFTED BEFORE THE REPORT WAS MADE PUBLIC WHICH IS CART BEFORE THE HORSE.

BUT YOU ALSO AND IT SHOULD BE WHERE YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY JURISDICTION IN THIS LETTER CLARIFIES IT IS NOT ACTIONABLE.

THEY'VE LOOKED INTO IT AND THEY RECEIVED THE COMPLAINT AND THEY'VE MOVED ON IT AND THEY'VE INTERVIEWED AND IT'S NOT ACTIONABLE. HIS IS POLITICALLY MOTIVATED.

A NUMBER OF THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ENDORSED THE OTHER

[02:00:04]

THE MOVE THE NEEDLE PAC ONCE AGAIN ONE'S TO REMOVE PROTECTIONS FOR THE LGBTQ COMMUNITY.

IN OUR SCHOOLS. MADE MENTION THAT THE PROMOTIONAL ITEMS WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE REALLY NECESSARY BECAUSE TO FREE AND FAIR EDUCATION, DOES THAT INCLUDE LGBTQ STUDENTS? DOES IT? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO STAND ON?

>> THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO RESPOND.

>> AS WE SAID WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO COMMENT.

FAIR. FAIR.

>> I THINK IT DOES REFLECT WHERE YOU STAND AND MAYBE YOU HAVE BEEN MISGUIDED. THIS REPORT COULD HAVE BEEN RELEASED SOONER. HERE WE GO.

PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUEST. IT WASN'T ANYTHING THAT THE VOTERS DID. AND NOW, YOU ARE TRYING TO FIX A LEAKY BOAT. WE NEED TO HAVE CORD RAILS WHEN TAKING THE VOTE AWAY FROM THE PEOPLE IS NOT IT.

TAKING A SWIPE AT YOUR CHOSEN CANDIDATE TO PUBLIC FUNDS.

USING YOUR POSITION AS VCOE. THIS LETTER IS DATED.

SEPTEMBER 18TH, THIS INFORMATION HAS BEEN THERE.

SO THIS IS A SWIPE. >> AND WE WILL MOVE ON TO CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE APPROVAL OF THE CORRESPONDENCE AND SUBMISSION OF THE WEAVER REPORT TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY.

AND I ACTUALLY INITIATED THIS. I JUST WANT TO WIN OVER THE PAST SIX MONTHS, SERIOUS CONCERNS HAVE EMERGED REGARDING THE OPERATIONS AND OVERSIGHTS OF THE VENTURA COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION. THE BOARD LACKS THE OVERSIGHT TO EVALUATE SPENDING PRACTICES, MANAGEMENT STAFFING.

THE ALLOCATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS AND CONCERNS RAISED BY LOCAL SUPERINTENDENTS BY THE SERIES SERVICES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW, TRANSPARENCY, AND ACCOUNTABILITY ARE NOT OPTIONAL.

OUR PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM MUST OPERATE WITHIN THOSE STANDARDS REGARDLESS OF THE SCALE OF THE ISSUE OR THE POSITION OF THE INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED. IT IS NEITHER PRACTICAL NOR APPROPRIATE FOR OUR BOARD TO CONTINUALLY COMMISSION FORENSIC AUDITS TO DETERMINE WHETHER LEGAL AND PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED. OUR BOARD MUST HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT VCOE LEADERSHIP PROVIDES ACCURATE COMPLETE AND TRANSPARENT INFORMATION THAT CONSISTENTLY COMPLIES WITH EDUCATION CODE. THAT'S WHY TRUST IN LEADERSHIP IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES BEFORE US.

TRUST BEGINS WITH THE COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT AND EXTENDS TO THE INDIVIDUALS THEY APPOINT TO LEAD THE ORGANIZATION.

WITHOUT THAT TRUST OUR ABILITY TO FULFILL THE RESPONSIBILITIES AS A BOARD AND ASSURE ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE PUBLIC IS FUNDAMENTALLY UNDERMINED. FOR THESE REASONS RESPONSIBILITY AS A BOARD FOR THE INFORMATION AND COMPETITION FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR INDEPENDENT REVIEW AND TO REQUEST CONSIDERATION AS TO WHETHER A GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION OR OTHER INDEPENDENT INQUIRIES ARE WARRANTED.

OUR RESPONSIBILITY IS TO ATTACK THE PUBLIC RESOURCES AND ENSURE TO THE STUDENTS, FAMILIES, AND THE TAXPAYERS WE SERVE.

I PRESENT THIS LETTER, OPEN FOR AMENDMENTS, I JUST FEEL THAT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT AT THIS POINT IN TIME THAT WE RECOGNIZE WHAT OUR BOARD CAN AND CANNOT DO.

AND THAT THE TRUST THAT IS GIVEN TO WHOM HE IS ELECTED TO RUN THE

[02:05:02]

I WILL OPEN IT UP. >> I GOT SEVERAL POINTS I'D LIKE TO MAKE. THE FIRST I'D LIKE TO MAKE A FORMAL POINT OF ORDER. I WAS MENTIONING THE CANDIDATE FALLS A OUTSIDE OF THE BOARD OF JURISDICTION FOR I BELIEVE THIS BOARD HAS NO IMMINENT THREAT OF AUTHORITY OVER AN OUTSIDE LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT USING THAT OUTSIDE DISTRICT'S TECHNOLOGY AND MOVE TO STRIKE THAT ENTIRE SECTION, IT'S QUITE POSSIBLY A VIOLATION OF THE BROWN ACT AND COULD OPEN THIS BOARD UP TO LITIGATION. MY SECOND POINT HAS TO DO WITH THE PORTION OF POTENTIAL ALLEGATIONS OF THE COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT AND CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES AT VCOE PREMISES.

IT HAS NOT BEEN DISCUSSED. THERE'S BEEN NO EVIDENCE PRESENTED. I CAN TELL YOU FROM YEARS OF EXPERIENCE NOT ALL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES FROM THE SCHOOL SITE ARE NOT ALLOWED. FOR EXAMPLE, I'VE DONE A LOT WITH TEACHERS, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR DURING THEIR DUTY FREE LUNCH IF THEY WANT TO WEAR A BUTTON BOOKING FOR WHATEVER, THEY CAN DO THAT. IF SOMEONE COMES FROM THE UNION AND HAS A LUNCH MEETING DURING THEIR DUTY-FREE TIME WHEN THEY RECOMMEND CANDIDATES THEY CAN DO THAT.

A LETTER GOES OUT ASSOCIATION AND NEWSLETTERS POLITICAL RECOMMENDATIONS THEY CANNOT GO IN THE MAILBOXES BUT THEY CANNOT BE LAID ON A TABLE IN THE STAFF TABLE FOR PEOPLE TO PICK UP.

SOMEONE RUNNING FOR OFFICE DURING THEIR LUNCH TIME, THEY SAY, HEY, I'VE GOT THAT SIGN OUT FOR YOU ON MY CAR, THEY GO OUT TO THE PUBLIC PARKING LOT AND THEY CAN DISTRIBUTE THAT DURING THAT TIME, SEE ME AFTER WORK, GIVE YOU A SIGN FROM THE TRUNK OF MY CAR, THAT'S NOT PROH PROHIBITED.

TO ME, THIS IS VERY BROAD SA SAYING, YOU KNOW, THEY DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE AND A LOT OF THESE THINGS DEPEND ON IF THEY HAPPEN AND WHEN THEY HAPPEN IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, NECESSARILY A CUT AND DRIED THING. MY OTHER POINT IS THAT UP ABOVE, WHICH ACID WE TAKE OUT IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH THAT WE HAVE YOUR OFFICE CONSIDERING THE SEPARATE ALLEGATIONS TAKEN OUT.

ALSO WE DID MENTION IN HERE THAT MONEY WAS PAID BACK AND WE DID MENTION THAT LIFETIME BENEFITS WERE RESCINDED BUT WE SHOULD ALSO ADD BECAUSE WE DO HIGHLIGHT THAT THE BOARD WAS NOT AS REQUIRED BY LAW PULLING BACK PAYMENTS OVER $10,000 BUT WE DID IMPLEMENT A POLICY TO BRING THE INFORMATION FORWARD BECAUSE WHAT I FIND FOR EXAMPLE, THERE ARE BROWN ACT VIOLATION, IT GOES TO THE PUBLIC INTEGRITY TO THE D.A.'S OFFICE.

THEY LOOK AT THE ALLEGATION. IF THEY THINK THERE WAS A BROWN ACT VIOLATION WHAT THEY SAY IS, OKAY, HERE'S WHAT YOU NEED TO CORRECT IT. IF YOU DON'T DO IT WE ARE GOING TO TAKE IT TO THE NEXT STEP AND, YOU KNOW, IT APPEARS TO BE MORE ABOUT CORRECTING SITUATIONS AND PROSECUTING SITUATIONS SO I THINK THEY HAVE THAT FULL PICTURE.

BUT I DO FEEL STRONGLY THAT ESPECIALLY IN REGARDS TO CANDIDATE FEAR THAT WE HAVE OVERSTEPPED OUR BOUNDARIES.

AND IT IS A SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION UNDER THE BROWN A

ACT. >> I APPRECIATE THAT.

I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THAT. THIS IS JUST TO ASK THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY TO LOOK INTO THESE THINGS.

IT HAS BEEN PUT UP ON THE BOARD. WHY ARE YOU NOT DOING THINGS, WHY YOU NOT ASKING THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY.

>> WE ARE NOT A LEGAL LAW BODY. >> THE BOARD IS STRICTLY CORRESPONDED, TO MANAGERS SPECIFICALLY INVOLVED IN PHYSICAL FINDINGS. TO ME THIS LETTER COMES WITH THE PRESENTATION WE JUST SAW. SHOULD BE FOCUSED ON THAT RATHER THAN THESE OTHER TWO ITEMS WITH REALLY, WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF

[02:10:01]

>> I GUESS I WOULD JUST LIKE TO BE OUT OF THE BUSINESS OF

LAW ENFORCEMENT. >> MADAM PRESIDENT?

>> YES? >> CAN YOU EXPAND A LITTLE MORE ABOUT I'M DOING THIS AS WELL HERE, EXPLAIN TO HOW THIS BOARD CAN BE IN VIOLATION OF THE BROWN ACT?

>> FOR EXAMPLE IN THIS CASE WE ARE SAYING IF THIS CANDIDATE IS NOT OUR EMPLOYEE, WE HAVE NOT MISREAD OF AUTHORITY OVER THIS PERSON, I SAW SOME PEOPLE SPEEDING ON THE WAY TO THE MEETING TONIGHT? WHY DON'T WE THROW THEM IN AND ASKED TO INVESTIGATE THEM. THAT'S RIDICULOUS BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY AUTHORITY OVER THESE FOLKS.

THE SAME THING HERE, HAVE NO AUTHORITY OVER WHAT SOMEONE D DOES. WHETHER THEY ARE AT EMPLOYEE, SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER AND ANOTHER DISTRICT, USING THEIR EMAIL SYSTEM. IT REALLY IS TO ME OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THIS BOARD HAD THEM BLOW THAT INTO SOMETHING THAT CLEARLY IS WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION.

SO FOR ME, WHEN IT COMES TO MY REPRESENTATIVE TO DOZENS OF PEOPLE OVER THE YEARS SENDING AN EMAIL ON THE DISTRICT SERVICE THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE SENT. SOMETIMES DIFFERENT THINGS, I WISH DR. SANTOS WAS HERE SO I WISH YOU COULD TELL YOU TOO WHEN THE SITUATIONS HAPPEN IT TENDS TO BE HANDLED IN THE HOUSE.

ASKING LAW ENFORCEMENT TO HAVE THEIR OWN ADMINISTRATIVE WAYS OF DEALING WITH IT. THEY HAVE WAYS OF DIFFERENT DISG PEOPLE. THIS BOARD HAS ZERO AUTHORITY.

OVER THIS AND INSTEAD IT'S BEING PUT IN UNDER THE BROWN ACT YOU DO NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THIS MATTER.

>> I GUESS AS I WAS LISTENING TO YOU I RECEIVED THE INTERVIEW THROUGH MY VCOE INTERVIEW ADDRESS, IT DID COME TO THE VCOE SERVERS, I THINK THERE IS STANDING.

WHEN I LOOKED IT UP TO PREPARE FOR THE MEETING TONIGHT, I'VE SEEN THIS CIRCULATE AS WELL. I BELIEVE THE ELECTED MEMBERS THAT DR. SCHEER HAD EMAILED ORIGINALLY SO I WAS LOOKING THIS UP AND IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS THE DISTRICT EMAIL SYSTEM IS A DISTRICT SERVICE OR EQUIPMENT. SPECIFICALLY SEVEN AND I GUESS THIS IS WHERE I MET WITH IT AND I THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE THAT WE WOULD ASK THE D.A. TO WEIGH INTO IT.

WE GO THROUGH ETHICS TRAINING EVERY TWO YEARS.

AND I SPECIFICALLY REMEMBER AS A TRUSTEE THAT USES THE VCOE EMAIL THAT WE CAN'T UTILIZE IT FOR ANYTHING OUTSIDE OUR OFFICIAL CAPACITY. AND SO 7054C STATES HERE IT'S CRIMINAL. SO HAVING THE D.A. BEING ABLE TO PRESENT THIS INFORMATION AND HAVING THEM WEIGH IN, AND IT'S MUCH HEAVIER THAN THIS LETTER AND AS A WAY TO EXONERATE THE SHARE, I DO THINK GIVEN THE WEIGHT OF WHAT THIS BOARD IS GONE THROUGH WITH THE FORENSIC AUDIT AND THE DIFFERENT VIOLATIONS, THIS IS TROUBLING. I DO THINK OUR BOARD SHOULD ENCOURAGE THE D.A. I DO NOT THINK WE ARE STEPPING OUTSIDE HER BOUNDS AT ALL GIVEN THAT IT DID COME THROUGH THE

VCOE SERVER. >> THAT WOULD BE THE ISSUE.

NOT WHERE IT WENT. WHERE IT CAME FROM.

THEIR EQUIPMENT WAS USED WITH THEIR EMAIL SYSTEM AND IT DOESN'T MATTER WHERE IT WENT. IT'S THE POINT OF ORIGIN.

IT WAS NOT ANYTHING THAT, YOU KNOW, HAVING THAT JURISDICTION

[02:15:03]

FROM THE DISTRICT IT CAME FROM THEY HAVE THAT AUTHORITY.

SO TO ME, BY INCLUDING THESE TWO, IT DISTRACTS FROM THE MAIN PURPOSE OF SENDING THIS LETTER FOR THE REPORT.

>> I DID THIS ON MY OWN BECAUSE I'M VERY FRUSTRATED WITH TRUST.

HAVING TRUST ISSUES. AT THIS POINT I WOULD LIKE SOMEONE WHO HAS AUTHORITY TO SAY, YES, NO, MAYBE.

BECAUSE IT CAN'T BE JUST OUR BOARD FIGHTING WHAT'S RIGHT, WHAT'S WRONG AND SO FORTH. I'M NOT MARRIED TO ANYTHING IN THIS LETTER AND I HAVE NO ISSUES WITH WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING.

I JUST PUT IT OUT HERE TO THE WHOLE BOARD BECAUSE I WANT

DISCUSSION ON THIS. >> SHE COULD COME UP TO THE

PODIUM. >> I DID RUN THIS PAST HER.

>> SHE IS HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND THE PUBLIC SAY WHETHER OR NOT SHE FEELS IS FALLS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION, I ALSO WANTED TO LATER ON IN THE AGENDA, THE OTHER THING WITH THE WHISTLE-BLOWER TO ASK HER TOO, IN HER OPINION SHE IS OUR BOARD

OF ATTORNEY, SHE'S NOT HERE. >> SHE DID SAY SHE BE WATCHING WOULD BE AVAILABLE BY PHONE IF WE HAD ANY QUESTIONS AND ENCOURAGED US AND WE DID HAVE QUESTIONS WE COULD REACH OUT

SHEET FOR US DURING THE MEETING. >> AS A FEDERAL EMPLOYEE MYSELF WORKING FOR THE UNITED STATES NAVY UNDER POLITICAL ACTIVITY, WE ARE COVERED BY THE HATCH ACT AND IT'S EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING ON HERE, WE CANNOT DO ANY POLITICAL ACTIVITY ON BASE DURING WORK HOURS, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, WITH THE EXCEPTIONS THAT MR. KIDD NOTED AND IF I WERE TO DO THAT, THEN THERE ARE PROVISIONS FOR HOW EMPLOYEES WILL TAKE CARE OF THAT.

IF I WAS TO DO THAT, THE VCOE DOESN'T HAVE JURISDICTION BECAUSE IT'S IN OF VIOLATION. IT'S CLEAR THERE IS A VIOLATION, GETTING INVESTIGATED. BUT THEY CAME TO MY GMAIL.

IT'S WHAT I USED, GOING BACK TO THE COMMENT IT'S THE ORIGI ORIGINATION. THE ORIGINATING DISTRICT WANTS TO TAKE ACTION FOR THE VIOLATION, THAT IS ON THEM.

BUT I GO BACK TO YOUR COMMENT AND I'M TRYING TO DRAW THAT PARALLEL AS A FEDERAL EMPLOYEE. AND BECAUSE IT'S IN PLACE IF I DO SOMETHING LIKE THE EMAIL, THIS BOARD THAT'S WHY I'M ALIGNING ABOUT THE CAMPAIGNING. THAT WAS PART OF THIS ITEM.

SHOULDN'T BE A PART OF THIS LETTER BECAUSE THIS LETTER SHOULD BE TIED TO ITEM NUMBER ONE.

ABOUT POSSIBLE CAMPAIGNING SO I'M GOING TO RECOMMEND THOSE TWO

ITEMS. >> I ACTUALLY THINK TO ME IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF JURISDICTION OR GROUND RULES BECAUSE YOU DON'T SEE ANY SPECIFIC BROWN RULES OR PROBLEMS WITH JURISDICTION IF THIS LETTER WAS TO NOTIFY THE D.A. OF OUR DESIRE. WHAT I AM SENSITIVE TO IS MAKING SURE THIS LETTER IS ABOUT AS EFFECTIVE AS POSSIBLE FOR THE APPARENT CORRUPTION WE ARE DEALING WITH IN OUR ORGAN ORGANIZATION. PERHAPS ALL REFERENCES TO ALL POLITICAL FUND-RAISING SO THE LETTER IS FOCUSED ON THE PRESENTATION WE JUST GOT ON OTHER ISSUES.

THE LAST SENTENCE ON THE TWO PARAGRAPHS BEGINNING SEPARATELY

[02:20:01]

AND DEALING WITH HERE AND MIGHT BE MORE EFFECTIVE IN URGING THE

D.A.'S OFFICE. >> I THINK BECAUSE THE FIRST RECOMMENDATION ABOUT US NOW GETTING MORE INFORMATION, WE HAVE TAKEN ACTION. WE HAVE ASKED NOW THAT ANY RAISES, ET CETERA, WE ARE LOOKING FOR MORE INFORMATION BUT ALSO THAT BEING INCLUDED THAT THIS BOARD HAS TAKEN ACTIONS AND WE ARE LOOKING NOW MORE CLOSELY AT WHAT IS GOING ON.

>> I MEAN, MY TAKE IS THAT WE ARE GOING TO THE D.A. BECAUSE WE THINK THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THAT THERE'S BEEN FELONIES COMMITTED.

THERE IS APPARENT VIOLATIONS OF THE ED CODE FELONIES.

I DO NOT THINK IT THE D.A. IS REALLY INTERESTED IN WHETHER OR NOT WE'VE TAKEN ACTIONS, THAT'S NOT HIS JURISDICTION.

HIS JURISDICTION IS THE DECISION TO PURSUE A PROPOSITION OR.

IT'S A DECISION NOT TO EXONERATE WHAT HAPPENED.

I WON'T SAY IT'S NOT LEGAL I'M JUST GOING TO SAY WE AREN'T GOING TO PROSECUTE. WHICH OF FOCUS THAT WE THINK THERE'S BEEN SOME ISSUES LOOKING DEEP INTO THIS.

ON THIS NOT DOUBLE THINGS, NOT SURE IT'S ALL INTERESTED IN

THAT. >> I BRING IT UP BECAUSE WE DID SPECIFICALLY MENTION THAT ABOUT THE MONEY BEING PAID BACK.

WE DID SPECIFICALLY MENTION ABOUT THE THIRD POINT.

PAYMENTS OVER NOT PAID TO US BUT WE DID NOT DO ABOUT THIS.

AND MAKING SURE TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD THAT THOSE THINGS HAD HAPPENED. BUT THAT WAS MY ONLY POINT.

I THINK IT WOULD BE MORE COMPLETE.

>> YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE LAW TO REVIEW THIS STUFF.

TO HAVE SOME REAL TRUST PROBLEMS. WE ARE AN OVERSIGHT BOARD THAT COMPLETELY RELIES ON ELECTED PERSON TO FOLLOW THE RULES. AND THAT IS FRIGHTENING TO ME.

SO I WANT TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT WE WANT THE RULES TO BE FOLLOWED. LIKE I SAID BEFORE, HAPPY TO PULL THE LETTER. HAPPY TO REWRITE IT AND BRING IT BACK IN OUR NEXT BOARD MEETING. I BROUGHT IT OUT SO WE COULD

DISCUSS IT IN A PUBLIC FORUM. >> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION BASED ON WHAT TRUSTEE TEASDALE AND EARLIER.

THAT WE REMOVE THE TWO PARAGRAPHS SEPARATELY WITH QUESTIONS IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH AFTER "WE." IT'LL BE AN IDEA INCLUDING OF WHAT WAS DONE BUT IS NOT SOMETHING THE BOARD WANTS TO DO? FINE.

I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO REMOVE THAT.

>> INSTEAD OF MAKING THE MOTION, WHY DO NOT I PAUSE THIS.

WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED BOARD MEETING, IF THAT'S OKAY. OR WE CAN MAKE THE CHANGES

TONIGHT. >> I'LL GO WITH THE WILL OF THE BOARD. MY EMPHASIS IS TO ACT NOW WE'VE GOT THIS, JUST CUT OUT THOSE PARAGRAPHS IN THAT SENTENCE AND SEND IT IF PEOPLE AGREE, IF THE MAJORITY AGREE I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT TO MODIFY THE MOTION OF TRUSTEE KIDD.

>> DO YOU WANT ME TO MAKE THAT NOW?

>> BECAUSE THE PROPOSALS ARE CLEAR BUT ARE THEY CLEAR TO

OTHER TRUSTEES? >> WE TRUST YOU TO SEND IT OFF.

>> PLEASE REPEAT AND I WILL MARKET.

[02:25:03]

>> I'D ELIMINATE IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH TO ELIMINATE THAT

SENTENCE. >> ELIMINATE...

ALL RIGHT. >> I ELIMINATE THE PARAGRAPH, WHAT IS IT. NUMBER ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR...

BEGINS WITH SEPARATELY. I'D ELIMINATE THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH THAT BEGINS WITH QUESTIONS.

IS THERE ANY ADDITIONS? ILLUMINATE SEPARATELY? IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH YOU WANT DELETED, PLEASE REPEAT.

THE ONE AFTER IT, QUESTIONS? ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONS BESIDES

LIMITING THOSE THREE PARAGRAPHS? >> I THINK THE LAST WORD

LIMITING THOSE SESSIONS. >> THE LAST SENTENCE IN THE PARAGRAPH OTHER THAN THAT, EVERYONE WAS OKAY WITH THAT? OKAY. THE ROLL CALL TRUSTEE FLORES, TRUSTEE KIDD, TRUSTEE TEASDALE? AND I WILL VOTE AS WELL.

I WILL MAKE THE CHANGES AND WORK WITH SHANNON TO SEND THOSE OUT.

WHEN THEY RECEIVE THE REPORT. THE WHISTLE-BLOWER POLICY.

>> I THINK WE ARE ON LE C3. >> I GET ANTSY AT THIS TIME.

[C.3. Consideration and Possible Approval of a Follow-Up Letter to U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin Regarding Immigration Enforcement Activities at Schools ]

SORRY. I DO HAVE A SPEAKER.

AND I WOULD LIKE TO CALL MAGGIE MARSH AER.

>> GOOD EVENING. PRESIDENT ULRICH, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, I AM A CANDIDATE FOR VENTURA COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS. I'M SPEAKING TONIGHT ON AGENDA C3. CONCERNING IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT AND ENFORCEMENT IN SCHOOLS FOR EVERY STUDENT DESERVES TO FEEL SAFE, WELCOME, AND SUPPORTED AT SCHOOLS.

SCHOOLS NEED TO BE SAFE IN NEUTRAL PLACES FOR OUR CHILDREN.

THAT'S WHAT ALLOWS HIM TO LEARN AND GROW.

THE LETTER BEFORE YOU URGES THE LETTER OF HOMELAND SECURITY TO DESIGNATE SCHOOLS HAS PROTECTED AREAS AND CLEAR IMMIGRATION OFFICERS, I SUPPORT THIS LETTER. WHEN ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY CREATES FEAR AND UNCERTAINTY, ATTENDANCE'S PARTICIPATION AND LEARNING SUFFERS. CHILDREN SHOULD BE ABLE TO COME TO SCHOOL AND FOCUS ON THEIR EDUCATION.

REFLECTING THE BOARD AND COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT WORKING TOGETHER ON BEHALF OF STUDENTS AND FAMILIES.

THE PROPOSED FOLLOW-UP FOR THAT KIND OF COLLABORATION.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> MOVING ON, THIS IS A REPEAT AND I BELIEVE IT SENT OUT A SIMILAR LETTER TO CHRISTIE AND TRUSTEE LUCAS BROUGHT THIS TO US TO UPDATE IT TURNED OUT HOMELAND SECRETARY MARK WAYNE

>> RECOMMENDATION. >> YES.

>> THIRD PARAGRAPH PLAYING AN IMPORTANT ROLE?

>> SCHOOLS PLAY AN IMPORTANT ROLE.

>> I'D LIKE TO PUT THOSE LEARNING ENGLISH AND MY EXPERIENCE IN TALKING TO EXPERIENCED FAMILIES.

REGARDLESS OF THEIR IMMIGRATION STATUS, IT'S ALL CHILDREN BEING TRAUMATIZED. I WORK WITH THE MILITARY.

[02:30:06]

THE ENGLISH -- INCLUDING THOSE LEARNING ENGLISH AND FOR THAT SECOND TO LAST PARAGRAPH, WITH THE DEPARTMENT AND AGAIN I'M JUST THE ONE WHO IS OUT THERE. TO STAY AWAY A CERTAIN DISTANCE FROM SCHOOLS, NOT JUST RECOGNIZING SCHOOLS BUT JUST STAYING AWAY 500 FEET, 600 FEET, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

>> SCHOOLS PLAY A CRITICAL ROLE IN SUPPORTING, DO YOU WANT IT TO SAY ALL STUDENTS WERE ALL CHILDREN?

>> ALL STUDENTS. >> AND WE STRIKE -- CORRECT?

>> ALL STUDENTS AS THEY PURSUE ACADEMICS.

>> AND THEN ALSO WANTED DESIGNATION -- BECAUSE THEY WAIVE CERTAIN DISTANCE FROM SCHOOLS.

>> WHERE WOULD YOU LIKE THAT INSERTED.

>> THAT SECOND TO LAST PARAGRAPH IN THAT DEPARTMENT.

>> SOMEWHERE WE ARE WITH THE DEPARTMENT.

THREE YEARS TO STAY AWAY. >> OKAY.

WE URGE THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY CONSIDERED DETONATED SCHOOLS AS A PROTECTED AREA.

HERE IS A DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY.

>> YOU WANT THAT AFTER WE WRITE WE URGE THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY TO STAY OUTSIDE.

>> OUTSIDE A THOUSAND FEET. OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL SITES.

AND TO CONSIDER JUST MADE IT PROTECTED AREAS.

>> BY MID-DECEMBER, SOME OF THESE FOR EXAMPLE ARE EITHER ONE OF THE TWO CANDIDATES COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT WILL BE, YOU KNOW, AND, TWO, CONGRESSWOMAN JULIE BROWN WHO WILL NO LONGER BE THERE, PERHAPS WE'LL WAIT AND SEND IT AFTER AND SENDING IT NOW EVENTUALLY CONSIDER ASKING THE TWO CANDIDATES BECAUSE ONE OF THEM WILL BE THE NEXT COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT ALSO SIGNING TO

THIS DOCUMENT. >> I AM FINE WITH THAT BUT I THINK WE SHOULD JUST KEEP SENDING LETTERS.

SO I'M FINE SENDING SENDING IT NOW.

>> THREE OF MYSELF WILL CHANGE. >> WE CAN KEEP SENDING THEM

LETTERS. >> YOU MAY NEED TO DO ANOTHER

ONE IN JANUARY. >> I'D BE HAPPY TO.

>> I'VE HEARD THINGS. I THINK WE HAVE A LETTER.

I WANT TO THANK TRUSTEE LUCAS FOR WRITING THIS AND THE MODIFICATIONS BY TRUSTEE FLORES. MY RECOMMENDATION IS TO SEND OUT TO EXISTING OFFICEHOLDERS AND BOARD MEMBERS AND IF YOU WANT TO SEND ANOTHER ONE IN THREE MONTHS I THINK WE CAN ALWAYS DO THAT.

>> MADAM PRESIDENT? JUST BECAUSE WE HAVE THE PUBLIC HERE AND BEING A LIVE STREAM TO THE FIRST LETTER WE SENT WE DID GET A RESPONSE SO IT JUST DIDN'T GO INTO A FILE.

>> I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION. >> WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. DR. FLORES? >TRUSTEE KIDD? TRUSTEE TEASDALE? AGAIN, I WILL WORK TO MAKE THE CHANGES AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE TO BRING THIS BACK TO OUR NEXT BOARD MEETING TO HAVE SIGN

[02:35:03]

>> I BELIEVE WE ALL PERSONALLY SIGN THE LAST ONE.

>> WE CAN SIGN IT. >> ALL RIGHT.

[C.4. Employee Complaint Process Implementation and Proposed Contract Extension]

>> MADAM PRESIDENT? POINT OF INFORMATION.

WE HAVE TWO MORE ITEMS. >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A

MOTION? >> I'D LIKE TO AMEND 30 PLEASE.

>> LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSE? HEARING NONE, WE CARRY ON UNTIL

9:30. >> OKAY.

LET ME SOUND OFF WITH A QUICK AND DIRTY SUMMARY.

VOTED IN JUNE IF I REMEMBER RIGHT A COMPLAINT PROCESS THAT WILL GO DIRECTLY TO PROTECT THOSE WHO FEEL THEY HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND IT MIGHT BE A SENIOR MEMBER WITH THE UC L.A. INTENDANT AS WELL. WE LEARNED QUITE A LOT FROM THE INITIAL TWO OR THREE MONTHS AND WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO USE THE PROCESS AND WE WORKED OUT WITH OUR INTAKE MANAGER AND SHE HAS ADMITTED TO US RECOMMENDATIONS OF HOW TO MAKE THE SYSTEM MORE ROBUST TO MAKE THE PROCESS MORE PRECISE.

CONFIDENTIALITY FOR EMPLOYEES WERE SIMILAR, YOU WANT TO GO

THROUGH YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS? >> I'M HAPPY TO.

, DIDN'T REPAIR PRESENTATION. I CAN GO THROUGH, THE FIRST RECOMMENDATION THAT I HAVE SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD IS TO IMPLEMENT THE ELECTRONIC LINK OPTION.

THE PREVIOUS BOARD MEETING AND THERE WAS MOVING FORWARD WITH THAT PROCESS. AND I THINK WITH THAT PARTICULAR PROCESS IT GIVES THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE BOARD TO HAVE A CLEAR PICTURE OF THE BOARD'S SCOPE AND THE BOARD'S LIMITATIONS.

AND THE WHISTLE-BLOWER WITH A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF EXPECTATIONS THAT I THINK WE HAVE REMAINED VAGUE NUMBER OF TIMES IN THIS PROCESS. I'M ASKING FOR AN EXTENSION OF MY CONTRACT FOR THE NEXT THREE MONTHS TO ASSIST WITH THE PROCESS. A LONGER-TERM WITH ANOTHER ORGANIZATION TO CONTINUE TO BE LIMITED AS TIME GOES ON.

AND I'M HAPPY TO HELP ASSIST WITH THIS PROCESS IN FINDING QUOTES WITH STEPPING BIDS. ASKING APPROPRIATE QUESTIONS IN THE PROVIDER QUALIFIED. THOSE ARE MY RECOMMENDATIONS.

I THINK OF THE BOARD WANTS TO EFFECTUATE THE INTENTION AND PURPOSE OF THE POLICY, YOU NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A TRANSPARENT AND ACCESSIBLE PROCESS.

THE POLICY IS ONLY AS GOOD AS THE PROCESS BEHIND IT.

AND I THINK WE HAVE FOUND SOME SIGNIFICANT BARRIERS.

>> I JUST WANT TO ADD IN THAT LAST MEETING WE DID APPROVE ALL VOICES WITH THIS WEB LINK AND TODAY'S MEETING IS ABOUT WHAT'S THE PROCESS AROUND THAT BECAUSE THE WEB LINK ITSELF WILL SUPPLY THIS. WE CAN PUT IT ON THE VCOE

[02:40:05]

SO THAT PEOPLE WHO COME AND USE THAT PAGE CANNOT THE TRACK BY THE OFFICE SO IT REALLY PROVIDES CLEAR CONFIDENTIALITY AND A REAL SIMPLE PROCESS. RIGHT NOW THEY SOMEHOW MISS EMAIL ME WHICH IS NOT UNIQUE AND NOT IDEAL.

AND I THINK THIS REALLY SETS IT UP IN THE PROVIDER WE AGREED UPON LAST TIME. HAVING A LOT OF EXPERIENCE DOING THIS. I ALSO THINK WE HAVE LEARNED FROM THE LAST THREE MONTHS, WE NEED TO SET UP A PROCESS THAT IS ROBUST. GET THIS WEBSITE UP.

AND HAS AGREED TO HELP US CONTINUE THAT PROCESS AND HELP US TRANSFORM THIS PROVIDER TO BE OUR INTAKE MANAGER BECAUSE I DO THINK WE NEED IN THIS PROCESS AND INTAKE MANAGER HAS LABEL OF KNOWLEDGE AND CAN COUNSEL THE PEOPLE WHO USE THE SITE AS WELL AS CONTACT AS WELL AS INVESTIGATIONS GIVEN THE COMPLIANCE WE MIGHT DEAL WITH. WE WOULD ACCOMPANY THE CONSTRUCTION OF THAT SIGHT WITH AN ALL EMPLOYEE COMMUNICATION THAT THE WINNER OF THIS SITE WOULD EXIST AND RENEW THAT EVERY YEAR AS A MESSAGE FOR THAT THEY ARE AWARE THEY EXIST.

I KNOW YOU HAVE A LOT OF THE OTHER PIECE OF PAPER THAT YOU HAVE THERE IT WAS WRITTEN BY MOLLY THURMOND OUR LAWYER.

SHE WROTE THIS AS A WAY TO CLARIFY WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IN THE PURPOSE OF IT, AND THIS GOES A LITTLE STEP DEEPER IN THE POLICY. HELPS WITH THE ROLE WITH HIS OR HER DESIGNEE AND SOME OF THE OPTIONS WE CAN DO.

THE EMPLOYEE WHO MIGHT HAVE FILED THE COMPLAINT.

>> THAT WOULD BE ADMINISTERED OF REGULATION NUMBER X TO PUT IN A

NUMBER, CORRECT? >> YES.

WE EVEN HAVE A SUGGESTION ON THOSE NUMBERS AND NAMES.

A LOOK FOR THE BOARD FOR SUGGESTIONS ON THE POLICY.

>> THE ONE SUGGESTION I MAKE IS THAT WHERE IT SAYS OR VICE PRESIDENT REPRESENTATIVE AND AFTER THAT, IT'S ANOTHER BOARD MEMBER. I THINK THE DAY TO BE ANOTHER BOARD MEMBER AND NOT SOMEONE OUTSIDE THE BOARD.

>> WELL, MAYBE YOU NEED TO PUT TWO THINGS IN.

TO BE DESIGNATED BOARD MEMBER TO OVERSEE THE PROCESS BUT ALSO WE NEED SOMEONE TO USE EXPERT TASTE ACTUALLY LOOKS AT THE COMPLAINTS THEMSELVES AND IT'S A LEGAL

>> WE CAN ASK A REPRESENTATIVE WHO WOULD HAVE THE APPROPRIATE KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERTISE TO HANDLE EMPLOYEE COMPLAINTS.

>> NONE OF US ARE LABOR LAW ATTORNEYS.

I LOVE THE WORK THAT I DO. I WOULD IMAGINE FEELING COMFORTABLE TO BE THE DESIGNEE. TO BE QUITE HONEST IF I WAS VICE PRESIDENT I WOULD STRUGGLE THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN.

THE VICE PRESIDENT, TO MEET WITH THE COMPLIANCE TO DETERMINE THE COMPLIANCE SHOULD BE HEARD, WHAT GUIDELINES DO I USE? THE VICE PRESIDENT, INVESTIGATING TO A PROCESS.

I DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS REASONABLE PROCESS.

[02:45:01]

>> THAT'S WHY THE DESIGNEE NEEDS TO HAVE LEGAL EXPERTISE.

THAT'S WHY REPRESENTATIVE WITH THAT.

THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE DESIGNEE IN.

>> ONE OF THE THINGS -- I'M HEARING YOU, AND I'M HEARING THE TRUSTEE SAYING THE DESIGNEE SHOULD BE A BOARD MEMBER SO I'M TRYING TO PLAY DEVIL'S ADVOCATE. IF I'M THE VICE PRESIDENT, I'M

NOT A LABOR ATTORNEY. >> I GUESS THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING THAT THE REPRESENTATIVE NEEDS TO HAVE LEGAL BACKGROUND.

I DO NOT THINK IT NECESSARILY NEEDS TO BE A BOARD MEMBER.

I DO NOT KNOW WHY. >> I THINK THAT'S FINE.

I THINK IT SHOULD BE CLEAR. NOT JUST GOING TO BE ANYBODY BUT IT'S GOING TO BE SOMEONE WITH IN OTHER WORDS IF IT'S NOT THE VICE PRESIDENT, DISNEY WOULD BE SOMEONE WHO IS AN ATTORNEY OR IT HAS LEGAL KNOWLEDGE. SOMEONE LIKE THAT.

>> I'M NOT GOING TO -- WELL, WHO COULD THAT DESIGNEE B.

DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ANOTHER BOARD NUMBER I CAN TRUST THAT PERSON

AND THAT KIND OF THING. >> WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE A BOARD MEMBER TO BEGIN WITH? WHY CAN'T I JUST GO --

>> THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. >> GO TO A DESIGNEE, SKIP THE VICE PRESIDENT, SKIP THE BOARD MEMBER, GO TO THE PERSON WHO WAS CONTRACTED BY THE BOARD SPECIFICALLY FOR THAT PURPOSE.

>> THERE IS A ROLE FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT NEEDS TO WORK WITH SOMEBODY WHO'S GOT LEGAL EXPERTISE AND EXPERIENCE BECAUSE THERE CAN BE WITH THE NEXT STEPS ORGANIZING A CLOSE SESSION, WHATEVER THOSE NEXT STEPS MIGHT BE AND WE NEED SOMEBODY WHO OVERSEES THAT PROCESS WHO IS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD.

>> SO WE ARE ALL JUST REALLY GOING TO BE FIGHTING FOR THE

ROLE OF VICE PRESIDENT? >> I'M KIDDING ABOUT THAT BUT I DO THINK YOU NEED A MEMBER OF THE BOARD THAT OVERSEES THAT PROCESS AND YOU NEED AN EXPERT WHO IS EXPERIENCED IN EMPLOYEE COMPLAINTS AND CAN RECOMMEND NEXT STEPS, WHATEVER THOSE MIGHT BE. WHAT WE FOUND OUT IS THAT PEOPLE WHO HAVE COME TO US HAVE VERY DIFFERENT TYPES OF PERSPECTIVES AND SOME OF THEM JUST TO MOVE ONTO ANOTHER VEHICLE, TO HELP THEM PROCESS THEIR COMPLAINT AND SOME ARE VERY DIFFERENT.

WE DO NEED SOMEONE WITH EXPERIENCE IN THE LEGAL

EXPERTISE TO PLAY THAT ROLE. >> IN THAT CASE, TENANT SAY SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF VICE PRESIDENT IN THE VICE PRESIDENT'S NOMINEE, WHOEVER IT IS WITH THAT

STANDING? >> I THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA.

>> WE CAN PUT IN LANGUAGE WERE HAS THE APPROPRIATE LEGAL KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE FOR EMPLOYEE COMPLAINTS.

>> I MEAN, AFTER HEARING TRAVIS KASTNER TALK ABOUT A CULTURE HERE IN THE INNER CIRCLE OR NOT IN THE INNER CIRCLE, MAKES ME ACTUALLY FEEL LIKE THAT THERE SHOULD BE AN AVENUE THE MOST LEGITIMATE VERSUS THE NONLEGITIMATE AND THAT'S NOT WHAT A LEGAL EXPERT WOULD BE NECESSARY.

>> MY PROPOSAL FOR THIS IF THE BOARD IS READY IS I WOULD ADD ON PAGE TWO, NUMBER TWO AGO, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT'S DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE WHO WILL HAVE THE APPROPRIATE LEGAL KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE WITH EMPLOYEE COMPLAINTS AND LAW.

IF THAT MAKES SENSE. DO WE NEED A VOTE?

>> JUST THINKING FROM A SYSTEMS' PERSPECTIVE, DOES THAT MEAN MOVING FORWARD WE WILL HAVE LEGAL COUNSEL ON RETAINER?

FOR THE SPECIFIC SITUATION? >> I'D ASSUME SO.

BUT I DON'T KNOW BECAUSE THERE'S ACTUALLY THREE THINGS HERE.

THERE IS EXTEN EXTENDING THE COT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION FOLLOWED BY THIS SAMPLE OF THE BOARD POLICY.

SO I AM NOT SURE. I GUESS MY RESPONSE OF THAT IS

[02:50:09]

THAT WOULD BE IDEAL. BECAUSE AT LEAST THAT WOULD SHOW THAT PEOPLE HAVE FAITH IN THE PROCESS BUT I WOULD START WITH SOMEONE WITH IF THAT PROVES TO BE INEFFICIENT OR LEAD TO EXCESSIVE FEES WE CAN REVIEW THE CONTRACT.

AT THE END OF THIS, TO RETRIEVE SOMEONE IN ON THE APPROPRIATE LEGAL KNOWLEDGE. AND THAT WILL NOT BE EASY.

I JUST WANT TO UNDERLINE BECAUSE MOST HAVE CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS WITH A LOT OF THE SCHOOL SYSTEMS IN THE VCOE BUT WE'LL FIND IT.

A LABOR LAW PERSON WHO DOESN'T HAVE THOSE CONFLICTS.

SPEAK ON THE MOTION IS TO ACCEPT THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS.

WE'VE ALREADY ACCEPTED AND DECIDED ON ALL VOICES.

IT WOULD BE TO ATTAIN FOR ANOTHER THREE MONTHS TO FINISH THE IMPLEMENTATION. WE WOULD BE TO ACCEPT THESE AND ALSO THE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN WHICH IS CREATING A PAGE AND COMMUNICATIONS GOING OUT TO ENSURE EMPLOYEES ARE AWARE THIS PAGE EXISTS AND THAT WOULD BE AN ANNUAL COMMUNICATION GOING

FORWARD. >> WHAT DO WE DO WITH --

>> GOING BACK TO THE SUGGESTED NUMBERING SYSTEM.

C SPA. THAT THIS POLICY WOULD BE COLD FOR A 03.02, RECOMMENDED BY C CSBA.

ALSO RECOMMENDING TITLES, CONFLICT OF INTEREST REPORTING IS THE FIRST ONE IN THE ONE THAT I THINK GROSSLY COMMUNICATES THE REASON FOR THE SITE AND THE POLICY.

>> WHICH ONE WAS THAT AGAIN? >> IT'S ON THE SECOND PAGE OF A HAND OUT GAVE US ON THE SECOND CAMERA SHED FROM THE CSBA RECOMMENDING A CODE OF 303.02, AND THAT TITLE, GETS AN EXAMPLE OF THREE TITLES IN THAT PAGE. SUGGESTING THIS FIRST ONE, NONDISCRIMINATION AND EMPL EMPLOYMENT.

>> I HAVE ONE PAGE HERE. >> I BROUGHT IT.

>> I AM SORRY... >> YOU CAN PASS THAT DOWN.

>> I AM NOT GOING TO LIVE. THIS IS DEFINITELY OUT OF MY AREA OF EXPERTISE. AND THEREFORE I'M GOING TO LEAN

[02:55:01]

>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. >> TO FIND A PERMANENT VENDOR TO

REPLACE. >> TO COMBINE A PERMANENT VE

VENDOR. >> THIS IS A CONFIDENTIAL WEB

LINK. >> THAT WOULD BE THE SYSTEM OF

RECORD MOVING FORWARD? >> THIS CYBER SECURITY, BLAH,

BLAH, BLAH? >> YES.

>> WE'VE TALKED TO THREE DIFFERENT SUPPLIERS AND LOOKED

AT THEM. >> OKAY.

THAT THIRD THING IS THE POLICY AND POLICY NUMBERING.

>> I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION TO EXTEND MR. RAHMS. RAHMAN THE POSNER'S CONTT FOR THREE MONTHS.

WE'LL TAKE THIS ONE AT A TIME UNLESS YOU'D LIKE TO TAKE THEM.

SO EXTEND FOR THREE MORE MONTHS. SO ALL IN FAVOR? AOPPOSED? PASSES.

THANK YOU. NEXT WOULD BE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN. SO WE HAVE AN ACTION PLAN HERE.

IT'S PRETTY SHORT AND PRETTY CLEAR.

WE'D LIKE TO DISCUSS THIS. >> BASICALLY TO CREATE THE WEBSITE AND THE COMMUNICATION AROUND THAT WEBSITE.

>> THE PURPOSE OF THE WEBSITE IS TO DO ONE.

THE COMPLAINTS. >> MANY VOICES.

>> IT'LL BE THE PROVIDER OF T THE --

>> DEVELOPING WITH THE PROVIDER OF THE LANDING PAGE AND WHERE THE LINK WOULD BE. I HAVE TO MAKE SURE LEGALLY IT

IS ROBUST. >> AND CLEARLY STATED.

>> WILL MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT A MOTION PLAN.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY DR. FLORES.

SECONDED BY TRUSTEE KIDD. ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? HEARING NO OPPOSITION.

MOTION PASSES 5-0. SO NOW WE TALK ABOUT THE REGULATION AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THIS POLICY AND WHAT TRUSTEE TEASDALE IS RECOMMENDING THAT WE TITLED THE BOARD POLICY NONDISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT, CONFLICT IN

INTEREST IN REPORTING. >> CAN YOU SCROLL TO THE TOP PLEASE? OF THE POLICY?

THIS THING WOULD BE LOWERED... >> OKAY.

SO THIS IS THE POLICY PERIOD THAT WE ARE GOING TO ADOPT POLICY NUMBER 403.02 AND WE ARE GOING TO GO --

>> THE POLICY WE ALREADY ADOPTED IN JUNE, THIS IS HELPING US.

>> THIS IS ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION?

>> WHAT SHOULD HAVE THE SAME NUMBER.

>> AND WE WOULD BE NUMBERING IT POLICY NUMBER FOUR.

>> 4030. -- >> NOT TO SPLIT HAIRS, THIS IS

NOT A BOARD POLICY. >> WHAT WAS THAT?

[03:00:05]

>> ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION THAT'S IN FRONT OF US?

>> THE POLICY WE HAVE YET TO NUMBER IN.

>> I DIDN'T THINK WE NEVER NUMBERED THE POLICY.

>> WITH MY TIME ON THE BOARD, I FEEL LIKE WE ARE DOING THIS BACKWARDS. NORMALLY WE HAVE HOW WE

IMPLEMENT THE POLICY. >> WE'VE HAD A POLICY AND THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION. WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT IS A NUMBER OF POLICIES PASSED IN JUNE.

BY THE BOARD. >> DID WE NUMBER IT.

>> WE DIDN'T. PUT IT ON A COUPLE OF MEETINGS.

WE PUT IT ON THE AGENDA. THAT'S WHY I BROUGHT IT NOW BECAUSE TRYING TO FINISH IN THREE MONTHS AGO.

>> OKAY. SO I APOLOGIZE.

I FEEL LIKE I'M ASKING TO REPEAT.

SO WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US, THE SUBJECT WILL BE NONDISCRIMINATORY, NONDISCRIMINATION IN THE EMPLOYMENT CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN REPORTING UNDER POLICY NUMBER 4030.02. WE WILL MAKE THAT THE NUMBER IN REGULATION, AND TAKING POLICY WHERE WE NAMED AND HAD IT NUMBERED AND NUMBER IT HAS 4030.02.

>> SOMETHING LIKE THAT. >> SO YOU DO NOT INVITE ENGINEERS TO PARTIES? [LAUGHS]

>> DO I MAKE A MOTION HERE OR... OR THAT NUMBERING, THAT PROCESS?

>> THAT IS PART A. PART B THROUGH COMMENT, HOW WE SHOULD SPELL OUT THAT HAS EXPERTISE FOR THE LABOR LAWS

COMING HERE. >> I COULD REPEAT TO MENTION IF THAT HELPS SELL ITS NUMBER TWO, PAGE TWO, SHOULD BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE VICE PRESIDENT. THE DESIGNATE A REPRESENTATIVE, THE EMPLOYEE COMPLAINTS WITH L LAW.

>> SOUNDS GOOD. >> I MOVE WE ACCEPT THAT.

THE NUMBER OF THE REGULATIONS. >> ARE WE NAMING THE POLICY AND

THE REGULATION TONIGHT? >> OKAY.

SO WE HAVE A MOTION? AND A SECOND BY DR. FLORES.

>> AND FOR THE RECORD IT IS VICE PRESIDENT TEASDALE.

SO YES. >> WILL HAVE SOME FUN.

ROLL CALL. DR. FLORES.

TRUSTEE KIDD. TRUSTEE TEASDALE.

AND I VOTE, THE MOTION PASSES 5-0.

THANK YOU FOR ALL THE WORK. IT IS A LOT OF WORK.

>> THANK YOU, MS. RAHMAN, ON ALL YOUR SUPPORT.

>> WITHOUT COMPLICATIONS CLE CLEARLY.

BUT IT IS IMPORTANT TO HAVE AVENUES AND THE ABILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT TRANSPARENCY IS ACROSS THE BOARD.

>> I DO WANT TO STATE THAT IN THE SYSTEM AS WE HAVE HAD IT, A PROCESS FAR FROM IDEAL, WE HAVE FIELDED COMPLAINTS AND I THINK WE'VE DELIVERED VALUE TO THE EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE USED IT.

SO I DO THINK THERE'S A REAL NECESSITY FOR THIS.

THE FEELING THEY'D IT'LL HELP ALL EMPLOYEES.

[C.5. VCOE Cybersecurity Incident Response and Information Systems Security ]

THANK YOU. >> OKAY.

AND WE MOVE ON TO SEE FIVE C5, WHICH IS VCOE'S CYBERSECURITY INCIDENT RESPONSE.

INCLUDING INVESTIGATION STATUS. ANY CONFIRMED DATA EXPOSURE,

[03:05:03]

>> GOOD EVENING, PRESIDENT ULRICH, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, AND ATTENDEES. AT THE BOARD'S REQUEST I'M PROVIDING AN UPDATE ON RECENT TECHNOLOGY SERVICES FOR OUR SYSTEMS. THURSDAY OCTOBER 8TH I HAVE THE PLEASURE OF MEETING WITH DR. CHRISTINA GONZALEZ, DIRECTOR OF SERVICES. DAVID SHERMER, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS TO SHOW THE BOARD ITEM AND GATHERING THE INFORMATION. I FIRST WANT TO EXPRESS GRATITUDE TO OUR TECHNOLOGY SERVICES TEAM INCLUDING MR MR. CLARK, ONE OF OUR ENGINEERS SITTING IN THE BACK SO PATI PATIENTLY. THE ENGINEERS, TECHNOLOGY SPECIALISTS AND SUPPORT STAFF AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS SAFE AND OPERATIONAL. SPENDING COUNTLESS HOURS TROUBLESHOOTING AND UPDATING SYSTEMS. I ALSO WANT TO THANK LEADING THE EFFORT KEEPING THE WEBSITE EDITORS ACROSS OUR DEPARTMENTS INFORMED WHILE THE SYSTEM IS BEING UPDATED. MR. CLARK, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT. TECHNOLOGY SERVICES HAVE CONFIRMED THAT NO DATA WAS TAKEN FROM THE VENTURA COUNTY OF EDUCATION SYSTEMS IN ANY OF THESE INCIDENCES.

SO TODAY WE GET SOME NEW VOCABULARY.

DATA BREACH. PERSONAL INFORMATION TAKEN OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION WHETHER BY A HACK OR A SYSTEMS ERROR. DISRUPTION OF SOFTWARE.

THE SYSTEM DOESN'T WORK AS INTENDED AND NO UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS IS GAINED. INCIDENT ONE, THE VCOE WEBSITE WHICH CAME IN OUR LAST PLAY THIS EVENING.

THE FIRST INCIDENT INCLUDED THE PUBLIC WEBSITE.

OUR WEBSITE RUNS ON DN THEN, AN OPEN SOURCE PLATFORM.

STARTING ON SEPTEMBER 1ST, UNAUTHORIZED CODE WAS INSERTED TO ENTRY INTO THE WEBSITE. REMOVING THE CODE, TIGHTEN SECURITY, BUT IT KEPT COMING BACK.

THE FULL PLATFORM UPDATE TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 29TH, THE SITE WOULD NOT BE DISRUPTED BEFORE THE SEPTEMBER 28TH BOARD MEETING.

ONE OTHER INCIDENT HIT SATURDAY SEPTEMBER 26TH, THE CITING THE RISK OF WAITING WAS TOO HIGH. THE UPDATE RETURNED AT THE SITE BACKWARDS TO SEPTEMBER 10TH, THE LATEST VERSION WE KNEW IT WAS CLEAN. RECENT CONTENT WAS LOST INCLUDING THE LINK TO THE FLORIDA AGENDA.

WHEN PRESIDENT ULRICH FLAGGED IT, RESORT AXIS WITHIN THE HOUR.

THERE IS ONE MORE INCIDENT ON SEPTEMBER 30TH.

THE TEAM REMOVED IT AND RESET ALL ADMINISTER TO PASSWORDS AND THERE HAVE BEEN NO INCIDENCES THUS FAR.

BASED ON THE INVESTIGATION, NO DATA WAS COPIED OR REMOVED FROM OUR SYSTEMS. THE TEAM ALSO ADDED NETWORK LEVEL SECURITY CONTROLS AND DAILY BACKUPS.

COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT IS HELPING EDITORS RECOVER LOST CONTENT AND RESTORE THE SITE'S DESIGN.

AS A LONGER STEP WE ARE IDENTIFYING A VENDOR HOSTED WEBSITE PLATFORM. THE OTHER FOUR INCIDENTS BRIEFLY, STUDENT INFORMATION SYSTEM SEPTEMBER 16TH TO SEPTEMBER 21ST, THE SCHOOL INFORMATION SYSTEM KNOWN AS SIS IS A HOST FOR SOME OF OUR DISTRICTS AND CHARTERS AND THAT WAS INTERMITTENTLY UNAVAILABLE. THE CAUSE WAS AN EXPIRED SECURITY CERTIFICATE ON NETWORK EQUIPMENT.

SERVICE WAS RESTORED SEPTEMBER 21ST, THE ROOT CAUSE WAS FIXED ON OCTOBER 2ND AND CERTIFICATE MONITORING IS NOW IN PLACE. ANOTHER INCIDENT, ROSTER DATA SHARED BETWEEN TWO DISTRICTS ON OCTOBER 3RD.

NO DATA WAS TAKEN FROM THE VENTURA COUNTY OFFICE SYSTEMS BUT PERSONAL INFORMATION WAS SHARED ON AN ERROR.

A DEFECT IN THE VENDING SOFTWARE UPDATED CAUSED ONE DISTRICT'S

[03:10:06]

THEN SEND MESSAGES TO FAMILY. THE DEFECT WAS CORRECTED OCTOBE.

THE RECORDS WERE CONFIRMED AND DELETED OCTOBER 6TH AND BOTH DISTRICTS HAD BEEN NOTIFIED. ANOTHER INCIDENT IS THE DISTRICT LOTTERY APPLICATION. ON OCTOBER 1ST, A VENDOR SOFTWARE ISSUE AFFECTED ONE DISTRICT'S APPLICATION PROCESS.

IT WAS RESOLVED AND THE DISTRICT CONFIRMED OCTOBER 9TH THAT NOTHING FURTHER IS NEEDED. BUSINESS SYSTEMS VENDOR IDENTIFIED AUGUST 14TH I SECURITY INCIDENT OCCURRED AT THE VENDOR OF OUR BUSINESS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.

PER THE VENDOR, VCOE WAS NOT DIRECTLY IMPACTED AND OUR SYSTEM WAS NOT AFFECTED. THE VENDOR WAS WORKING DIRECTLY WITH THE AFFECTED ORGANIZATIONS. WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED: THREE OF THE FIVE INCIDENTS INVOLVED VENDORS.

SO THE TEAM ARE STRENGTHENING VENDOR TO MEDICATIONS AND EXCITATIONS. WE ARE ALSO MONITORING WHAT WE MANAGED MORE CLOSELY KEEPING OUR DISTRICT AND CHARTERS INFORMED AND PUSHING FOR STRONGER TESTING BEFORE SOFTWARE RELEASES.

TWO NEXT STEPS ARE COMPLETE AND OTHERS ARE IN PROCESS.

I'VE ALSO -- IN CLOSING I WANT TO THANK THE PEOPLE BEHIND THE SCENES FOR ALL THE WORK THEY'VE BEEN DOING IN THIS VERY DETAILED REPORT THAT THEY WERE ABLE TO SHARE WITH MYSELF THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS OF OUR MEETING ON OCTOBER 9TH.

OVER THESE WEEKS THEY RESPONDED TO THE INCIDENT AFTER INCIDENT, MAKE DIFFICULT CALLS, WORK AFTER HOURS, KEPT DISTRICTS AND CHARTERS INFORMED EVERY STEP OF THE WAY.

MOST OF THAT WORK IS NEVER SEEN. IT'S WHAT KEEPS OUR SYSTEM SAFE AND RUNNING FOR THE FAMILIES WE SERVE.

THANK YOU, DR. GONZALEZ, THE ENTIRE SERVICES AND CAN MEDICATIONS TEAMS. A QUICK REFERENCE THAT I WANT TO ENSURE IT IS TECHNOLOGY SERVICES AND CONFIRMS NO DATA WAS TAKEN FROM THE SYSTEMS IN ANY OF THE FIVE INSTANCES AND THEY CONTINUE TO PROVIDE UPDATES FOR THE NEXT FOLLOWING MONTHS.

THANK YOU. >> MADAME PRESIDENT?

>> DR. FLORES? >> CAN I CONTINUE WITH A VOCABULARY LESSON? SO DISRUPTION, THE TERM I'M MOST FAMILIAR WITH IS DENIAL OF SERVICE TYPE OF ATTACK? ANYTIME I HEAR OPEN HOST I GET NERVOUS SO I'M GLAD WE ARE GOING AWAY FROM THAT. GET IN A DEDICATED VENDOR TO HOST THE WEBSITE. SO I THINK FROM MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, YES, HICCUPS HAPPEN. SOFTWARE IS NOT PERFECT.

THAT'S WHY WE HAVE REPS, TO FIX THE ENHANCEMENTS, ALSO KNOWN AS BUGS. I'M GLAD WE ARE TAKING A LOT OF PRACTICE STEPS. AS A FORMER HEAD OF I.T., ONE OF THE YOU TURN ON THE COMPUTER AND WORKS GREAT.

THAT ONE DAY IS WHERE YOU GET ALL THE HITS.

AGAIN, I APPRECIATE ALL THE EFFORT BEING DONE.

>> I'D LIKE TO THANK DAVE AND HIS TEAM FOR ALL THE WORK.

IT SAYS A LOT THAT YOU PUT TOGETHER SUCH A GREAT WEBSITE.

PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO ADVERTISE ON IT AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE

TRAFFIC TO OUR SIGHT. >> I GUESS I'M NOT AN I.T.

EXPERT SO I SHOULD PUT THAT UP FRONT.

I'VE JUST BEEN STRUCK AND I DO NOT KNOW IF THE NUMBER OF INCIDENTS, IS IT NORMAL, IS IT ABOVE NORMAL? I DO KNOW THAT THERE IS AN INTRODUCTION OF ANOTHER SECURITY SOFTWARE, SENTINEL ONE AGENT, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT I'VE HEARD FROM SOME EMPLOYEES. IS THERE ANY CAUSALITY BETWEEN INTRODUCING A NEW SOFTWARE IN THESE INCIDENTS.

ARE THESE INCIDENTS MORE THAN WHAT'S NORMALLY DONE IN A MONTH

OR A MONTH AND A HALF? >> BEFORE WE LET THE STAFF

[03:15:06]

REPUTATION SIDE. >> THAT'S GOOD.

BUT LET'S HEAR FROM WHAT THEIR EXPERIENCES HERE AT VCOE.

>> AS DAN CLARK IS COMING UP AND KRISTEN WANTS TO COME WITH DR. GONZALEZ, I WANT TO START OFF WITH TODAY'S REPORT DIRECTLY TO OUR VENTURA COUNTY OFFICE WEBSITE AND THE INFRASTRUCTURES THAT SERVE OUR DISTRICTS AND CHARTERS.

IT HAS -- THAT'S THE SOLE FOCUS OF THAT PER THE BOARD'S ITEM.

THAT'S ALL I KNOW FROM THAT SIDE.

I WON'T BE ABLE TO ANSWER ANYTHING THAT IS OUTSIDE OF MY

PURVIEW. >> I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT IT IS 9:23. WE EITHER HAVE TO WRAP IT UP IN

7 MINUTES OR EXTEND THE MEETING. >> I'M FINE FOR IT NOT FINISH AND WE CAN CARRY IT OVER TO THE NEXT -- I DO THINK THAT THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE. AGAIN, I'M NOT AN EXPERT.

BUT WHEN I SEE THAT LIST AND I SEE ADVERTISEMENTS ON OUR WEBSITE AS WELL AS -- YOU MENTIONED SOME STUDENT DATA THAT DID GET OUT. IT MIGHT NOT BE OURS, BUT THAT'S AN ISSUE FOR ME. AND I JUST WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A THOROUGH UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THAT HAPPENED.

AND WHAT ARE WE DOING TO STOP THAT AND WHY IT HAPPENED.

IS IT CORRELATED TO WHAT SEEMS FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, MY MEAGER UNDERSTANDING, INTRODUCING DIFFERENT SECURITY PROGRAMS THAT CAN ACTUALLY LEAVE THE SYSTEM TO BE MORE VULNERABLE TO HACKS AND

BREACHES. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO EXTEND THE

MEETING TO 10:00. >> I WILL SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED?

HEARING NONE, MOTION PASSES. >> THANK YOU, TRUSTEE TEASDALE.

THE SENTINEL ONE SOFTWARE THAT WAS INSTALLED ONLY INSTALLS ON AN MACUSER WORKSTATIONS ARE NOT ON ANY SERVERS AND IN MY ESTIMATION THERE IS NO COMPETITION DUE TO THAT INSTALLATION AND THAT AFFECTED THE INCIDENTS WE AFFECTED IN THE

LAST MONTH. >> IS AT A NORMAL AMOUNT OF

EVENTS TO HAPPEN? >> NOT FOR THE VCOE.

IT WAS AN INTERESTING SET OF COINCIDENCES THAT ALL SEEM TO LINE UP AT THE SAME TIME. SO UNFORTUNATELY IT ALL SEEMS TO BE BACK-TO-BACK. BUT THEY ARE ALSO ALL UNRELATED.

>> WHAT I DO NOT UNDERSTAND AND THIS IS -- I PUSH BUTTONS ON COMPUTERS AND DO THINGS AND THAT'S ALL MY KNOWLEDGE IS.

WE NONETHELESS HAVE SOME STUDENT DATA THAT WAS EXERCISED.

WE HAD ADVERTISEMENTS ON OUR SIGHT WHICH MEANS TO SOME EXTENT THEY WERE ABLE TO GET IN AND NAVIGATE WITHIN OUR SIGHT.

THAT SCARES ME. AS A NINCOMPOOP IN TERMS OF I.T.

KNOWLEDGE. >> YES.

TO ADDRESS THAT. THAT ALSO SCARES ME AS WELL.

THAT WAS DUE TO A FLAW AND THAT'S WHY THERE WERE REPEATED INCIDENTS OF THAT. COMPLETELY ISOLATED FROM ANY STUDENT DATA. SO THERE WAS NO DATA TO BE

EXPLICATED FROM THE SYSTEM. >> YOU DID HAVE TO REWORK PASSWORDS SO YOU HAD SOME CONCERN ABOUT SOMEHOW THESE HACKERS GOT ACCESS TO PASSWORDS IF I'VE UNDERSTOOD.

>> THAT WAS A CONCERN. IT IS GENERALLY A GOOD PRACTICE TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF ANY AVAILABLE SYSTEM SO IN HONOR WAS PERFORMED IN CONJUNCTION TO REDUCE THE AVAILABLE ATTACK SERVICE BY DISABLING ALL DEMONSTRATED ACCOUNTS WITH THE EXCEPTIONS OF OF YOU INCLUDING RESETTING PASSWORDS JUST TO BE

EXTRA SURE. >> DO WE FEEL WE HAVE ENOUGH PEOPLE TO MEET WHAT SEEMS TO BE GROWING THREATS FROM THE OUTSIDE BECAUSE ANOTHER THING I'VE HEARD FROM A NUMBER OF PEOPLE IS THE AMOUNT OF EXPERTISE IN OUR TECHNOLOGY SERVICES THAT GOT

REDUCED IN THE LAST YEARS. >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO

>> I WOULD SAY THAT IS INACCURATE STATEMENT.

[03:20:01]

TEAM. >> BECAUSE NONETHELESS I HEARD ONE ISSUE TOOK FROM SEPTEMBER 21ST TO OCTOBER 2ND.

SO THAT'S WHAT 12 DAYS' TIME. I DO NOT REMEMBER THE NATURE OF THE INCIDENT BUT FOR THAT LONG WAS THERE A SERVICE REDUCTION, GREATER VULNERABILITY WHILE YOU ARE LOOKING ON THAT? THAT'S WHAT LEADS ME TO ASK THESE QUESTIONS.

WE HAVE THE AMOUNT OF RESOURCES NEEDED AND THE EXPERTISE NEEDED.

>> CAN YOU EXPAND IN TO WHAT SENTINEL ONE WAS SPECIFICALLY, WHAT IT WAS COLLECTING WITH DATA?

>> SENTINEL ONE IS AN END POINT DEFENSE, A PRODUCT LIKE MIKE IS OUT THE VENDOR AND MANY OTHER PRODUCTS THAT DO THE SAME THING.

IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING IT WAS NOT UNDER ANY ENFORCEMENT CAPACITY SO IT WAS ONLY COLLECTING DATA, NOT STOPPING OR PREVENTING AS TRUSTEE TEASDALE MENTIONED, PRODUCTS LIKE THAT CAN INTERFERE WITH ONE ANOTHER AND STEPS WERE TAKEN WHILE SIGNAL ONE WAS BEING USED TO ENSURE THAT THEY DID NOT INTERFERE WITH OUR EXISTING PRODUCTS.

>> IS A SOMETHING THAT THE VCOE IMPLEMENTED?

I HAVE NOT SEEN A PO FOR IT. >> IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT VCOE

PURCHASED. >> WHO PURCHASED IT?

>> THIS IS THROUGH THE VENTURA COUNTY SCHOOLS SELF FUNDING AUTHORITY. I ONLY KNOW THAT IT WAS THROUGH

VENTURA COUNTY OFFICES. >> DID THEY HAVE ACCESS TO THE SERVERS? I'M CONFUSED.

I'M NOT AN I.T. PERSON EITHER. I CAN'T I CAN LOGIN AND USE THE COMPUTER.

I'M LEARNING HERE. >> SURE.

HIRED A FIRM TO FORM AN INVESTIGATION.

PART OF THE INVESTIGATION INVOLVES HAVING THE SENTINEL ONE PRODUCT INSTALLED. AS MENTIONED EARLIER THAT WAS ONLY INSTALLED ON VICE END POINTS, NO SERVERS.

THAT WAS ON MY RECOMMENDATION. I DIDN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE INSTALLING IT ON ANY SERVERS THAT HAD PERSONAL IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION OR STUDENT DATA. ANY RECORDS LIKE THAT.

AND THAT WAS AGREED UPON. SO THEY WERE ABLE TO GATHER DATA FROM THE END POINTS. AND THAT'S IT.

IT HAS BEEN SINCE REMOVED. I BELIEVE TWO OR THREE WEEKS

AGO. >> SO I HAVE AS A TRUSTEE A MACHINE. IS THAT ON MY MACHINE?

>> I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK. I HAVE TO CHECK TO MAKE SURE AND THERE'S A CHANCE THAT YES, IT WAS.

>> WHAT KIND OF DATA AS A TRUSTEE I WAS NEVER NOTIFIED OF THIS AND THAT IS CONCERNING FOR ME.

IS THERE A REASON I WASN'T? >> I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT SECOND ONE IS INVOLVED, THE TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED IS WHAT'S RUNNING ON THE OPERATING SYSTEM AND WHAT KIND OF APPLICATIONS ARE THERE.

IT CERTAINLY CANNOT TRACK WHAT YOU ARE DOING INDIVIDUALLY ON THE COMPUTER. IT DOES TRACK A LOT OF NETWORK INFORMATION SO EVERY PACKET THAT GOES OUT GETS LOGGED BY THE SYSTEM SO THEY CAN GO BACK AND DO A FORENSIC ANALYSIS IF NEEDED. THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

BUT IT'S NOT WATCHING THE AND MACUSER SPECIFICALLY.

>> OKAY. IT DEFINITELY SEEMS CONCERNING.

I HAD TO OVER THE WE CAN REACH OUT TO OUR BOARD PRESIDENT REGARDING LAST MONTH'S BOARD AGENDA.

IT ACTUALLY CAUSED ME TO DRIVE TO ONE OF THE PHYSICAL LOCATIONS THAT THE BOARD AGENDA IS ABOUT TO BE POSTED AT.

YOU KNOW. THESE ARE DEFINITELY CONCERNING ISSUES. THERE IS OBVIOUSLY SOME TYPE OF CHALLENGE HERE, EVERYTHING THAT YOU'D LIKE TO ADD OR THINGS YOU THINK WOULD RESOLVE THESE IS ISSUES.

>> DEFINITELY WHAT SUPERINTENDENT BROWN HAS MENTIONED, CONTINUING TO TAKE GOING WITH A HOSTING COMPANY FOR THE WEBSITE INSTEAD OF POSTING INTERNALLY ON OUR OWN, IT WOULD BE PART OF THE NETWORK SECURITY, PREVENTING FILES ARE BEING

[03:25:02]

THAT'LL STOP THESE INCIDENTS FROM OCCURRING IN THE FUTURE.

>> WILL ALSO ADD THAT COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR HAS STARTED TO RESEARCH SOME OF THESE PLATFORMS THAT ARE MUCH MORE SECURE FOR THE WEBSITE KNOWING THAT THE ITEM TODAY NEEDS TO BE HOSTED ON THE WEBSITE SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE ITEMS ARE IN A SECURE PLACE.

IT'S JUST THE VENDOR PART WILL TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME BECAUSE WE DO ALSO HOST THE VENTURA COUNTY AND THE WEBSITE FOR THE PLANNING COUNCIL AND ARE VCOE AND POTENTIALLY NOW THE BOARD MEMBERS ABOUT HIS TRUSTEE WEBSITE.

SO DEFINITELY A POINT OF SOMETHING THAT -- I'M GLAD THE BOARD BROUGHT IT UP BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENED AT THE LAST MEETING.

AND A WEBSITE IS WORKED FOR CERTAIN TIMES BUT WE ARE IN DIFFERENT TIMES WITH AI AND CYBERSECURITY.

I THINK WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BUILD SOMETHING THAT'S MORE USER-FRIENDLY. PLATFORM FRIENDLY, STUDENT SERVICES. AND ALL THE ACTIVITIES THAT WE HAVE. ALSO LEARNED FROM SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY. WE HAVEN'T -- I TALKED ABOUT IT BEFORE HOW PEOPLE REGISTERED FROM EVENTS.

THAT WAS A CONSORTIUM WHERE WE DIDN'T HAVE TO PAY A LOT FOR IT.

AND WE USE IT FOR REGISTRATION. WE LEARNED THAT IS SUN SETTING.

HOW WE GEAR UP FOR THE 27-28 SCHOOL YEAR.

THE NEEDS OF STAFFING. WE DID BRING UP A GOOD POINT.

DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT. THAT AREA OF SPACE WE CAN GROW IN AND WE HAVE SOME SOLID TEAM MEMBERS AND ARE DOING THE GOOD WORK LIKE THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT SHARED IN ADDRESSING ISSUES AS BEST WE CAN WITH OUR EXPERTISE.

WE DO HAVE EXPERTISE WITHIN OUR DEPARTMENT SPECIFICALLY AN AREA WE CAN GROW ON AND WE'D LIKE SUPPORT ON THE CYBERSECURITY AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. WE ARE MOVING IN THAT DIRECTION TO EXPAND OUR DEPARTMENT IN THOSE SPACES.

>> AS A TRUSTEE IN THIS AREA OF MY CONCERN IS A RISE IN INCIDENTS, A DROP, A TRANSFORMATION EXPERTISE OR ADDITIONAL EXPERTISE. YOU KNOW WHAT YOU NEED COULD BE PUTTING OUR STUDENTS AT RISK. AND YOU ADD THE THIRD ELEMENT, INTRODUCING SOME THIRD-PARTY, SOME SOFTWARE, ANOTHER ORGANIZATION TO TELL YOU THE TRUTH I'VE NEVER HEARD IN MY LIFE. WHAT SOME OTHER ORGANIZATION PUT IN, WHY WOULD YOU LET THEM INTRODUCE SOMETHING INTO THE VCOE SYSTEM ESPECIALLY AS YOU MENTIONED WITH THE DEFENDER, IT'S A PROBLEM AND LEADING TO GREATER VULNERABILITY AND THAT SEEMS TO BE AN UNNECESSARY RISK. WHY WAS IT PUT IN?

>> WE PUT IT IN AS IT WAS DIRECTED TO BY OUR LEADERSHIP.

>> CANASTA LEADERSHIP WHY IT WAS DONE? WHY WAS IT AN OUTSIDE PARTY WE LET ACCESS TO OUR SYSTEM? ESPECIALLY OUR EXPERTISE SEEMS AT RISK.

>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. AT THIS TIME I DON'T HAVE THAT ANSWER BUT I CAN TAKE IT BACK TO LEADERSHIP TO GATHER THAT IT IS OUT OF THE VCR. I ALWAYS GET THE ACRONYM WRONG AND I WROTE IT DOWN. AND SO I CAN COME BACK TO STAFF BUT I DO NOT WANT TO ANSWER QUESTIONS WITHOUT HAVING ALL THE PROPER INFORMATION AND I ALSO DO WANT TO ADD THAT SECOND INTERVIEWS ARE COMING IN FOR THE DIRECTOR OF INFRASTRUCTURE.

THE TEAM HAS ALREADY GONE THROUGH THE FIRST INTERVIEW SO WE ARE EXCITED TO START GROWING THOSE EFFORTS IN OUR TECHNOLOGY.

THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO HEAR FROM THE EXPERTS AND I'M EXCITED FOR THAT SECOND INTERVIEW TO COME THROUGH.

>> MAYBE WE CAN PURSUE THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT THE WHY BECAUSE WHAT I'M HEARING, I SEE AN I.T. DEPARTMENT THAT SEEMS TO BE UNDERMANNED OR UNDER EXPERTISE TO.

NO CRITICISM OF CURRENT PEOPLE BUT THE WORLD OF I.T. IS CHANGING AND TRANSFORMING. AND WE ARE

[03:30:05]

IT'S UP TO OUR SACRED DUTY TO HAVE THE BEST PRODUCTIONS OF THEM AND THAT'S WHY I'M GETTING A LITTLE CONCERNED WHEN I HEAR SOMETHING IS UPSET. I DO REALIZE THAT I.T. SYSTEMS AND SOFTWARE, I DO NOT WANT TO SAY IT'S A SCIENCE BUT IT IS VERY COMPLICATED. AND CAN LEAD TO UNPREDICTABLE OUTCOMES AT TIMES ESPECIALLY WITH AI ENTERING THE DISCUSSION.

I THINK LOOKING AT WHY THIS WAS INTRODUCED AND WHAT'S OUR PLAN TO HAVE MORE ROBUST PROTECTION, ROBUST SYSTEMS FOR OUR STUDENTS AND OUR LOCAL SCHOOL SYSTEMS WOULD BE IMPORTANT FOR US.

>> MADAM PRESIDENT, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

ONE FOR MS. KLEIN. WERE YOU AWARE OF THE SENTINEL ONE SOFTWARE BEING COMMITTED ON THE SYSTEMS?

>> YES. WELL, THEY DIDN'T HIRE THEM, BUT THEY FIRED A CLAIM WITH THE CYBER INSURANCE.

AND YOU ASKED THEM TO DO THIS INVESTIGATION FOR THEM.

WE ASKED BECAUSE WE WANTED TO HOUSE THEIR DATA.

ALL OF THEIR DRIVES DATA FROM THEM IN THE BUILDING A LONG-STANDING RELATIONSHIP, ALL OF THEM, YOU DON'T A MEMBER IF THEY'VE LIVED US, HONESTLY. AND THAT'S ALL I REALLY KNOW.

WE WERE DRIFTED TO DOING THAT. >> IS THIS REGARDING THE BREACH AS YOU TALK ABOUT THE LAST MEETING.

>> IT WASN'T A BREACH OF US. WE BELIEVE THEY HAD A BREACH OF OUR DATA. AT LEAST THEY DID.

>> WE DON'T HAVE THAT REPORT. WE AREN'T PART OF THAT ENTITY.

I HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING ON THAT. >> MAYBE IT'S JUST I DO NOT QUITE UNDERSTAND I.T., BUT IF THAT -- WHATEVER THE ACRONYM, I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO TRY, SO SORRY.

BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THE TOOL WAS DEPLOYED ON VCOE EQUIPMENT INCLUDING POSSIBLY A MACHINE THAT I USED AND THAT WASN'T DISCLOSED TO ME AND IT WAS CONCERNING AND I'M ALSO CONCERNED THAT I'M HEARING THE WORDS HACKING AND BREACHING WHICH I THINK ACTUALLY HAS SOME LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS ABOUT NOTIFICATION STAKEHOLDERS. WAS ANY OF THAT DONE?

>> NOTHING HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT WE'VE HAD A HACK OR BREACH OR THAT DCS HAS FADED THAT I AM AWARE OF.

WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY REPORTS STATING THAT THERE WAS ANY HACKING OR BREACHING. I'VE NOT HEARD THAT SO THERE'S NOTHING TO DISCLOSE. I THINK THAT'S WHY THEY WANTED TO DO THAT INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE IF THERE WAS.

TO WHAT EXTENT. THAT'S WHAT MY KNOWLEDGE IS WHEN THEY ASKED US TO DEPLOY IT. I'VE HAD NO REPORTS FROM THEM

SINCE THEN. >> IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THIS IS STEMMING FROM THAT HAPPENING AND IF THEY HAD A BREACH AND IT WAS ON -- I MEAN, I'M TRYING TO PUT THE PIECES TO THE PUZZLE HERE TOGETHER AND IT SEEMS THAT FROM WHAT I WAS HEARING WITH THIS SENTINEL ONE, THAT IS WHAT HAS CAUSED THE WEBSITE TO BE HACKED AND THESE OTHER ISSUES. AM I NOT UNDERSTANDING IT RIGHT?

>> THAT'S NOT WHAT HE SAID AT ALL.

>> THEY ARE COMPLETELY UNRELATED.

SENTINEL ONE WAS ITS OWN INSTALLATION AND IT RAN ITS COURSE AND IT'S BEEN REMOVED. THE WEBSITE INCIDENT WAS A COMPLETELY SEPARATE UNRELATED EVENT.

>> SO WE DIDN'T HAVE TO DO WITH MICROSOFT DEFENDER NOT BEING ON

OR -- >> NOW.

THE SENTINEL ONE PRODUCT WAS NEVER INSTALLED ON ANY PRODUCT WHATSOEVER. HOSTING THE DATABASE FILE SERVER THAT SERVES FILES FOR THE WEBSITE, NONE OF THOSE SERVERS HAD THE SENTINEL ONE SOFTWARE ON THEM EVER.

>> MADAM PRESIDENT? >> YES, TRUSTEES P.A.?

>> IF I HEARD YOU'RE RIGHT, IT'S COLLECTING TRANSACTIONAL DATA.

>> I CAN CONFIRM THAT COMPLETELY.

BUT GENERALLY IT'S TRANSACTIONAL WHAT'S HAPPENING ON THE MACHINE, NOT THE DATA THAT LIVES ON. I THINK YOU CAN DO THAT BUT

THAT'S GENERALLY NOT COLLECTED. >> CAN YOU EXPLAIN?

>> IN PLAIN ENGLISH, THAT THINGS ARE LOOKING ON DATA, YOU WOULDN'T BE LOOKING AT YOUR FILES OR EMAILS.

IT'S JUST SENSE SOMETHING AT SOME POINT, NOT WHAT IT SENT.

>> OKAY. >> TRYING TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF EASE AND IT'S NOT GETTING INTO YOUR PERSONALIZING

[03:35:01]

SHOULD OF SPELLED THAT OUT. IT'S NOT GIVING DATE OF BIRTH,

PHONE NUMBER. >> SO LAST MEETING ONE OF THE PURCHASE ORDERS THAT WAS ON OUR CONSENT WAS FOR HELP MIGRATING, AND I WANT TO SAY CONEJO, OUT OF USING OUR QUEUE SYSTEM? IS THAT CORRECT? CERTAIN DISTRICTS HAVE STOPPED

USING... >> IT WAS ONE OF THE PROJECTS BROUGHT THE CONSULTANT IN TO HELP US WITH BECAUSE IT'S MIGRATING THEIR DATA OFF OF Q ON THEIR OWN HOSTED SYSTEM.

FOR THE BEGINNING OF NEXT SCHOOL YEAR.

>> SO HAVING SCHOOL DISTRICTS LEAVING VCOE USING OUR SYSTEM, IS THERE ANY CONCERN THAT THESE DISTRICTS HAD.

ALTHOUGH USING THEIR OWN SERVICES?

>> I KNOW THEY SENT A LETTER TELLING US THAT HE DIDN'T WANT TO USE IT MORE EFFECTIVE IN MIGRATING TO SYNERGY.

DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THEY GIVE US ANY REASON WHY THEY DO NOT HAVE TO. WE H HAVE A YEAR-TO-YEAR CONTRAT TO ALL HER DISTRICTS TO PROVIDE THEM WHICHEVER SOFTWARE PRODUCTS THEY WANT TO SUPPORT OURSELVES AT THEIR DISCRETION TO USE IT OR NOT IF THEY FEEL SOME OF THE PRODUCT IS BETTER.

AND I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT STUDENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO GO, TO HONESTLY.

>> THERE WAS ONE OTHER DISTRICT. NO, OXNARD HIGH HAVE NEVER BEEN ON OUR Q. ALL AT ONE THING.

AFTER THE PANDEMIC WE KNOW FROM THE REPORTS FROM STAFF THAT THERE WASN'T A LOT OF DATA. THERE WEREN'T A LOT OF ASSESSMENTS. THERE WASN'T A COLLEGE OR CAREER INDICATOR. THE CALIFORNIA DASHBOARD WAS RELEASED TODAY ALONG WITH DATA FILES AND DATAQUEST AND SO DISTRICTS LOCALLY ARE DECIDING WHAT IS THE BEST SYSTEM FOR THE STUDENTS AND SOME OF THESE SCHOOL INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND STUDENT ASSESSMENT SYSTEMS ARE GETTING A LOT MORE SAVVY ON WHAT IT IS. I KNOW EQUINOX DOES WONDERFUL DASHBOARD DATA SOFTWARE I WANT TO KNOW WHO'S BEEN CHRONICALLY ABSENT I CAN GO ON TO IT. BUT IT'S A SYSTEM THING.

WE'VE HAD THIS CONSORTIUM FOR QUITE SOME TIME.

IN OUR PREVIOUS DISTRICTS ALSO AN ASSESSMENT SYSTEM WITH THE COUNTY OFFICE. BUT ONCE ALL THESE ASSESSMENTS BECAME DIFFERENT, WE BACKED OUT AND THE REASON WE BACKED OUT IN MY OLD DISTRICT IS BECAUSE WE DECIDED TO GO INTO AN ASSESSMENT SYSTEM WHERE WE COULD DO BENCHMARKS WITH OUR OWN LOCAL DATA FIGURING IT OUT. WE LET THE COUNTY'S OFFICE JUST BECAUSE IT WAS GOING TO BE A BETTER PLATFORM FOR US AT THE HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT. A LOT HAVE A LOT MORE CRITERIA AND DATA JUST IF YOU LOOK AT THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GUIDE FOR THE COLLEGE AND CAREER INDICATOR.

YOU ARE GOING THROUGH A THROUGH G, CAMBRIDGE, COLLEGE AND CAREER. DUAL ENROLLMENT AND THE PLATFORMS WERE ENROLLING. AND OUR EQUINOX HAS A LISTSERV WHERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR PROBLEMS YOU CAN GET IN THE THE Q. HOUSLEY WORKING ON OTHER ITEMS. AND THEY ALSO HAVE SESSIONS WHICH YOU'LL SEE ON OUR WEBSITE ON THE WORKSHOPS. JUST LOCALLY DECIDED AND WE ALSO SHIFTED FROM LC FF FROM A 50 YEAR WAY THAT WE KEEP CATEGORICAL RUNS TO DO A LOT OF THIS WORK INCLUDING STAFFING AND ALL THAT AND WHEN WE SHIFTED IT FOR COUNTY OFFICES UNFORTUNATELY WE DIDN'T GET THE SAME FUNDS AS SOME OF OUR DISTRICTS WERE PUPILS. I THINK THIS IS A GREAT CONVERSATION TO HAVE BEEN HAVING EXPERTS IN THE ROOM TO GIVE US A LIGHT ON WHAT IT IS AND WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY MOMENT.

WE WILL HAVE NEW LEADERSHIP IN HERE AND I KNOW THAT THEY MEET WITH MY JOB ALIKE AND HOW WE COMBINE SO WE CAN HAVE THIS CONVERSATION. JUST THIS LAST WEEK, WE'VE HELD

[03:40:07]

THERE IS EVERYTHING. JUST THAT APPRECIATIVE AND THAT'S THE BEGINNING OF A CONVERSATION.

THE BOARD HAS PRIVY TO CHOOSE NEW BOARD AGENDA ITEMS, HOWEVER THEY MIGHT WANT TO MOVE FORWARD. I JUST WANTED TO AGAIN APPRECIATE THE STAFF THAT DIDN'T NEED TO BE HERE TONIGHT AND CHOSE TO BE HERE TONIGHT SO THEY CAN SHARE THEIR EXPERTISE.

>> I APPRECIATE YOUR GUYS' PRESENCE BECAUSE YOU BEEN OPENING CLEAR WITH US SO I THINK IT DOES RAISE A LOT OF QUESTIONS FOR ME. WE HAVE VERY VALUABLE DATA AND I'D LIKE TO SEE A PLAN FOR HOW WE ARE PROTECTING THE DATA WITH MORE EXPERTISE. I WANT TO SEE WHY.

A THIRD PARTY PLATFORM INTO OUR SYSTEM MANY DO NOT SEE WHY INTO THAT. MIGHT BE A DATA BREACH.

HE MENTIONED THE DATA BREACH. I'M CALLING IT JP.

I KIND OF REMEMBER THAT OTHER ACRONYM.

DO THEY PRESENT DATA AND HE SAYS HERE'S WHY WE THINK IT IS VCOE AND HERE'S WHAT WE ARE DOING IT. WHY DO WE LET STUFF LIKE THAT WHEN THEY MIGHT'VE BEEN LONGTIME COLLEAGUES BUT WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH THE VALUABLE DATA, WE'VE GOT TO HAVE DATA THAT LAST ESSAY, THIS IS WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR, IT'S WHAT THEY ARE COMING IN. IF YOU ARE SLOW AND RESOURCES AND YOU UNDERSTAND THAT, IT PUTS EVEN MORE PRESSURE ON YOU GUYS.

I'D LIKE TO HAVE MORE ANSWERS FROM MANAGEMENT AT OUR NEXT

MEETING IF POSSIBLE. >> I WOULD AGREE.

I DID ALSO WANT TO ASK THE JOB TITLE CHANGE IN THE LAST BOARD MEETING WE HAD DISCUSSED THAT USING THE CTO TITLE.

>> ARE YOU REFERRING TO COLLEEN STEED?

>> YES. >> I HAD HER REMOVED FROM ANY COMMUNICATION THAT SHE HAS, THAT SHE'S NOT USING THAT TITLE.

>> SHE IS A CONTRACTOR BECAUSE SHE'S NOT REARRANGING PEOPLE IN

THE OFFICE -- >> SHE SHOULD NOT BE.

>> I WANT TO MAKE SURE SHE IS A CONTRACTOR AND NOT AN EMPLOYEE.

>> MISSING A CTO? THAT'S ALSO A BIG PIECE OF YOUR EXPERTISE I IMAGINE AS THE LEADER DEALING WITH ALL THESE

PACKS. >> I WILL USE THE JP, HOW DOES THAT WORK WITH VCOE. OBVIOUSLY IT NOW SOUNDS LIKE THEY HIRED SOMEBODY TO DEPLOY THIS.

IS THERE A CONTRACT THAT VCOE HAS THAT ALLOWS FOR THAT, WHAT TYPE OF AGREEMENTS THEY ARE MADE WITH THAT AND WHO IS APPROVING

THAT? >> THE AGREEMENT IS THEY ARE RENTERS AND THERE ARE OTHER THINGS IN THE CONTRACT TO ALLOW FOR I.T. SUPPORT AND ON A SEPARATE CONTRACT THEY PURCHASE THE FRONTLINE ESCAPE SOFTWARE FROM US, FOR THEIR USE IN THEIR FINANCIAL REPORTING JUST LIKE THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN OUR COUNTY DO. THAT IS A SEPARATE CONTRACT WITH THEIR OWN SUPPORT. I'M NOT SURE OF THE DETAILS REGARDING THEIR LEVEL OF I.T. SUPPORT MENTIONED IN THEIR CONTRACT BECAUSE I DID NOT DRAFT THAT CONTRACT.

BUT THE DIRECTION TO ME WAS THEIR ATTORNEYS, OUR ATTORNEYS TOLD US THAT WE NEEDED TO COOPERATE WITH THE OPERATION.

>> WHO TOLD YOU THAT? >> DR. MORALES AND OUR

ATTORNEYS. >> CAN YOU PROVIDE A COPY OF THE

CONTRACT TO THE BOARD? >> YES.

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE APPRECIATE YOU STAYING THROUGH THIS VERY LONG MEETING.

I KNOW EVERYONE HAS WORK TOMORROW.

[D. ADJOURNMENT]