4-1-1 On The January 23 Irvine Unified (IUSD) Board of Education Meeting
All IUSD Board Members and IUSD Student Board Members were present for the January 23 Board of Education Meeting as was a large crowd. A Parental Notification Policy submitted by an IUSD Parent was denied a place on the Jan 23 meeting agenda precipitating the high turn out. This post is focused on the Jan 23 meeting flow, items of business, and public comments not related to the Parental Notification Policy. This post also summarizes the reports shared by Student Board Members, Superintendent Walker and Board Members. You can read about the Parental Notification policy and the public comments associated with it here.
The flow and agenda for the January 23 meeting was standard. One hour and ten minutes of the two hour and forty minute total meeting time was spent on agenda items not related to general public comments. There was a special presentation given, by Jim Leung- President of the Irvine Unified Council PTA, ahead of general public comments. Mr. Leung updated the Board and members of the community on local PTA and Council PTA efforts and accomplishments year-to-date, highlighting the strong levels of engagement and PTA involvement throughout the District. Council PTA has focused on offering professional development training to Executive Board members of the local PTA chapters which has been well received. He spent a few minutes touching on IUCPTA’s Legislative Advocacy work and shared California PTA’s advocacy goals for 2024. Closing out his presentation, he shared that the IUCPTA is accepting High School applications for scholarships. He put a plug in for community members to complete the IUSD annual survey. The presentation Mr. Leung shared is not posted to the IUCPTA’s website but can be accessed here.
General Public comments followed the IUCPTA Special Presentation. A disclaimer about audience member conduct and behavior was shared by President Yu ahead of public comments. 38 Public Comments in total were made at the January 23 meeting- only 6 were NOT related to the Parental Notification Policy - 4 of those were general comments with 2 related to specific agenda items. The 4 general comments are summarized below:
Mr. CJ Henderson shared comments about his California Native American Indian roots and heritage presenting evidence that his ancestors occupied the land well before the Spanish settlers came in and colonized them. He would like all children to be taught a balanced view of history on what happened during the colonization of the California Native American Indians. He went on to petition the Board to look into the possibility of renaming Portola High School and Portola Springs Elementary stating that by naming them as such Irvine Unified is glorifying Portola- someone who was a brutal “murderer”. Mr. Henderson previously shared public comments at the August 16 2022 Board meeting about his Native American Heritage and that of his daughters who were students in the district and have gone missing (assumed to be trafficked) .
Isabelle Rios introduced herself as the Director of Partner Relations at the Discovery Cube Orange County. She attended the meeting to share news about the programs and enrichment opportunities available to students and encouraged Irvine Schools to bring their students for a visit.
Esther Morales shared updates on the efforts of the Community Advisory Committee highlighting upcoming meeting dates and their associated topics of focus. She encouraged community members to complete the IUSD annual survey.
Geneva, mother of a College Park Elementary student on an Individualized Education Plan (IEP), raised concern about IUSD Administration’s lack of transparency and integrity as pertains to the IEP process. She noted that she was being asked, by IUSD’s SELPA Director and Director of Alternative Dispute Resolution Jennifer O’Malley, to sign an unlawful agreement. She expressed discontent with the limbo situation that IUSD Administration has put her and her daughter in by continuing to allow her daughter to be subjected to bullying, denying her daughter services, and allowing her to fall further behind academically. Geneva noted that retaliation for exposing what is happening in her situation is “getting out of control”. She appealed to the Board to conduct an audit of all departments where all levels in the chain of command are questioned and the detailed results shared with the public. Such an audit, she states, “Will ensure our educational system works in the best interest of every student, including those with special needs.” She commented that it is “very embarrassing that IUSD is labeled as one of the top school districts, one of the safest, but it tricks parents into signing away their rights going against the transparency and fairness principles that we expect from our educational system.”
Student Board member reports, the Superintendent Report and Board Member reports followed general public comments. Students shared updates on forthcoming Winter Formals, Performing Arts events and athletics. Portola’s Student Board Member, Gabe Mustvangwa, shared that a student senate session on the topic of Academic Dishonesty had recently been held noting that he’ll “be working with leadership teams to propose policies to diminish any acts of [academic dishonesty]”. Irvine High Student Board Member Alexis Tran noted that Irvine High is the only high school in the District that holds its finals after winter break. Starting next academic year Irvine High’s schedule will revert back to holding finals before winter break to align with other schools.
The Superintendent Report followed Student Board Member Reports. In the Superintendent Report, Terry Walker spent several minutes emphasizing the importance of participating in the IUSD annual survey (which closes February 5). He described it as a “very crucial tool that we use as a way of determining the District’s investment of time, resources and potentially money.” It’s used as a means to “tell us what's important to our families, our students, and our staff” noting that District leadership reflects on the feedback. (Note: While the District states they reflect on feedback received, the results from the Annual Survey are not shared publicly nor are they discussed in public forum outside the LCAP process.) Mr. Walker then reminded the community of the District’s limited resources and how the survey helps the District prioritize the allocation of funds. He closed out his report by sharing that Irvine Unified has been ranked one of the top District’s in the state and the #1 District in Orange County and a top ranking school District in the state “by a recent study”. It was ranked high for its “diverse student body, a wide range of academic/visual and performing arts/athletic programs offerings, and a number of other things”. University High was ranked as a top 10 High School in the state. [Note: Mr. Walker did not provide the name or source of the study he was referring to but information about the study conducted by Niche is posted on IUSD’s website here. This article indicates IUSD is ranked #2 in Orange County not #1 as Mr. Walker stated during the meeting].
Board Member reports followed Mr. Walker’s report. Board members shortened their read outs for the meeting and shared them in the following order: Jeff, Lauren, Katie, Paul, Cyril. Jeff commented about how impressed he was by the student run Robotics Competition at Portola High he recently attended. [Note: During the 2022-23 academic year a Portola High mom shared public comments at two different Board meetings expressing disappointment with the lack of support, enthusiasm and resources for Robotics at Portola High. She appealed to the Board for IUSD to make the necessary investments for the Robotics program to thrive. Her comments shared during the March 14, 2023 meeting are summarized here. Jeff’s comments suggest perhaps this mom’s public comments were taken to heart by IUSD]. Lauren’s closing remarks to her brief report were “I’m going to leave it at that because it’s so late”. Katie McEwen weighed in on the Annual Survey during her read out stating “It's so important, those of you tuning in please fill them out for each of your students. That is how we tie dollars to action. That action is happening. I'm here to tell you. I just think it's a good chance for us to take stock in the very good work that we're doing.” Paul followed suit of Lauren’s closing remarks in his read out stating that he was keeping it short “since it's almost 09:00 pm and we haven't gotten items of business.”
The Consent Agenda followed Board Member Reports.
Two of the six total comments not related to Parental Notification mentioned at the top of this post were comments on Consent Agenda items 15(a) Check Register Report and 19(a) Special Education Settlement Agreements. The comments commenced at the 2 hour 20 minute mark of the meeting.
Deborah Kamm, who has previously shared public comments at IUSD Board meetings, shared comments on agenda item 15(a) Check register report. Ms. Kamm raised concern about the lack of transparency in the accounting related to a lawsuit IUSD is involved in where IUSD is suing the family of a student with disabilities. She noted the lawsuit has been in litigation for 5 years and has racked up legal bills to the tune of greater than $1 million which taxpayers are on the hook for. Ms. Kamm raised questions about the law firm Jennifer O’Malley has contracted with to run the litigation noting there is no formal contract with this law firm on record with IUSD. She further noted the majority of the check register entries you would expect to see as payment cannot be found in the check register report IUSD makes publicly available via the Board Meeting agenda. She posed the following questions to the Board on this specific matter: 1. Why hasn't the District offered a reasonable settlement rather than paying high legal fees to fight a losing case? 2. How can you explain this waste of public funds?
Sharon, the mother of an IUSD Student with Disabilities, followed Ms. Kamm speaking on 19(a) Special Education Settlement Agreements. Sharon pointed out that her case had not been heard during closed session that day as she expected. She expanded upon Ms. Kamm’s comments and is the subject of the wasteful litigation Ms. Kamm was referring to. Sharon reiterated what Ms. Kamm had stated during her comments and educated the board on how the situation could’ve easily been resolved at a cost of $50,000 but instead it evolved and escalated. The crux of the litigation is a student with disabilities (Sharon’s daughter) being denied a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) by IUSD which she is lawfully entitled to. Sharon’s daughter was a 6th grade student at the time this started in 2018. Denying a student with disabilities a FAPE is a violation of Federal law. Instead of IUSD paying the tuition for a non public school in accordance with FAPE, IUSD continued to appeal the local judge’s ruling in the court system losing every step of the way. IUSD recently lost their 9th circuit appeal. The US Court of Appeals ordered IUSD to pay attorney’s fees to Sharon’s attorneys which IUSD ignored. This required writs of mandate to be filed on Sharon’s behalf to collect from IUSD. As of the time public comments were shared, IUSD’s attorneys had been stonewalling any transfer of funds. Sharon concluded her comments by posing the same questions Ms. Kamm had and stating “These aggressive and punitive actions by the District appear to be intended to discourage parents from pursuing remedies when their children have not been offered a FAPE. This is inconsistent with the District's claim that is one of the top public school districts in the country.”
Although Public Comments shared on agenda items allow for open discussion an conversation by members of the Board, no Board members responded to Ms. Kamm or Sharon, nor did they share comments in response to the matter presented.
Items of Business followed the Consent Agenda Items and Public comments related to it. Only 11 minutes was devoted to the Items Of Business on the agenda. The items of business for the January 23 meeting were:
24(a). Submission of the 2022-23 Annual Financial Audit of the Irvine Unified School District; This is a routine annual item of business. Please see below for summary.
24(b).Submission of the 2022-23 IUSD Building Fund (Measure E) Financial and Performance Audit; This is a routine annual item of business. Please see below for summary.
24(c ). Second Reading- Proposed Board Policy 5127: Graduation/Promotion Ceremonies and Activities; This policy was introduced for a first reading and review at the December 12 Board meeting and was unanimously approved by the Board on Jan 23 for adoption based on second reading. NOTE: The policy was never actually read in its entirety during either the Dec 12 or January 23 Board meeting.
Ryan Milligan from Eide Bailly, LLP, Certified Public Accountants presented an overview of the Audit report to the Board and members of the audience still in attendance explaining that there are three possible opinions their firm gives on the Financial Statements of a District with an “Unmodified” opinion (which IUSD received) as the “highest level of assurance that auditors can give that the financial statements”. He went on to state that there were no material findings or deficiencies. He further remarked that on the page where federal programs IUSD participates in are audited there were “a lot of blank pages” which are normally where you’d see all the audit findings. Closing out his presentation he stated “Getting blank pages from an auditor is exactly what you want to see.”
There were a couple questions posed by Board Members and there was a comment made by Lauren Brooks ahead of the Board’s unanimous vote. Ms. Brook’s commented that she appreciates all the training that has been provided to staff to “keep us clean”.
Note: In less than 8 minutes time the information in the 110 page audit report was presented to the Board, discussion held, and the Board voted unanimously to “Receive and file the 2022-2023 audit of the financial records of Irvine Unified School District and the audit of the Building Fund (Measure E) as presented by Eide Bailly.”,
The meeting was called to adjournment upon conclusion of the items of business as there were no other public comments.
[Note: A member of the audience who had shared a public comment at the beginning of the meeting had asked to share another comment at the end on a different topic but was told she had already been granted her 3 minutes and would not be allowed to speak again during the public comments prior to adjournment.]