Anchorage School Board: 08/04/2026: School Board Work Session

Good afternoon, everyone. We'll call the Tuesday, August 4, 2026 ASD School Board work session to order.

Uh, present in the boardroom are members Jacobs, Lessons, and Blakeslee. Online we have Members Wilson and Bellamy will note, uh,.

Members as they arrive. Uh, our first item under B1 for discussion is FY projected revenue. Dr. Bryant, did you want to open the conversation? Sure. Thank you, Mr. President.

So a lot has transpired since we last convened at our last regular meeting. Um, so just to recap, over the summer we received some additional information from the legislature. So earlier in July, um, we were made aware that due to a bill that passed, that the district was set to receive a, a small amount of revenue. And on July 7th, the board convened in a special work session to allocate those dollars towards holdback teacher positions. So I'm really proud to share that when the board took that action, we took action and have started that process of assigning those positions to principals, which will make a difference in classrooms across the district.

Now, the other thing that's been transpiring is also related to the legislative session. There was another bill passed that could mean, um, quite a bit of additional revenue.

To districts, but something that we shared right before we left for the summer is that these funds are a little different because, unlike most funds which are tied to recurring revenues or known revenues at the state level, these revenues are actually based off of a surplus, um, largely due to anticipated higher revenues due to increased oil prices for a variety of reasons. So that brings us to this work session. So I anticipate that our regular meeting will be a conversation largely around this idea of, um, is is this the right moment to proactively invest those dollars that we anticipate to come to the district right now, um, or should we wait? And we actually have a couple of proposals that our board members will share with this entire group and the public. There's certainly considerations to be made, but the big picture is that in our best case scenario, ASD.

Would receive up to about $32 million. The catch though is that the Commissioner of Revenue has to make a determination on August 31st, and only the Revenue Commissioner will be able to provide us the assurances that we need to understand how to fully utilize those funds. With that said, this is breaking news because as of Friday we did receive a letter from legislators, a number of legislators from the House majority, that encouraged districts to begin figuring out a way to use these funds to address urgent needs for the upcoming school year. In some ways, that provides assurances, but as I shared before, the only individual that has the authority to provide the official assurance would be the Revenue Commissioner. But with that said, based off of calculations done by Legislative Finance and others, there is a relatively high level of confidence that districts will receive something, but we will not.

Will not have that determination until after the school year has begun. So in my mind, the conversation that we'll have this afternoon and later this evening are around a couple things. One is on risk tolerance, because as fiduciaries of the district, the board has responsibility to make sure that we take action that doesn't exacerbate risk to the district. So given all the context that, that I've laid out there, there certainly is a possibility that the, the state might be short on its revenue projections. There is a very real possibility that districts will not get the full funding that was outlined in the law.

With that said, there are ways that we can minimize the risk, and I'm definitely excited to hear more from a couple of our members to talk about ways that we can manage the risk, but also seize the second layer to this conversation, which is on opportunity costs, because school hasn't started quite yet. So there's a small but important window of opportunity where we can leverage these dollars to make a difference in classrooms. Because something that we shared a few months ago.

Is that once the school year starts, it's going to really limit the ways that we can make a difference in classrooms across the district. So we need to manage both the risk tolerance piece with the opportunity cost of taking action now. So we don't have all of those answers laid out, but I look forward to the conversation that we'll have this afternoon and later this evening. So with that said, um, I, I'd love to hear from the, the members involved in producing a memorandum that will be discussed by the body later this evening, because I think that will be a nice segue to inform the public as to what our options are. So I'll pause there.

Okay, I think it makes sense from a discussion standpoint to start with Member Blakeslee, who drafted the original memo, um, and then we'll hear from Member Lessens regarding the yes version. Member Blakeslee? Yeah, sure, thank you. Um, so I will just, uh, add some additional context to Dr. Bryant already.

Shared. So a few additional items regarding the, uh, funding that could come to pass for the district and districts across the state. There was a moment in which I think we were all unsure about whether or not the slated potential $32 million that ASD might get was sort of an all-or-nothing, right? If we met a revenue target, would we get all of the funding? But if the revenue target wasn't met, does that mean we get zero funding?

And what we have come to find out out that it is truly waterfall funding, and so we are eligible to receive up to $32.2 million, but we could also still receive amounts less than that. So it is truly a waterfall amount of funding, meaning there are a few other priorities that the legislature will have to pay out prior to school districts receiving whatever is left over. And so there is nuance in terms of how much funding we may get, and also Again, opportunity is a good word to put it.

In that it doesn't— it is not a zero-sum game. It's not an all-or-nothing opportunity. So when we got this letter from the 12 members of the House majority on Friday, I quickly put together an initial memo that has now been revised with collaboration with Member Lessans and President Jacobs. My original memo, though, was balancing the risk tolerance that Dr. Bryant was referring to, and also that opportunity, recognizing that if we open positions right now to fill, that does not necessarily mean that we will automatically be able to fill them. If you look right now on the district's hiring portal, you can see there are many positions that are still vacant.

Um, there are holdbacks that have been assigned, and I'm looking forward to hearing more from the administration about how those holdbacks have been assigned. But as Essentially opening positions.

Doesn't guarantee that we'll be able to fill them all. And yet this is sort of the last window by which we could open positions to give principals and schools a mechanism to fill positions if they could benefit from them. And the risk tolerance, um, after consulting with, uh, our CFO, recognizing that our unassigned fund balance is right now around $7 million And this is not just like a piggy bank of money that we can just sit on. This is money that we, um, it's prudent to save in the case of an emergency like an earthquake or another emergency, but it is unassigned. Um, it is an unassigned, uh, reserve.

And so the memo that I originally drafted was, uh, one in which we would only spend up to that threshold, so we would not exceed $7 million. So the original proposal I put together was one for $6.5 million. $1.8 Million, which would net us about 50 FTE.

It would allow us to open positions for 50 FTE that could then be filled, recognizing that while it does prove a risk for the district, it also means that if the legislature were not to give us a single cent, we could technically cover that expense. Again, not without some risk exposure, but also recognizing that the price of oil has been very high. And based off of the confidence from the legislature who have written to us and market data, It is, at least in my opinion— I won't speak on behalf of the rest of the board— likely that we will get some funding, though the amount we do not know. So that's the, um, the, the impetus for my original memo. And then, um, after circulating it, uh, there have been revisions to it, which I have welcomed.

Um, and I'll let Member Lessens sort of take it from there to talk about, um, those revisions that we made. Thank you, Member Blakeslee. We'll go to Member Lessens. Um, thank.

Thank you. So first of all, thank you, Dr. Bryan, for the introduction. Member Blakeslee, for the really quick, hard, and thoughtful work that went into drafting Memo 016. I think the first word that came to my mind was that it was elegant because it did bound a potential investment within the very real parameters of the, quote, available fund balance. And I thought that was a really thoughtful way to respond to, um, interest that the legislators expressed in directing dollars from House Bill 263, should they materialize, towards our students this year.

Had a memo been drafted to say let's spend $32 million right now, that would not have been, um, I don't know, appropriate. But I thought that this navigated.

Some, some treacherous, potentially treacherous waters quickly and was technically correct. So I really appreciate that. I think what struck me when I read it was that there was not a lot of language in the memo that really emphasized what unassigned fund balance is. And so I spent a lot of time over the weekend with this document collaborating And I want to really focus on— so board members have, and I believe it's posted to BoardDocs, Memo 016S. And fundamentally, it spends a lot of time emphasizing that we have board policy 3470 that frames what fund balance is.

And I want to just talk off the cuff. Let's say the district has $100. Board policy says that we should not spend below 8, 8 of those.

$100. We need to save that. Some of those $8 are actually untouchable because we're protecting the municipality's bond rating. So $8 out of $100 we should have. Some of them we really can't touch for at least 3 fiscal cycles, and the memo explains this.

We have spent— and maybe more, I couldn't quite remember— we have spent fund balance below our board policy We've required a supermajority of the board to be student-centered, but fiscally, um, a little riskier. We have spent down to 5%. We have had 1 out of every $100 available to us, that 5th percent, to deal with emergencies. And this proposal Allocating 6.8 of $7 million.

Accounts to spending 97 cents of that dollar at this point in time. So does that— I'm hoping that can help frame the level of investment that this proposal does. It is grounded in the letter we received from the legislators suggesting that they, they are confident that the money will come through, and I have a degree of confidence as an individual member of the board, that at least some of that money will come through. Um, but I thought that it was really incumbent upon the board to make sure we emphasized what available unassigned fund balance really is. Yes, it's available, but it doesn't mean that it should be spent willy-nilly.

So the proposal is not short in, in terms of the pertinent facts section. Fundamentally, I want to summarize.

What's a little bit different about memo 016S from 016. Memo 016S would generate slightly fewer new FTE overall than memo 016. Both would allocate $6.8 of the $7 million. 016S would generate 45 new FTE and would direct the administration to allocate those FTE to new teachers, building substitutes, and/or counselor FTE, not just FTE. And I think that the intention for the original memo was teachers, critical staff, but this is specific, and I think it's responsive to the realities of our schools on the ground that maybe a school actually really needs a counselor, maybe it needs a building substitute or two because staff are already at capacity.

They've already taken on an additional 0.2 FTE and they're You know, they're teaching all 6 periods of a day at, at middle or high school.

Level. So slightly fewer FTE specific to new teachers, building subs, and counselors. It would direct those FTE to really be aligned with critical needs and with progress towards adopted board goals. And the, the delta between 45 FTE and FTE is ultimately made up by putting additional funds towards student athletes because that is a priority we have already established. And there have been some, um, issues which have come to the board's attention.

Um, so I'm going to read— it's the bottom of page 3, it's the second bullet point, and it says $680,000 to ensure that student athletes enrolled in any sport retained or restored for FY27 by prior board action can safely and equitably access district-level competitions and regional or state-level competitions via district.

Provided bus transportation. That's something that was reduced, if not eliminated, depending, um, in our budget conversations back in February. In addition, some of that pot of $680,000 would also support student safety and equitable access via participation in daily sport-specific practices.

Specifically, that would include daily pool access for every high school swim dive team. We've talked about how expensive swim dive is, but this year at least some schools are actually only in the water 2, maybe 3 days, um, which is not a 5-day-a-week practice schedule for their sport. Um, other sports are having their practices compromised. Um, they certainly— we've reinvested in the dome, so this would.

Ensure that there's transportation between schools and the Dome in the relevant spring sports. And for students for whom off-site practice facilities would be safer, more equitable, and beneficial for them to engage in daily practices, this would allow a restoration of levels of service to no less than what we did last year. Um, so that those students can regularly access appropriate off-site facilities if a school lacks safe and appropriate on-site facilities, or if our current fiscal year's budget reductions have required them to use, um, uh, public roads, paved trails featuring unsafe volumes of vehicular, electric bike, scooter, and/or pedestrian traffic. So we want to keep our kids safe. You know, if a school already has a robust trail network on site, this really doesn't apply to them.

But if a school is struggling to.

Struggling to keep 80 or 100 students or more— we have huge enrollments in some of our middle schools— if, if, if a school is struggling to have a safe place for those students to practice, this pot of funding would restore levels of safety to those students and ensure their ability to practice just as much as students at a school with a safe network. On their site.

So I'll pause there.

Member Lessens, just a question. Maybe you can provide clarity here on our record for the work session at least. Could you discuss the overall level of spending in the S version and if it differs at all from the original? Yes, thank you. And actually, I'll just go back to the— actually, start at the top with the actual recommendation.

So the original version allocated a full.

$6.8 Million to 50 FTE. The S version still would approve and authorize the superintendent, superintendent to appropriate $6.8 million of the $7 million remaining in fund balance, in unreserved fund balance, to reinstate up to 45 school-based FTE and restore levels of service for secondary student athletes for the 26-27 school year. However, the second part of this recommendation is that should the district receive additional one-time funding from HB 263, um, the superintendent-designee would fully restore the district's unreserved fund balance back up to the 5% level, or to no less than that 5% level. So this is a temporary use of fund balance, but I think also your specific question is, uh, what are the numbers? And so specifically, the numbers for the record are Uh, $6,120,000 to reinstate those 45 FTE and $680,000.

For, uh, to ensure that student athletes enrolled in any sport retained or restored for FY27 by prior board action can safely and equitably access essentially their sport.

Thank you. And then I'm hoping to get administration to, again, for a record, add some clarity on what this does do and what this doesn't do. Um, I was looking through some email traffic that involved Mr. Lang um, in terms of how many positions we have open. Um, I'm going to attempt to summarize what I thought I read, but I want clarity on our record here. Mr. Lang, is it— through Dr. Bryant— is it correct to say that we have at least a few positions that have been open for classroom FTE for multiple months, and then the board allocated dollars this summer to.

To open up additional FTE, which are also open at this time. That is to say, what we aren't doing today is ensuring that applicants are present. What we're doing is opening up additional positions where, should applicants be present, we hope to hire them, which I think is two different things. Thanks. Yeah, President Jacobs, so we went into the summer carrying forward very few certificated vacancies, and that is in large part because through the budget process in the spring, we eliminated about 400 certificated positions, and where we were able to absorb a lot of those through Um, you know, vacancies that we held last year or notices of resignation.

Didn't leave us still with a lot of hiring to do. With the additional positions that were restored by the board in early July and then were allocated by the instructional division out to schools, we've started to see more positions being posted. So there was really only a handful of positions carried over from the spring, and then as we've introduced those holdbacks out to principals, we've started to see them post new positions. You are correct that a lot of those positions don't have robust applicant pools to draw from, so our principals are certainly doing the hard work looking for qualified, you know, candidates to fill those vacancies.

And, you know, sometimes this year we're surprised. We have, you know, folks, military families moving, and sometimes spouses will come with, you know, those credentials and be.

Looking for work, but a lot of the positions that are posted now, if principals aren't able to find a certificated teacher before the start of the year, they'll start looking to some of those alternative ways that we fill those positions to make sure we have a qualified adult in the classroom. We've just opened up retire-rehire hiring again for the year. That's a great option for principals that they've had the last 2 years. They're starting to discover is is a great way to temporarily fill a position for 12 months until they can maybe find a long-term replacement during the staffing season in the spring. We have a pretty good long-term sub pool that's available.

In some cases, we're able to hire teachers on contract from agencies on a temporary basis. So we have a variety of ways that we'll pivot and try to fill those vacancies if we're not able to do a direct full-time hire. But right now those pools are not particularly robust.

Appreciate that. Um, I think it's a.

Important to continue to acknowledge that, you know, had we even the current level of certainty with the funding, which is a letter of encouragement to spend theoretical revenue at this point in early August, a few months ago there would have been more applicants. Um, in that pool Mr. Lang referenced, which speaks to the deficiency in the action taken by the legislature and why we need them to do better going forward. Um, with that said, I'm grateful for the collaboration that occurred between, um, Member Blakeslee and Member Lessans on the S version. Um, this will be something that I've chosen to place straight on the action agenda item, um, or action agenda calendar for our meeting tonight.

Both because it was something that was discussed in terms of a priority for this board, adding back as many educators as possible, but also because from a practical standpoint, it doesn't start a new practice or a new expenditure. It really adds more positions to a pool that we're already trying to hire for, um, and a pool that we already have vacancies for. So if there are questions for either the authors of the two memos or myself for discussion on this, we have time to do so now before we move to our second agenda item. And I see— okay, for our record, I want to note that back at about 4:15, Members McDonough and Higgins joined us, and then I see Member Bellamy's hand up.

Member Bellamy.

Member Bellamy, you are unmuted at this point. Can you— you can hear us. Can you try speaking?

Okay, we're going to work— try to work through the audio issues for Member Bellamy. We'll go to Member McDonough. Um, thank you. Um, just, I think many of my questions will come when this is on the agenda later today, but the, the question that I still want clarity on is I've heard from other members of the board that this is something of the quality of theoretical money or reserve money. And my understanding, both from following the passage of HB 263, watching it.

Not get signed but still constitutionally added into law. Um, and then now tracking the, the oil revenue charts, it— I, I think calling it theoretical doesn't fit my own schematic of how this, this funding will come through. And I also don't think it's volatile. I think maybe getting to $32 million is under question, but I don't think we're committing a fund balance in its full— that will— that doesn't have guaranteed restoration of revenue. So I'd like to hear, especially on the idea that there's a risk to spending the fund balance when the majority of these funds are going to be staffing.

Are we going to like instantly deplete the reserves of the district? The week after that the board passes a memo like this, or is this how many other businesses perform their payroll where the drawdowns come month after month after month, and we want to.

Actually even get to that $6 million number until next May. I think that will help me understand the decision later tonight.

Miss Parrott, can you speak to the accounting? Sure, I can. Um, to Member McDonough through the chair, so, um, we're required to produce a balanced budget. So one of the obligations on the district is to align our planned expenditures with planned revenues. Now, the timing of that is, um, it doesn't all go out the door, you know, right out of the gate as soon as that we make that decision.

It, you know, is spread out across the year. But I think that when the board takes action in order for us to ensure that we maintain that balance in our budgeting, that we have a plan and contingency plans for where that revenue is going to come from.

And so, um, because this was kind of an interesting, maybe atypical, um, vehicle for providing the funds contingent on other things being paid out first, I think is the thing that probably is causing a little bit of uncertainty. And so in this environment where, um, we're operating on a very fine margin of error when it comes to our revenues and our expenditures and kind of that plan balancing out. I think that having a contingency for should the amount of revenue that we're hoping and projecting and have been told, you know, that we should be able to account on doesn't manifest, what would be the backup plan? So this presents, I think, a plan that's a little bit fail-safe, but I do think that we've been given all of those indications kind of as you've mentioned. There is a, you know, appropriation set aside that is law.

So does that answer your question?

Yeah, you'll forgive my trying to slowly absorb the accounting language there. I think that it does, and I'll restate the question for my own sake to make sure I'm catching it right.

The factors of uncertainty since the law was passed by the legislature, not signed, we've cleared many of those uncertain, volatile, risky moments. So now that it's in law, we know that the revenue will come unless there's something catastrophic to the price of oil in the next 3 weeks. We don't know exactly how much and we don't know when, but we do know it will come. And this is the question then in a very Nutshell, will we get the revenue before May, which is when the last of these payroll draws will be spent? Uh, that is a great question.

So the way that it works with the timing of revenue is on an accounting basis, and what we have to work with in terms of balancing the books is when that revenue is received is one thing, but when it's posted for our use is also another thing. So with the plan being established, we will receive the revenue at some point this year, and my understanding in communicating with colleagues at DEED is that they are interested in providing these payments as soon as possible. So my understanding is, for example, the energy relief payment is going to go out as soon as they can get it out, and similarly, they understand that districts are under a crunch. So when they're going to try to push that revenue out to us, to the bank account, as soon as possible. But let's say even if we didn't receive Maybe something happened and the state wasn't able to process a payment until August.

If that— if.

Those funds were intended for, um, uh, the, the, you know, the, the prior fiscal year, and that was part of the balancing of our budget that we incorporated into that plan, we would be able to make that work. And so one of the areas that makes that work is fund balance and having those cash flow resources to be able to waive any of those, you know, changes. So, but all of that to say, we're going to receive the revenue in the current fiscal year, we'll post it to the current fiscal year, and we'll be able to have the resources to make sure that our cash flow is healthy and strong so that we can essentially issue those checks.

Thank you. That's my— I think that, that answers it fully. Thank you.

Check in with Member Bellamy. Can we hear her yet?

Okay, all right, we'll come back to Member Bellamy. Member Higgins. Thank you. Um, I'm going to support this because the alternative is unacceptable. Uh, not filling these positions are going to hurt the kids.

Uh, it's going to be, um, uh, make it worse. We're putting in an impossible situation by the legislation and the governor to wait until after school starts before you know how much money. I am concerned that the reserves that we have are not adequate in case something comes up. There are 100 ways this could come out, but just in the school closures, we know that, um, uh, Fire Lake is going to have more kids and you lose $10,500 per kid that goes there. There were 100 kids on the waiting list.

There's a million. You have electrical systems that go down like West did with the overhead.

System. You've got hundreds of things that could go on, um, and, and that are going to be expensive, and we have no choice but to do it. And that 4% is an obligation we're supposed to maintain. So we're really being placed in a difficult position. But I also think realistically, we're not going to not get some funds.

We're going to get something. So, um, simply hurting the kids to make a point that the— that Juno disappointed us and let us down is not my, uh, not my direction that I would support. We got to do what we got to do. Some of this is more, uh, I, I question, you know, we can always pull back the money to, to send it to things in the spring. We don't need to fund it right this minute.

Uh, there were several things in here I could question whether or not we need to do it right this minute, and we could always change it if we didn't get the funding. So I'm not too worried about that aspect of it. But just, I think that we are making assumptions here in regards to the budget that I think the current budget has assumptions that are inaccurate.

Inadequate. Um, and I think that the risk factor to the Anchorage School District for not having more reserves is real. But I am optimistic with the— that the funds will come through given the circumstances that exist today. So I will support it because the alternative hurts kids, and I don't want to do that.

No other discussion. I know Member Bellamy had a discussion point, but she's not able to communicate with us at this point.

Okay, we will move on to—. Oh, sorry, we have—. Yeah, there's still discussion. Okay, yep, so we'll go to Member Less. Um, I appreciate the questions and answers, but I guess I just want to say for the record that I don't ever want to do this again.

Yeah.

I haven't wanted to spend down to fund balance down to 5%, and I never thought I would co-author a memo suggesting we spend down to 4%. I have been deeply grumpy— is a polite word— this weekend, not at the maker of the original memo, but at the circumstances in which we find ourselves It's atrocious, and it comes at a time when I receive through my school board account really encouraging emails saying that the Municipality of Anchorage has restored their fund balance to a healthy level. That's great. Why can't we do that?

So that's all I'd say.

Member Blakeslee. I, uh, have a quick question, and, um, I also recognize we have another.

Another agenda item for this work session. So if this is a lengthier answer, feel free to tell me to hold it for our actual regular meeting. But I wanted to know from Dr. Johnson-Stripler and from Mr. Lang, from our email exchanges, I think that— I don't have it pulled up right now, but I believe you said that we have about 27 holdback positions right now. That can be allocated for the future and that you're consistently assessing need, etc. So with the allocation of an additional 45 FTE, which could be in the form of classroom teachers, counselors, building subs, um, would that allow you to allocate more of those holdbacks more quickly, as in like this week, for the principals that might be begging you for another teacher and, and have these class-sized bubbles with.

Would that give you the ability to say, yes, okay, now we have more holdbacks that we can allocate, we can do that like now? Is that how quickly would you be able to do that, and how much does it help? So thanks for the question. So the simple answer is yes, we would be able to deploy those resources almost immediately. I actually have a tentative meeting scheduled with my team tomorrow based on what happens this evening so that we can get started on that process.

So we have a running list essentially of needs, and some of those needs were very urgent and have already been addressed through holdback allocation. We also have a list of things we would like to solve but were not critical needs yet, and we're waiting on registration numbers to come through for enrollment. And so the answer, the simple answer is yes, we have a list of things that we could deploy almost immediately, and we will continue to probably have needs over the next few weeks leading up to school. That become more emergent as time goes on, because enrollment doesn't just come all at once. It tends to trickle in as.

The school year gets closer. And then, as I indicated in my email to some of the board yesterday around holdback positions, there are often needs we don't anticipate right when school starts, such as a school that has, uh, over-projected kindergarten numbers that we wouldn't have been able to necessarily anticipate. And so rather than pulling a teacher from another location, disrupting that school environment and those classrooms and, and families Having holdbacks in those types of situations really helps our community and our schools just really have a better process for our kids. So, so, so the simple answer is yes, and, and it is a very complex process at the same time. Thank you.

And I, and I also am just sort of understanding it's important to have some holdbacks so that you're able to allocate them quickly after the school year begins.

Once those things happen. And also, this does give you the opportunity to allocate more now for the needs that you're currently seeing. Yeah, absolutely. The only other thing I would add, just as a side note, as we're talking about the substitute memo, is I do appreciate the flexibility that was added to the FTE to include, you know, the counselor allocation potentially and/or building substitutes. The one, the one thing that may also be a flexibility thing for the board to consider is paraprofessionals as another support for direct classroom experiences.

So often we can't necessarily find a certificated teacher, but if we have kind of a larger class size, we could add a professional paraprofessional to that classroom and still have adults helping students learn in the same classroom. So that's just food for thought for the board. Okay, thank you. And I'll have my other questions later in the board session. That's helpful.

We are.

At the time that we've allocated, I think every member who's wanted to speak has, except for once at least, um, except for Member Bellamy. So, Member Bellamy, do you have—. Mr. Chair, my, my questions were addressed already. Thank you.

But I am having some audio issues, but thank you. Okay, perfect. We can hear you now. So those look like they're fixed. Um, my proposal to the board is I'm I'm going to try to transition us to our second agenda item because we've split our work session today, and then we can only extend until 5:15 or so.

So we've got roughly a half hour. We can return to this topic if we finish the second topic early. Does anyone object to that?

Okay, then we will move forward on our agenda and discuss The ad hoc committee discussion and update. Um, we're bringing this to our work session to.

Update the board, administration, and then the community to a certain extent on the progress we've made in establishing an ad hoc committee.

On— in late April, I believe, the board chose to adopt language essentially calling for a future committee process focused on addressing a refined version of right-sizing, recognizing that the goal is to improve, and there are certainly opportunities for improvement in our last right-sizing initiative and the vote that occurred regarding school closures. Um, we also recognized at the time that we were about to onboard new members and that summer break was coming for our community and the district, and so the work likely wouldn't begin until summer or fall, late summer, early fall.

Of a committee on, I believe, July 16th or 17th. I sent out an email to the board with notification that I had, under board policy and Robert's Rules of Order, established an ad hoc committee focused on rightsizing and implementing a process that would seek to gauge feedback from the community, increase stakeholder feedback, and improve our processes going forward. Prior to sending out that email, I had conversed with members Blakeslee, McDonough, and Bellamy, and they expressed interest in helping address that process. There was a charter that was attached to that email establishing the committee, which board members now have a copy in front of them. It was emailed to all board members at the time as well.

With that said, um, I think a couple different meetings I've discussed, uh, the upcoming establishment.

It's also attached to our Agenda today.

The purpose for our conversation today is twofold. One, I'm hoping to get feedback on the charter itself. I've talked with board members who have interest in making adjustments to the charter, which I think with the majority of the board support isn't problematic at all. And then two, if there's time and bandwidth at the end of the discussion, looping back and circling to a conversation that was at the last assembly school board joint meeting and trying to get feedback from the board as to how we can, um, or if there is a lane to engage the assembly in some form of joint committee. When we last talked about this, it was our retreat, and a majority of the board felt that an ad hoc committee with the current.

Setup and the level of Assembly involvement was largely appropriate. There was some concern at the time of having a joint committee with this scope with the Assembly, and we've proceeded based on— I've proceeded based on that guidance. That's not to say that there isn't a purpose for a joint committee. It just may not be this scope and with duties and responsibilities assigned in this charter. So, um, and I think the third item would be, uh, to just confirm, because it's been some time since board members were approached to be engaged in this work, that we have 3 members who are interested in engaging in the work and proceeding from there.

With that said, we can open up discussion. Um, my hope is we can start with, uh, feedback on the charter specifically, if there is any.

Um, so I would like to go— I would propose to go section by section, um, and then get feedback on the charter document itself. Does anyone object to going through the charter quickly and gathering feedback first?

Member McDonough, I saw you turn on your mic to that comment. Would you like to proceed?

Yeah, I don't, I don't oppose the idea of going through it section by section for each efficiency, but I wonder if we could start with very brief but big picture discussion first, because there may be some things that are chronologically at the end that need— that would essentially— like, I think that a big picture capture helps first, and then section by section for the sake of efficiency would also work well after that. Sure. Yeah, I can summarize the information in the charter. That's— the board certainly has it in front of them and has.

This for weeks. The public can review the information attached online, but for our record today, I can summarize what's in the charter. Um, the, the committee itself was the Anchorage School Board Rightsizing Advisory Committee. The proposed duration is 7/16 through 12/31 of '26. The purpose is to facilitate collaborative, transparent, and community-centered processes for evaluating how the district should approach rightsizing should future enrollment, financial, and operational conditions warrant such consideration.

Okay, um, guiding principles again in a sense of a summary. Uh, the committee will be student-centered, transparent, equitable, collaborative, have data-driven decisions, and focus on building confidence and public trust. The scope of work, I will read verbatim because I think it's probably the most important. The committee will gather.

Meaningful community feedback regarding whether, when, and under what conditions future right-sizing efforts may be appropriate. Develop recommended guiding principles and evaluation criteria that, that should be used for future right-sizing proposals and how they can be considered. Identify strategies to improve communication, transparency, community engagement, and any future right-sizing evaluation processes. And recommend a planning timeline and public engagement process that provides meaningful opportunities for stakeholder participation before board consideration of any future right-sizing proposals.

And then lastly, review lessons learned from previous rightsizing efforts and identify opportunities for improvement. The proposed membership is members McDonough, Bellamy, and Blakeslee. It assigns a non-voting advisory assembly member to be identified by Assembly Chair Anna Parole. Additional participants could include organizations like the State PTA, Superintendent Advisory Committees, parents, caregivers, students,.

Educators, employee representatives, representatives from the Federation of Community Council, municipal partners, business and nonprofit organizations, other organizations whose expertise would contribute to the committee's work. Um, the deliverables are to be referred first to the Communications Committee: a summary of all engagement with the community, a summary of community feedback, recommendations to strengthen communication and public engagement during future rightsizing process. For Finance Committee, the proposed deliverable would be a recommended principle and evaluation criteria for future proposals, should they be necessary. To our Governance Committee, we would recommend a rightsizing process and timeline that promotes, promotes transparency, consistency, and meaningful public participation, and recommendations regarding board governance practices related to future rightsizing decisions. Uh, in line with the proposed timeline, those items should be delivered by 12/31, and the procedures of the.

Committee itself are largely in line with board policy. Administrative— there is a section on administrative supports. The administration have pledged to support the committee beginning 7/16. The budget for the committee was not assigned. No financial resources were committed to the committee, in part because as president I cannot allocate funds on behalf of the board.

That's something that the charter directs the committee to approach myself so that we can work with our current processes to allocate funds, and then a statement of appreciation for all committee members, advisory participants, district staff, and community members who contribute to the forthcoming committee. With that said, we're based in what the document says. I'm going to start with the duration. Is there feedback on the proposed duration of the committee? Member Blakeslee?

Yeah, I appreciate, uh, the run-through of the charter and appreciate the.

Invitation to participate in this ad hoc committee when it was first proposed. It was first proposed, the idea of it, really right after I got sworn in, and I didn't have a whole lot of context about all of the work we'd been— we'd be engaging in, but was willing to participate. That said, the charter, the— with this duration in the charter concerns me. The deadline of having, of having to complete all of this work— I recognize it says unless extended by action of the Anchorage School Board— but having to complete all of this work by December 31st, recognizing we have holidays built in there and likely no work would be happening during that time, feels like a very short and unrealistic window by which to complete something of this magnitude that's focused on listening to the community, which to me feels like a very lengthy and should be purposefully slow and thoughtful process.

And so I would say that while I am willing and happy to participate in this committee, I would respectfully bow out of participating as a committee chair of this committee if the deadline were to remain December 31st, because I, I worry that, um, that would come across as feeling pretty disingenuous to the community if we're trying to complete an entire listening effort by December 31st. And that is my feedback on the duration component. Thank you, Member Blakeslee. Um, did you have a suggested replacement duration? Yeah, I would propose having the committee be, um, be able to complete its work until the next reorg of the next school board.

So to not put that deadline on it, but at least until the next— yeah, next reorg of the school board.

Are there any members who oppose that proposed committee duration? I have a lot of mics lit up. I'm not sure if those who— if there's someone who does not agree with that proposed duration, can you please speak?

I'd— thank you. I don't know if I support or oppose. And I am happy to defer ultimately to the members who will be leading the work. So I think that's an important thing I'd like to ground because it will be significant whether it ends at the end of December or whether it ends at the end of April, effectively. Um, I think each of the 5 years I've been on the board And Member Bellamy has served longer, and Member Higgins has served many years.

Longer at different times. Um, January, February, and March are incredibly busy for board members and staff as well. The budget conversations can frankly be all-encompassing because there will be substantial community conversations, whether whether they take place via email or board meetings, committee meetings, emergency meetings.

I guess my two cents here is that one benefit of ending the committee prior to the budget season is that it creates space to focus on that budget passage. And I think, as we've already been briefed, We're not looking at a really healthy, robust budget for FY28.

If we spent additional funding that we see received through the waterfall funding, right, we know there will not be $6.8 million of X amount to dedicate towards preventing class size growth in FY28 or any other priority. All that is to say, I think the committee, in whatever determination it makes about the duration, needs to be very realistic about the time members and staff will have to truly focus on an important conversation.

So that is my— the context. If the will of the committee especially is to extend the work, then I will support that, but I would caution members There's not a lot of bandwidth to go around in the second half or in the early winter.

Thank you. So we're at 5 o'clock.

Clock. This is where work session typically ends. I think we can allocate another 15 minutes or so to this discussion, so I just want to ask for members to try to be brief with their comments. Not to say we can't all chime in. I see Member McDonough, do you have feedback on this particular committee duration section?

Yeah, I, I think so. The charter that I received names me as chair, so I've been thinking about this for several weeks. Through the lens of Chair, and I did— I spoke with Member Lessens last night about realistically what does January, February look like. I'm very confident that we can manage a deadline that goes past that and pace the committee to be lighter touch during those months and, and still respect the timeline it takes to complete the types of ethnographic reviews that I envision the committee.

Would be supporting.

That also is— it will be a challenge, but it will be doable. And in comparison, if we end in December, those ethnographic tools, which means like community listening, the types of tools we would do to really engage people's voice, those just can't be developed in 3 months. And I don't think the committee could even complete its charge in December. So as chair, you know, according to this document, I would be confident that we'll get something meaningfully completed by the next reorganization meeting and we'll tread mindfully around the very, very dense budget months of January and February.

Okay, is there— again, I'm going to ask, uh, the interest of efficiency— is there anyone who opposes what.

Now two members of the proposed committee have asked for, which is for an extension of the work through the next reorg, which is the maximum amount of duration we can form a committee according to our bylaws. Mr. Chair? Sorry. Member Bellamy.

Yes, thank you. Since I'm on the committee as well, I'm just wondering, we have not even met, the three of us, to even map out the work or come up with a timeline. I do think the committee needs some flexibility in what that— and maybe some checkpoints along the way. And until we get together to talk about that, I don't know. I mean, because I do know that January, February are— they're just hard months and hard work as well.

Um, so I, I'm just wondering if there's a way for us to address the time issue, but.

But let the committee come together first and come back with the recommendation, or empower us to just get the work started and do some checkpoints along the way. We know we can go as long as the next reorg, but until we plan, we— I don't— as a team, I don't know that we're going to We're going to do— I, I don't know that we can solve this tonight is all I'm saying. I'd like to get with members Blakely and McDonough and really— and, and members of the superintendent's team and really map out a realistic plan for the work once we have the scope of the work, uh, uh, agreed to the scope of the work. Thank you. Thank you, Member Bellamy.

Um, so just to recap the proposed duration of the committee actually isn't until the next reorg. It's proposed until the end of the year. We've got two committee members who are interested in extending not the mandatory end of the work,.

Through reorg, but the amount of time for which the committee could in theory continue to operate, and that's through the next reorg. With that said, I haven't heard a member who opposes— No, I don't oppose it. Okay, the committee duration through reorg. And so I'm going to ask for consensus to— that the board has effectively modified this charter And we'll all identify a path to document this, but my proposal is to extend the duration of the committee through no later than the next reorg, which is the maximum amount of time in our bylaws. Is there any opposition to that?

Seeing none. Okay, we move on to guiding principles. Is there a board member who wishes to address this section with any significant changes? Member McDonough. Yeah, I think for the— to make the discussion quick,.

I'd be happy to work with the president after to get the wording. What I noticed that we really want to define is the term student-centered and data-informed to understand exactly what the board is charging the committee with. So, um, generally right now these say that we should be prioritizing educational opportunities and student success. As a broad scope, and I would appreciate direction from the board as it wishes, but especially— or I guess from the president, because this is the president's charter— but direction nonetheless to narrow or to qualify what that means. My suggestion to the charge of the committee is to specifically look at the quality and accessibility of instructional opportunities because I think those are the issues that have been.

Been the most difficult to present objectively the last 4 or 5 years of watching school closures progress. So I think the committee— our next challenge in the right-sizing deliberation is specifically related to educational quality and accessibility of the instructional pathways and opportunities. That also then opens the door for the, the the clause about data-based or data-informed decision-making, I would like to propose that we really privilege the idea that narrative data is the primary means of data collection that this committee should be gathering, because we already have the demographic data, we have the accounting data, we have the instructional data. I would like the board to specify that narrative data is necessary in the guiding principles of this document. Thank you.

Is there additional feedback on guiding principles? Member Lessens. Not wanting to take too much time, can you speak to how your vision for how narrative data would be gathered and processed?

Yes, I lost that paper because it crashed.

So the types of outputs— so I've spoken with the comms department of the district, and we've come up with just an already really powerful early brainstorm of the types of stories that we still need to hear as a board and as a community. Those would include things like student experience stories, students who are in track— this track or this track or this track or this track— and to highlight those, um, I think we need a viability framework about the obstruction.

Vision that the board is still mandating. Um, generally share out reports like what we heard type reports, community visioning exercises. Um, there should be, uh, like student pathways mapped more carefully according to the, the changes that have already been in, like, the Cascade that we— I don't think we have a good appraisal of those student pathways. And I think a catalog of these resources going in the public face in real time. So as the committee meets, its job will essentially be to review and then publish the new, like, the month's worth of data that has been collected, um, so that we're taking the policy vision away from simply efficiency, where the board directs the superintendent to close schools because we need budget efficiency.

And instead we start to look at how do we maximize the impact of our vision using the school facilities that we have. And I think that these types of impressions will, will give more of a 3-dimensional analysis instead of a spreadsheet 2D analysis into that, into that new direction.

Member Lessans, does that answer your question? For now.

Okay, um, with that said, is there, uh, Member McDonough suggested Refining the data and forms.

And there was.

Is there an additional section, Member McDonough, you wish to revise? Um, just a narrowing of student-centered so that it was more focused on the quality and accessibility of instructional opportunities for the students. Okay, does anyone oppose, uh, Member McDonough and I refining that section together to capture those guiding principles?

Seeing none, I'll work with Member McDonough offline to update that document. Section of the document. The last section of the charter I really wanted to make sure we captured, as that will be important as the committee gets off the ground. I feel like we could look to tweak further sections of the charter as the committee gets up and going, and to Member Bellamy's point, better understands the scope of work and the process ahead. I did want to address the scope of work.

Are there members who wish to make modifications to.

Review scope of work in the charter. Member— no, I see Member Blakeslee. Yeah, and I also just want to note, um, Member Higgins has been in the queue for a long time, so, uh, I just want to respect that he's been in here longer than I have been in the queue. Member Higgins has had his hand up since our prior discussion item, so—. Oh, okay, okay, um, okay, great.

I just wanted to give deference to him. Um, I would just say that I know that we're short on time here, but I think that, um, maybe what I'm looking for is clarity on whether or not we as a potential, or I guess current committee, are being given the guidance to meet to then suss out the scope of work, because we only have 3 minutes left of this meeting, or are we Per what Member Bellamy was saying earlier, that we haven't had a chance to meet to talk, are we— is that a better place to hash out this stuff? Sure. So the.

Our bylaws and Robert's Rules indicate that a committee can be created either by the full board or by the chair or chairperson. As the— in this case, the creator of this committee, I wrote the charter based off of the feedback that we received from the community as well as the intent of the board when we first discussed this proposed committee prior to reorganization and the election of yourself, Member Blakeslee, as well as Member McDonough. If the committee meets and would like to amend the scope of work, I think the, the full Board should discuss and, and weigh in on that, and we can certainly do that in another work session. This proposed scope of work is intended to get the committee started and really does address the intent of why the committee was first thought of as a proposal to create an.

Hopefully improve our processes. Does that answer your question? Yes, I think so. And then also, just to confirm, it means that the committee can then make changes and then bring it to the board, or the committee can just make— I don't know if there's a discussion and there needs to be some sort of change. I'm not saying that there needs to be, but yeah, it's my, uh, it's ruling because it's not that formal.

My intent as chair is that if there are changes to this charter it should be made by a majority of the board and not just the committee. Okay, so the committee would then come up with a recommendation, bring it back to the board. Okay, great. Again, and we'll make sure that there's equitable access to work sessions. Um, again, this isn't— I don't want to make it that formal.

When we have consensus as a board, I want to move forward with it. Um, but I do think the full board needs to weigh in on the committee's work and not just the committee. Um, with that said, we've, I think, addressed.

The three pillars of the work that would be required to get started. Are there other items that need to be addressed for initial committee work today?

If not, we can pivot to the potential joint committee, and I want to say we have no more than 5 minutes. We really need to pivot to our next meeting prior to our, business meeting at 6. So is there anything else urgent that we need to address right now? Member Higgins, I see you entered the queue. Thank you.

I just want to make sure that this committee is going to get the full support of information they want about the process that has been used in the past. They're going to want to know what was the selection criteria for Campbell, what was the selection criteria over all the other schools, uh, and, and then the process that was applied and follow. So I think if they're going to be reviewing and what's the best process, they need.

To understand what we've done and why. So from the superintendent, why was Campbell selected over all other schools? I mean, you know, it's had 100 people on waiting lists, only STEM and all that. But regardless, they're going to want those questions. I want the commitment that the administration and of course the board president to be behind their rights to get all the information they need to evaluate what has been going on before they come forth with recommendations.

Yeah, so, Member Higgins, I'm not going to speak to any specific information or situations. The committee will be entitled to the same board RFI process that any board member can request information through. And so that access to information isn't driven by myself, it's driven by our policy. Um, so appreciate the point. Member McDonough, something else we need to address today?

Uh, yeah, again, making it very brief. Um, There's a direction, as proposed chair of the committee, that I would like to give.

I would like the board's, um, I guess, opportunity to object. It's in the operating procedures. I would like to have a sort of unorthodox— with regard to like Robert's Rules, majority consensus— and put an operating procedure where a non-majority voice, if one occurs, will always be able to dictate a specific part of the committee's reporting. Um, so the, the main deliverable of the committee is a report to the other 3 committees of the district. If any part of the business comes through with like a 2-1 vote, I would like the, the charter to require the committee to have that minority 1 vote get a narrative opportunity to explain itself in the report.

Usually within Robert's Rules, you just— you'd vote on the affirmative. It is in the report. This is in the report.

I would like somebody who says I don't want that in the report to be able to say why. Um, so it's, it's outside of the orthodoxy of Robert's Rules, but I think it really helps expand how we consider school closures, um, as a very contentious and sticky topic. And it would— so I, I'm saying that now in front of the board because if there's any opposition, then I think we'll have to flesh it out and come back in a future meeting to be able to talk about it.

Is there any opposition to Member McDonough's points on including a perspective from the minority voice of a, in this instance, a 2-to-1 voting decision? Member Bellamy? Yes, I'm still pondering on Mr. McDonough's comments. I'm not sure I understand them, but I did want to just make sure that at least for me, this is not an investigatory process.

Process. We're not investigating past decisions. We're not investigating— I mean, this is, for me, we have got to move forward. So I just think we need to be real clear about what the purpose of this committee is. Requesting information is— we have that process in place, and that will be available to the committee, but we're not asking community members to to, to be doing investigations.

Thank you. Thank you, Member Bellamy. It's, uh, yeah, well taken. Uh, the item 5 under the scope of work is to review lessons learned from previous rightsizing efforts. Um, you know, any board member can request any piece of information subject to the RFI process, and if the committee wants some additional information, that of course will be available to them.

But that's certainly, um, not the intent of the committee, and it's not written in the document anywhere. So Okay, again, we'll circle back to the initial— the last, hopefully important question we.

Answer today. Um, is there any board member who opposes Member McDonough's approach of incorporating minority voice in a theoretical 2-to-1 vote scenario of a 3-person committee? Seeing none, I'll work with Member McDonough to include that proposed language and email the board with the updated charter, which again I think can be a living document should the committee need to come back later. It really— this, in my opinion, this charter now belongs to the board and the committee can make its case for any other proposed changes. Seeing no other discussion on this item, we are at time.

I intended on having a conversation about a joint committee with the assembly. I guess I'll just ask members, potentially we'll try to get something scheduled for our next meeting to consider.

The same question I asked during our work session. As chair, I was tasked with generating a proposal for a joint committee with the assembly on the topic of rightsizing. I can fathom the scope of a board committee on rightsizing. This is what it looks like. I am having a challenge generating feedback and a proposal on a joint committee related to rightsizing.

And so maybe bring your feedback to our next meeting and we'll find space on our agenda for it to discuss. With that said, I'm going to end our work session at 5:21 PM. We will not have executive session today. We will take a brief recess for a training and then come back for a business meeting at 6 PM. Thank you, everyone.