Board and CAC move to reshape Prop H advisory role; 50/50 funding split rejected

Chris Armentrout, the district irector of development and local government relations, opened the discussion by saying the presentation was meant to "explore further the role and purpose of the Community Advisory, the Citizens Advisory Committee, to the Public Education Enrichment Fund." He and Brian Fox, the PEAF coordinator, presented an alternate approach that would orient the CAC to the district—alanced scorecard, gather community priorities through forums and surveys, and submit broad recommendations to the superintendent before the board—inalizes a spending plan.

Members of the CAC and appointees who spoke urged that role change be accompanied by stronger data and clearer processes. Kathleen White, a CAC vice chair and City College department chair, said the committee needs "baseline data and impact data" so members can identify underserved neighborhoods and assess where Prop H dollars have been effective. Several CAC members described how site visits and community meetings had revealed differences in need across neighborhoods.

Novella Smith, the CAC chair, offered a direct rejection of one proposal discussed earlier in the process, stating she was "pretty adamantly against the 50 50 split," arguing the split would complicate spending plans and risk using funds on items that do not directly benefit students. Superintendent Carlos Garcia explained the 50/50 idea was put forward mainly to prompt discussion, telling the board "the only reason why that 50 50 ever was ...was simply that we needed to have this discussion." Garcia said he favored collaboration and that the proposal was not meant as a final allocation.

Board members signaled broad agreement with moving away from the 50/50 split. Commissioners praised the CAC for its service, expressed support for keeping the committee focused on students and classrooms rather than administration, and emphasized the need to preserve healthy tension between community priorities and instructional goals so the superintendent—an weigh both in a final spending plan. Several commissioners said they prefer two appointees per commissioner to preserve diversity and outreach capacity while acknowledging quorum problems when membership grows too large.

Speakers on both sides identified practical next steps. Fox recommended a two-year implementation framework that begins with a spring orientation on the balanced scorecard, community outreach from February through June, a summer prioritization phase and final superintendent recommendations to the board in January. Multiple board members called for an explicit expectation that PEAF-funded activities be measurable: programs should be chosen only if the district can evaluate their effectiveness and alignment with strategic goals.

Student delegate Nestor Reyes urged stronger student representation and recommended recruiting students from multiple neighborhoods and community organizations to ensure voices beyond traditional student advisory channels.

The board asked staff to draft a substitute resolution and a transition plan that (at minimum) spells out appointment rules, community outreach expectations, data and reporting requirements, and any temporary departures from standard committee rules (P120). President Mauffes volunteered to work with staff on the substitute language. The meeting ended with the board directing staff to return a refined motion reflecting the discussion and a timeline for adoption.

The discussion produced direction but no formal vote on a final restructuring in the meeting; the board asked staff to return a substitute resolution for future consideration.