Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cac Bylaws topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Santa Rosa CAC debates membership rules as district weighs forming its own SELPA
Summary
At a Community Advisory Committee meeting, Santa Rosa City Schools staff and parents reviewed draft CAC bylaws and membership models from other SELPAs, debated a parent-majority requirement and representation rules, and formed a working group to draft bylaws ahead of a board review of the local plan.
At a meeting of the Santa Rosa City Schools Community Advisory Committee, John Fisher, executive director of special services, led a discussion on draft bylaws and how CAC voting membership should be constituted if the district forms its own Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA).
The issue matters because the district’s local plan is slated for the school board and county review process: Fisher said the local plan would go to the school board on March 25 and then to the county office of education for a 45-day review period, which makes timely CAC input important to the board’s consideration.
Fisher presented several membership models drawn from other SELPAs and emphasized that the CAC itself will determine its permanent bylaws. "We're going to provide a couple of different options so you can see ... different ways of constituting and and developing ... membership," he said. Examples included Sonoma County’s general nomination process, Modesto’s requirement that applicants attend meetings before applying, Clovis’s detailed slot-based approach, and Capistrano’s defined range of seven to 20 members.
Members focused on two central tensions: ensuring parent-majority representation and keeping the committee small enough to function. Fisher noted a legal minimum that "there has to be 51% parents," but several members urged a higher parent proportion and limits on overlap between parent voting members and district employees. One member suggested using a range of odd numbers (for example, seven to 19) to avoid tied votes and preserve flexibility if members resign.
Parents and staff also debated which constituencies merit explicit representation. Suggestions included early childhood and early‑start families, elementary and secondary parents, families of students who receive extensive supports, multilingual and English‑learner communities, transition services, and representation from charter schools and regional service partners. Members proposed using subcommittees (finance, parent education, outreach) to distribute workload while keeping the core voting membership manageable.
Several attendees flagged resource and cost implications of forming a separate SELPA. "If we do disassociate from SELPA ... we're gonna be having to find all the new resources and stuff like that," said Dwayne, a parent participant, warning that county SELPA membership offers a broader pool of staffing. Fisher acknowledged the tradeoff, saying inter‑SELPA agreements—for services such as early start, assistive technology, and specialized health supports—would carry costs that must be evaluated.
Fisher closed the meeting by asking for volunteers to form a smaller working group to organize membership proposals and draft bylaws. He said he and coordinator Kathy Weiser would circulate documents and a meeting notice by email, and that the CAC will consider a vote on bylaws in advance of implementation for the 2026–27 school year.
The CAC will meet again next week to continue budget review and to advance the bylaws drafting work for presentation to the board.
