Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parent urges transparency, questions large allocation for San Antonio site and charter relocation
Summary
During public comment, a parent raised concerns that a large share of Measure E bond funds is slated for the San Antonio campus, cited enrollment decline projections and said a charter operator had objected to relocation plans under state code; trustees declined to respond during public comment and asked the parent to follow up with board members.
A parent, who identified herself as Lena, used the public-comment period to urge the Los Altos School District trustees to reconsider the order and allocation of Measure E bond spending and to increase transparency.
Lena said she reviewed an advisory-committee finance report projecting district enrollment declines and questioned why a substantial portion of bond funds would be allocated to the San Antonio site if enrollment may fall in coming years. She also said the charter operator BCS has consistently objected to relocation plans and cited California Education Code §4764(b) as the legal basis for that objection.
"I'm here today because I I have concerns about the proposed San Antonio site plan and how measure B funds are being allocated," Lena said during her three-minute comment. (She referred to 'Measure B' in her remarks; staff and trustees discussed the $350 million bond as Measure E in the presentation.)
Chair responded that the board does not comment during the public-comment period and recommended Lena contact a trustee directly for clarification; no staff legal response to the Education Code claim was offered during the meeting. Trustees and staff later discussed bond phasing and said staff would return with a clearer plan and communications for community understanding.
The meeting record shows the public comment raised unresolved questions about charter consent, allocation priorities and how enrollment projections informed phasing; staff did not provide a legal determination during the session and said further stakeholder engagement and review would occur as the Phase 2 proposal is finalized.
