"An Appointment Committee shall be formed, at least half of whom must be members of the CAC or selected by members of the CAC."
- Community Advisory Committee (CAC) By-Laws
After the leadership of the Community Advisory Committee (CAC) pushed back against attempts by the LAUSD to silence a reading of the proposed "Improving Special Education Within the LAUSD" resolution, the District staff purged outspoken members of the Committee during the appointment process. Responding to complaints that the proper process was not followed, the LAUSD Board delayed action in June.
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023, the Board was asked again to vote on a membership list created by District staff. I sent the following email to the Board asking for them to reject the proposal as input from the CAC was bypassed in violation of the California Ed Code, the LAUSD SELPA, and the by-laws of the committee:
It has been almost two months since the approval of the Community Advisory Committee (CAC) membership was pulled from the agenda of the June 20, 2023, Board meeting. While it was hoped that the delay would be used to ensure that the proposed list would comply with the California Education Code, the LAUSD SELPA, and the by-laws of the CAC, no such effort has been made.
The membership list that you are being asked to vote for on Tuesday has only one name that is different than the list provided in June. This change was not made by an Appointment Committee mandated by the CAC by-laws, but by the staff at the Office of Student, Family, and Community Engagement (SFaCE). Additionally, Antonio Plascencia has ignored repeated requests by the existing CAC leadership to convene a meeting of the CAC so that an Appointment Committee could be seated.
To comply with California Education Code Section 56194 says the selection procedure should be "by their peers," the CAC's by-laws state that "an Appointment Committee shall be formed, at least half of whom must be members of the CAC or selected by members of the CAC." This was ignored by SFaCE when they eliminated the CAC from the process and created a committee comprised entirely of LAUSD staff. Also in violation of the by-laws, no Greene Act-compliant meetings were ever held to "adopt a selection method using a double-blind review based upon a rubric developed collectively by the members of the Appointment Committee."
While LAUSD staff did recruit some CAC members to review applications, they have refused to divulge their identities. Staff would also not allow any member who had a pending application to participate in the process. Nothing in the by-laws backs up these actions.
The CAC's officers have requested numerous times that a Greene Act-compliant meeting to discuss concerns about the process that was used be scheduled, but the staff at SFaCE refuses to comply. Instead, SFaCE has set up non-public meetings of the Executive Committee in violation of California's open government laws. These violations have become a regular occurrence as LAUSD staff also held a non-public meeting of the Executive Committee to force them to remove a reading of the proposed "Improving Special Education Within the LAUSD" resolution from the agenda of a previous meeting. A request to reserve a meeting room so that the Executive Board could confer in private during the meeting with SFaCE was also refused.
It is important to note that the role of SFaCE "is to assist, enable, empower, and host the CAC." They should not be vetoing the decisions of the elected CAC Executive Board, especially in an attempt to bypass the CAC by providing a proposed membership list without following the bylaws of the CAC. Instead, they should have been working with the CAC's Executive Board "to reach an agreement"in a spirit of transparency, collaboration, and always keeping in mind their mutual goal of serving disabled students."
According to the California Ed Code, the membership terms of the CAC are supposed to be "staggered to ensure that no more than one-half of the membership serves the first year of the term in any one year." However, the lists provided for the Tuesday meeting include 18 names for approval of a two-year term and only 14 returning members. To solve this violation, two members who were appointed last year as alternatives, and who have only served one term, need to have their terms extended to two full years, removing two appointments from the list of two-year appointments. (Full disclosure, I am one of the members who was appointed as an alternate.)
When the LAUSD Board is asked on Tuesday to approve the list created by SFaCE you will be in an impossible position. A committee must be appointed, but if you approve the list generated by LAUSD staff you will be ignoring the California Ed Code, the LAUSD SELPA, and the CAC By-Laws which require the membership to be recommended by their peers. Also, more than half of the membership would be serving the first year of their term.
Without recommendations from a properly seated Appointment Committee, how is the LAUSD Board supposed to meet the requirement to appoint members to the CAC? The only solution to the Board's current dilemma is to reappoint all eligible members of last year's CAC who applied for a new term on the Committee and met eligibility requirements. The remaining seats should remain vacant until the newly seated Committee can select an Appointment Committee to properly vet the candidates and make its recommendation to the Board.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
