Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District

Board of Education


January 24, 2002

The next regular meeting of the Board of Education is scheduled to be held on Thursday, January 24, 2002, at 7:00PM in the Board Room of the District's Administrative Offices, 1651 16thStreet, Santa Monica. At 6:00 PM, following roll call, the Board will move to Closed Session, for reasons listed in Section III, below. The Board will reconvene in Open Session at 7 PM.

The Public Portion of the Meeting Begins at 7:00 PM

If you wish to address the Board of Education you must submit the "request to address" card prior to discussion of the item. The cards are located with meeting materials at the entrance of the room.


A Roll Call

B Pledge of Allegiance



Conference with Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent regarding 2000-01 strategies for Negotiations with Non-Represented Employees and the Santa Monica-Malibu Teachers Association (SMMCTA, pursuant to GC 54957.6, as cited in the Brown Act




A.1 Approval of Minutes: 1

- May 30, 2001

- July 18 and 26, 2001

- September 13, 2001


Consent agenda items are considered routine, as agreed by the President, Vice-President and Superintendent, requiring no discussion, and are normally all approved at one time by the Board of Education. However, members of the Board of Education, staff, or the public may request an item be removed from the consent agenda for clarification and/or discussion. Consideration will occur during Section XI.

Curriculum and Instruction

A.2 Approval of Independent Contractors 2

A.3 Approval of Basic and Supplemental Textbooks to be Adopted 3

A.4 Approval of English Language Acquisition Program (ELAP) 4-5

Business and Finance

A.5 Award of Purchase Orders, FY 2001-2002 6-6c

A.6 Approval of Gifts FY 2001-2002 7a-e

A.7 Approval of Conference and Travel 8-11

A.8 Modification in the Language of the Senior Staff Contract Language

For the Purpose of Clarification 12

Proposition X /State Modernization


General Functions



A.9 Certificated Personnel - Elections, Separations 13-15

A.10 Certificated Administrative Appointment: Interim Assistant Principal/

Grant Elementary School 16

A.11 Special Services Employees 17-18

A.12 Classified Personnel - Merit 19-21

A.13 Classified Personnel - Non-Merit 22


Public Comments is the time when members of the audience may address the Board of Education on items not scheduled on the meeting's agenda. All speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. When there is a large number of speakers, the Board may reduce the allotted time to two(2) minutes per speaker. The Brown Act (Government Code) states that Board members may not engage in discussion of issues raised during "VIII, Public Comments" except to ask clarifying questions, make a brief announcement, make a brief report on his or her own activities, or to refer the matter to staff. This Public Comment section is limited to 20 minutes. If the number of persons wishing to address the Board of Education exceeds the time limit, additional time will be provided in Section XVI, CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC COMMENTS.


The Communications section provides an opportunity for the Board of Education to hear reports from the individuals or Committee representative listed below. All reports arelimited to 5 minutes or less. However, if more time is necessary, or if a report will not be presented, please notify the Board secretary eight work days prior to the date of the meeting.

A. Student Board Member Reports

B. Gabriela de la Santos - Olympic High School

C. Greg Sands - Malibu High School

D. Chris Gary - Santa Monica High School

E. School Reports - Santa Monica Alternative School House

F. SMMCTA Report

G. SEIU Report

H. PTA Council President Report

I. Santa Monica-Malibu Education Foundation Report

IXa. Special Combined Meeting with the Proposition X Oversight Committee

(Please see separate agenda immediately following the Table of Contents)

X Superintendent's Report

The Superintendent and/or Assistant Superintendents may report on items not requiring action by the board but are of interest to the Board and public.

Regarding Major and Discussion Items

As a general rule, items under MAJOR and DISCUSSION will be listed in order of importance as determined by the President, Vice-President and Superintendent. Individual Board members may move to request a change in the order prior to consideration of any Major item. The Board may also move any of these items out of order to be heard immediately following PUBLIC COMMENTS if it appears that there is special interest by the public or as a courtesy to staff members making presentations to the Board.


These items are considered to be of major interest and/or importance and are presented for ACTION (A) or INFORMATION (I) at this time. Many have been reviewed by the Board at a previous meeting under the Discussion Items section of the agenda.

Action Items are submitted to the Board of Education with a recommendation from the Superintendent. They may be tabled or postponed by action of a quorum of the Board. Items pulled from Section VII, Consent Agenda, will be deliberated in Section XI following the scheduled Action Items. When a member of the Staff presents an item, the Board may ask clarifying questions before the Public is heard on that item. Board discussion of the item will take place after hearing from the Public.

A.14 Approval of Special Education Contracts 23-25

A.15 Abolishment of One of Two Food Service Operation Supervisor Positions (One Currently Vacant) 26

A.16 Establishment of One Nutrition Specialist Position 27

A.17 Approval to Change the Days/Dates of Regularly Scheduled

Board Meetings (February, 2002) 28

A.18 PUBLIC HEARING: Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District's

Initial Proposal on Negotiations with SMMCTA 29

A.19 Acceptance of the 2000-2001 Financial Audit 30


These items are submitted for information (FIRST READING) and discussion. Action will generally be considered at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Board.

D.1 Approval of Board Policy 5132 - Dress and Grooming 31-36

D.2 Approval of Board Policy 6145 - Extracurricular and Co-curricular

Activities 37-39

D.3 Report on Class Size Reduction 40

D.4 Report on the District's Use of Inter-District Permits 41

D.5 Report on the District's Early Retirement Incentives 42

D.6 Report on the Governor's Proposed 2002 Budget 43


I.1 Basic/Supplemental Textbooks to be Adopted 44

I.2 Board of Education Liaison Assignments to District Advisory Committees

for School Year 2001-2002 45-45a

I.3 Budget Development Calendar 46-46b


These items are submitted by individual Board members for information or discussion, as per Board Policy 8320(b).


These items are submitted by members of the public to address the Board of Education on a matter within the jurisdiction of the Board, as per Board Policy 8320(c). Requests must be submitted to the Superintendent in writing ten days before the Board meeting or prior to agenda planning, in accordance with the established agenda planning schedule, whichever is less. The written request will not exceed 500 words and will include, as an attachment, brief background information and the reason for the request.


A continuation of Section VIII, as needed.


Board Member Comments is the section where a Board member may make a brief announcement or make a brief report on his or her own activities relative to Board business. There can be no discussion under "BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS".


Items for future consideration will be listed with the projected date of consideration. The Board of Education will be given any backup information available at this time.


The Board of Education may adjourn to CLOSED SESSION to complete discussion on items listed for CLOSED SESSION.


The next regular meeting of the Board of Educations is scheduled to be held on Thursday, January 24, 2002, at 7:00 PM in the Board Room of the District Administrative Offices, 1651 16th Street, Santa Monica.

Meetings held in Santa Monica are taped for rebroadcast

and played on Cable Channel 16 (City TV) at 11:00 AM

on the Sunday following the Board meeting.

Meetings are rebroadcast in Malibu on Government Access

Channel 15 every Thursday at 2 PM; every Saturday & Sunday at 8 PM

Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District

Special Combined Meeting Between
the Board of Education and the Proposition X Oversight Committee

A special combined meeting between the Board of Education and the Proposition X Oversight Committee is being convened as part of the regularly scheduled Board of Education meeting, Thursday, January 24, 2002. The regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Education will reconvene following the completion of this agenda.


Board of Education Proposition X Oversight Committee

Julia Brownley, President (liaison) Jean Gebman, Chair

Maria Leon-Vazquez - Vice President Mark Benjamin

Pam Brady (liaison) Bruce Cameron

Jose Escarce Dennis Crane

Brenda Gottfried Shari Davis

Mike Jordan Ardeshir Nozari

Tom Pratt Ralph Erickson

Chris Gary -Student Board Member Zina Josephs

Greg Sands - Student Board Member Ted Kahan

Gabriela de la Santos - Student Board Ralph Mechur

Member Suzi Mitchell

Jody Priselac

David Reznick

Other Participants

Noel Watson - CEO, Jacobs Facilities, Inc.

Wally Berriman - Director, Facilities Management

Rick DeMuth - Assistant Director, Facilities Management

This special meeting will adjourn to the on-going regularly scheduled Board of Education meeting.

Performance Assessment Team Report

September 2001

Revised November 2001

Santa Monica - Malibu Unified School District

Table of Contents

A. Objective 1

B. Performance Assessment Team 1

C. Overview 1

D. General Observations 1, 2

E. Specific Observations and Recommendations

Priority One Recommendations 3, 4

Priority Two Recommendations 5


A. Documents Distribution Matrix

B. Oversight Committee Question Sheet

C. BLA / Amendment Schedule Update

A. PAT Objective

The objective of this Performance Assessment Team (PAT) is to evaluate the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified Schools District (SMMUSD) program, in response to concerns raised by the School District Superintendent, Mr. John Deasy to Noel Watson on August 17. The desired outcome of this effort is to identify for the Jacobs program team any problem areas and performance issues that have led to Mr. Deasy's concern and to suggest an approach to resolving these concerns.

B. Performance Assessment Team

The Performance Assessment Team consisted of the following members and assigned areas for review:

Pat Spector Program issues and chair

Scott Cram Construction issues

James Akkawi Design issues

Bennett Sloan Project Management issues

The PAT convened on Tuesday September 4th at the School District office and interviewed the School District Superintendent, 2 School Board Members, 4 School District Facilities staff, and 10 Proposition X Oversight Committee members (OC).

The OC is appointed by the School Board and charged with monitoring progress, reviewing plans and providing overall accountability for the Bond Money. The OC members are community leaders and serve without pay. Many have children in the schools. Many serve on the Site Governance committees of individual schools with a charter to represent those schools.

The PAT also met with several members of the Jacobs Facilities on site program staff, visited seven school sites and one member attended the September 6 meetings of the OC and the School Board.

C. Overview

In April of 2000 Jacobs performed an internal PAT on the program. Many of the PAT's recommendations regarding technical performance have since been incorporated into the program. Jacobs has also conducted 3 Client Surveys over the course of the project. Those surveys included many recommendations that have also been incorporated into the program and have resulted in a progressive improvement in the Client Survey scores.

This PAT focused primarily on those aspects of the Program that have led to mistrust and rapidly deteriorating relationships between the OC and Jacobs. This report intentionally does not go into specific details for fixing problems. It will be the responsibility of the Jacobs Western Region management and the Program Team for developing, implementing and ultimately taking ownership of the fix.

D. General Observations

Past problems with the design have had lingering detrimental effects. Even though we believe that Jacobs has corrected most of the past deficiencies of the design phase, it will take a concerted effort between the design and on-site teams to promote our efforts, successes, and to re-establish a long-term relationship with the District. These negative impressions still remain strong among members of the OC and a period of sustained superior performance will be necessary to recover from those past bad impressions.

Past problems with estimating have also had lingering effects. Many projects experienced significant cost increases between the initial conceptual estimate, later bid estimates, and when the actual bids were received. This all resulted in progressive de-scoping of the client's original expectations. The rapid escalation of costs over the past year from a heated construction market only exacerbated the problem.

The problems of the past have progressively broken down the relationship between OC and Jacobs and have led to much mistrust. We discovered a continuing cycle of increased demands, more failure to communicate, greater suspicion, louder public complaint and increased mistrust. That in turn caused OC members to suspect incompetence, loss of commitment, deception and even collusion with the District Facilities staff. Members of the OC have taken to micro-managing and second guessing decisions made by the District and Jacobs program team.

Everyone the PAT interviewed expressed frustration over a wide variety of issues. As we listened to the issues, some common themes surfaced and were heard repeatedly:

Poor communications and Jacobs' perceived non-responsiveness to the OC's direct questions or requests for information and a complaint of inaccuracy of information presented. This is the most frequently recurring theme and is fundamental to many of the difficulties arising between the OC and Jacobs.

Manage Expectations. The Jacobs program team has not done a good job of helping the School District, its multiple representatives, and its constituents manage expectations. They have not been attentive to helping others understand the activities and processes taking place behind the scenes so that those interested parties can be partners in the process instead of being critics.

Confusion by the Jacobs program team as to who the client is. By contract, Dr. Art Cohen is the point of contact representing the School district. However, the School Board, the OC, the Site Governance committees, Principals and the District Facilities staff were all groups that Jacobs was expected to interface with. In some instances, the OC acted as the client. While the Jacobs staff did not ignore the requests and the direction of the OC, they worked under the expectation that the District staff were the primary point of contact for direction and for resolving all conflicting requests between the various interest groups representing SMMUSD. They also expected the District staff to be the conduit for information flow between all the parties and Jacobs.

There were too many points of contact with apparent authority to investigate project issues and to request information and studies. As a result a significant amount of time and energy was required by the Jacobs team to meet and to answer to these points of contact, taking away from time needed to manage the program. The team however, did not manage this issue effectively nor communicate this problem to the School District and continued to accept the situation to the detriment of their performance.

There were many differing agendas within the multiple groups and individuals representing the School District and they were often not brought to a consensus. Several OC members frankly stated they thought Jacobs and the District were working behind-the-scenes deals and conspiring against the OC.

Complaints over loss of scope. The overtaxed construction economy has impacted costs and bidding activity throughout the state, driving up prices. Though no one blamed Jacobs for this situation many said that they expected Jacobs' expertise in estimating to have anticipated and adjusted for such market fluctuations. What they saw time and again was the actual bid coming in significantly higher than the estimate, causing scope reductions and less than desired number of alternates being selected. In addition, the funding available could not support all the "promises" made during the fund-raising, compounding the perception of loss of scope.

Complaints about slipped schedules. There is a marked difference of perception between the OC and the Jacobs team over this issue. Contractually, schedules are not set until a Budget Limitation Agreement (BLA) is signed. However, numerous redesign and rebidding efforts to bring the projects into budget have prolonged the issuance of the BLAs. While there are no contractual requirements regarding the timing of the BLAs the OC's expectation for the completion of the work has not shifted. Periods of inactivity on the construction site with inadequate explanation only served to reinforce the perception that nothing was happening on the program and suggested that it was behind schedule. The PAT has subsequently found several projects that are late and has included a BLA / Amendment Schedule Update (Exhibit C attached) which details all the BLAs and their current status.

Several OC members expressed the opinion that they felt the Jacobs / Sverdrup merger was somehow responsible for the poor performance on this project. They expressed uncertainty about Jacobs' commitment to the School District and to the K-12 market as an outcome of the merger. Coincidental timing of the merger in 1999 with project problems that surfaced at the same time reinforced this belief.

E. Specific Observations and Recommendations

This section organizes specific observations with recommendations in a tabular format. The recommendations are not intended to be fully developed solutions, but an indicator of what the PAT thinks is needed to correct the problems. The observations with recommendations are grouped into 2 priorities based on the urgency of the issue and based on the expected effectiveness of the outcome. There is no significance to the order of the items within each set of priorities.

Priority One: These recommendations can have a dramatic effect and should be implemented immediately.

Observation Recommendation


Growing mistrust and strained relationships between the OC and Jacobs.

Convene a joint workshop, led by a professional facilitator, as soon as possible for the purpose of identifying circumstances or events which have or could lead to mistrust, and also to explore additional team building opportunities. Participants should include two representatives each from the District Staff, the Oversight Committee, the School Sites (as a single group), and Jacobs. The outcome should result in the development of mutually agreed actions to be implemented by all parties, which should mitigate the reoccurrence of these circumstances. The PAT believes that these soft issues of trust, integrity and relationships are difficult issues and take time and a concerted effort from all parties to want to make it work.

Poor Communication (1)

Poor communications and Jacobs' perceived non-responsiveness to the OC's direct questions or requests for information and a complaint of inaccuracy of information presented.

The PAT themselves experienced a communication problem first-hand (while trying to understand whether BLAs were or were not, in fact, late). Part of the difficulty originates in communicating directly with dozens of people on a real-time basis regarding dynamic issues which change moment to moment. Part of the difficulty comes from not being prepared (in a meeting) to answer the question being asked and, in trying to please, giving an answer that may not be accurate. And finally part of the difficulty for inaccurate communication may come from a defensive reaction to questions framed in an atmosphere of continuing mistrust and alleged incompetence. Poor communications is covered in detail in the next several blocks. In addition the facilitated workshop (recommended in the block above) should pave the way for open, accurate and effective communications.
Poor Communication (2)

This is an overall recurring theme and has several subparts. For written documentation, OC members are not routinely given copies. Communications to individual OC members, to principals or to the public is haphazard at best. In this environment rumors, inaccuracies and lies propagate.

Assist the District in updating a matrix defining which entities are to receive which documents / communications. Distribute this matrix widely so everyone has the same expectation and does not feel left out of the loop. (Exhibit A)

Poor Communication (3)

Questions are brought up in meetings and no answer or incorrect answers are given. Even though Jacobs may provide the answers later, the OC members were not getting the requested information in a timely and accurate manner.

Ask that OC furnish questions in writing and in advance of the meeting so that Jacobs can be prepared with an answer. This will also allow Jacobs to distribute the same answer to everyone whether or not they were able to attend that meeting. (sample form - Exhibit B)

Poor Communication (4)

Response time to communications is seen as poor, even unresponsive. This is partly because Jacobs had been relying on District Staff to act as the focal point for passing information on to the proper entities.

Utilizing the distribution matrix above will help alleviate problems here. A person or entity needs to be specifically designated for ensuring this information is disseminated.

Poor Communication (5)

At one time Jacobs was attending School Board meetings and giving project updates. It is not certain why this stopped.

Evaluate with the District the best way to disseminate project status to the Board, including regular or as-requested presentations at the School Board Meetings.

Malibu High School

The school board has voted to move forward and accept the only bid received for the construction of the Malibu High School project.

Carefully review the remaining work. Perform an internal QA/QC review of the Construction Documents in order to mitigate issues such as RFI's, Change Orders, and delays during the construction phase of the Malibu High school project. Jacobs' success in delivering MHS without further surprises will be important in re-establishing relationships.

Unclear Roles and Responsibilities

Jacobs has not fully understood what the relationships should be between Jacobs, the District, the OC, the Site Governance Committees, the School Principals, etc.

The District must draw an organizational diagram showing all the entities and defining the roles, duties and authority limits of each. Again, distribute widely so everyone knows.

Loss of Design Continuity

The design team has been criticized as being a rotating door without any continuity between phases or between projects.

Get commitments from managers that the right design team members stay available for issues that may arise on the remaining projects. Finishing this program with the current or enhanced team must be a high priority.

Schedule Management/Forecasting

Contractually many projects are late. The Budget Limitation Agreement (BLA) sets the cost and schedule, but there were difficulties in design, estimating, bidding and unforeseen conditions which caused delay.

Must do a better job of forecasting when work will be done and communicating this schedule to the right people. Also make sure our own field staff are uniformly aware of the facts. There must be a consistent presentation of facts from both the field and the office.

Change Order Management

Jacobs is perceived as being too lenient with the contractor or subcontractor, just agreeing to whatever costs the contractor submits. This view doesn't jibe with Jacobs' role as representative of the Owner nor convey that we are looking out for the Owner's best interests.

Take an aggressive interpretation of the specifications. Show how Jacobs has argued to reduce costs and enforce the quality requirements. Show how the contractor does not have free rein.

Speed Up Payment for Work Done

The District staff sometimes refuses to pay applications even after all field staff has signed off. As a result Jacobs is over $6M "out-of-pocket" due to very minor paperwork technicalities. Jacobs has paid contractors in order to keep them working.

The Superintendent should be made aware of this issue and the consequential difficulties it causes for subcontractors and the ability to attract bidders. The District should per contract approve those items not in dispute and allow minor errors to be corrected by hand rather than requiring the whole set of documents sent back and revised. Jacobs will suggest a simple form for such corrections.

Quality of Construction Work

Besides criticism of the quality of Jacobs' personnel, some members of the OC also criticized the quality of the accepted work in-place.

Prepare a presentation on Jacobs' QA/QC program that demonstrates that it ensures compliance with the Contract Documents.

Commitment to SMMUSD

The merger between Jacobs and Sverdrup was brought up several times. There are suspicions that Jacobs is no longer interested in K-12 work and would be abandoning the schools marketplace. Perhaps even abandoning SMMUSD before project completion.

In a partnering forum, have Jacobs management present our overall market plan for schools work. Make a high level personal promise of continued focus on this specific project, and demonstrate that focus over the remainder of the project.

Priority Two: These recommendations will have lesser effect at this stage of the Program but should be implemented as circumstances permit.


RFI/Submittal Management

Most of this task has already been accomplished. This was one area of severe criticism in the past and Jacobs has made changes to bring response turn-around down from average of 30 days, to less than 6 days.

For the remainder of the projects, ensure a quick turn-around of RFI's and Submittals is maintained. Continue to engage on-site architects and engineers to ensure this does occur.

Problem Solving

Jacobs has been criticized for not providing more creative solutions to problems encountered. Several have said "you only want us to throw money at the problem." This is somewhat a problem of perception in that the people do not feel Jacobs is looking out for the District's best interest.

The Jacobs project team should develop a report to the District and OC along the lines of the "JE Value Plus" Program.

Staffing Levels / Experience

This criticism centers on the number and quality of Jacobs personnel assigned to the project. Frankly, much of the criticism seems to have come out of frustrations resulting from early problems with redesign. There was a high turnover rate in the early stages, particularly on the design side.

Show what personnel changes and additions were made. Previous PATs and client surveys address this issue extensively. Corrections have been made and while it appears this is not a continuing problem the client is not fully aware of the changes.

Number of Bidders

For the Malibu High School project only one bid was received.

The Owner does not know that Jacobs made contact with around 900 General Contractors, subcontractors and material suppliers. This story must be told. Also, consider some of the suggestions made by OC member Mark Benjamin to get more contractors interested.


This is the one phase of the job that has not yet been tested.

Brainstorm now to set procedures in place that will get warranty issues addressed quickly and efficiently. Jacobs must do all that can be done to minimize the frustration levels for the remainder of the project.

Exhibit A

(This page left blank purposefully.)

Exhibit B

Question Sheet for Fax to: Ken Brazzel


Oversight Committee Meeting From:


Submitted by:

Instructions: Please provide any questions that you may wish answered at the Upcoming Oversight meeting at least 24 hours in advance of the scheduled time.