Yeah, and thank you for the introduction, Yunus. Today I'm going to be talking about the psychology of accepting and sharing misinformation. Topics in this presentation includes what is misinformation and how it differs from related terms. Next, how do we assess what is true? I will present the basic psychological process of how we relate to information that is presented to us and how we engage with it. In addition to the basic psychological processing of information, there are individual differences in how we relate to information and how we judge what is believable. That is what makes some of us more susceptible to accepting and sharing misinformation. Lastly, I'm going to briefly talk about some of the potential consequences of believing in and acting upon misinformation. Now, this was partly covered in the previous panel, but as you can see from this overview, there are several terms and concepts related to false information. Some of these have clear definitions and meanings like content marketing, whilst others are hard to define, like fake news. However, two aspects of information are generally used to differentiate between most of them. First, the level of facticity. Is there something true about it or is it completely nonsense? And second, is it created and shared with an intention to deceive, profit, or otherwise cause harm? Here's a quick illustration of how one can think of different kinds of false information. At the vertical axis, you can see the level of facticity, whilst at the horizontal axis, is the intention to deceive. Even though several terms related to false information are used within research, misinformation seems to be the preferred one. So what is misinformation? Misinformation involves information that is inadvertently false and is shared without the intent to cause harm. But moreover, it has the capacity to spread through society, and particularly on social media. The aspect of intentionality is important because people who share false information, especially on social media, doesn't necessarily do it to intentionally deceive or harm anybody. However, the creator of the shared information, on the other hand, might have an intention to do so. In that case, it is referred to as disinformation. Now, most psychological research on false information is determined as misinformation. And that's because when we survey people's social media behavior, for instance, it's hard to determine whether they share false information with an intention to deceive. So it's better to give them the benefit of doubt. Now, let's move on to one of the basic psychological processes involved in assessing what is true and how we relate to information in general. When we evaluate whether information presented to us is likely to be true, we typically consider some, but rarely all, of these five criteria. First, is the claim compatible with other things I know? Is there much evidence to support it? Is it internally consistent and coherent? Does it come from a trustworthy source? And lastly, do other people agree with it? Each of these criteria are sensible and thus bear only likely truth of a message. Importantly, I can assess each criteria by considering relevant knowledge, but that is a slow and effortful process. So instead, I can assess the same criteria by relying on my intuitive responses, which are faster and less taxing. And indeed, my brain, like probably some of you guys, prefers fast and effortless. But when the initial intuitive response suggests that something may be wrong, we tend to turn to the more effortful analysis. In this way, the initial intuitive assessment of truth is a sort of gatekeeper for whether people will engage with the presented information with a critical eye or just not along in agreement. These assumptions are compatible with the long history of research in social and cognitive psychology, where the slow and effortful strategy is often referred to as analytic or system to processing and the fast and effortless as intuitive or system one processing. So the key is the ease with which the information can be processed. If it's processed easily, we tend to use system one processing. If it's hard to process, we switch over to system two processing. First criteria. Is the information compatible with what I know? Does it fit with my prior knowledge? Any claim is more likely to be accepted as true when it's compatible with other things one knows than when it's at odds with other knowledge. Here, the well-known confirmation bias can also kick in. If the information confirms your prior beliefs and opinions, it is more likely to be believed. On the other hand, when something is incompatible with what one knows, we tend to stumble. We take longer time to read it and have more trouble processing it. Thus, if the information is more compatible, it makes it easier to process and they often not along in agreement. If it's less compatible, then it makes it more difficult to process and we tend to switch over to more analytic processing. If it's compatible, there's often some kind of evidence to support it and usually if there's evidence, it easily comes to mind. People's belief and confidence in a belief increases with the amount of supporting evidence. Next, is the information internally consistent and coherent? Coherent information is easier to process than information with internal contradictions. If it contains contradictions, we will stumble and have more difficulty in processing it and most likely switch over to analytic processing. What about the source of information? Is the source trustworthy? Information is more likely to be accepted as true when it comes from a credible and trustworthy source. Trustworthiness can be based on the source's expertise, education, achievement and so on. However, trustworthiness can also be based on feelings of familiarity. You trust your families more than you just trust strangers. Additionally, repeatedly seeing pictures of a face is sufficient to increase perceptions of honesty and sincerity as well as agreement with what the person says. Moreover, a given claim is more likely to be judged true when the name of its source is easy to pronounce. Here's an illustration from some of my prior research which shows that face perception influences ratings of trustworthiness. I'm not going to say more about it other than that these two faces you see here receive very different trustworthiness ratings solely based on their appearance. The last of the criteria for truth assessment, does other people agree, is their social consensus. Research shows that they are more confident in our beliefs when they are shared by others and we are more likely to endorse a claim if many others have done so as well. Relatedly, information that is familiar because you encountered it several times through friends and family is easier to process, remember and understand. Now, in addition to these five criteria, I would like to add one additional factor and it is repeated exposure. Demagogues have known from linear that truth can be created through the frequent repetition of a lie and as Hitler put it, propaganda must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over again. And indeed, research shows that the best predictor of where people believe the rumor is the number of times they are exposed to it. I will now give you an example of how repeated exposure combined with some of the criteria for truth assessment come into play when we are presented with information on social media. To begin with, most social media posts are short written in simple language and are easy to read and it satisfies many of the technical prerequisites for easy processing. Now, as an example, let's say you are suspicious of vaccines or opposed to vaccination in general, you encountered this post. This easy to read message is posted by a familiar face with an easy to pronounce name is also a millionaire and two personality, of course, a credible source. Well, this was before it become present. The content of the post is compatible with your own beliefs because you're opposed to vaccines. The post is liked and retweeted by your friends who are also opposed to vaccines, thus confirming social consensus. Moreover, it is retweeted and shared by several of those in your online social network and sharing repeated exposure. With each exposure, processing becomes easier and perception perceptions of social consensus coherence and compatibility increases. At the same time, accumulating likes and retweets ensures that the filtering mechanisms of the social media platform makes exposure to opposing information less and less likely. And thus, the content of the tweet is considered to be highly believable. Now, this is, of course, a sort of extreme example. I will have this psychological process and the five criteria come into play on social media, but the same processes applies to topics of a much more mundane nature. So to briefly sum this up, to sum it up, if the presented information is compatible with your own existing beliefs and values, it has evidence to support it, is coherent and internally consistent, presented by trustworthy source and have other people agreeing. Then there's a chance that you just might not along in agreement and not engage with the presented information analytically. However, some of us are less susceptible to misinformation and thus not as easy for fake news. There's been conducted several studies on individual differences on susceptibility to misinformation. Within the social sciences, research on misinformation typically measures susceptibility in the following ways. Some present an equal number of true and false headlines and ask participants to rate the accuracy or reliability of those, like this example right here. Other may present statements which are not in this sort of Facebook format or journalistic format. They provide written claims such as 5G networks, maybe making us more susceptible to the coronavirus, and participants are asked to rate accuracy from very inaccurate to very accurate. Within this kind of research, they look at individual and group level differences in susceptibility to misinformation by measuring some other variables of interest. I've chosen a few of those variables which I now will present. First up, people differ in their propensity to engage in analytical reasoning. This is related to the five criteria and information processing I mentioned earlier, and research shows that some are more inclined to reason analytically whilst others to a larger degree rely on their intuition. Propensity to engage in analytical reasoning is often measured by the cognitive reflection test. It presents people with questions like these. There is only one correct answer to each of these questions, but when you present them to people, you often end up with two groups based on their answers. Those who answer intuitively will answer first to question one and ten cents to question two, whilst those who reason analytically will answer second to question one and five cents to question two, which are the correct answers. People's performance on this kind of test correlates with their ability to discern misinformation from true information. That is, participants who reason analytically are better at recognizing misinformation as false. So thinking analytically rather than relying on intuition seems to be a resilience factor against accepting misinformation as true. Research also shows that delusion-prone individuals, dogmatic individuals and religious fundamentalists are more likely to believe misinformation. People who score high on these kind of attitudes typically agree to questions such as, do you ever feel as if there's a conspiracy against you or the things I believe in are so completely true I could never doubt them? Or the basic cause of evil in this world is Satan who is still constantly and ferociously fighting against God. High scores and deep types of measures are all positively correlated with belief in misinformation. However, mediation analysis suggests that these relationships may be partially or fully explained by reduced engagement in analytic reasoning and actively open-minded thinking, which may broadly discourage implausible beliefs. So because dogmatic individuals and delusion-prone individuals and religious fundamentalists are engaging less in analytical thinking, there are also more susceptible to believe in misinformation. Again, analytical reasoning seems to be a resilience factor. As misinformation is often heavily politicized, much research has investigated political ideology as a predictor of susceptibility to misinformation. This type of research has often been conducted among American participants and it typically groups participants in either Democrats versus Republicans or Clinton supporters or versus Trump supporters. This was during the 2016 election and typically the results indicate that Trump supporters rated misinformation about Trump as less accurate, but misinformation about Clinton is more accurate and vice versa. However, studies have also shown that when participants are given time to deliberate, they tend to correct their responses and this correction was independent of whether the misinformation was consistent or not with their political attitudes. So again, deliberation, conscious analytical reasoning seems to positively influence the ability to detect misinformation. There's recently been conducted a cross-cultural study on the susceptibility to misinformation about the new coronavirus. It compared participants from five countries, the US, UK, Ireland, Mexico and Spain. This figure you see here shows the included predictors of susceptibility or some of the included predictors of susceptibility to misinformation and everything left of the dotted line in the middle indicates reduced susceptibility to misinformation. Whereas the marks to the right of the dotted line indicates increased susceptibility. And as you can see, in three out of five countries, conservatism or political right-wing attitudes predicted increased susceptibility whereas numerous skills which is a kind of proxy for critical thinking predicted reduced susceptibility in all five countries. And the same was true for those who showed trust in scientists. Additionally, they found that self-perceived minority status predicted an increased susceptibility to believe misinformation about the coronavirus. However, as it was self-perceived, you do not know what kind of minorities that seems to be inclined to believe misinformation, whether it's religious, political or ethnic or some other minority groups. Although misinformation is clearly not a new phenomenon, it has become a much more serious issue with the advent of Internet and the belief in misinformation can have serious consequences if one acts upon that belief. For instance, there's a lot of fabricated and false information circulating the Internet regarding vaccines. The most famous one that the MMR vaccine causes autism. And as a result, vaccine hesitancy have resulted in disease outbreaks and deaths from vaccine-preventable diseases such as we have in recent years have been measles outbreak in the Netherlands, UK, Ireland, the US and several other countries. And the increase of misinformation on social media has also proven to be a real threat to the democratic process as annual functioning democracy relies on a well-informed populace. So disinformation campaigns are targeting specific groups of voters and the political landscape is getting more and more polarized. For instance, the Pizzagate conspiracy theory during the US presidential election in 2016. Fake news websites posted false stories claiming that a pedophilia ring with high-ranking officials in the Democratic Party used a pizzeria, as you see a picture illustrated here, as a meeting ground for satanistic rituals, human trafficking and child sex abuse. And a man who believed this story entered the pizzeria with an assault rifle to investigate and end up firing shots, but luckily nobody got hurt. And lastly, the belief in misinformation about the coronavirus, such as the belief that it was created in a laboratory in China, negatively affects people's compliance to public health guidelines such as wearing masks or washing their hands. And are also more hesitant to get vaccinated against it. That's all. Thank you.


Political false dichotomies. Notes from the edge of the narrative matrix. You may vote and debate freely on any issue which does not affect the functioning of the Empire. When it comes to how money, weapons, and resources move around the world, however, you suddenly find that your votes don't matter and your position has no mainstream representation. They'll let you argue until you're blue in the face over whether or not you can have an abortion or whether minorities should have civil rights. They'll even let you vote on it. But things like military expansionism and neoliberal globalization and deregulation are off limits. The Empire relies on false political dichotomies like Democrats versus Republicans to keep everyone fighting over issues which don't affect the functioning of the Empire, so the machine can trudge onward uninterrupted by the local riff-raff. That is the entire job of those parties. The mainstream media exists to keep everyone spellbound by those false dichotomies on the level of discourse and debate. They manufacture culture wars which split the populace in half over an issue which doesn't affect the Empire, then continually feed into that debate. The Bernie, AOC, TYT populace left, and the Trump-Tucker Carlson populace right faction are there to lure parts of the population who get a little too curious about the raw mechanisms of Empire back into the political false dichotomy so they stop asking unauthorized questions. The entire political media class exists for this purpose, not to help people, not to fight for civil rights, not to create a well-informed populace so that democracy can function, but to keep the grubby little mits of the unwashed masses far away from the true levers of power. That's their whole entire function. Social media is where people go to pretend they're anxious about culture war wedge issues to avoid admitting to themselves that they're really anxious about economic, societal, and environmental collapse and the rising risk of nuclear war. The mass media have been aggressively pushing a single narrative on Ukraine, Silicon Valley is censoring people who disagree with the U.S. government about Ukraine, U.S. officials admit they're circulating disinfo about Ukraine, but you need to be worried about Russian propaganda. People aren't grasping the significance of the fact that Silicon Valley is now shutting down content creators not because they allegedly harm the public good, but because they disagree with the U.S. government about a war. Ukraine censorship is a wildly unprecedented escalation. I strongly opposed Silicon Valley censorship on issues related to COVID, but that was done on the pretense that those who were censored threatened public safety. Now there is no such pretense, it's just we mustn't allow people to think wrong thoughts about a war. There's a tweet by Jackson Hinkel, YouTube has permanently demonetized my channel because I am critical of Biden's foreign policy decisions. Financial censorship like YouTube demonetization and cutting people off from PayPal can be just as effective at silencing them as outright censorship because it hurts their ability to create content full-time. I know I couldn't do what I do without support from patrons. They're no longer pretending to be administering this kind of censorship for the public good. They're just openly doing it to control public thought about a war in allegiance to their government. This is a new and drastic step, and it makes one wonder what the next one will be. If you mentally mute the justifications for each new expansion of censorship protocols and picture it as a cluster of unauthorized speech, it looks like a circle whose radius keeps expanding and expanding over time. That's what this is really about. Continually expanding that radius using bogus justifications from Russian trolls to election security to domestic extremists to COVID to Ukraine. And now we're at the point where consent for this expansion has been so widely manufactured that they don't even need to be sly about it. They can just say, yeah, well, that hurts our government's propaganda war against Russia, so we can't have that. This is huge. Propaganda, censorship, and Silicon Valley algorithm manipulation keep getting worse because the US centralized empire needs to prevent the emergence of a true multipolar world and it will need to manufacture a lot of consent for the drastic actions needed to accomplish this. Stopping the rise of China requires knocking out its pillars of support like Russia. These are massive and extremely dangerous agendas that will financially hurt and existentially imperil pretty much everyone. Empire managers can't allow a free flow of information in such times. Rightists fixate on the World Economic Forum and Klaus Schwab like they're the source and summit of all the world's ills because this allows capitalism proponents to hold on to the belief that the system would be working fine if you just got rid of those few bad apples. It's not capitalism, it's corporatism is not an argument. It's just vapid word dittling. Nobody cares if you don't like the word capitalism being applied to our current systems. Nobody cares if you feel like your pet word is being mistreated. Address the argument. If your only line of argumentation consists of quibbling about definitions, incorrectly I might add, then you don't have a line of argumentation. Address the actual arguments or stop interrupting adult conversations. A globe-spanning empire is held together by the widespread and entirely faith-based belief that the best possible political and economic and foreign policy systems just happen to be the ones you've been told your entire life to support by mass media and schooling.


d that's two grade levels in a special ed classroom. In the out years, there's potential that they can increase more, but there's also potential for us as a district to be more competitive and share the positive strides we make on double digit growth in our student data and performance. So really sharing awareness to parents saying, stay in our school district, and we have competitive programs and or better programs. And so I think there's an opportunity for both. I think I have more questions, but I'll allow my colleagues to ask questions too. Anyone has a question? No, okay, I'll keep going. In terms of our health and welfare benefits, let's talk about total compensation. So we had a teacher come up tonight and talk about from our own website, I think it was the SARC report, and they listed a percentage of our total budget. I think, what did they say? I don't even remember, 29% or something. But that's not true because the total compensation is much, much greater than that. So can you tell us between health and welfare benefits and salary, what percentage of our budget is that? Like what is customary? Like what is the benchmark supposed to be and what is PVUSD for comparison? We haven't done an assessment, but the average has been recently has been about 80% in the state salary and benefits. So that's kind of like what's out there throughout the state, approximately 80% give or take. And right now we're at 83.4%, I'm sorry. This is where we're at as a district. And so that represents total compensation, salary and benefits. When we are compared to other districts, and I heard a lot of the speakers and I do understand salary to salary. This is how much I make on my paycheck. This is my salary. This is my salary schedule in this district. What's not mentioned is the total compensation of the benefit package added on top of that. And so because of that, that's where we're at, at 83.4. Last year in fact finding, we were the highest tiered district in combined total compensation in the region. I believe it was us in another district in Santa Clara. I believe it was the closest, but we'll also review that right now as well. So I understand the fiscal pressures we're under. This is my, going into my 11th year on the board or maybe 12th, no, what year are we in? Thank God, anyway. I mean, I understand what the fiscal pressures are, but the state gives a COLA every year. It sounds to, I thought the projection was 3% and then Mary just said it's actually like 1.87 or something. What did you say, Mary? 1.79. So why can't as a district we protect those COLA's and pass those on as raises to our hardworking teachers and staff? This is, and I know what the answer is, but I want you to say it so that other people can understand. I think every decision, fiscal decision has a impact positive or negative, just on debits and credits, just on the books. And so right now we have a deficit. And so if we have an allocation and expenditure and we still have a liability on the books as a deficit or other potential liability, we're just adding on to that deficit. And so it's a balance between fiscal solvency and insolvency. And that's a decision that as a district we need to have a conversation on. And I can't make that determination, but I could tell you it has an impact. The fiscal decision has a fiscal impact. So how I would say it simply put is the increases do not outweigh the increased costs. So we have 1.7, 1.79 that comes in. When you look at our expenses and how much the expenses are going up, that 1.79 does not allow for that increase because the increases, everything is stable, right? Everything is stable. That increase of 1.79 is overshadowed by the extreme increase in other costs, right? So even if we're not talking programs, we're just talking regular employee expenses. That is overshadowed by the increased costs in person's thers, health and welfare, right? And I understand what some are saying but the grand majority of our teachers do get step and column as well. So all of those things are expenses which are adding up to more than 1.79. So we don't have the money in order to be able to increase without, which is what Joe is talking about, decreasing something else. So we have to figure out what else can we decrease so that we can in turn make an increase. So in the past, we've offered like early retirement for veteran employees, like a golden handshake. Mary, you've sat through many of those in your jobs. Do those actually save money in the long run? Sorry, we're televised. We're on TV, right? Just a quick reminder, that was a 15 minute discussion due to a 20 minute report. Okay, thank you. Real quick, so generally if you have a lot of teachers in the higher ranges on your salary schedule that are getting close to retirement age, you will have a savings for certificated teachers. I don't know at this point if you're at that point. When we did them before, you had a lot of teachers that were at that range, right? And each district is a case by case scenario. In some districts, they moved forward with a golden handshake or a golden apple, et cetera, and the savings did not come to fruition. And so then they were put into position to make additional cuts because what happened is it was a change in enrollment or a grade span. And so the teachers that retired, they were replaced. So it just depends and it's an analysis that's case by case for each district. I believe there was one offered for this district several years ago and the cost savings were not brought to fruition as expected. So I have a couple of quick questions for you, Joe, and kind of just somewhat clarifying. So approximately 20,000 students with over 17,000 on average daily attendance per, right? And we've talked a lot about the declining enrollment, but I wanted to see if you could address the other issue, especially with what we've heard here tonight when we're asked, there's this asking teachers to be all in every day and to help with the average daily attendance issue. What is it that we are actually losing in our average daily attendance? If you could give us an idea of what that looks like, whether it's on a daily, a weekly, a monthly, an annual, what is that number? What are we losing? So in simple terms. And I know that's gonna be real rough, but I mean. In simple terms, we are losing our students. We've got chronic absenteeism. So 10 plus days, but it's the instruction, not only the instructional time, but the funding that goes with our average daily attendance. So students just showing up to school and we are discussions with student services of different initiatives. For example, having parents scheduling their doctor's appointments later in the afternoon rather than in the morning so that we capture our attendance and that we also capture the funding and our superintendent will talk a little bit more about the total loss. So what we put in, what we provide the teachers it was referenced that we provided some information to the teachers we created to one cheaters in English and Spanish. One of them speaks to the 95.5%, which is what our current ADA is. So that's the amount of students that comes. It sounds like a pretty good amount if you think of it like a test, but that's over a thousand students that don't come to school every day. 1,025 students do not come to school every day. If we were raised it to 97%, then we would get $2.7 million ongoing of funding. So the reason why it's contingent, where reason why the 1% is contingent is not really a direct correlation as much as the fact that we don't have to give it unless we find another way in order to increase in attendance. I will say that I agree that we serve vulnerable students. That is why I'm superintendent here. But, and I wrote down that we need to do a presentation for you all on it. But our students are gone on Mondays and Fridays. Kids that are not coming to school for mental health issues, probably Mondays and Fridays are more challenging because of transition periods. I'm not saying that that's not true. But there is strategies that we can use that will help get our students to school. Our students are coming to school Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday for the most part. They're not coming to school on Mondays and Fridays, right? So there are ways in which we can encourage students to come to school, encourage parents to do it. So we're trying a lot of different things. One, to show the academic challenges. For every day a child misses one day of school, they lose three days of instruction. And so that's what our second cheater is that was sent out that you all received. So what we're, the problem is, is that we know that it is extremely expensive to live here in this district. We know it, the whole county is extremely expensive. However, at this point, we, unless we find a way to add revenue, we cannot add expenditures. You saw from the numbers, we just do not have it. So there are a lot of school districts, especially in Southern California, that have done contingent based on ADA and all that. It's not actually that novel of an approach. And it's based on everyone, not just teachers, but everyone putting forth their best effort to try to get students to come to school. One thing, and you'll wind up seeing it when we show the report is another thing is, is our three weeks working at Christmas, right? Or winter break, right? So we did the three weeks off because we said it will increase attendance, but when you look at it, it's just not true. So we have, our parents have unfortunately decided that missing one or two weeks of school is not gonna hurt their kid. And they, we are pure red, which means that we have over 1,100 kids absent in one day. We are pure red the week before our three week break, and we're pure red the week after our three week break. So we have approximately 1,300, 1,400 students that are gone the week before our three week break and the week after. So we need to look at those things because we also have pure red on the days leading up to Thanksgiving, right? But we're required by law to do 180 days. So then the question is, is how do we change that? But that's why we did it directly linked to ADA because it's a source of income. And if we don't have that source of income, if we don't increase ADA, then we don't have it to give. One minute, it's over discussion. In our past board, we had discussed our attendance recovery. How are we doing with that? Well, so we're doing, that's what was referenced in the last slide. So we are doing Saturday school now at all of our schools, which will allow to increase that. But that's, and that's one way in which staff in general can support because we need staff that's willing to work those Saturdays, right? In order to be able to recover. One other thing I think that is unique to hear that we need to look at is usually our secondary has a lower ADA, lower attendance rate than elementary. That is not the case. And it's very close. It's by like a percent or a point, a point one, the difference between elementary and middle, but elementary currently has the lowest ADA at this time. So that is unique. Usually you can get your elementary students there much more than you can your secondary. In this case, that's not accurate. Okay. We have the hardest time in elementary. I just have two quick last and elaborating question actually on something that Mary had mentioned and probably you or Joe can answer it. The way I had heard when she talked about the declining enrollment that our special education contribution goes down with that as well. So, oh, okay. So, so is that that, but those contributions are looked at case by case, correct? Well, actually it's as our total enrollment. So if our total enrollment declines, but our special ed contribution, our cost of special ed continues to rise. So that increases the contribution that we've got to chip into to cover that. Our contribution, but what we're getting in also for those, those go by case by case, right? As case was a whole. It's a whole. It's a whole. The whole contribution for the whole program. That's the way I had understood it. That's okay. Thank you for the clarification. It's the way I started. And then you'd also talked about some of the things you've done to decline with regards to also outside legal counsel. I know everybody hates to hear this about, you know, potentially bringing on more administration, but if we had internal legal counsel, would that help with that at all? I think to a portion it might have or could. The other component of that is there's not a general council that specializes in construction. There's not a general council that specializes in workers compensation. Also different facets. We would still probably have to contract or subcontract out the specialized attorneys. But for general council, that probably could be, we could look at that. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. I'll make the motion to pass this agenda item. Okay, she makes the motion to pass that second. So all those in favor of our interim budget, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. A post? A close. All those opposed? No, I know. Aye. Oh, two opposed? Okay. Okay, it's four, two, zero. So I think before we continue, we should extend the meeting given that we have other items to discuss. So with that, I would like to extend it to 1130. Just in case. Hopefully not. Okay, do I have a second? A second. Okay, all those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Aye. Aye. Okay, four, two, zero. Okay, the next one is on report on the use of developer fees, and we've already, okay, and that's by Joe Dominguez CBO and Helen. Okay, so good evening, President Austinson, Dr. Rodriguez, board members, community members. We're bringing you the accounting for the developer fees tonight. So just quickly, you were brought the actual developer fee rates in July and September, and they were approved, and so I know all of you are aware of it, so I'm gonna kind of skip over this slide a little bit. One of the things that we do wanna kind of concentrate on is what the projects have been spent on or plant some of our future ones. So we did have the Aptos High Special Ed classroom that we modernized. We have the Watsonville High Varsity Softball Field and the PV High Portable Modernization and the Aptos High Tennis Court refurbishment. We are also looking at doing Starlight's Cafeteria in this coming year. So if you have any questions, you can ask them at the end. And so the developer fees, we started the year with a balance of 1.2 million. We received fees of 484,000 in the 1819 school year and we were instructed by our auditors because in the fund where these are at, we also have property taxes that come in. Those need to be split out and so we went through and did like a 10-year report of how the funds were spent and so 1.3 million of the total was four developer fees. We received 30,000 in interest and as you can see we have portable buildings that we pay for in the amount of 400,000. We installed some new portables for 465,000. We paid for the removal of some portables and we had some roof replacements this year for total expenditures of 985,000, leaving us a balance of a little over 2 million. And with the remaining balance of the 2.1, we are, as Helen mentioned, dedicating those to classroom modernizations but that'll help us cover the costs for the Aptos-Sulpa modernization classroom and then the Watsonville High softball field and so those are projects and we'd like to thank the board for your support and with developer fees and we're making sure we invest those dollars. If we did not have developer fees we would have to commit from the general fund on the unrestricted site so that would also be another fiscal impact and because developer fees we're able to get these projects going and then continue the leasing of our portables and then looking at purchasing permanent portables of long term. So I'd like to thank you and that concludes our report. Thank you. I'm hoping we're gonna just have not too many comments so we can vote. Could we? No. So you've mentioned you had to break out developer fees and property taxes. What was our revenue from property taxes? I don't have it off the top of my head but it's around half a million dollars. It's mine off the top of my head. Thank you. And that does go towards facilities also. I just wanted to clarify that I think a lot of people think that much more of property taxes go to support schools when realities they don't. Well and this property taxes mainly redevelopment property taxes not the property taxes that we get for the general fund. Any other comments? Katie, I have a motion. Like the motion. Second. All second. All those in favor. Aye. All those opposed. Okay. 9.3 is something that we've already talked about today. It's now we're gonna vote on it. It's the sunshine proposal for the multi-year agreement. So Chona Colleen can talk about it or we can just vote on it or whatever. Okay, go ahead and vote on it. Yeah. I'd like to move approval. Second. I'll second. All those in favor. Aye. Aye. All those opposed. Okay, 9.4. This is something we've done many, many times before to talk about providing intern placements. And this time it's with the Santa Clara County Office of Education by Allison Nizawa, Director of Human Resources. Yes, good night. Or good night. Good night, I'm done. No. Good evening. Sorry. Good evening, President Osmondson. It's just what I do up here apparently. I just want to end it right away. No, Dr. Rodriguez in board. Just stop laughing, yeah, I know. Yes, it's another MOU to make sure that we can also hire interns through Santa Clara as well as maintain the ones that we currently have that are interns with us. So it's an extension of the one we've already have going. So it's taking us through 2021. Okay, I don't have any comments. All those, I mean, a motion. Make a motion. Second. All those in favor. Aye. Aye. All those opposed. Okay, the next one is with our exciting program for the Starlight kitchen. It's 9.5 Lagasse Foundation Grant Agreement and Michelle, Dr. Rodriguez. Yes. So this is just acceptance of the half a million dollars so we did receive the grant. This is so that they can give us the half a million dollars so that we can begin the construction of his signature kitchen. And so we ask that the board accept the grant money. This is really exciting as if there's no public comment or board comments. I would like to make a motion to approve this item. I just have one question. Yeah. Really quick. Will we have the potential to rent out this kitchen? Yes, we will. We first want to use it for our signature culinary pathways for our high school students and for some community partner work that we wish to do. But if there is time and space after all that happens, we definitely could. I second the motion to approve. Okay, all those in favor? Aye. All those opposed. Okay. And now we have 9.6 call for nominations to CSBA's delicate assembly by Dr. Rodriguez. Yes, so very similar to last year. We have the opportunity to try to submit names for the CSBA delicate assembly. There are two positions that are going to be opening. So there are two current people from our area, which is region 9A, who will their time will be expiring. The requirement is that the person has to be able to go and attend the two sessions that occur. There, it's a pretty quick timeline. So it needs to be postmarked by January 7th. And so we are doing the vote today so that we can help the board, whoever is chosen to submit. We can list multiple nominees. So it isn't just one, we are able to do more than just one. The dates are there so that people know when they would have to come. The 2020 dates are May 16th or 17th in Sacramento and December 2nd and 3rd in Anaheim. Those are the dates that people would need to be able to attend because that is one of the requirements to be with the delegate assembly. So I would be happy to run it if you would like, but if there's any nominations for people from our board, you are allowed to nominate anyone within our region. You cannot nominate anyone from outside of our region, but our region is basically us up to Santa Cruz. So any school district within that area, you would be able to nominate either from our board or someone from the other. One of the requirements is that the person knows about the nomination. So prior, and agrees, so prior to submitting the January 7th, we would need to ensure that the person is agreeable and willing to do it. So generally it's done from our board, but that's not a requirement. So is there a nomination? Is there anybody up here who is interested? I think Maria Roscoe was interested last year, but I understand her paperwork was not received by the delegate assembly. How that happened. So I would use her paperwork. So I'm guessing Maria, you're not interested this year just because you have the new baby, but I'm gonna just double check with you. We can have multiple nominations, right? Yes, it does say that we can. I do, for sure. So I'd be happy to help as many people that would like to do it. I would be interested, but I would also like to nominate Jennifer Holm. Is she interested? Are you interested? I can explore that further. So we have two delegates from the North County that are wonderful about bringing back information from those meetings and like they get alerts and then they sort of push them out to other people. So it'd be great if whoever goes from our area, if you wouldn't mind doing those things, just letting us know what sort of the trends are and things we need to know from CSBA. So you're accepting the nomination? Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Karen, are you interested? I could be interested, yeah, because I've been on the board a long time. Do you, are you interested in being a delegate? So we can nominate two people. Is there anyone else? It says multiple, so whoever, if Maria would like to do it as well, we can, it doesn't say there's no limit. We haven't had anyone from Pajaro in a long time to this delegate assembly. Yeah, currently it's SoCal, Santa Cruz, and San Lorenzo. San Lorenzo is George, he will stay on for one more year. Phil and Deborah are the two that are, their term is expiring. I think we definitely need someone from PVUSD. All three? We can increase our chances. We can increase our chances. Okay, no problem. So how does it happen in terms of us who do it at all? So we'll need to have a first, a second, and a vote on it. If you would prefer, we could do it individually or we could do it as a group. That's up to how you all want to do it. Then once it's decided, I would be happy to help support each and every one. Figure out what happened. I'd like to make a motion to support the nomination of three members of our Pajaro Valley Unified School District Board, Karen Osmondson, Maria Roscoe, and Jennifer Holm to be on the ballot for delegate assembly to CSBA. So, okay, everybody voting for us three, say aye. Aye. Aye. Anybody opposed? Thank you for volunteering. Okay, the next four. It's interesting, you'll learn along. Yeah, no, it's handable. Two meetings can handle. Okay, so item 10 is we're now discussing not taking action and we're doing the 10.1 Watsonville Prep School, which is actually navigator for the Proposition 39 Facilities Request. I will go ahead and take it on because Joe is out of working currently and so I'll go ahead and take it on. So part of one of the requirements is that by November 1st, by November 1st, they were required Watsonville Prep, which is also we call navigator, was required by Ed Code to provide us the request for facilities. So if you wanna take over, you can. I was just getting you started. So one thing that we are doing currently is just trying to be transparent with the board. There is no current vote that needs to happen. It's just making sure that in a public forum, the board is aware that they did make the request. So you'll see attached that they made the facilities request. As you know, they are growing to classrooms a year. So the answer to if they will continue to have a fiscal impact on this is yes, right? Because those students will continue to get older and move through the system. So this right here is just letting you all know that they did request. They requested two additional classrooms as well as the special education classroom. And we are required when you look at the results were required to do a preliminary offer by February 1st. So if everything continues to move forward, we would have to bring you on the January 11th board meeting. We would have to bring you what our preliminary offer is. And then the final would have to occur before March 1st. And so the additional portables would be hooked up to the current footprint at EA hall. And it would at the end, if the expansion were to go through, it would bring their current enrollment of 159.76 up to 227.28 students. And that 57 additional student lost to the district is approximately $670,000. And the overall agreement would maintain the same as far as the cafeteria, lunch services, et cetera. The only thing that we would probably revisit is the bell schedule because of the influx of traffic and kind of what we've noticed this year. So that would be something that we would also negotiate. But other than that, that's the fiscal impact. It would add on to the current portables. And as our superintendent mentioned, we've come back around with the legal requirement, whether navigator chooses to expand at this current site or an offsite that is still to be determined, but we have our legal obligation in January to the board. So I just wanted to ask you, not only are we gonna lose over $600,000, but we would have to spend money in order to get the more portables and all that, right? So how much would that be? Approximately, what do you think? How much more money would we have to spend on that? It approximately about $600,000, depending. And that we're also- $600,000 plus losing it because of the students? Another $600,000. Correct. But what we are currently in the process is we will negotiate with navigator of what costs they can incur and what the cost of the district will incur. So potentially navigator may be able or willing to pay for a portion of it or all of it. One of the areas that they have looked into as a playground, they don't have a playground. It's a grass area. So one of the items that they discuss is installing a new playground for their students. That would be a cost that they would incur. But it just depends. We'll go through negotiations. Wow. That's a lot of money. Joe, how has there been any conversation about them purchasing the, there's the building, the Porter building through the city of Watsonville. I know that was up for sale. And I know that was one of the agenda items for discussion for their board, I think a couple of months ago. So I'm wondering if that's something that they're considering that you know of. So the answer is yes. That's one of the locations that they are considering. And I understand that they're also looking at other properties, but that is probably the number one property that they're working on right now. However, they are on a parallel track, submitting the prop 39 with us to make sure that they have the opportunity to expand at EA Hall and or do they expand or acquire an offsite property, whether that's the, that building or another building.  So we would not be on the hook or liable for the expansion offsite. Okay. Well, that's good. Thank you. You're welcome. Your comments. Go ahead. This is very frustrating. I thought that they were not going to ask. I know they kept the option always open, but I thought that the whole pitch test was that they were not going to ask for facilities. That was the original conversation with them. And I believe they are kind of holding true to it. I think they are trying to pursue other properties. I would be saying in the conversations we've had, they do not want to be on our property. They do not want to be at EA Hall. Yeah, and they shouldn't be. I mean, that's a middle school. It should not hold elementary schools, children. And I think all of us want, and I'll speak for myself, I don't want elementary school children on that campus. So the middle school campus. I do know they want to grow and they want to grow on their own location. And so that's something that they're working on. But they did put this in there. I'm sorry, I wasn't paying that close of attention. Are they asking us for a playground? The playground has been in conversation. It's part of their footprint, but they're also open to, and the conversations is to pay for their own playground, but that's still part of this process. So as a parent who actually wrote hundreds of grants and put in a playground defalencia all by myself, that makes me very angry that they would come to us and ask us for a playground. It's many hundreds, thousands of dollars to do that. And I would not be in support of that. Yeah, and as a district, we're going through the charter prop 39 process and the legalities of that. We have to follow the lay of the law. And so we are doing so, but we're also having an open dialogue with navigator. And I can, I can state that we are having that open dialogue. And so they've also shared that they are pursuing offsite properties. And I thought that was, that was a positive thing to share with us because they did not have to share that. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. I mean, I was just gonna say, you know, I'm surprised, you know, so there was all this effort to deal with charter schools in terms of legislation and stuff. I'm surprised that one of the pieces of legislation would have been, I'm surprised it couldn't have been to deal with this 39, Proposition 39 issue because the fact that the Proposition 39 like almost requires us to go get them whatever they need in terms of to be able to have a facility. I don't think that's, I don't like that. That we should be required to, you know what I'm saying? Support that. So that's too bad. It's not, that's, that's, you know, cause there's been some movement in terms of charter schools surprised that they, we haven't dealt with that. This one 39 Proposition 39 so far. And the way the law is written, and I'll see comments, but it's 80% of their student population is PVSD students. So as long as they can continue to hit 80% of their student enrollment, then they can continue doing the facilities requests. If it dips below 80%, then we have leverage to, you know, to reduce that. Oh really? Yes. 80%. Okay, go ahead. I also heard the same thing that the, they really don't want to be there that long. I just stepped away for some water. Once they leave, do we, does E-Hog get to keep those properties on those portables? Yeah, that's something, good question. We're actually looking at that with Navigator, what's that timeline potentially look like? And we're assessing what those portables can be used for. And that's also being looked into in our facilities master plan. I would like to see those facilities stay in many way or E-Hog, all of our works, so. Okay, so this is a discussion item. We're gonna go to 10.2 reading of the board policy and travel expenses by Dr. Rodriguez. Thanks. So this is, it actually is such a small change that I almost put it in consent, but we have a process. So I'm following the process of doing the first read and then bringing it back as an action item for the second read. When we were going through as we have been doing and as we've been requested, we've been going through board policies. We've been looking at things that are out of date that are no longer in accordance with best practice. One of the things that we had in there was that it would not include tips and gratuities. For our staff when they're out and about, that includes everyone from a teacher to an administrator that goes on conference. This is built on the belief that, well, it's just trying, it's built on the belief that tips and gratuities aren't something that's mandatory, which is not mandatory, but it's definitely customary when you're going to an establishment that you actually provide tips and gratuities. So this would allow people to be reimbursed for both tips and gratuities as well, as long as it's on itemized receipt. So it's not something that you could do. In addition, the second change is it would allow myself to authorize overnight stays within a 60 mile radius. So I'll give you just a recent example of when that happened. So we received a grant to allow our teachers to go to the Solomar math conference. It is very close. However, as many of you know that drive up the one, though it's close, it's not easy. And so one of the things that was requested was that the teachers would be allowed to stay at the hotel. It was covered by grant funds. It wasn't even district funds, but because the district was gonna be reimbursing, it was going to be an issue. So I did authorize that stay. So the teachers actually stayed up there. However, it is technically within this. It's smaller than 60 miles. And so this would allow me or my designee to make those type of decisions. So in general, if it's under 60 miles, you can't stay in a hotel. You have to come back and forth. But in special circumstances, we would allow it such as we did with the math conference so that we could get enough participation. And so I'm asking, while I'm just showing you these two changes, what I have always do is I ask, either you express now or before the next board meeting, official board meeting, not the 18th, but January 11th, if you have concerns with either one of these changes to please let me know. And we can have a discussion about that. Okay, now we're gonna go to item 11 which is the Consent Agenda. Now, Maria's behalf, I will just say on the expulsions, we voted for them already in closed session. There was two. I know this is a consent. The two expulsions are on the consent. No, it's not. So any public speakers for the Consent Agenda, and do I have any deferred items? Defer two items, 11.6 and 11.8. And I just wanted to quickly pull 11.12. I'm sorry, I need to make a correction. I'm 11.5 and 11.8, sorry. No, 11.6, okay, sorry about that. 11.5, 11.8, and Dany's. I'd actually, I'm sorry. Yeah. I think we're gonna pull a lot, actually. Maybe we should just go one by one. Okay, so we're pulling, we're pulling at this point. At this point, we're pulling 11.5, 11.8, and 11.12. I would like to pull 11.6, because I need to abstain from that, because I'm on the board of ETR. And all the construction ones do not indicate whether or not they're measure L projects. And I feel like I wanna ask the questions about those, all the construction projects. So. The awards, the awards, the awards, yeah, sure. Okay, so hopefully I've got it correctly, correct. So is there a motion and a second, and we'll say all the deferred items? I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda with removal of 11.6, 11.14, 11.15, 11.16, oh, also 11.8, and 11.12. And 11.5. And 11.5. I second. And 11.5, okay, yeah. Okay, all those in favor for the rest of the ones that are on there. Hi. Hi. Hi. All those opposed. Okay, so I'm gonna start with the lowest, which is 11.5. Okay, so 11.5, it's a renewal with some of the VAPA contracts, right? VAPA, I should say. Yeah, so. Sorry. This is a bit tired. So my question is, are the teachers, Carol, are these just the programs like El Sistema, where they come in with their own teachers where we're not gonna run into a problem with some of the issues that we've had with different things going on? Yes, that's correct. So we contract out with the Santa Cruz Cultural Council, and then they hire their staff, and they're already certified staff that they have on their list of spectra artists and whatnot, and then they go and provide services at the sites. Okay, so they're all independent coming into the sites, okay? No, that was my question. I love that so many things are being able to be offered to our students, and I think we need to bring on an additional grant writer so we can offer more things to our students. Thank you. That's a great idea. Okay, so we're gonna vote on that one. Move up here and roll. Second. All those in favor? Aye. So we're gonna go to 11.6, so I don't know who can talk about it. Oh, sorry, I pulled that. I just can't vote on it, so I need to abstain. So you guys can just move to approve. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Abstain? And she, one abstention. Thank you. 11.5, 11.6, 11.8. Is there somebody who can talk about it? Yes. Okay, go ahead. Okay, so Lisa, I know there's been a lot of concern about the new law that's forcing these changes I've had. I've heard from numerous parents about the sexual health instruction and things that students will be taught. Can we make sure that we include parent information, whether it's a parent information night at schools or a specific email that goes out so that they're informed about what the actual instruction is in the program? Yes, absolutely. And part of our timeline, our elementary schools especially cannot and the middle schools cannot actually teach the sexual health curriculum without first the parent preview. Cardiac services actually supports the teachers in that and having them at the nights so that if the teachers are unavailable to be there at the nights, the Cardiac services will also be there. And parents have the ability to opt out in certain portions, correct? Yes, it's an opt out, yes, they can opt out. And for elementary, we actually come through the curriculum to make sure that it is age appropriate. So it's not just exactly what the publisher gives us. There's a team of us that went through the materials last year and we did decide to take out some of the content because we believe that it was too mature for our fifth grade students. I know, because there was some concern because I know other districts haven't taken out that and so I know some parents were worried because they had seen things that weren't adjusted. So thank you for clarifying that. Just had a quick question also. Don't permission slips go home? I thought I'd seen something. What happens, it's a reverse permission slip, so it's an opt out. And so, but all parents are notified that the curriculum's coming out, but it's an opt out. Thank you. So how did we choose Cardia as a vendor? Like how did that even happen? The Cardia services, we partnered with them last year so I wasn't in at the very beginning if you'd like, I can do research for you. I don't know, but we've been working with them. This is our second year working with them with working with the curriculum that we have. So they're not tied to a specific curriculum. They're just... They're like technical assistance. Yes. Got it. Okay. I never have heard of them, so I was curious. Okay, thanks. Okay, so we're gonna vote on 11.8. We'll vote for both. Okay. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. All those opposed? No. Okay. That's right. Oh, I don't know. I mean, I have no idea about them. Okay, let's move on. 11.8, let's see. 11.12, I guess that's the next highest, 11.12. Well, I'm not sure who this question is. Jones, is this your question? Yes. Of course, I support this item, but I remember within the first couple of months when I was elected, I received a call from Assembly Member Robert Reed, business office, and I talked to Michelle about this too.  I guess some of the neighbors in the back, I'm not sure if it's a business or, but they were complaining because of the smell. Does this somehow? Yes, so this will, this addresses, so this consultant, ATI Architects, is part of a solution, provide, review current architect solutions, but also complete a peer review and look at underground septic tanks, which would assist with the smell or odor of our FFA program or animals in the area. So it's part of that sanitary sewer and or septic system. So I also wanna note that a portion of the smell that we found out was from the composting that we're now doing with the city. So although this will deter some of the smell from the animals, the composting smell will still be there. I just wanna make sure that we're clear so that, cause it's the head start. So when the head start complains again about smell, there is various composting that we're now doing with the city that is causing smell. And so it will help with one, but it won't help with the other. So we still may have some issues from the smell of the composting. This is a great site. So thank you. Welcome. Okay, now we're voting on 11.12 of a motion. Move up here a little. That's it. All those in favor. Aye. So 11.12, 11.14. So these are all the Potta Valley award things. So 11.14 for PV High. This is our maintenance endowment, part of our bond program, but under the maintenance endowment, the low bid was legacy roofing and waterproofing at $175,000. And currently the issue is that it's a foam type style roofing material. And now rainwater has now intruded in it. And so under the membrane of the roof, so we have like a layer of water captured in the roof above the library. And so approving this project will make sure that we take care of this and repair it and make sure it doesn't happen again. Okay, got it. So how are we paying for this? This is under our maintenance endowment within the bond program. But it's the bond program. So it is measure L. Correct, measure L. Thank you. Yes. Since we've pulled these items as we go through, can you tell us which ones are union and which ones aren't? Which ones that I'm... For the wards that we're giving. Okay, yes. Next one. Yeah, so this one is internal legacy roofing. They have the internal capacity to do it themselves. So they do not subcontract out any of the work. So this is a non-union. Okay, are you done? Okay, we're voting on 11.14 motion. Make a motion to approve. Thank you. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed, 11.15. So 11.15 is Watsonville High School. This, I'd like to commend Elaine and site leadership. This was and Linda Liu from our Nutrition Services program. Definitely a great partnership, but this is for a cafeteria of modernization and renovation. And this is one of the items we're trying to focus on increasing student participation in our lunch and our meals program there. So Avala Construction Company was the lowest bidder at $3.1 to $9 million. Avala Construction, this will be both a non-union and union job because their subcontractors are both. So this will be completed. And we're looking forward to getting this piece done and long overdue if you have been in the cafeteria. I just want to like the comments. They thank you guys for making this happen. The community is excited and I'm excited as well to see this happen. Okay, motion to approve. Second. I have a question before we move on. Yes. So in the past, we didn't always go with the lowest bidder, I don't think. I thought we went with like the most competent company. Are we still subscribing to that? Are we being very careful? Cause we've used a Sonya multiple times and they're local and I, where's Avala out of? Cause we made a promise to our voters that we were going to try to use local companies whenever possible. Yeah, and I believe overall, and I can go back in previous presentations, but I believe we're over like 70% local. So we're doing an amazing job of providing local contractors or local work to local. So we are doing a really good job there. They're for monitoring. I was just going to say, I believe they're with it. I believe so. I'm not too sure though. Okay. But this is a measure of bond program. Okay. And yes, I just confirmed they are out of Monterey. Okay. A motion to approve. All those in favor. Aye. And this is the last one, 11.16 piping replacement. So this one is a sense of urgency where Watsonville High School approximate age of the infrastructure of gas lines, I would say 70 plus years minimum. We repaired several gas leaks on the campus and we did continued testing, pressure testing and it continued to fail. We realized that majority portions of the leaks were in the student quad area. And so the lowest bidder for this one is GOH Wilson at 370,000.  And this is also the same firm that is doing the work at Cesar Chavez Middle School. And work is underway right now there. And it's 100% union. And this is a maintenance endowment under measure L. And they're also in Monterey. Okay. Last one motion. Make a motion to approve. Okay. All those in favor. Aye. All those opposed. Okay, now we're gonna finish the closed session items. All right, that's my part, right? Okay. Motion. Do we start with the expulsion? Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. So for under item 2.1, the board approved a suspended expulsion for the remainder of the 1920 school year with placement at another school in the district on a strict behavior contract for student number 1920-010. The board also approved a full expulsion for the remainder of the 1920 school year with placement at another school site outside the district on a strict behavior contract for student number 1920-011 with a 601 vote. Go ahead. All right. All right, motion number one, closed session item 2.2, I move to approve the certificated personal report as presented by district administration on December 11th, 2019. 19 and eight additional action items. Second. All those in favor. Aye. Aye. Motion number two, closed session item 2.3, I move to approve the classified personnel report as presented by district administration with 29 and three additional action items. Second. All those in favor. Aye. Announcement number one, the PVUSD Governing Board of Trustees is pleased to announce the appointment of Mr. Richard Reid to director maintenance operations. Mr. Reid brings to the Pajaro Valley and the Fyte School District a wide breadth of experience in maintenance, operation and facilities. He comes to the district from the Santa Clara County Office of Education where he built his career for 19 years in the maintenance and operations field. Mr. Reid directed the activities and operations of the Walden West Center, directed the staff in the maintenance and operations department, developed bids, supervised the construction of two plane grounds and organized office moves, classroom moves and repairs to equipment and buildings. He lives in Aptos and has two students attending the schools in our district and credits his daughter for encouraging him to apply and use his expertise in making PVUSD a greater place to come to school. He looks forward to serving his community and continuing the good work on improving district facilities. We are proud to welcome Mr. Reid to our district as a new director maintenance and operations. Announcement number two, the governing board of trustees is pleased to announce the appointment of Mrs. Priscilla Sanchez to controller. Mrs. Sanchez brings to the Pajaro Valley Unified School District many years of experience implementing systems, developing process workflows and creating best practices to improve internal efficiencies. Mrs. Sanchez holds a BA in economics with a minor in business administration from the University of California Berkeley. Mrs. Sanchez has brought experience training in place and implementation of business systems. She shares her expertise by training employees in the United States as well as Mexico and France. Is it exciting to see the success of Mrs. Sanchez following her graduation of Watsonville High School? We look forward to one of our own former students becoming part of the PVUSD family and welcome Mrs. Sanchez to our district as a new controller. Okay, we're finally done. I just have a suggestion. Our next meeting, we have a special session with Selpa, I'm wondering if we want to look at a change of venue, considering all the community public comments we've had? We definitely can check with the city to see if the city is available. It's expensive, right, the city? There is a cost, yeah. What about E.A. Hall? So we can, it's a special board study session, so generally the, we're gonna do it in here, but we're gonna have the tables, like our usual tables for a special board study session because it's more presentation style. The problem with E.A. Hall, I just have to see if, I guess we could figure out if we could clear the stage. I'm just not sure how wide the stage is at E.A. Hall, but we can try to find out larger venues that's the desire. Well, Jess, if we have tables in here, and then we have a large community outpouring, it's going to be very crowded and not very safe. Yeah, so the tables would be here, and we can look at a different location. Or if we do do it here, maybe scrap the table idea and figure out a different presentation route. Yeah, okay. Yeah, so our next meeting will be next week. It's gonna be a quick, sooner board meeting, December 18th, we'll see where we're gonna do it, and we're gonna have our annual organizational meeting and a special board study on special education.


Today, we'll be presenting our pilot project. The project focuses on evaluating 3D technology for medical, humanitarian applications. Pierre is a physiotherapist. I'm a biomedical engineer. We were recruited by the MSF Foundation, located in Paris. The foundation focuses on funding and managing innovation projects like ours. We arrived in Amman in February 2017 last year. To initiate the pilot project at the MSF Amman Reconstructive Surgery Hospital. For the past 10 years, the Reconstructive Surgery Project has been providing complex surgical operations to patients affected by conflict, primarily from Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. The RSP specializes in orthopedic, craniofacial, and plastic surgery, and also provides rehab care and psychosocial support for our patients. So, what is the 3D project? The 3D project aims to evaluate the 3D technology to see if it can have any impact on the access to rehabilitation and prostate care on our field. The main thing about this project was to see if we can get this impact on specific patient population, neglected patient population. Among them, amputee population, especially upper limb amputee population. On the field, we might not have any solution for this population. So, we decided to focus first, first of all on below elbow prosthetics. So, for patients who lost their arm below their elbow. And the idea was to have a multidisciplinary action over the patient. So, we have engineers, we have rehabilitation professionals as physiotherapists, occupational therapists, and prosthetic and orthopedic clinicians. And we try to define the needs of the patient and try to see if we can find a prosthesis, realize a prosthesis that can fit this need. So, I will briefly go through the whole process of what we are doing with the patient. So, the first thing that we are doing with the patient is the assessment. We have the chance at the RSP hospital to have an occupational therapist since mid-2017, that is helping us on our project. And she's doing with our physiotherapist and the supervisor of the project now in Jordan, in Amman, all the process with the patient. So, the assessment aims to find the needs that the patient have. Like, where are the difficulties? Where are the challenges in the daily life of the patient? And try to see what kind of prosthesis and what kind of care we can provide to the patient. The second part is the first part of the designing of the prosthesis. So, we are going to scan our patients. And we have 3D surface scanner, as you can see on the left part of the slide. And we are scanning the stamp of the patient, but also the sound side if they are unilateral patients. So, it helps us to design the socket, and which is here. So, the socket which is here, which is the interface between the stamp of the patient and the prosthetic. And the socket is now fully digitalized and is completely created on the computer on this project. And the second part, which is the scanning of the harm, aims to scale the prosthetic of your patient. So, you can see this prosthetic, for example, was done for the patient on the left that was who wants to drive. He was already driving, but he has difficulties. So, we try to make a prosthesis with a space between the thumb and the finger that can hold us in to catch the steel wheel and to release it easily. So, we're currently using desktop 3D printers. So, not very expensive printers. We're printing in various materials. So, we start with the check sockets and the check hands, which are printed in a readily available PLA material. We print them in thin shells to conserve material. Once we have the final design, once the size of the hand has been validated, the fit of the socket has been validated, we go ahead and we print the final device. So, as you can see here, and this was a system that was developed by our collaborators, Limforge, at that on the hands, you can see we have a flexible TPU material. So, this allows the fingers to flex. And then for the forearm and the connectors, we use the PLA material. And for the socket, shown on the bottom here, this is a semi-flex copolyester material. So, throughout the process, we tested many different types of materials to reach these final materials. So, we've tried the prosthesis on the patient. The first are test prosthesis and test socket to check if the volume of the socket is good to the stamp of the patient and also the size of the prosthetic is according to the anatomy of the patient. Once we are happy with this, we provide them another bench of prosthetics and that will lead to the final prosthetic. But we also try to see with the patient if it suits their expectation in terms of activity. So, if we are speaking again about this patient who wants to drive here on the bottom right of the slide, I can see the patient trying to catch the steering wheel and when we were good with the prosthesis, we make him try to drive with the prosthesis and he was pretty able. So, once we're happy with the prosthesis, we check the alignment, we check the length of the prosthesis and then we finally provide them the different prosthesis. In between that, we start rehabilitation sessions. So, the goal was not only to provide prosthesis, but also to combine the patient into the whole process so they can accept the prosthesis and that we cannot still fit their needs. So, we have a rehabilitation session now for each of our patients and you can see some of this activity right now. And then the final device is here. So, we paint the final device according to the skin tone of the patient. We have here one of the device that we provide to one of our patients. It's a small device. This one is a two and a half years old patient and you can see that the stump is pretty short and we'll talk a little bit about after. The last part of the workflow with the patient and one of the most important is the follow-up. So, as we say, we are providing prosthesis, we are also providing rehabilitation and assessment but we try also to follow them up during the time. So, we are making assessments at 15 days, three months and we hope to do some at one year to check if they can still use the prosthesis and if we can modify what we are doing with them. I will share with you one of these examples. So, this little girl that you can see on this slide was using an active system. So, by active system means that the sum which is right here on the left part of the slide was activated by this harness through the other shoulder. So, she was moving the shoulder and then it was making the thumb moving and after three months of using, we figured out that she was not so much using the prosthesis for his active system. It's a little bit heavier and it's a little bit more difficult to use. And so, we suggest her to turn to a passive devices such as the one that I just showed you which is lighter, it's simple and we design a closed grip, well, a closed grip between the thumb and the finger that allows her to catch different things. So, the result is now that she's using more devices, it's lighter and it's more comfortable for her. So, sometimes the solution is the easiest one. I'll share also a second case with you.  He's four years old and there is most of his activity he wasn't able to do by himself. So, he learned how to draw with the prosthesis but one of the most concerning activity that his parents and he also wanted to perform was eating by himself. So, we designed a very specific tool which is short here and allowed to catch adapted ustensils for eating and is now available, is now able, sorry, to eat by himself, which is a big win because we are matching, once again, the assessment and the need of the patient. And that set new goals that you can see on the left and one of our main concern now that we are trying to deal with the rehabilitation program process with this patient is to make him change by himself the different tools. So, he can use the hand for the drawing but also by himself change it to eat something. So, along the way we faced several design challenges. With the post-processing we noticed that when we switched to the flexible hand from the initial rigid hand the paint was starting to break away. So, we developed new paint formulations as you can see on this new hand that provided a more durable coating. For the structural design, we soon realized that not all PLA material is created equal. So, we started using a stronger PLA material and also changed the design around. As you can see here, we made a thicker shell on the forearm and applied internal reinforcement structure on the interior near the connector piece. Lastly, from the patient assessments we learned how critical it was to get the aesthetics right. So, initially we were using measurements that clinicians provided of the hand and later we also used the unaffected side and mirrored that to the design we were scaling. And we were still seeing, as you can see at the bottom right that the hand just still was off a little bit. So, then we went back to the drawing board and developed a new workflow with help from a volunteer industrial designer. As you can see from the 3D scan, even with a high quality scanner you still have, if you see on the blue, you still have holes and artifacts that you need to repair. And for me, this was a very time consuming process. So, we reached out to an industrial designer who is used to sculpting, digital sculpting and he was able to clean the scans in a short amount of time to generate a usable scan that would be used to generate the final prosthetic device. And it's important to note here that now we can create an exact mirror of their unaffected side into the device. So, we'll try to go quickly on the results. So, after one year we've seen the patient, the first thing is that we could fit some of our patients. So, that was the first question, can we fit patients? So, certain prostheses were given to 11 patients and nine are still using them. We know that nine of the patients are still using them. One broke and the patient went back to his original country so we didn't get the chance to provide him a new one. And the second one we don't have news as he went back to Syria. The second thing that I want to share is that at two weeks, we had a satisfaction rate of among 90% with a validated tool. So, two weeks is a bit short so we hope to have soon the result at three months and hopefully next year at one year. The good thing is that those patients are using them and the prosthesis doesn't cost so much. As you see, the raw material is around $20 to $50 which is a fraction of the conventional cost. So, what we can conclude after this one year is is it feasible? And the answer is yes, it's feasible. We can make this kind of prosthesis with all the capabilities on site. We can manufacture that and we can tailor them to the need of the patient. So, they are cost effective. The sons also to be lightweight and they are comfortable with the socket. And now for next year, as we see that we can do it on site with a local team that is now continuing this project, we want to see the durability of our next year and also if it's possible to outsource some of the part of the process to do this prosthesis. Very quickly, we have other application that we are looking for. One is burn mask and trying to see if we can use the scanning technology to improve the comfort of the patient to make this burn mask for burn faces. And very quickly, we're also exploring surgical applications so providing 3D models that the surgeons can use to educate the patients on the procedure but also preoperatively plan their procedures. We're also working with a software company to develop an automated software for limb deformity correction. And these are some of the other applications we've explored throughout the first year. Lastly, we'd like to acknowledge everyone that's been involved in this project. There's been, Pierre mentioned the local team, the reconstructive surgery project in hospital and Amon has been incredibly supportive. We've had many individual volunteers, clinical collaborators as well as technical collaborators and we thank you all for your generous support. And MSL Foundation and everyone, thank you. Thank you.


I didn't wake up this morning thinking I was going to be playing Mortal Kombat with Wayne Brady, but it happened. So yeah, Mortal Kombat made it happen. Just as a really strong competition, we're going to have to put some things on it. If you're going to play, you play too late. You play hard. So I think what I'm going to do is I'm going to have a drink, I'm going to have something to eat, I'm going to try to taunt Alan over here who beat me and try to get under his feathers. Amazing, I think it's the best looking game and I love the characters but I love the fact that the old guys like Scorpion and Sub-Zero or the legacy characters still have these amazing moves. I love the environmental attacks. That's what's amazing to me so it changes your strategy all together. Mortal Kombat X will blow away your expectations. Hands down, the best Mortal Kombat entry in the series thus far. Mortal Kombat X is going to be the bomb. I love it so much. I want to have a great time playing it every day, running all my hours. Mortal Kombat X is fine, crushing, jaw breaking, visceral, rending, heart pounding, tibia snapping, elbow crushing, dream snuffing excellence of violence in Mayhem.