10:06Call to Order1min
1.1Roll CallProcedural
1.20:58Public Comment on Closed Session Items OnlyInformation
Item details
Quick Summary / AbstractThe Board will limit comments to Closed Session items and will only be accepted in person.
RationaleSpeaker cards are available at the entrance and can be submitted to the secretary before the meeting begins. Alternatively, you may raise your hand prior to the start of the meeting to indicate your desire to speak.
Financial ImpactNone.
30:58Announcement of Closed Session Purpose1min
40:58Closed Session - 5:45 PM1hr
4.1Conference with Real Property Negotiators, Property: 750 Bradford Street, Redwood City, CA 94063, Agency Negotiator: John Baker, Superintendent; Peter Ingram, Property Consultant; and Clarissa Canady Attorney for District, Negotiating Parties: The Sobrato Organization and Redwood City School District, Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment of property exchange/development
Item details
RationaleRationale: Conference with Real Property Negotiators. Property: 750 Bradford Street, Redwood City, CA 94063 Agency Negotiator: John Baker, Superintendent; Peter Ingram, Property Consultant; and Clarissa Canady Attorney for District. Negotiating Parties: The Sobrato Organization and Redwood City School District. Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment of property exchange/development.
50:06Reconvene to Open Session at approximately 7:00 PM2min
5.1Roll CallProcedural
5.2Report Out on Closed Session from January 21, 2026Procedural
60:18Welcome1min
6.1Pledge of AllegianceProcedural
73:32Changes to the Agenda1min
84:08Approval of the Agenda (Action Required)1min
94:19Public Comment
Maria Stockton (2min) — As President of CSEA Chapter V, she presented board members with the classified staff seniority list by name and challenged each trustee to visit a school site and personally meet and get to know a classified employee.
101:05:24Discussion Items40min
10.1First Reading and Discussion of Board Bylaw 9324: Minutes and RecordingsDiscussion
Item details
Quick Summary / AbstractRevisions resulted from changes from the California School Boards Association (CSBA) and suggestions from Redwood City School District (RCSD) staff.
RationaleIt is the Administration’s recommendation that the School Board read and discuss Board Bylaw 9324: Minutes and Recordings. This bylaw was reviewed by the Board Policy Committee. This bylaw was reviewed in lieu of Board Policy 5125.1: Release of Directory Information. Both Board Bylaw 9324 and Board Policy 5125.1 will be considered together. The Board of Trustees has requested that a marked version and a clean copy be attached to each board memo. The marked copy contains the edits reviewed by the Board Policy Committee. The red edits in the marked copy indicate changes from the CSBA. The highlighted texts indicated in the board policy are suggestions made by RCSD staff and the Board Policy Committee. The clean version contains no markups.
Financial ImpactNo financial impact on the District at this time.
10.2First Reading and Discussion of Board Policy and Administrative Regulation 1330: Use of School FacilitiesDiscussion
Item details
Quick Summary / AbstractRevisions resulted from changes from the California School Boards Association (CSBA) and suggestions from Redwood City School District (RCSD) staff.
RationaleIt is the Administration’s recommendation that the School Board read and discuss Board Policy and Administrative Regulation 1330: Use of School Facilities. This policy and regulation were reviewed by the Board Policy Committee. This policy has been updated to caution districts when charging religious groups direct costs for use of district facilities when those costs are not charged to other groups due to the potential conflict between a U.S. Supreme Court decision and state law. It has also been updated to add that the Governing Board may authorize the use of a school building as a vote center on election day and/or during the 10 days preceding election day, as well as during key dates necessary for drop-off, set-up, and pickup of election materials, as determined by the election official. The Board of Trustees has requested that a marked version and a clean copy be attached to each board memo. The marked copy contains the edits reviewed by the Board Policy Committee. The red edits in the marked copy indicate changes from the CSBA. The highlighted texts indicated in the board policy are suggestions made by RCSD staff and the Board Policy Committee. The clean version contains no markups.
Financial ImpactNo financial impact on the District at this time.
10.3First Reading and Discussion of Board Policy 3510: Green School OperationsDiscussion
Item details
Quick Summary / AbstractRevisions resulted from changes from the California School Boards Association (CSBA) and suggestions from Redwood City School District (RCSD) staff.
RationaleIt is the Administration’s recommendation that the School Board read and discuss Board Policy 3510: Green School Operations. This policy was reviewed by the Board Policy Committee. This policy is new to RCSD but has existed for CSBA. This policy is to promote the school district to use "green" principles to conserve resources, reduce environmental impact, and protect the health of the community. The Board Policy committee has added policies including proper handling of various waste, incorporating sustainability criteria in procurement, and actively pursuing funding that supports green operations. The Board of Trustees has requested that a marked version and a clean copy be attached to each board memo. The marked copy contains the edits reviewed by the Board Policy Committee. The red edits in the marked copy indicate changes from the CSBA. The highlighted texts indicated in the board policy are suggestions made by RCSD staff and the Board Policy Committee. The clean version contains no markups.
Financial ImpactNo financial impact on the District at this time.
10.4First Reading and Discussion of Board Policy and Administrative Regulation 3511: Energy and Water ManagementDiscussion
Item details
Quick Summary / AbstractRevisions resulted from changes from the California School Boards Association (CSBA) and suggestions from Redwood City School District (RCSD) staff.
RationaleIt is the Administration’s recommendation that the School Board read and discuss Board Policy and Administrative Regulation 3511: Energy and Water Management. This policy and regulation were reviewed by the Board Policy Committee. This policy helps to support district goals for energy and water management. This has been updated to allow for input regarding the district's resource management program. The Board of Trustees has requested that a marked version and a clean copy be attached to each board memo. The marked copy contains the edits reviewed by the Board Policy Committee. The red edits in the marked copy indicate changes from the CSBA. The highlighted texts indicated in the board policy are suggestions made by RCSD staff and the Board Policy Committee. The clean version contains no markups.
Financial ImpactNo financial impact on the District at this time.
10.5First Reading and Discussion of Board Policy and Administrative Regulation 3511.1: Integrated Waste ManagementDiscussion
Item details
Quick Summary / AbstractRevisions resulted from changes from the California School Boards Association (CSBA) and suggestions from Redwood City School District (RCSD) staff.
RationaleIt is the Administration’s recommendation that the School Board read and discuss Board Policy and Administrative Regulation 3511.1: Integrated Waste Management. This policy and regulation were reviewed by the Board Policy Committee. This policy has been updated to reflect current legal requirements for recycling waste, which are based on specified thresholds of waste generation and are detailed in the accompanying administrative regulation. There has also been an addition that implements a district goal to develop strategies for recycling organic waste, and more directly link waste management to education goals. The Board of Trustees has requested that a marked version and a clean copy be attached to each board memo. The marked copy contains the edits reviewed by the Board Policy Committee. The red edits in the marked copy indicate changes from the CSBA. The highlighted texts indicated in the board policy are suggestions made by RCSD staff and the Board Policy Committee. The clean version contains no markups.
Financial ImpactNo financial impact on the District at this time.
10.6First Reading and Discussion of Board Policy and Administrative Regulation 3514: Environmental SafetyDiscussion
Item details
Quick Summary / AbstractRevisions resulted from changes from the California School Boards Association (CSBA) and suggestions from Redwood City School District (RCSD) staff.
RationaleIt is the Administration’s recommendation that the School Board read and discuss Board Policy and Administrative Regulation 3514: Environmental Safety. This policy and regulation were reviewed by the Board Policy Committee. This policy has been updated to reflect Education Code 17070.75, which requires each district participating in the state's School Facility Program to have a facility inspection system to ensure that each school facility is kept in good repair. The Board of Trustees has requested that a marked version and a clean copy be attached to each board memo. The marked copy contains the edits reviewed by the Board Policy Committee. The red edits in the marked copy indicate changes from the CSBA. The highlighted texts indicated in the board policy are suggestions made by RCSD staff and the Board Policy Committee. The clean version contains no markups.
Financial ImpactNo financial impact on the District at this time.
10.7First Reading and Discussion of Board Policy and Administrative Regulation 3515: Campus SecurityDiscussion
Item details
Quick Summary / AbstractRevisions resulted from changes from the California School Boards Association (CSBA) and suggestions from Redwood City School District (RCSD) staff.
RationaleIt is the Administration’s recommendation that the School Board read and discuss Board Policy and Administrative Regulation 3515: Campus Security. This policy and regulation were reviewed by the Board Policy Committee. This policy was updated to reflect The Department of Homeland Security's, "Behavioral Threat Assessment and Management in Practice," guide. The Board of Trustees has requested that a marked version and a clean copy be attached to each board memo. The marked copy contains the edits reviewed by the Board Policy Committee. The red edits in the marked copy indicate changes from the CSBA. The highlighted texts indicated in the board policy are suggestions made by RCSD staff and the Board Policy Committee. The clean version contains no markups.
Financial ImpactNo financial impact on the District at this time.
10.8First Reading and Discussion of Board Policy 3515.21: Unmanned Aircraft Systems (Drones)Discussion
Item details
Quick Summary / AbstractRevisions resulted from changes from the California School Boards Association (CSBA) and suggestions from Redwood City School District (RCSD) staff.
RationaleIt is the Administration’s recommendation that the School Board read and discuss Board Policy 3515.21: Unmanned Aircraft Systems (Drones). This policy was reviewed by the Board Policy Committee. This policy is new to RCSD but has existed for CSBA. This policy follows the Code of Federal Regulation for small unmanned aircraft systems, otherwise known as drones. This specifies what needs to be completed to authorize drone usage at school sites. The Board of Trustees has requested that a marked version and a clean copy be attached to each board memo. The marked copy contains the edits reviewed by the Board Policy Committee. The red edits in the marked copy indicate changes from the CSBA. The highlighted texts indicated in the board policy are suggestions made by RCSD staff and the Board Policy Committee. The clean version contains no markups.
Financial ImpactNo financial impact on the District at this time.
10.9First Reading and Discussion of Board Policy 3515.7: Firearms On School GroundsDiscussion
Item details
Quick Summary / AbstractRevisions resulted from changes from the California School Boards Association (CSBA) and suggestions from Redwood City School District (RCSD) staff.
RationaleIt is the Administration’s recommendation that the School Board read and discuss Board Policy 3515.7: Firearms On School Grounds. This policy was reviewed by the Board Policy Committee. This policy is new to RCSD but has existed for CSBA. Penal Code 626.9 is referenced, which states that possession of a firearm on or within 1,000 feet of school grounds is prohibited unless otherwise specified in the penal code. The Board of Trustees has requested that a marked version and a clean copy be attached to each board memo. The marked copy contains the edits reviewed by the Board Policy Committee. The red edits in the marked copy indicate changes from the CSBA. The highlighted texts indicated in the board policy are suggestions made by RCSD staff and the Board Policy Committee. The clean version contains no markups.
Financial ImpactNo financial impact on the District at this time.
10.10First Reading and Discussion of Board Policy and Administrative Regulation 3523: Electronic SignaturesDiscussion
Item details
Quick Summary / AbstractRevisions resulted from changes from the California School Boards Association (CSBA) and suggestions from Redwood City School District (RCSD) staff.
RationaleIt is the Administration’s recommendation that the School Board read and discuss Board Policy and Administrative Regulation 3523: Electronic Signatures. This policy and regulation were reviewed by the Board Policy Committee. This policy is new to RCSD and was added to CSBA in June 2022. It reflects the authorization for districts to use electronic signatures in their communications and operations. The policy addresses the benefits of electronic records and signatures, the requirement that electronic signatures conform to criteria described in law, and the need for a level of security that is sufficient for the transaction being conducted. It also requires that electronic records be retained in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, as well as board policy and administrative regulations. The Board of Trustees has requested that a marked version and a clean copy be attached to each board memo. The marked copy contains the edits reviewed by the Board Policy Committee. The red edits in the marked copy indicate changes from the CSBA. The highlighted texts indicated in the board policy are suggestions made by RCSD staff and the Board Policy Committee. The clean version contains no markups.
Financial ImpactNo financial impact on the District at this time.
10.11First Reading and Discussion of Board Policy and Administrative Regulation 3580: District RecordsDiscussion
Item details
Quick Summary / AbstractRevisions resulted from changes from the California School Boards Association (CSBA) and suggestions from Redwood City School District (RCSD) staff.
RationaleIt is the Administration’s recommendation that the School Board read and discuss Board Policy and Administrative Regulation 3580: District Records. This policy and regulation were reviewed by the Board Policy Committee. This policy was updated to include the protection of records against damage, loss, or theft, including harm that may be caused by cybersecurity breaches. The policy was also updated to require the Superintendent or designee to ensure that employees receive information and training about cybersecurity, including ways to protect district records from breaches to the district’s digital infrastructure. In addition, the Superintendent or designee is required to report any cyberattack that impacts more than 500 students or personnel to the California Cybersecurity Integration Center. The policy further clarifies that if a breach in the security of district records results in the release of personal information that was unencrypted, or encrypted under certain specified circumstances, the Superintendent or designee must notify affected individuals as specified. Finally, the policy specifies that records containing confidential address information of a participant in the Safe at Home program must be kept in a confidential location and not shared with the public. The Board of Trustees has requested that a marked version and a clean copy be attached to each board memo. The marked copy contains the edits reviewed by the Board Policy Committee. The red edits in the marked copy indicate changes from the CSBA. The highlighted texts indicated in the board policy are suggestions made by RCSD staff and the Board Policy Committee. The clean version contains no markups.
Financial ImpactNo financial impact on the District at this time.
10.12First Reading and Discussion of Board Policy and Administrative Regulation 7150: Site Selection and DevelopmentDiscussion
Item details
Quick Summary / AbstractRevisions resulted from changes from the California School Boards Association (CSBA) and suggestions from Redwood City School District (RCSD) staff.
RationaleIt is the Administration’s recommendation that the School Board read and discuss Board Policy and Administrative Regulation 7150: Site Selection and Development. This policy and regulation were reviewed by the Board Policy Committee. This policy is new to RCSD but has been in CSBA. This policy reflects Education Code 17070.10-17077.10, which sets forth eligibility requirements for the receipt of state facilities funds under the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998. As a condition for receipt of the funds, Education Code 17070.50 requires districts to obtain written approval from the California Department of Education (CDE) and certify to the State Allocation Board that the district's site selection and building plans comply with the regulations developed by CDE, pursuant to Education Code 17251(b) and (c). The Board of Trustees has requested that a marked version and a clean copy be attached to each board memo. The marked copy contains the edits reviewed by the Board Policy Committee. The red edits in the marked copy indicate changes from the CSBA. The highlighted texts indicated in the board policy are suggestions made by RCSD staff and the Board Policy Committee. The clean version contains no markups.
Financial ImpactNo financial impact on the District at this time.
10.13First Reading and Discussion of Board Policy 7210: Facilities FinancingDiscussion
Item details
Quick Summary / AbstractRevisions resulted from changes from the California School Boards Association (CSBA) and suggestions from Redwood City School District (RCSD) staff.
RationaleIt is the Administration’s recommendation that the School Board read and discuss Board Policy 7210: Facilities Financing. This policy was reviewed by the Board Policy Committee. This policy is new to RCSD but has existed for CSBA. This policy highlights the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act as a method of funding facilities. There is also reference to SB 820 (2020), which requires filing the audit of completed facilities projects with the California State Controller. This policy also adds the requirement to comply with the law and Board Policy 3470 — Debt Issuance and Management. The Board of Trustees has requested that a marked version and a clean copy be attached to each board memo. The marked copy contains the edits reviewed by the Board Policy Committee. The red edits in the marked copy indicate changes from the CSBA. The highlighted texts indicated in the board policy are suggestions made by RCSD staff and the Board Policy Committee. The clean version contains no markups.
Financial ImpactNo financial impact on the District at this time.
111:05:34Approval of Consent Items (Action Required)1min
11.1Approval of the December 10, 2025, Board Meeting MinutesAction (Consent)
Item details
RecommendationIt is the Administration's recommendation that the School Board approve the December 10 Minutes for the Regular Meeting, as submitted.
RationaleThe board meeting minutes have been reviewed by the Clerk, Superintendent, and the Administration.
Financial ImpactNo financial impact.
11.2Approval of the December 17, 2025, Board Meeting MinutesAction (Consent)
Item details
RecommendationIt is the Administration's recommendation that the School Board approve the December 17 Minutes for the Regular Meeting, as submitted.
RationaleThe board meeting minutes have been reviewed by the Clerk, Superintendent, and the Administration.
Financial ImpactNo financial impact.
11.3Approval of Amendment No. 1 between Redwood City School District and Nicole Linette Campbell for a SPED Speech and Language Pathologist for the 2025-2026 School yearAction (Consent)
Item details
Quick Summary / AbstractThe District is contracting with Nicole Linette Campbell to provide a SPED Speech and Language Pathologist to serve students through assessments, IEP participations, and direct therapy services. The agreement runs from 11/04/2025–01/31/2026. An amendment to the agreement is to extend the term date through 03/01/2026.
RecommendationIt is the Administration's recommendation that the School Board approve the amendment between the Redwood City School District and Nicole Linette Campbell for a Special Education Speech and Language Pathologist for the 2025-2026 school year.
RationaleTo fill a Special Education Speech and Language Pathologist position, the Redwood City School District is contracting with Nicole Linette Campbell to staff this position. The contractor will provide assessments, attend IEP meetings and direct speech therapy services to our Redwood City School District students during the 2025-2026 school year. The terms of this agreement are from 11/04/2025 to 01/31/2026. An approval of amendment No. 1 to extend the term dates through 03/01/2026 is being requested, which will bring the amended agreement's total amount to $66,912 upon School Board approval.
Financial ImpactThe agreement's financial impact is $66,912, which will be funded by the Special Education fund.
12Action Items (Action Required)20min
12.1Adoption of Resolution No. 16 Making Public Contract Code §20118.2 Findings and Resolution No. 17 Approving an EV Charger Technology Purchase Agreement with PowerFlexAction
Item details
Quick Summary / AbstractIn April 2025, Shell Recharge discontinued nationwide support for EV charging infrastructure, impacting six Redwood City School District campuses. This item requests Board approval of Resolutions 16 and 17 to procure replacement EV charger hardware and standardized software through PowerFlex pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 20118.2.
RecommendationIt is the Administration's recommendation that the School Board adopt Resolution No. 16, making findings for the basis of award and confirming compliance with Public Contract Code Section 20118.2, and adopt Resolution No. 17, approving a technology purchase agreement with PowerFlex for 64 EV charger hardware units and software services for 76 EV chargers.
RationaleOn April 30, 2025, Shell Recharge, the service provider supporting EV chargers at six District sites, discontinued service across the United States. Following this change, RCSD evaluated replacement options and identified PowerFlex as the best solution based on compatibility, reliability, and long-term operational efficiency. On August 27, 2025, the Board approved: Resolution No. 4, authorizing PowerFlex as the District’s sole EVSE software provider; and Resolution No. 5, authorizing the District to proceed with a technology procurement pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 20118.2. The District issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) from December 8 through December 29, 2025, advertised on the District’s website and in a newspaper of general circulation. PowerFlex was the sole respondent. Resolution No. 16 shows that the procurement process complied with statutory requirements. Resolution No. 17 approves the agreement with PowerFlex to provide the required EV charger hardware and software services.
Financial ImpactEV Charger Hardware Replacement (3 sites, 64 ports): $112,000 EV Charger Software Services (6 sites, 76 ports, 3-year term): $65,740 Total Cost: $177,740 Funding Source: Facilities Budget
12.2Approval of the Agreement for Atlas Pellizzari Electric for the amount of $70,520 to Install the PowerFlex Electric Vehicle Chargers at Adelante Selby, Clifford, and Kennedy SchoolsAction
Item details
Quick Summary / AbstractRCSD is standardizing its EV charging software and hardware following the discontinuation of Shell Recharge services nationwide. The District identified PowerFlex as the most reliable and compatible solution and established it as the sole-source provider to ensure consistency and efficiency across all sites. After receiving no proposals to the formal RFP, the District obtained direct bids and recommends awarding the contract to Atlas Pellizzari Electric for $70,520.
RecommendationIt is the Administration's recommendation that the School Board approve the agreement for Atlas Pellizzari Electric for the amount of $70,520 to install the PowerFlex Electric Vehicle Chargers at Adelante Selby, Clifford, and Kennedy Schools.
RationaleRedwood City School District (RCSD) has been a leader in the adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) and EV charging infrastructure. To date, the District has installed nearly 100 public-facing charging stations and operates seven (7) electric school buses with associated charging equipment. As an early adopter, RCSD is now navigating market changes as vendors shift their business models and, in some cases, exit the industry. On April 30, 2025, Shell Recharge, the software provider responsible for operating RCSD’s public-facing EV chargers at six (6) school sites, discontinued this service nationwide. In response, RCSD conducted a review in early 2025 to identify replacement software providers capable of supporting the two types of existing charger hardware currently installed across the District. The District’s goal is to establish a standardized software platform that is well-established in the industry, has demonstrated success with other school districts, and can support both public-facing chargers and electric bus charging infrastructure in the future. Through this evaluation process, RCSD identified PowerFlex as the most suitable solution. PowerFlex has already been selected for Roy Cloud School and Hoover School, where new EV chargers will be installed as part of upcoming solar projects. Without an approved Sole Source Resolution, the District risks deploying multiple software and hardware systems across sites. This would significantly increase staff time and resources required to manage different platforms, coordinate with multiple vendors, and address maintenance, updates, and repairs. Additionally, RCSD determined that only a limited number of software providers support the District’s existing EVBox hardware. Since these chargers are no longer available on the market, long-term maintenance and replacement parts may become increasingly difficult to obtain. Staff therefore recommend replacing these chargers to avoid future operational challenges and to allow full integration with the PowerFlex system at those sites. On August 27, 2025, the Board approved Resolution 4 authorizing a Sole Source designation to establish PowerFlex as the District’s standard software provider for EV charging systems and compatible hardware. Subsequently, on November 5, 2025, the District issued RFP S25-003 for the installation of PowerFlex EV chargers. Proposals were due on November 26, 2025; however, no submissions were received. In response, the District contacted three (3) qualified electrical contractors directly to solicit bids. The lowest responsive proposal was submitted by Atlas Pellizzari Electric in the amount of $70,520.
Financial ImpactAdelante Selby Spanish Immersion $16,250.00 Clifford School $26,820.00 Kennedy Middle School $27,450.00 Total: $70,520.00 The total will be paid out of the Facilities Fund.
12.36:45Ratification of Employment Agreement with Dr. Christian Rubalcaba for the position of SuperintendentAction
Jennifer Blanco (5min) — As a former trustee and county commissioner, she praised Dr. Baker's service and their shared work on the Latino Leaders Coalition, and enthusiastically endorsed Dr. Rubalcaba based on their collaboration on the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Commission.
Johanna Rasmussen (1min) — As a 35-year Redwood City resident with children in the district, she thanked Dr. Baker for always listening and expressed great excitement about Dr. Rubalcaba joining the district.
Item details
Quick Summary / AbstractThe Board is ratifying an employment contract with Dr. Christian Rubalcaba to serve as Superintendent of the Redwood City School District beginning in the 2026-2027 school year.
RecommendationIt is the recommendation of the Board President that the School Board ratify the contract between the District and Dr. Christian Rubalcaba to serve as our next Superintendent.
RationaleAs Dr. Baker is retiring at the end of this school year, the Board has been tasked with selecting the next incoming superintendent. The Board partnered with Leadership Associates, a nationally recognized executive search firm, to conduct a national search. The selection process was intentionally robust and inclusive, and included: Feedback collected through a community survey Engagement with community groups Meetings with district staff The Board of Trustees of the Redwood City School District (RCSD) has identified Dr. Christian J. Rubalcaba as the sole finalist for the position of Superintendent following an extensive and inclusive national search. About Dr. Rubalcaba Dr. Christian J. Rubalcaba is a longtime Bay Area educator with experience across three local school districts: San José Unified, Franklin-McKinley, and San Mateo-Foster City. His career spans classroom teaching through senior district leadership, including service as a bilingual teacher, instructional coach, principal at both the elementary and middle school levels, director, and assistant superintendent. In his current role as Assistant Superintendent of Student Services in San Mateo-Foster City School District, Dr. Rubalcaba oversees a broad portfolio that includes academic supports, special education, restorative justice, preschool programs, enrollment systems, student wellness and mental health services, equity initiatives, community schools, after-school programming, and school leadership development. A Teach For America alum, National Board Certified Teacher, Fulbright Scholarship recipient, and Pahara Institute Fellow, Dr. Rubalcaba holds degrees from Purdue University, Harvard University, and San Francisco State University. He is a graduate of the Association of Latino Administrators and Superintendents (ALAS) National Superintendents Leadership Academy and has received numerous honors, including White House Teacher Honoree, multiple Teacher of the Year awards, multiple Administrator of the Year awards, and most recently Association of California School Administrators (ACSA) Region 5 Central Office Administrator of the Year (2026). About the Process As part of the process with Leadership Associates, the Board conducted a national search grounded in community engagement and clear leadership criteria. The executive search firm engaged district staff and community groups and gathered feedback through a community survey to understand the qualities and priorities the community sought in its next superintendent. That feedback directly informed the Board’s evaluation framework. The search attracted a strong pool of candidates from both within California and across the country. Following a comprehensive screening process, the Board interviewed four candidates and used a structured rubric to ensure a consistent, transparent, and criteria-based assessment of leadership experience, demonstrated impact, and alignment with district needs. The Board’s evaluation also considered candidates’ experience with Bay Area school systems, immersion and community schools, and their ability to lead to drive measurable positive academic impact in linguistically and culturally diverse communities. Background checks were also conducted.
Financial Impact$285,000 annual salary $1,000/mo annuity contract (consistent with RCSD’s current superintendent contract) STRS employer contribution Medical, vision, and dental for self and dependents equal to that provided management employees Up to $400/mo transportation Up to $600/mo expense reimbursement Up to $7,000/year for a mentor/coach Membership dues for two professional organizations & two service clubs Travel & attendance for two regional, state, or national professional conferences per year Laptop computer and/or tablet
131:06:44Board and Superintendent Reports10min
141:18:57Information1min
14.1Information on San Mateo County Investment Fund - December 2025Information
Item details
Quick Summary / AbstractIn compliance with Education Code requirements, all district funds are deposited into the County Treasury, pooled with other public agencies in the County Investment Pool. The County Treasurer manages investment decisions, and earnings or losses are distributed proportionally to participants, a standard practice among San Mateo County school districts.
RationalePursuant to Education Code Sections 41001 and 41002, all funds received by or apportioned to a school district must be deposited into the county treasury and credited to the appropriate district fund. In accordance with Education Code Section 41015, a school district may invest all or a portion of the funds held in a Special Reserve Fund, as well as any surplus monies not immediately needed for operational purposes, in authorized investments outlined in Government Code Sections 16430 and 53601. Historically, school districts in San Mateo County, including this District, have deposited all funds with the County Treasury. The County Treasurer has managed investment decisions on behalf of the districts, a practice that is common throughout California. These district funds are pooled with those of other public agencies in the County Investment Pool, with earnings and losses distributed proportionally based on each participant’s investment share.
Financial ImpactGross pool earnings for Month ending December 31, 2025: 3.827% Quarter ending December 31, 2025: 3.960% The current average maturity of the portfolio is 2.54 years, with an average duration of 2.28 years. The portfolio continues to hold no derivative products.
151:19:28Correspondence1min
161:20:36Other Business/Suggested Items for Future Agenda1min
171:20:49Board of Trustees Meeting Reflection10min
181:22:52Board of Trustees Meeting Calendar1min
191:22:58Adjournment (Action Required)