Lompoc Adult School and Career Center (LASCC)

Allan Hancock and Lompoc Unified Adult Education Consortium (AHLUEC)

 

 

Meeting Agenda: May 28, 2026 | 3:30 p.m.

Board Members: Alicia Paniagua (AHC), Tom Lamica (AHC), Elaine Webber (LUSD), Brian Jaramillo (LUSD) Meeting Chair: Elaine Webber

Click here to join via Zoom: https://lompocschools.zoom.us/j/89612328605?pwd=WmFwMGVlNWE1VGtHRGUxME8xODJvZz0 Click here to join via Zoom

Meeting ID: 896 1232 8605 | Passcode: 141103 Physical Locations:

• Allan Hancock College, 800 S. College Drive, Building S-106, Santa Maria, CA 93455
• Lompoc Unified School District, 1301 North A Street, Lompoc, CA 93436

Accessibility & Tech Notice:

• Disruptions: Disruptions: If Zoom remote service linking the physical sites is permanently lost, the meeting lacks a split-location quorum and will stand officially adjourned.
• Translation: This site uses automated translation; for official records, see the English original.
• Public Participation: Real-time comment is available in-person up to three minutes on any topic at Regular Meetings (or agenda items only at Special Meetings). Speakers using interpreters receive double time (six minutes).
• Accommodations: To request disability-related modifications, please contact Elaine Webber at 805-742-3100 at least 24 hours before the meeting.

 

I.Call to Order

II.Roll Call

III.Adoption of Agenda

IV.Public Comment

• How to Submit: Live Public Comment: Any member of the public may provide live oral comments at either physical location during Item IV without prior registration. Written Comments: To distribute pre-written documents to the Board ahead of time, please email them 48 hours in advance.
• Interpreter Policy: Speakers using interpreters receive double time (six minutes).
• Board Response: Board members may briefly respond to statements or ask clarifying questions but cannot take action on items not on the agenda.

V.Consent Agenda / Action Items – Request to Review and Approve the Following

1. Approval of Minutes: March 26, 2026, Executive Board meeting minutes. Minutes are available in the attached meeting packet.
2. Financial Report: Financial Report: The Board will review the 2025-26 Q3 NOVA Financial Reports showing combined actual year-to-date expenditures of $750,928 ($715,742 for Allan Hancock Joint CCD and $35,186 for Lompoc Unified). Fiscal departments for both Allan Hancock College and Lompoc Unified School District have submitted and verified these reports as required by CAEP and the California Education Code. Detailed reports are available in the attached meeting packet.
3. Approval of Annual Plan: The Consortium’s 2026-2027 CAEP Annual Plan, which derives from the overarching Three-Year Plan in effect through June 2028.

Summary of Plan: The plan documents consistent growth in student success metrics and prioritizes funding for Personal Learning Plans, Bridge to Credit initiatives, and expanded course offerings in ESL and CTE to meet regional workforce needs. Key Objectives: Funding is prioritized to support three primary pillars:

• Educational Needs: Instituting ongoing data-driven instructional review meetings.
• Integration of Services: Expanding "Bridge to Credit" initiatives and transition planning.
• Effectiveness of Services: Implementing and maintaining Personal Learning Plans (PLPs) for adult learners.
• Regional Focus: The plan specifically addresses gaps in access to technology, rural geographic needs, and high community demand for expanded ESL and CTE course offerings. The Annual Plan text is available in the attached meeting packet.

VI.Discussion Items

Brown Act Compliance Statement (2026 Updates)

Agenda changes have been implemented in accordance with standard Brown Act multi-site teleconferencing frameworks (Gov. Code § 54953) ensuring concurrent public access and comment parity across regions.

·Public Access: Included on the agenda.

·Expanded Language Access: Implemented via LUSD SmartSites.

·Public Comment Standards: Included on the agenda.

VII.Adjournment

• Next Regular Meeting: Proposed dates are included in the meeting packet.
• Adjournment

 

Public Posting Statement: In accordance with the Brown Act, meeting agendas are posted in the main offices of member agencies and online on member agency websites. Regular meeting agendas are posted at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. Special meeting agendas are posted at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.

 

 

 

 

 

CAEP Deliverables and Due Dates	Proposed Consortium Meeting Date
May 2026 Annual Plan for 2026-2027 (template available after CFAD submission) Member Expense Report NOVA Q3   June 2026 Jun 1: 25/26 Member Expense Report due in NOVA (Q3) Jun 30: 25/26 Member Expense Report certified by Consortia in NOVA (Q3) * Jun 30: End of Q4	May 28
July 2026 Jul 15: Student Data due in TOPSPro (Q4) FINAL   August 2026 Aug 15: Annual Plan for 2026-27 due in NOVA * (NA if completed prior)   September 2026 Sep 1: 25/26 Member Expense Report due in NOVA (Q4) Sep 30: 25/26 Member Expense Report certified by Consortia in NOVA (Q4) * Sep 30: 26/27 Member Program Year Budget and Work Plan due in NOVA Sep 30: End of Q1; NOVA carryover compliance snapshot taken at 11:59 pm   October 2026 Oct 30: 26/27 Member Program Year Budget and Work Plan certified by Consortia in NOVA * Oct 31: Student data due in TOPSPro (Q1) Oct 31: Employment and Earnings Follow-up Survey   November 2026 Nov 14: Written Expenditure Plan (WEP)* Only for consortia who have exceeded 20% carryover.   December 2026 Dec 1: 26/27 Member Expense Report Due in NOVA (Q1) Dec 1: July 1, 2025 to June 30, 2026 Instructional Hours and Expenses by Program Area due (actuals) in NOVA and certified by Consortium * Dec 31: 26/27 Member Expense Report certified by Consortia in NOVA (Q1) Dec 31: End of Q2	August 27             October 22           October 22         November 19

 

 

ATTACHMENT A: March 26, 2026, Minutes

 

 

RETURN TO AGENDA  

 

ATTACHMENT B: 25/26 Member Financial Report Q3

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment C: Consortium Annual Plan 2026-2027

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT D: DISCUSSION ITEM B - PROPOSED BYLAWS REVISIONS AND THE FUTURE OF CONSORTIUM OF COLLABORATION

 

STATEMENT ON PROPOSED BYLAW REVISIONS & THE FUTURE OF CONSORTIUM COLLABORATION

Introduction: A History Built on Mutual Respect

Throughout our history, this consortium has operated on a strong foundation of mutual respect. The strength of our model has always been that member agencies regularly meet to explore how to better serve our schools and region and then bring those collaborative plans to the consortium for review. The fact that we have never had anything other than unanimous votes in our entire history is a testament to the success of that specific process.

Indeed, even before California Adult Education Program (CAEP) funding existed, our agencies worked and planned side-by-side to secure the resources we enjoy today. Those foundational years were defined by unprecedented cooperation, where staff from both agencies worked as true partners and actively supported one another.

The true objective of this consortium has always been to lift up our member agencies and support our region. I believe this is where our focus should be. I propose that we return to that collaborative model as our guiding light, evaluating the bylaw proposals within this context:

Bylaw proposals currently before us represent a drastic change and a significant departure from how our two agencies have historically worked together since this consortium funding model began. I want to frame our current discussion not just as a debate over rules, but as an important opportunity to look at how we collaborate.

  

The Legal & Operational Guardrails of Collaboration

To protect this spirit of collaboration, our governance structure must remain firmly anchored in California law. True collaboration cannot exist if our bylaws violate state statutes or strip away the statutory autonomy of individual members.

1. Preservation of Public Duty (The "Tie-Breaker" Clause)

The proposal to introduce a neutral third party to serve as a final, binding tie-breaker over deadlocked board decisions is legally non-compliant.

• Unlawful Delegation of Authority (Ultra Vires Act): Under California common law and public agency doctrine, an appointed public governing board cannot delegate its discretionary legislative or fiduciary authority to an unelected, unaccountable third party (see Kuhland v. City of Clarksville or standard California municipal law doctrine). The representatives designated to our Executive Board hold non-delegable fiscal oversight obligations over state adult education apportionments that cannot be signed away.
• Limits of CAEP Technical Assistance (California Education Code § 84912): The proposal inappropriately attempts to position the CAEP Regional Technical Assistance Provider (TAP) as an automatic, binding arbitrator. Under California Education Code § 84912, the state-funded TAP exists exclusively to provide "technical assistance to members". The state Chancellor’s Office and the California Department of Education have granted TAP absolutely no statutory or administrative jurisdiction to issue binding arbitration or alter local fund distributions.

The Collaborative Solution: We cannot outsource our statutory governing duties to an outside individual to avoid the hard work of building consensus. We must rely on our historically successful practice of mutual negotiation to resolve disagreements.

 

2. Compliance with Open Meeting Laws (The "Simple Majority" and "Proxy" Clauses)

The proposal to shift decisions to a simple majority vote and allow proxy voting introduces direct statutory violations.

• The Brown Act Proxy Prohibition (California Government Code § 54950 et seq.): The California Attorney General has repeatedly affirmed that proxy voting by members of a local legislative body subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act is entirely invalid (68 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 65). California Government Code § 54953 requires that all votes be cast by individuals who are contemporaneously present (physically or via compliant teleconferencing) to hear public testimony and participate in active board debate.
• Mandatory CAEP Voting Thresholds (California Education Code § 84905): Shifting the voting standard to a "simple majority" using unseated proxies directly undermines the statutory parity built into the program. Under California Education Code § 84905, core decisions relating to the Consortium Fiscal Administration Declaration (CFAD)—such as member fund allocations or threshold setups—require a certification by all members. Official state AB 1491 Guidance explicitly confirms that while an initial "finding" of carryover can be made by a majority vote, "All other decisions (excessive carryover %, the reduction amount %, the tech asst., etc.) require agreement by all members."

 

The Collaborative Solution: Local bylaws cannot legalize a voting mechanism that is explicitly banned under state statute. We must preserve the legally mandated, unanimous voting thresholds that protect the voice of each member agency.

 

3. Support Over Penalty (Carryover, Catchment Funds, and Member Effectiveness)

The proposals regarding "Excessive Carryover," local "Innovation/Catchment Funds," and the penalization of "ineffective members" fundamentally misinterpret state policy.

• The NOVA CFAD System Architecture: The proposal incorrectly frames localized, 20% member-level fiscal penalties as a mandatory state requirement. In reality, the state-mandated NOVA software infrastructure includes an intentional local configuration tool within the annual CFAD certification module. State CAEP policy explicitly allows consortia to opt out of internal member threshold tracking entirely by toggling the carryover setting to "Off". The state only monitors and evaluates carryover at the aggregate, region-wide consortium level; imposing individual member caps and fund redistribution rules is a highly restrictive local policy choice, not an automated or state-enforced software directive.
• Subversion of the Legal Remedy Framework (California Education Code § 84914(e)): For consortia that do choose to track member carryover, the state explicitly defines and limits the permissible remedies for addressing balances above the threshold. Under California Education Code § 84914(e)(1)-(2), the state-prescribed tools are strictly restricted to corrective, supportive actions: (1) the submission of a formal written expenditure plan detailing future corrective actions to reduce the carryover below the threshold, and (2) the prescription and assignment of state-level technical assistance. The statute does not grant a local consortium the legal authority to bypass these mandated, non-punitive interventions to execute localized fund sweeps or create penal "catchment funds".
• The Strict Definition of Member Effectiveness (California Education Code § 84914(b)(1)(A)-(C)): A consortium cannot subjectively declare a member "ineffective" because they dislike their spending timeline or internal operations. To reduce an agency's funding under the "ineffective" banner, the consortium must prove by a majority vote that the member meets one of three strict statutory criteria: (A) the member no longer wishes to provide services, (B) the member cannot provide services, or (C) the member has been consistently ineffective, and reasonable interventions/technical assistance have been applied and have failed.
• The "Reasonable Intervention" Requirement: Per the State CAEP Policy Memo on Member Effectiveness (June 30, 2021), effectiveness is measured strictly by a member's compliance with annual State CAEP Assurances certified in NOVA (such as timely deliverable submissions, participating in the three-year regional planning cycle, and spending funds exclusively on eligible adult populations per Education Code § 84901(a)). Official State CAEP Guidance explicitly notes, "You cannot be deemed ineffective simply for having carryover." Under Education Code § 84914(b)(1)(C), a member cannot be stripped of funding unless the consortium creates a documented paper trail proving technical assistance (through TAP) was provided and the member consistently failed to comply over a multi-year period.

 

The Collaborative Solution: Both member agencies remain completely compliant with all state assurances, data deliverables, and regional planning cycles. Under California statute, an agency is legally "effective" if it is providing its designated services, submitting its state data on time, and spending its money on adult learners. The law requires us to support our member agencies through structured technical assistance, not to establish predatory funding sweeps.

 

Moving Forward: A Standard of Best Practice

The true strength of our consortium has always been its bottom-up approach to governance. For over a decade, we have relied on our member agencies to meet locally, discuss proposals openly, and mutually bring well-crafted and evidenced plans to the board for final review. This process ensured that both of our districts had a meaningful voice before any policy reached the voting floor. Returning to this collaborative, member-driven framework is the only way to ensure our decisions remain practical, respectful, and legally sound.

Let us return to the member-agency- driven collaborative model that has successfully served our adult learners, our schools, and our region for over a decade.