What today is, is to go over the reduction that we talked about last week, how that gets input into NOVA, how you certify that with your allocation amendment, and how that transfers into funding out to the field. What we won't be talking about today is the governor's mind and what the legislature is going to do, because we're not privy to the hearings, to behind the scenes, so we can only speculate what's going to happen. We don't know what's going to happen when the tax revenue comes in. We don't know if something else is going to happen later in the year. That's all speculation. So the best we can do is we've got an amount, and we're going to certify it, and we're going to get that funding out to you, and then we'll wait and see what happens from there. 

So feel free to submit a question in the chat. We do have quite a few people today, but we'll try to get to all of them, because we have plenty of time. So like I said, today's agenda, we'll talk a little bit about the revise cut. A little confusion about is, this the revised CFAD or an allocation amendment-- well, it's kind of both. We'll talk about that. We'll talk about CAEP planning and how if districts are going to restrict members from using their CAEP funds, what the consortia can do with those funds. They can shift them to other members. 

Which leads right into the education code 84914 that describes that process. And we'll talk about the calendar, due dates for this revision, how we plan to get the funding over to CDE and dispersed to the field, what that's going to look like. And then Veronica will take up most of the time to show you how to go into NOVA to access your allocation and cut, how to certify an allocation amendment, what that looks like, what you have to do, and walk you through step-by-step. So there shouldn't be any questions about that. And then if we do have questions, we have plenty of time in the wrap up to answer those questions. So with that said, next slide, please. 

Oh, there it is. OK. I guess I can do this on my own, maybe. OK, so first bullet. It's a-- I think in the memo we had a typo. It's a 12.1055% or $66 million-- $66.7 million cut. I know some consortia with larger amounts, like you get up into $10 and $20 million allocations. In the LA consortium case, it's hundreds of millions of dollars. You can't use really 12.1055%. You've got to use that longer 12.1055314, et cetera, et cetera, because if you try to use that cut to allocate among members, you're going to be short. So like with LA, when I tried to use the 12.1055%, I had about $40 extra. And so anything with a larger dollar amount, like in the tens of millions, like state center, you're going to have, like, $4 or $5 left over if you use only four decimal points. You've got to go out farther. 

So the longer percentage I was given by state centers. So they're-- because they have a bigger allocation and a bigger cut, when they divvy this out among members, they're going to have to go out pretty far on the decimal to get that cut. Kind of what some people do, they just say, oh, we're $4 short. OK, we'll decrease you by $1, you by $1, you by $1, but technically not everybody has the same allocation amount. So that's something for you guys to figure out, because we give you the total allocation for your consortia, and then you figure out what the allocation amount is. 

And we'll get into what are the-- down below, what the Ed Code is on that. But just remember the second bullet. For those with larger allocations, you have more rounding or hedging, a few dollars to get back to your original or actual allocation number. So just keep that in mind as you're divvying up the money. If you have six or seven members, you're going to-- you might have some rounding issues or you might be a couple of dollars off if you're not going farther out on the percentages. So I found that out the hard way. So I'm just passing that along to you. 

So our new base for CAEP for 2021 will be $484,208,000. So when we total up all the 71 consortia, it's going to equal $484,208,00, all right? And then here's where it gets interesting. So when I was setting up the interagency agreement for CDE, I'm assuming that everyone is going to take that 12.1055, dot, dot, dot, cut. 

If there is a situation where they're going to get reduced more than that because there is Ed Code 84914-- and we'll get into that in a little bit-- it has to be a proportionate share. So if you do cut somebody more than that amount, you have to do it with cause under the three situations under 84914. And we'll talk about that later. So when I developed that I/A, I'm just going to be going straight down, doing the cut. 

I do have to know where those dollars are. I can't assume that this member's going to get $1 less than this member. So I'll wait to hear from you on those direct-funded agencies what's the exact amount. I can ballpark it. I can get close, but I might be off a dollar. In LA's case, I'll probably be off like $10 or more, maybe $20. I don't know. So that's why I'll wait to hear from you, or we'll be in contact. But that's really for the direct funded, for fiscal agents. I'm going to just put the lump sum amount from the reduced allocation into NOVA, and then you guys work out your individual amounts. But the amount that it's going to you in the disbursement is going to be the fiscal agent amount, if that makes sense. 

So Eileen said she used 12.106%, and it worked. OK, good job. I'm not a mathematician, and I don't play one on TV, so I'm going to leave it up to you guys to figure this out. Andrea said they were off-- in our case, you were off by $49. So, yeah. You will have to go a little farther out on your percentages. And then yesterday, I went into NOVA and updated the May Revise reduction numbers. So we subtracted that from your 2021 allocation that you approved in your CFAD. And so now that's reflected as an asset allocation amendment, and Veronica will go over that just a little bit. 

OK, let's see if I can move the slide on my end. No, Veronica, you need to go to the next slide, please. Oh, OK. So Wendy picked up on the no Cola logo. I just put that in there-- not that anybody's joking about the no Cola, but I'm glad somebody saw that. Perule down in Yosemite used one and came to exact-- OK, Yeah. Depending on how much of an allocation you have, it could work, or you might have to go a little further out. And then Marina divided the new allocation by the initial allocation, which resulted in a percentage, and then multiplied that by each member's allocation, and everything came out perfect. Yeah, that seems like a logical way. Like I said, I don't-- I'm not a statistician or a mathematician. I didn't do well in math, so I'll leave it up to you guys, how you figure that out. As long as what you put into NOVA balances out and you get back to that number, I'm happy, all right? 

OK. Thanks, Veronica. All right, so this slide, CFAD or allocation amendment. Veronica is going to go over this. So policy-wise, this reduction is a reduction to your allocation which will result in each consortia revising that 2021 CFAD that you originally submitted on May 1. But technically, in NOVA, you will be certifying an allocation amendment using-- let me move my chat screen here-- using this feature to build your revised allocation. 

So when you go into NOVA, you're not going to see a revised CFAD. You'll have to go to the allocation amendment screen and do your certifying there. If you do have some discussion and you want to post that for public viewing, you can upload meeting minutes or discussion notes that resulted in the revised allocation decision. And you can put that in your NOVA document box that each consortia has in NOVA. And then we upload that to the website as well for public viewing. So there really isn't an actual revised CFAD document. The documentation will be the certification of the allocation amendment in NOVA. If you want to document that discussion, just upload those notes, if that makes sense. 

Let's see if we have any questions on this. Kristen said, for consortia who were already planning on doing an allocation amendment, is it possible to do more than one? Veronica, if they were planning to do, later in the year, an allocation amendment, once they certify this allocation amendment, will they be able to do another one later in the year? 

Yes, they will. You can complete allocation amendments up until the certification of the Q4 budget-- fiscal report, excuse me. So can-- 

So that's-- 

Yeah. 

Mm-hmm. 

That's up until, what, August or September, right? Or maybe even into October if you have-- 

Until October. Q4 is certified-- no, actually, September 30. 

OK. All right. And then Andrea says, I do not see an unsubmit option for the CFAD in NOVA to revise it. So Andrea, we won't be submitting a revised CFAD. It'll be an allocation amendment. And Veronica will go over that just in maybe two slides. She's going to cover how to do an allocation amendment. So you won't really see an unsubmit or a revised CFAD. It'll be an allocation amendment. 

So Amelia said, so the operation word is "may"? We are not obligated to submit minutes on the board meeting regarding the revised allocation? Right. It's up to you on how you want to-- if you need to document it. In some cases, this is a straight 12.10 et cetera, et cetera, cut, and there might not be any notes in NOVA. I think it's up to each consortia to decide-- and we have a question on that later, about whether this is a public meeting or just a straight cut. So we leave it up to you guys to decide how you want to handle that. Look at your bylaws. Talk to your district, how they do things. So we're not going to enforce that. You guys make that decision as a consortia, if that makes sense. We can talk about that a little bit later. OK, next slide, please. 

OK. So here's where we get to the start of the discussion on Ed Code 84914. So if you weren't reading your newsletter the last few weeks, we did have a planning memo-- I think it was a couple of weeks ago-- a memo from the state. So Marina says we are not seeing the slides. You should be able to see the slides. I don't know. Veronica, are you seeing the slides? 

Yes, I see them. 

OK, so Marina, maybe-- 

[INTERPOSING VOICES]] to the planning memo? Can everyone see that? Oh. 

Yeah, they can see. So Marina, maybe something flew in front of your screen. And Nancy can't see the slides, either. Hmm. That's interesting. OK, well, we'll troubleshoot that behind the screens. And Veronica-- oh. If you want to go back one-- OK, I'm going to go back one slide. 

OK, so the planning memo came out on a couple of weeks ago, and what the planning memo says is there's Ed Code 84914 that governs the appropriate percentage allowed for members in good standing. That also allows for a reduced amount if a member cannot or no longer wishes to follow their consortia-approved CAEP annual plan, or if the member is ineffective. So the memo goes on to state-- so in some cases, let's say, the district says, oh, we're going to do a freeze of all part-time staff and administrators, et cetera, et cetera, and you can't follow the plan. Therefore, you're not going to be spending your CAEP allocation. The consortia, through Ed Code 84914, can reduce your amount and give that to other members that can spend that funding. So next slide, please. 

Oh, I got it, I think. OK. So here's the Ed Code entirely 4A. It says, in which-- for any year in which the chancellor and the superintendent allocated amount of funds to the consortia less than the amount allocated in the prior year, which is the situation this year, the amount of funds to be distributed to a member of that consortium shall not be reduced by a percentage greater than the percent by which the total amount of funds allocated to the consortia decreased. So that would be the 12.1. So you can't reduce somebody's individual member percentage greater than that 12.1 unless the consortium makes at least one of the following findings related to a member for which the distribution would be reduced further. 

So member no longer wishes to provide services consistent with the adult ed plan. Maybe they can't do distance learning or they're shutting down or all their teachers quit or something, or the member cannot provide services that address the needs identified in the adult ed plan. Maybe the district has restricted them from providing services, or something like that, or the member has been consistently ineffective in providing services that address the needs identified in the plan and reasonable intervention have not result in an improvement. So that could be a number of things. So those are-- it's spelled out pretty clear. So when I'm doing that interagency agreement, I'm assuming that everybody's getting the 12.10555 dot, dot, dot cut, unless something like this, these A, B, and C are invoked. You should probably tell me if you're going to invoke A, B, or C so I to wait for you to tell me what that new amount is and let me know which Ed Code cite you're using on that. 

So Kristen says that everyone will be making reductions. Would it only be a concern if a district is cutting personnel beyond the equivalent of the 12.2%? Right. So it says, shall not be reduced by a percentage greater than the percentage by which the total amount of funds allocated to the consortia decreased. The decrease was 12.1%. And so if you go 14% on a member, then you couldn't do that unless you made at least one of the following findings. 

OK, so Shanila had a question. Let's see if I can scroll up there. If a member gives some of their allocation to other members, will they be decreased to the amount moving forward? So if the member wanted to give somebody an additional amount, I think it would be best to do this outside of this process. You can do an allocation amendment after. That's what-- who was asking that? At the beginning, someone was asking, can we do a-- oh, Kirsten was saying, can we do a second allocation amendment? So if you do a reduction beyond the 12.1%, you have to use A, B, or C here. 

And so what I would do is if you're just moving money around because a member wants to give some of that money away and they don't want to affect their base-- because what happens-- if you do it as part of the allocation process, then next year, that's the amount you'll get unless we get an increase. But you'll get that proportionate increase. So you'll really be cutting back on your base. So what you could do if you don't want to cut back on your base and you don't want to invoke 84914 and say what the cause is, you just do an allocation amendment after the initial certification that Veronica is going to walk you through is done. Then you start doing money-- moving money around on a one-time basis, if that makes sense. 

So let's see if we had questions. What is the possibility of these funds becoming flexible? I have no idea about that. This is under statute. They'd have to pass legislation. I haven't heard if that's going to happen. I know people are talking about it, but I haven't seen-- that's why you got to talk to your legislative members about flexibility and not allowing that to happen. But so far, this is under statute. 

Patrick says, so it's mainly only if our members do not see themselves being able to provide courses and services remotely? It seems like most would just cut 12% from what was just certified in the CFAD last month. Correct. Burr said, should we go after-- oh, sorry. Here we go. [CHUCKLES] Sorry. Barbara said, it would be very difficult for CFAD funding to become flexible. It's written in-- right, OK. Wendy, and-- we may have to go through all this again in August? I have no idea. We'll have to see. OK, I think we're all caught up. All right. Any questions? 

So Sierra-- Serena says, how does previous carryover impact reductions? For example, if a member has carried over a third of their funding fairly consistently, would it make sense for them to take more of a reduction? Right now, this is all we have is, 84914 Ed Code. So if that member is not long-- no longer wishing to provide services or cannot provide services or being ineffective-- and maybe your consortia has bylaws about carryover, how much you can carry over. But there's nothing else in Ed Code that addresses carryover, except for maybe C, but you have to define what that ineffectiveness is, so I would go back to your bylaws. If you don't have any bylaws, then you're just stuck with this Ed Code and the discussion at the consortia level to talk about carryover, if that makes sense. 

OK, so is the 12% from '19/'20 not the amount just certified in the-- no, it's not. 12% is from the amount of 2021 that was just certified in NOVA. It has nothing to do with '19/'20. So it's not a cut from '19/'20. It's a cut from what we just certified. 

Karen says, if 84914 is invoked and I-- and-- OK, we'll wait for the rest of Karen's message. OK. And-- oh, and a member cannot perform services, can it be revoked if a member can provide services? So what happens is once you certify your allocation for the year, that's the amount that you will get next year. So you can't go back and change that through the year. So you have to be careful of that. So because it says you get no less than the prior year. So let's say next year we get an increase. You're going to get no less than the prior year amount. So there'll be this big-- kind of like the COLA discussion. The state came in and said, yes, everybody gets COLA. So we'll have to cross that bridge when you get to it. But technically, you just get the same amount as the prior year. 

And Lorena says, 12.1%, the cut per consortia or program part? Well, so, Lorena, it depends on how you're taking the cuts in your consortia. According to Ed Code, it should be that 12.1055% cut to the consortia, and then that's spread out to each member of the consortia, unless it's Ed Code 84914 A, B, C, if that makes sense. So no 50/50. Not sure what 50/50 is? It's a proportionate-- just like it says here. Shall not be reduced by a percentage greater than the percentage by which the total amount of funds allocated to the consortia decreased. 12.1% cut? That means you can't go farther than a 12% cut. Everybody gets it unless you invoke cause of A, B, C, in this slide. 

OK. Moving right along. Next slide, please. So here's the calendar, before we get into the nuts and bolts. So the revised CFAD or the allocation amendment certification in NOVA is due June 30. For your direct-funded consortia, if you get it that to me sooner, that would be a lot better to lead into the next bullet, as CDE and the Chancellor's Office hopes to approved an interagency agreement for the release of funds, and we hope to approve that in June or July. 

But that's depending on the first bullet of you certifying in NOVA by June 30 or sooner. So the sooner you certify, the sooner I can send CDE interagency agreement, and then CDE can start processing the interagency agreement, get that scheduled. Once the governor's budget is passed, hopefully by July 1, then CAEP funds can be released August-- hopefully no later than September in those 11 installments. Usually, the first one's two months, but if it comes out in September, it would be three months' worth through May, with the timely approval of an I/A. 

So if you're a direct-funded agency-- and I know LA does have to get together and talk about this-- but the sooner you can-- guys can go into NOVA and certify, the sooner the 35% of our I/A can get processed. So I know things are tough. We're getting close to summer. People have schedules. So the sooner, the better, but I understand. 

So Serena says, if a member is using consortia funds for program goals that are not identified in the three-year plan, would that be 84914 A, B, or C? So if they're not following the plan-- so it's-- I mean, that's a consortia decision. So when you review-- let's say they're following the plan and then they're doing stuff outside the plan, does that mean they're not following the plan? So I think that's up for consortia discussion. You're not going to have the state CAEP police coming down there and reviewing the plan, so you're basically going to have to work that out within your consortia if someone's not following their plan or if they're going above and beyond their plan, which should be-- then they do a plan amendment, you know? If they're doing something outside of their plan, then they should do an amendment to their plan to include that, if that makes sense. 

OK. Next slide, Veronica? Or is this turning it over to you? Oh, couple more slides, I think. So here's some FAQs I just thought I'd share with you. Can I wait until June 30 to certify my revised CFAD, what we're calling a certification of the allocation amendment? Because there's no such thing as a revised CFAD, so to speak. The answer is, we understand that it may be tough to schedule a meeting, but any late filing will delay the processing of CFAD funding for 2021. 

OK, question. What if my consortia has a fiscal agent? Do I have to submit my CFAD by June 30? Yes, we still need the allocation amounts and the justification if there is any changes. Question. Does the revised CFAD require a public meeting? The CAEP office suggests you check with your local district or refer to your consortia bylaws on whether an adjustment, or this requires discussion. It's really up to your consortia how you figure that out. OK, let's see if I can-- next slide, please. 

OK. Last slide for me, and we'll turn over to Veronica. So this is to show the difference between when people said, oh, is this a revised CFAD? It's really an allocation amendment. And so allocation amendments are an allocation process in NOVA after the CFAD has been certified. So when the CFAD was certified, we had the May Revise. So I had to go in and change the allocations for the state. So what I did was an allocation amendment. And we'll use these for future allocations because we're rebenching the prior year, which is this year, and then if we go into next year, then we go back to the prior year. 

Consortia-based allocation amendments are within the year-- so this would be after you go in and do the allocation amendment for the May Revise, which I just talked about, which I put into NOVA. Then this is like Kirsten's question, can we do a second allocation amendment afterwards? And I think this was maybe somebody else's question. So the consortia-based allocation amendments that are within a year are a one-time amendment that do not affect future allocations. So once you get through the May Revise allocation amendment, you can do future-- you can do other allocation amendments to various years. But it will only be a one-time amendment, and it won't affect the base. And then if you are going to impact your base allocation, it must fall under the three criteria under Ed Code 84914. Then just a reminder, these must all be approved by-- and certified by your members in NOVA. 

OK. Let's turn it back over to Veronica. Maybe when you-- Veronica, when you shared co-hosting with me, that's maybe why people couldn't see. So I'm glad you took back hosting capability. So go ahead, Veronica. 

All right. Thank you, Neil. So I'm going to share my screen. I'm going to share NOVA. So I'm going to transfer the PowerPoint over to NOVA. And can everyone see NOVA? I just clicked on Allan Hancock Consortium? 

Yes. 

OK, great. Everyone can see. Thank you so much for letting me know that you can see me. So I am in NOVA, and so you just use your regular credentials to log into NOVA. I am going to be using the Allan Hancock Consortium as an example for today, but I am in a secure site-- on a secure site, so I'm not changing any of their information. I'm just using it for demonstration purposes. 

So as Neil has stated before, this is going to be an allocation amendment. But prior to going to the allocation section, I do want to show you the CFAD section, because going into the 2020/2021 program year, we did receive quite a few emails about the negative number that was located in the CFAD when they went to complete the CFAD prior to the May Revise. And so I just wanted to [AUDIO OUT] everyone that because the CFAD cannot be changed, this negative number that you're seeing here-- so for example, Allan Hancock, because of the May Revise, they received a 12%-- over 12% reduction in their CAEP allocation. And so their total allocation was reduced by $500,000. This $500,000 will remain here through the duration of the lifecycle of these funds. So as you can see in 2019/'20, because of the reduction in COLA last year, there was a reduction here, so that negative is reflected here. So next year, it'll be there until the funds expire, as well as the reduction for the 2020/2021 program year. This reduction will remain here when you come to do the CFAD for the 2021/2022 program year. 

So I hope that makes sense. I know it caused quite a bit of confusion as we went into this program year, so I just wanted to make sure that I clarified with everyone. This negative number, because we can't change the CFAD, it will remain here for future years until the lifecycle of the funds expire off of the CFAD. 

So the CFAD was consortium-approved. Everyone's CFAD has been consortium approved, so there will be no changes to the actual CFAD. We're going to make the reduction changes in the allocation amendment, so this will all remain the same. I'm going to go over to the allocation amendment section in NOVA, which is located right underneath the CFAD section in NOVA. So here is a CFAD section, consortium approved. But I'm going to scroll down, and then I'm going to see allocations here. And I actually-- because I was doing some demonstration for the PowerPoint, I actually started an allocation amendment for this consortium. But as I stated before, all of this is for demonstration purposes, and nothing has been affected. 

So in NOVA, you start the allocation amendment. And all of this information is the same. Actually, I am going to use another consortium, because-- hold on one second. Yes, I'm going to have to use another consortium, because I won't be able to let you all see the process. So I'm going to use someone else. I'm going to go down to Antelope Valley. And-- OK, great. I can use Antelope Valley. And they only have one member, so-- let me check something. OK, I won't use Antelope Valley. My apologies. 

All right. I'm going to use, hopefully, Barstow. So I'm looking for a consortium who has not completed the allocation amendment process so that I can make the changes to their allocation. 

You can go to consortium number 30, if you want. 

OK, thank you. I had this all planned out, and everyone has gone through the process. OK, so what I believe is happening is on my secured site, the updates have not been made for all of the consortia-- 

Yeah, your screen doesn't look like my screen, Veronica. 

Yeah, so-- so what I'm thinking is my site-- the secure site on my end has not been updated with everyone's reductions, and so that's why I'm unable to go through the live demonstration. But I'm going to go back to-- 

Veronica, you can try 13, if you want. 

OK. Let's try-- and if 13 doesn't work, then I'm just going to use Allan Hancock and talk through it. You all have the PowerPoint that has each step. So hopefully that will suffice. Yeah, the-- it hasn't been-- the reduction has not been updated on my end, so I'm unable to-- 

Yeah. 

[INTERPOSING VOICES] 

So Veronica, is it possible to just go on to NOVA live and share your screen? 

It is. I'm hesitant to do that because then I am actually changing their information. 

Oh. 

I mean-- 

But you could just show them, rather than change-- because some people are-- like, Andrea is saying she can't see any 2021 column under allocations in NOVA, so maybe just showing them where things are is better than not showing them anything but I know you can't-- 

OK. 

--start entering the data into their-- into people's-- I mean, I know they would love you to go finish all their work. [CHUCKLES] 

Right. Right. So I'll go on the live site, but if something changes, forgive me, but I will work with the programmers to get it fixed for you immediately. But I am going to go to Allan Hancock, just because the numbers work a little better, and they only have two members, so it's a little easier to show things. So once my computer catches up, and-- OK, here we are. So here's Allan Hancock. I've already showed you her CFAD section, so now I'm going to go to their allocation amendments, so they have already gone in and played with the numbers and everything. 

But here's the allocation section. And so what they did was they went and they started the amendment, and-- so here is their reduction. It totaled $500,000, as we mentioned before. And so they went in and entered a new proposed allocations, so they reduced Allan Hancock Joint CCD by $89,999, and then Lompoc, they have reduced their allocation by $119,696. However, they still have $209,695 remaining. And so in order for them to complete this allocation amendment, this total remaining has to be down to zero in order to submit and certify that the allocation amendment has gone through. So they'll have to go back in and make sure that the total remaining is down to zero. 

Once they hit submit up in this area, the-- a member agencies will receive these certification and assurances. And we definitely want everyone to go through these and read through them. They're just talking about the Ed Code as well as public meetings-- 

Veronica? 

Mm-hmm? 

Veronica, this is Marina. I just-- I want to chime in. We did do the allocation amendment, like you just saw, and it's at zero. So our reduction was $209,000, and the proposed allocation-- you'll see that the remaining balance is zero, so we don't have an additional $200,000 to reduce. I just wanted to make sure that people-- that-- we think we're done because of that-- the proposed allocation is now here at zero. And we didn't have-- the 12% isn't $500,000. It's about $209,000. 

Oh, OK. Well, on my end, it said $500,000. OK, that's totally OK. I'll definitely look into this a little bit more, because I believe-- 

Thank you. 

But yes, OK. The current allocation. I get it now. 

Yeah, that makes sense, Veronica, because you had the difference between the CAEP funds is the allocation amendment, which is the negative. So-- 

Right. 

Yeah. 

Right, on my end, like I said, it doesn't update on the secure part where I don't mess up anyone's information. It doesn't always update to exactly what it's supposed to be. So on my end, it said $500,000 as the reduction for CAEP, but it's truly $209,000. So this is true, and yes, my apologies for misspeaking. 

So here are the certification and assurances. And then each member-- it's awaiting approval, so the primary contact has gone in, and they submitted this allocation amendment. And each of the member representatives have been notified that this allocation amendment has taken place. And so what they will do is they will go in-- once they receive the email, they will go in and hit Submit, and then this will turn from the yellow awaiting approval to approve, unless they reject it, and then it will be a red bar that says rejected. 

Now, prior to the CFAD, there were some questions about who actually does the approval. So we had a primary contact who had forwarded the email to their member representatives that they had received, and then the member representative used that email to hit approved. However, when it came up on our approval page, it said the primary contact instead of the member representative's name. So we just want to make sure that if, for some reason, you are trying to get your member representatives to approve and they haven't done so, we want you to use this Send Reminder button versus forwarding them the email, because when you forward them the email, then if they approve it from that email forward, then it will be your name attached to the approval and not the actual member representative's. So that's just a little FYI, things we have seen that have come up. So make sure that you use the Send Reminder button so that the member representative can go in and submit the approval or reject it. 

Another thing that I wanted to point out-- so I'm going to go back out of Allan Hancock's initial page. And I'm going to go to the allocation amendment. Another thing that has come up, especially as we're thinking about record-keeping and documentation, because you aren't changing the actual CFAD-- if you need a record that this has occurred and you need to see the actual reductions, you can go to the View Amendment History. 

Once your amendment has been totally approved and everyone has signed off on it, a document will appear that says Allocation Amendment. It'll give you the fund here, and then it'll give you a stamp, so it'll tell you the date and time that the allocation amendment was approved. So for any reason, if the consortium needs documentation that this reduction has taken place and all the members have signed off on it, this is an area where you can obtain that documentation. And this stays in NOVA. It can't be-- unless the system completely crashes or something, it will always be housed here. So just for future reference, if anybody ever need that documentation. 

And just to reiterate, because people are transferring funds within the consortium but they don't want it to hit the allocation-- the baseline allocation for next year, you are able to complete an allocation amendment between now and Q4 of that particular program year. So as we're moving into 2020 to 2021, you are able to complete allocation amendments on this particular program year through next year, through quarter four of next year. You're able to complete as many allocation amendments as you would like, and all of your allocation amendment history will be stored here. 

So that is all that I have. I apologize about the confusion between the two sites. I hope I didn't make this tougher for anyone. If you have any questions, definitely let me know. I'm going to go to the chat. 

So there is one question. So Andrea said for number 10 Coast, under Allocations, I do not see the reduction amount in NOVA. 

OK. So I'll go to Coast. And so we're talking about in the CFAD? 

I think they're just looking for how to do an allocation amendment, possibly, what steps-- so she would have to go below the CFAD to the allocation amendment screen and click on Start and amendment, right? 

Right, yeah. 

OK. 

And so you would just click Continue here, and then you would go through the workflow steps. And like I said, because I'm on this site, I'm hesitant to do this, because it'll be complicated once they go back in to try and finish it. 

Yeah. And then Laura asked, so as long as the proposed allocation section is at $0, that's what we want to correct? That's her question. 

Yes, the proposed allocation should be at $0. 

OK. And then Ryan says, will member individual budget show the original CFAD amounts where everyone will have to be mindful that visible allocations are incorrect when they are creating site budgets? So how does that look after you do the allocation amendment when you're doing your budget and planning in the fall? 

So after the allocation amendment is completed and everyone has approved it, the new allocation will be rolled over to each member's individual budgets. So the original CFAD will not be there. It will be the-- after the allocation amendment. 

OK. And then Kristen pointed out, and so did Megan-- so what we're looking here on Coast is '19/'20. There's no '20/'21 column for Coast for the allocation amendment. So that's kind of unusual, right? 

That's very unusual. Because Coast did not complete the original CFAD-- 

Oh. 

So their original CFAD has not been complete yet. So they would need to-- basically, the reduction has been included in their original CFAD, so they would need to go in and approve. It was submitted, but it wasn't approved. 

Oh, interesting. OK, so there's an edge case there for everyone. So if you forgot to approve your CFAD or you had one member that was holding out, then you won't see this as an allocation amendment. It becomes just your regular CFAD. Right, Veronica? 

Yes. 

OK. So that's why Coast-- so Coast, you didn't do your CFAD. [CHUCKLES] So this is what happens when you don't do your CFAD. And Andrea says, I saw one person did not approve the original CFAD. It may be why the deduction is not-- right. So that is the case. 

OK. So Ryan says, confirming amended amounts will be populated in member amounts after approval. Does that make sense, Veronica? Is that correct? 

Yes, the member amounts-- the new, revised allocation will be populated to the allocation section in NOVA as well as the budget and work plans. The only place that will remain, the original 2020/2021 allocation is in the CFAD section, because you can't change that. 

All right. And then Andrea said they tried to get that person to-- so Andrea, in those circumstances, when that one person won't certify, you can always contact the TAP office and they can talk to the state. And we can always override if we think that that person is not following through and you guys have followed all your bylaws. Then we can override that in NOVA. And that could be part of being an ineffective member, if they're not following through on their requirements for CAEP. 

So Chrissy says, what happens when this occurs? Does your consortia revert to prior year allocation percentage, or are they left in limbo? Not sure what you mean, Chrissy. What happens when Coast situation occurs? So we know what the amounts are for this year. So going forward into next year, we know what the prior year amounts are, and that's-- we'll work through that. 

Any situation where there might not be an agreement or a sign off? Oh, OK. So if there's not a sign off, you just work through TAP. They'll notify the state office. And if we think there is grounds that the consortia followed everything and that member just isn't being an effective members as far as following through, then we'll overwrite it into-- in NOVA. But then that's something for the consortia to follow up on with that member to start meeting deadlines and things like that. 

So MaryAnn says, I think I missed something. I went into my CFAD and I don't see the Start Amendment button. So maybe Glendale has the same situation, Veronica. Do you want to check Glendale really quick? 

Yeah. 

And then while you're looking at Glendale-- so Andrea, on that case where the member is unfunded, they still have to certify. So maybe do a little technical assistance with that member, showing them how they held up your certification process and how it's affecting the amendment process now. So maybe with a little TA, they can get on board. You can always refer them to TAP if they need some NOVA training. 

So to answer MaryAnn's question, I think you were in the CFAD section. You would need to go down a section to the allocation section, and you can start the amendment here. 

Great. 

And then I had saw-- there was someone who was asking about uploading historical documents, and I think you had covered it, Neil? 

Yeah, that was Kelly, and we just said you can do that-- you want to show them where the doc box is? 

Yes. 

Or supporting documents? 

So it's here, Supporting Documents. And all you would do is go down to the bottom where it says Add Document Here. And then you'll be able to upload a file from your desktop. You can select which type of document it is and then add any comments that you would like to. And then this would be-- the record would be kept in NOVA. 

OK. So we're-- if anybody has additional questions-- I mean, we still have another half an hour. And Veronica, you've shown the allocation amendment process. We've troubleshooted if the CFAD wasn't certified, what happens. And then if you want to post documentation, we know about the percentages. It's 12.1%, but for larger consortiums, you're going to have to go way out on those percentages to get accurate allocations by member, especially like LA probably will have to use a long percentage so that it can be allocated correctly. 

Eileen says, should we redistribute rollover funds if that-- oh, wait, I just got-- if that is the case? I mean, that's a discussion for the consortia to have. We've always recommended that you have bylaws on carryover funds. We have, I don't know, quite a few consortia that have bylaws. Some are at 18 months, they revisit and reallocate. Some are at 20 months. But if you don't have that bylaw, you're really stuck with either just Ed Code 84914 or just having a discussion about the rollover funds. 

So Jaemi says, COLA included in the original CFAD numbers? How does it suss out in amendment reduction overall numbers? So it's a 12.1% reduction. It's a 12.1% reduction in the amendment for each members. So it shouldn't change unless you're going to reduce it more, but then you have to show cause under 84914 A, B, C. 

OK, and then if you do have issues in NOVA, you can always contact TAP and Holly and Veronica can walk you through that. And they will be available-- TAP's closed on Monday, right? For the holiday? 

Yes. 

OK, so starting Tuesday you may contact-- well, you can do it this afternoon, but maybe give Veronica and Holly a chance to breathe. But anyway. Yeah, we will be working with you on this. We did it last year, so it's the same process as last year. But since we haven't visited in a year, I know it's tough getting on that bike. But feel free today to ask any questions, and we can look up what's happening in NOVA on your consortia, like we did with a few other people. If you're not seeing something, I would play with NOVA right now while we're talking. See if you see that. 

Andrea says it's imperative that adult ed funds are not redirected for other purposes. Right. So because we're under statute-- and if you look at that-- what is it, the recent memo that came out on the revision? We do list the ed code that the CAEP funds are under. And that's in statute. So the legislature would have to change that statute to have a college or a K-12 district redirect those funds or trying to flex them. So just make sure you're aware of that. 

And Dana says, for now, our bottom line must be zero, right? If we have consortia-wide carryover we'd like to distribute, we should do that-- do an amendment later in the year, no? Right. So what this process does is just focuses on your allocation for 2021. You shouldn't be worrying about adding carryover into this. I mean, that's a discussion, but it's not part of this exercise. But you can, behind the scenes, say, OK, we're taking a 12%-- 12.1% cut, and everybody has to take that cut. But we see that member x and y have all this carryover. What are you going to do with that? 

And then if they say, yeah, I want to help with the cuts. After we get this through, we'll do an allocation amendment, and we can redirect those funds to members that are in need. So that would be, like, people that asked before, after you get this certified, then you do a one-time allocation amendment to shift funds around. And Veronica, if you did that after this process, you would have to select which year you wanted to do the allocation amendment, correct? 

Correct. So in theory, if you're reallocating carryover, it's from prior fund years, so you should alignment with the fund year. So for those 2019/20 that you were reallocating, or even 2018/19, since we're still in that program year, if there is monies available, you would do the movement on that fund year. 

OK. So that would be a discussion. You could have that discussion when you're talking about the cuts, but it wouldn't be part of that exercise. It would be something you'd do afterwards. But it could all still be part of that whole funding discussion. So when you're certifying this allocation amendment that we're talking about today, it's just for the 2021 allocation for the year and the 12.1% cut. But you could still do, later on, an allocation amendment for '18/'19 or '19/'20 if they had leftover funds. 

So Karima says, can FS 440 carry over-- I'm not sure what FS 440 is. Carry over be allocated to help members pay for nonadministrative costs. Karima, what's FS 440? 

Hi, everyone. FS 440 is the 5% administrative costs that our district gets as a fiscal agent. So if we have leftover in FS 440 as a fiscal agent from '18-- no, from '19/'20, if we-- after we're done with the CFAD and we do another amendment later to reallocate those carryover funds, are the members who gets those funds from the fiscal agent-- in this case, is IBC and Sadelback would the members be allowed to use that for nonadministrative costs? 

Yes. 

Let's say, pay for teachers? 

Right. Oh, yeah, definitely. So what happens is the administrative costs-- we have a threshold of no more than 5% at the consortia level and then indirect, at the member levels, no more than 5%, or the CDE rate, whichever is less. So with that consortia amount, it's not a guarantee. Some fiscal agents don't charge any consortia fee to process funding. It's free. But some charge up to the 5% cap. Some include it with the consortia directors cost and other fiscal-related costs. So that's negotiable. Now, if someone's not using that, that could be reprogrammed for programmatic purposes or other purposes related to CAEP. It's really up to the consortia to decide on that and negotiate that. 

And you could negotiate that for this year. Let's say everybody took a cut, and that fiscal agent is charging you your full 5%. You could say, you know what, with that cut, we want you to cut that back down to 2% or 3%, because we need some of that money for a program. Or you could just go to-- well, it's a little-- you could try to make that decision to go to direct funding and eliminate that cost altogether. So these are things you would have to decide. But yes, in prior years, you could-- if that money is not spent, you could change that and use that for program, to do an allocation amendment or whatever, to cover that. 

So that's all negotiable. It's not a guarantee. I mean, you'd have to-- at the district level, for the indirect, you'd probably have to fight with your business office on that. At the consortia level, whoever's charging the 5% allocation, whether that's a consortia director, their costs, if you have a fiscal agent, their costs. That's all negotiated. But it might be tough to-- it's just part of that discussion, if that makes sense. 

Let's see if we got this question. OK, OK. Thanks. So Wendy said, we just did the allocation amendment during the webinar. Took five minutes. Woo-hoo! And that was with the no COLA, right? I think you're on Diet COLA. 

All right, and Christian-- Chris Nelson says, can carry over from one member be loaned to other members of the consortia to be repaid back later? I mean, you can do those kind of things at the local level. I mean, it'll look like an allocation amendment in NOVA. But the only thing, Chris, is let's say you leave, which you are retiring, and then someone says, oh, yeah, I don't remember that agreement that Chris made before he retired, that he loaned all this money to us. I don't think I have to repay it back, because there's nobody that remembered that. 

That's the only problem with those promises at the local level. When you have change in administrators or leadership, somehow you would have to document that and get that maybe notarized or something so that it's legit and that you can call that in after-- if there's retirements or people leave or get new jobs. It's just a little-- it just makes me a little queasy, because we have had a couple of things like that happen, where a member didn't remember something that they said they were going to do and then they didn't do it. And it led to-- I mean, they eventually fixed it, but it just took a while to remind that member. 

Karima says, we plan to go to direct funding next year. Good. Good deal. And then Wendy says, does this new, reduced allocation become our new baseline funding going forward, or is this being seen as a one-time-- this is your-- so this revised 12.1% cut is your new base going forward. So hopefully next year, we might get an increase. If the economy doesn't improve and we get the same amount, this is that amount that we will get next year. This is your-- so when you look at the legislation for 84914, when it is at the same amount or greater, this is that prior year amount. So be careful how you play with this amount, because this is your locked-in amount for subsequent years unless we get an increase. That kind of thing. Makes sense? OK. 

Would we need to have an MOU? Yeah, Chris, that would be probably something good to have in writing, like an MOU. And then Barbara said, I don't-- I do not recall-- locked-in, right. OK. 

So those are some good questions. It's always good to brainstorm out loud as we can get everybody on the line. All kinds of different situations out there. So we still have 147 people on the line. We didn't lose anybody with my ramblings. So Veronica, anything else to add here? No, I think we have shown every move in NOVA. But of course, if anyone has any additional questions on needs any assistance, definitely please feel free to reach out to TAP. Also, I know that we're heading into a new school year, program year, so if there are new-- any new members who come on board or transition, definitely have them reach out to TAP for an on-board session, which includes a live demonstration and walk-through in NOVA so that they become acclimated with the system and will be able to complete deliverables in the NOVA system. But-- 

Veronica, can you go on Marin's site? Jaemi says she can't see her Amendment tab. And while you're doing that, I'll answer Sue's question. Sue's question is, is there any consideration that the reduction won't take place if the CARES Act passes the US Senate? So what would happen on that, Sue, is we get the money out, get the budget passed. And then if CARES act comes in, we'd do another allocation amendment to add money back, and then we'd do a subsequent interagency agreement to add additional funding. But I think we want to just get the main funding, the $484 million, whatever that amount is, out the door now so you get that money in the fall. And then if there is a happy moment and we get increased funding, then we could do a second amendment and move forward on that as well, as well as an interagency agreement. OK, go ahead, Veronica. Sorry. 

Yes. For Marin? I-- 

Right. 

Are we talking about here, for the allocation to start the amendment? 

Right. OK. So Jaemi was having trouble, I guess, seeing that. So anybody could see this, right, if you went into the Marin-- 

Uh-huh. 

Yeah. OK, so, Jaemi, there it is. All you have to do is start the amendment. 

Yeah, click this button here. 

OK. 

Oh, before-- probably does. Oh, you're talking about the button. Let me see. It's your primary contact. So yes, Kathy-- Katheryn, Jonathan, or Kathleen would be the person who-- either one of them will be the people who would start the allocation amendment. Yes, that is correct. 

OK, I missed Thatcher's question on credentialing. So if you could repeat that, or someone wants to say it-- and then Nancy said, from the start, TAP has been so well organized and responsive, and we appreciate you so very much. Yay. Yay, TAP. All right. Let's see if I can find-- and Nancy says, I never got the issue resolved with seeing the slides. 

So we were-- so Nancy, I think we sent you the slides in advance. So if you haven't, please contact TAP and they will send you the slides. And then we'll be archiving this recording later today and you'll get a copy of that, too. Correct, Veronica? 

My apologies. I was typing in the chat. And for Nancy, I have private messaged you-- 

Oh, OK. Great. 

--a follow-up. But yes, the-- they'll be sent out. 

OK. And then Barbara says, I believe CTC is allowing its extensions to clear credentials. Good deal. And then Jaemi-- Veronica took care of that. Pearl says, Neil, what does that mean, we might not have another cut in September? I mean, there's all speculation. So we've got tax revenue coming in August. We've got this CARES HEROES Act. So there's a couple of spinning plates up in the air that we don't know what's going to happen. Maybe we'll have a higher projection of revenue. Could have a lower projection. The HEROES Act could be a lot of money. Could be not enough. Could get cut down. So can't speculate what's going to happen over the summer and the fall, but like Sue said, we can be optimistic. Hopefully we'll see some additional funding, but let's-- we're just taking it one step at a time, one day at a time. And today, we're going to get those allocation amendments certified, and then we'll try to get you your funding early this fall. 

OK, Karima said, Neil, do you expect additional funding cuts for 2021? I know you don't want to speculate. I don't really have any idea, but I mean, there's all this doom and gloom, but then there's also other things going on, like the HEROES Act. So you don't know. Can't speculate. Does the state apportionment deferrals apply to CAEP, Sally asked? Not that I've heard of. We haven't heard anything about that. 

Then Thatcher says, I know that the budget cuts and COVID-19 are major issues, but I'm getting a lot of members asking about any updates on adult aid credentialing, and if there's been any progress there. So I know some of the professional agencies have taken a run at that. But I don't think they've been too successful on-- I mean, there's certainly been some proposals floated, but I know there's been some pilots discussed. But when the COVID-19 thing hit, all that stuff got put on the back burner. So I don't think adult ed credentialing is on the front burner. It's not a priority right now. So you can continue communicating with your professional organizations, but from what I've heard, there's other priorities. So sorry I don't have better news. 

Let's see. There's quite a few messages here. All right. Andrea says, HEROES Act in current form is not going to happen. And then a lot of "thank you"s out there. OK, good. So we're caught up with all the questions. We still have 10 minutes. Does anybody have additional comments or questions? And I hope everybody is going to have a great weekend. We've lost about 10 people on the call, but we're just wrapping up. But I think I will take an extended weekend, so make sure you send all your questions to TAP. [CHUCKLES] Not that I want to dump on them, but who else is there? I don't have an evil twin. But we do have TAP. They're not evil twins. They're just partners in crime. 

So, all right. Let's-- Veronica, anything to close out? Any reminders? 

We will be back next Friday for the CAEP office hour. Next Wednesday at 1:00 PM, we will be hosting a webinar with the development team from ERP, RP Group, and West Ed about the LaunchPort 3.0 build-out. So if you haven't registered for that, definitely be sure to register for that webinar. I can post the URL in chat. Pay attention to the newsletter. There's a lot of great information that is being put out in the newsletter, so definitely make sure that you keep up with that. The Google group is still going on, so we'd love to get more participation in that. So if you haven't-- 

Oh, yeah. I'll post a new question today before I take a few days off. 

Thank you, Neil. Yes, definitely, we want to get that conversation going so that we can use that as information to report to the higher-ups on what's going on at the local level. Other than that, that's all I have. I thank you all very much for your time and your participation. I apologize for the mix up earlier when you had-- 

No mix up. No mix up. It was perfect. 

And it doesn't go as well, then things happen. But yes, if you have any questions regarding NOVA or need any support, definitely reach out to us, and we'll be sure to help you. And that is all that I have. 

All right. Thanks, everyone. Good luck on your allocation amendments. 

All right. Thanks a lot. Have a great weekend, Neil. 

All right. See you. 

And Veronica. 

[CHUCKLES]