Renee Collins: All right, thank-- thank you, Veronica. And I want to welcome all of you. Thank you for spending your lunch hour with me as we continue the discussion around AB 1491 and using this pure learning circle model. So I see that several of you have been able to access the Google document through the link in the chat. So if you have not been able to do that, I encourage you to do so. And the agenda is right there in the Google document as well.

So we're going to start with some quick welcome and introductions and talking about maybe some additional questions that you would like to explore around this AB 1491 conversation and legislation. And then we're going to talk a little bit about what a PLC is and what it is not.

And then go ahead and jump right into the discussion questions. Thank you very much to those of you who submitted questions via the Google form. We have 10 questions that we're going to try and address to some degree today in the next hour.

And I'll be encouraging you to write maybe your knowledge, or experience, or thoughts, or ideas around AB 1491 and how consortium leads are able to support their members with AB 1491 transition. And then we'll do a quick wrap up and next steps, and we'll ask for feedback from you about whether you feel like it would be beneficial to have further PLCs, or training related to AB 1491.

So thank you so much. I see that people are typing their names, where you work, your role. And if you have any questions, one question you hope to explore today. So just I'll give you a couple of additional minutes to do that. If you're having trouble finding space, just click down a few lines and just add your name. I know there's quite a few of us, more than 60 on the call today, so it's a great turnout.

As you are continuing to add your names and information, I'll get started with how we're approaching this conversation with the pure learning circle. So a pure learning circle. This is in the left-hand column of your agenda. The pure learning circle from the guidance itself and the link is in the right-hand column under the notes, but is a lightly facilitated time limited discussion structured around a set of questions on a chosen topic.

So our chosen topic today is AB 1491. The questions that we're going to use are the ones that were submitted when you registered for this session, and it may be some additional questions that you're putting into the welcome and introductions area right now. Pure Peer learning surface are experiences, lessons learned, successes and challenges, so that we learn from each other and build networks of mutual support.

A guiding principle, if you're looking under the right-hand column, a guiding principle of peer learning circles, is that the wisdom is in the room. So there is no expert. I am not intending to be the expert on AB 1491. I know that we have our representatives from CDE and the Chancellor's Office here today. They are not here to be the experts for this conversation. They are here to listen and participate as much as you are.

And so we're really looking to the field and this group as a whole to be the wisdom in the room to be the ones that are kind of proving the knowledge and the experience and the thoughts and the ideas of how we might move forward with AB 1491 because we're really still in the planning and development process for a lot of aspects of how we're going to take this carryover legislation and use it within our consortia.

So before beginning the discussion, we're going to review the questions below that are in the section that starts at 1210. We'll take a few minutes at the start for everyone to type responses in the right-hand column. If you have some thoughts about a particular question, you can write it in the right-hand column. And then we'll discuss the questions that have the highest interest. Maybe there's a lot of responses, written responses, and that will help me to know which questions are kind of most relevant for you.

And then at the end we'll share some top takeaways and see if we have any questions that we want to follow up with in another PLC, and then we'll be on our way for the day. OK, let me come back up quickly on mine to see. Thank you so much. I'm not seeing too many questions here. Thank you for putting your names, and where you're from, and your role.

One, how to make sure school keeps on track about spending? A little more discussion when the tracking begins, maybe a scenario would be nice to hear. All right, keep them coming. How many consortia I choose in to put a percentage in Nova? How much? Why or why not? That's a good question. OK. All right, so we're going to start with the questions that were submitted prior to today.

And we'll see how far we get with the ones that are currently in the welcome and introduction area. If we don't get to all of them, we will make a list of those questions and find a way to address them either in a further PLC or in some other way we will make sure that CAEP TAP is able to be responding to the questions. So if you could all now jump to the section that says 1210, and then it says discussion. As a consortium leader, how can I provide AB 1491 support?

And the 10 questions below that are the questions that we're going to discuss today. And I see some people have started in the right-hand column with providing maybe some resources that you have, some knowledge that you have on the topic, some experience, some thoughts, some wonderings. Those can all go in the right-hand column, you'll notice that each question is separated in its own box. So if you can make sure that your responses are corresponding to the correct question.

So one of the questions, and I'm just going to read them through. While I'm reading them, you can take the time to be filling out the right-hand column if you want to. So the first question we got was please provide examples of exemplary governance bylaws to review, specifically around member allocations over 20%, but where consortium may not be and/or any best practices or words of wisdom are appreciated. All right.

And then, what is the best way to incorporate new information into bylaws? The next question is my consortium will start monitoring expenditures after quarter two, March 24. Will CAEP TAP offer any type of technical assistance to members or consortia during the 2023-2024 fiscal year related to AB 1491 Or should we expect CAEP technical assistance to kick in for 2024-2025? Wanting to know what technical assistance to expect for 2023-2024 as we are now finalizing the CFAD.

Another good question. I want to maybe reframe this question a little bit to have you also think about what types of technical assistance would best benefit consortia, or you as a consortium lead. So maybe you have some thoughts around that. The next question. If we choose to add on add an excessive carryover amount in Nova planning on 20% for members for 2324, will it be a red flag or cause a problem since AB 1491 won't be implemented until the following year?

It would be helpful consortium knowledge in order to see what everyone looks like prior to full implementation. I would like members to see potential problems in Nova before they become a real problem, but don't want to confuse them by doing this in advance. I would like to-- I'm sorry, and then on to the next one. I would like to hear, see samples of how the consortium can provide technical assistance to a member who is not meeting the target set for member carryover.

And the next one. What will state intervention look like for consortia that exceed the 20% carryover limit? If the consortium can justify this carryover such as a capital project, will that satisfy the state and exempt the consortium from doing action plans reports, et cetera? Does the state realize that other state and federal funds have been available during COVID and these were used in place of some CAEP funds, thus creating more carryover than usual?

The next. If an agency has future plans for funding, for example, construction UCT programs, can they submit a plan to the consortia to justify a carryover balance? And if the enforcement of this is left up to individual consortia, how is this any different than it is now? There needs to be some teeth in this. Given a state wide teacher shortage, how might the state reveal carryovers larger than 20% through this lens? For instance, hiring across roles has been difficult, resulting in members who have large carryovers in a given year than planned. Will the state take this into consideration?

How will AB 1491 impact our ESL, ABE/ASC, and CTE learners and their gains and outcomes? Will there be an increase in funding for CTE programs with industry licensing? And the final question was how much time do we have to spend the surplus that carries over 20%? OK. All right, I see some writing going on, but I know you're all writers out there in some form or fashion, many of you are current or prior teachers.

OK. Let's go ahead and start with-- this is at the point I'm going to invite you to potentially come off of mute and really kind of jump start this discussion. So let's start here, where it looks like we have a couple of responses. Again, if you have thoughts on this, I want to encourage you to put your thoughts in the box. This is the collective wisdom. It's not the wisdom of one person.

So whatever you're putting down as notes or ideas you don't necessarily need to attach your name with it per se unless you want to, but these could be simply ideas of what you would like to see or what your thoughts are or how you interpret something. So certainly feel like you're in a safe space to be able to just kind of put something out there regarding what you're thinking for some of these questions.

So the question is my consortium will start monitoring expenditures after quarter two, March 2024, will CAEP TAP offer any type of technical assistance to members or consortia during the 2023-2024 fiscal year related to AB 1491 Or should we expect CAEP technical assistance to kick in for 2024-2025? Wanting to know what technical assistance to expect for 2023-2024 as we are now finalizing the CFAD.

And one of the responses. One was yes, TAP will be offering TA throughout the year. Another person said, I would like to see TAP offering guidance on the best ways for members to monitor their finances, carryover, and goals. What else? What would you like to see if you were to have additional guidance or technical assistance? What would that look like? What would you be expecting to see?

Anybody have any?

Speaker 2: Can you rephrase that question, Renee?

Renee Collins: Sure I can. It seems like people are-- some of the people on the call are interested in technical assistance from the state or from CAEP TAP, what types of technical assistance would you want to see? What type of technical assistance do you feel would help?

[interposing voices]

Go ahead.

Speaker 2: F In terms of 1498 and stuff. I mean 1491 I think collectively we're doing a really good job in centralizing that level of information. I think it's important to a NOVA to understand, at least gain clarity, in my opinion. What happens when we do the 20%? I hear that the state will not take back the funds if we go over the 20%. But what's the expenditure timeline for that?

And I know that we also have a corrective action plan, but clarity says will that carryover will still be-- can we use the same timeline that we're currently using for Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4? And how is that going to be reflected in NOVA? So that once we have a peace of mind and going back to our membership and saying, OK, we've imploded a correction action plan we're at 25% carryover.

However, in the action plan we have action steps on how we're going to expend the 5%, but is the timeline like say, for example, we have six months to spend, or is that something that's going to be guided or determined, I won't say guided, but determined by the state, and say, you have six months to spend the 5%, or does it just carry over just like the rest, and then you have until the next quarter system?

So trying to get clarity on that would be very helpful.

Renee Collins: All right, good. So you're looking for when a consortium exceeds that 20% on an annual basis, is it still within that 30 month time frame for spending down the money? Or is it or is it a shorter or varied timeline?

Speaker 2: Or is the state going to determine that? Or can we have the local decision to do that and then kind of report that back to the state through NOVA?

Renee Collins: Good. Good. So I would encourage-- does anybody want to respond to that? Neil, I see your hand up. Go ahead, Neil.

Neil Kelly: OK, so it's a state question, right? This isn't a member question, right? It's a state 20% at the consortium level, correct?

Renee Collins: That's correct. So the way that works is starting at the end of this year when you certify Q4, then that will start the clock for tracking expenditures against that 20% during the 2023-2024 year. At the end of that year, if you are over the 20%, you will submit a written expenditure plan, we'll review, possibly provide additional technical assistance, and you'll have a year to get back under that 20%.

At the end of the year, if you're still over 20%, you'll go back into the written expenditure plan AKA corrective action, and we'll do this process over again until you get under the 20%. So the 20% timeline is that 12 months after you submit or the year that you submit your expenditure plan showing how you're going to get back under it, or you plead your case that you have other things going on, state looks at that, and then you work on that throughout the year, the state provides technical assistance and things like that. Does that make sense?

Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, so just to clarify then, there's not going to be a possibility to have a local decision to say OK, members. Because then there's that member level, that's the other thing. There's that 20% member level and then the 20% consortia level.

Neil Kelly: The member level is up to you. It could be 5%, could be 100%, could be 12 and 1/2 that's your call. The state level is stuck and in legislation at 20% That's the only percentage that's called out in legislation. So really we're just sticking to the 20%. It's up to you guys. If you want to have a member excessive percentage, you can do that, or you can opt not to, but that's on you and that's for you to enforce and to write the bylaws and all that good stuff forward.

Speaker 2: So collectively between all funded members we have to equate to 20%?

Neil Kelly: For the consortium level, yes. And that's what the states monitoring.

Speaker 2: OK. Got it. Thank you.

Neil Kelly: Sure.

Renee Collins: I'm going to jump to another question. Let's look at the one that says, I would like to hear or see samples of how the consortium can provide technical assistance to a member who is not meeting the target set for member carryover. So this is really asking you as consortium leads, what are you going to do to monitor and provide technical assistance and support to your members?

Any thoughts on that, how you're going to address that? Or maybe what you need from TAP or the CAEP office to be able to do that? Again, I'm inviting any of you to come off of mute. Or you're welcome to write in the box.

I know someone up above in just the previous question that we had been on had mentioned maybe a one-page checklist. I'm curious to know what you were thinking about what might go on that checklist, but I see that we have a hand up from Ed, so Ed, go ahead.

ED: Thank you. Our bylaws committee just met a couple of weeks ago. And so we're working into our bylaws. The funding piece and the carryover piece is part of our ineffective member. It is one of many items that can trigger or set off a red flag for our consortium lead director to then refer the member to a compliance committee.

So we're developing, and this is all yet to be, this is in proposal stage right now, but if a member can be referred to the compliance committee, and within that compliance committee then they have some options that can offer that technical assistance even prior to the second consecutive year of carryover.

And also in the bylaws, we've included proposal to include that after one year if there is over 20% carryover then we can move towards technical assistance within our consortium that can be involved planning, financial planning with timelines, their plans to expend their money, or plans to shift that money another way or to other members. So we do have some consortium bylaws that are moving forward that will give them technical assistance within our consortium before that second year possibility comes up.

Renee Collins: Ed, can you? Some of these individuals on the call may be new to this process of developing bylaws. What is the process for moving it forward? Can you talk about what you're doing to move them forward?

ED: Sure, our bylaws committee met as well as our budget committee. And we met a couple of times, and we put together bylaws specific to carryover and ineffective member once we have those and that committee approves them, then that moves to our consortium executive board to approve, so and then once they're approved they began.

We also added another knowing that when we look around the room and our leadership committee meets, and our consortium budget committee meets, and our consortium bylaws committee meet, we're all the same faces we're looking at. So we added another bylaw is that each member needs to sit on at least one committee for the year. So that's another thing that came out of that.

Renee Collins: Good. Maybe one more question, and then maybe somebody else. Again, hands up if you have any questions or want to join in the conversation. I encourage you to do that. Tell me a little bit more about who's comprised of the compliance committee? Are those members within your consortium? Or could they be partners? Or how have you determined who's on the compliance committee?

ED: Renee, were you asking me?

Renee Collins: Yes.

Ede: Yes, our compliance committee is made up of consortium members. Yes.

Renee Collins: OK. Thank you. Any additional thoughts around this one. What are you doing to address technical assistance at the consortium level for your members?

I've got another written response. We are a fiscal agent and have a fiscal manager who can work with a member who is having trouble spending their funds, but ultimately this is a district decision. OK. Any thoughts on that comment or anything that Ed shared?

Shannon: Renee, this is Shannon. I was just thinking it's not exactly an answer to this question, but it kind of relates. So about a year or two ago, we decided to use a 15% threshold, but we do it every December, and we come together at our meeting to see whoever's over 15% carryover can do either an allocation amendment, or if they have a spending plan already they can do that, but we come together as member representatives to discuss how to get that down.

Renee Collins: And so you're doing that in December of the first year that you have that money, or in the second year?

Shannon: And so every December. So we have an example in our bylaws. So for instance, I think our bylaws say so if a member has $100,000 the first year of the funding cycle, we come together in December, and if they have carryover from the previous year over 15%, we look at that and decide if we need to move money to a different site who is spending their money, and then they can choose not to as well.

So then we go on. And then the following year we do the same thing in December. The reason it came up was one of our sites was not spending their funds, and we knew that March deadline was coming up to spend funds before it would go back to the state. So we decided to do that. Now, we only started this maybe a year or two ago. So we haven't really had to utilize voting to move members funds around, but we were starting the process because we kind of knew AB 1491 was coming.

Renee Collins: What a great idea to be jumping on it early and having those conversations, it really does come down to communication.

Shannon: And then one other thing about that is if we had decided to vote to move a member's funds twice, there is a possibility that we decide that, that would be included as a member not being effective. And if that's the case, then they could vote to actually reduce an annual allocation.

Renee Collins: OK. So I'm hearing a lot about ineffective members, bylaws are being updated, and good. I have seen-- Neil, your hand is up.

Neil Kelly: Yes, Shannon brings up a good point that there are some consortia out there that already have existing bylaws that govern members expenditures. And those are fine because the 1491 is specific to member ineffectiveness, and it's called out in a specific Ed code that doesn't supersede or make you have to change what you're doing if you have bylaws that govern your spending, and it may or may not be related to the carryover it may just be related to spending and that's fine.

You can go along with that, and you can have December, or August, or whatever date, but if you're going to follow the 1491 as part of the Ed code 849, I think it's 13, might be mistaken on that one.

But if you do, then you have to follow those guidelines. But that's specific to member and effectiveness. So just so people are aware that there's many ways and many bylaws out there and that you can do many different things as long as your membership is in agreement, and you make these bylaws.

It's just that if you start tipping into the Ed code, then you do have to follow it. But I think you can keep it separate if you have an existing process that stays clear of the whole ineffective member business. Hopefully that made sense, but I'm just trying to show that there are some different lanes here.

Renee Collins: How about those of you that don't have a fiscal agent, and that you're direct funded, what are you doing to assist your members with staying on track? Any examples out there?

Don't forget this is your opportunity to speak up and this is your each others best advocates and best supporters. I think I saw Karen. Karen, did you've just come off of mute.

Karyn Holder: Yes, I did. I just look every quarter I review it before they're due and look to see what the member did the quarter before. I check in with the individual members who are funded to just ask, in general, how is it going and looking at their spending. And if I see that it's not like at the projected 30% or 25% for each quarter, then I just have that conversation, how is everything going? Are you experiencing a problem with their spending? Is there anything I can do to help you? Do I need to contact the CAEP office or TAP to get some assistance?

So I just try to keep in touch with them to let them know what's going on. But I also know that we have our charter documents, but we don't necessarily have bylaws. So I have assisted churches in establishing separate bible 1C3, so that it could go after grant funding. And so I have several samples that I'm redacting, so that I'm bringing to our excel co-directors and our leadership team so that we can actually formally decide to implement bylaws for ourselves and then put that in as the bible in there as to how effective membership about what do we want to do? Is it 15%? Is it 20%? How are we going to do that to get their input and buy in on that one?

So we'll be working on our bylaws I'm sure for about a year or so. I mean, it takes time but, at least, I'll have something to look through. And then I'm also getting samples of other consortia bylaws, so they can have a comparison so that we thoroughly understand it.

Renee Collins: That's great. How are you getting those bylaws? I'm sure some of the people on the call want to know that.

Karyn Holder: Oh, well, I worked in my previous job as a director for the American Diabetes Association. I had over 65 churches that I worked with in ministering programs. And most of them wanted to go after grant money, so I've helped over 35 of those churches go through the process of establishing their 501C3 doing the paperwork and going through the process of the bylaws that came as the standard redacted ones for the public benefit corporation and then help them to amend them based on what their church trustees wanted and things like that and their attorney, but just doing those recommendations.

So I still have copies of all of those. So, I'm just--

Renee Collins: So that that's where you're having a lot of help. And then you also mentioned that you have some access to some consortia.

Karyn Holder: Yeah, some consortia have been so helpful in sharing their bylaws with me and in the processes, so I'm waiting for a new co-director representing the college and as soon as we have that person established and that'll be the first thing we'll talk about is that how would you like to proceed? So what would be the process? And the narrow it down because they don't need to see a lot. You get to look at too many bylaws it makes you crazy.

But I'm going to let them see the one that is the standard one if you were going to do you by starting a new corporation. Just the standard annotated bylaws and then work from there. And then start doing some comparisons. I'd be happy to share that the normal annotated ones that a general public benefit corporation would use that would be acceptable for the federal government and for the state of California.

Renee Collins: That would be great, Karyn, thank you. And I do want to just take this minute to encourage people, if you have bylaws that are already developed, and you don't mind sharing those as a resource for others that are on this call potentially you can either drop a link in or send them to CAEP TAP, and we can make sure to put together basically a resource binder of sorts supporting AB 1491.

Nancy, I see that your hand has been up.

Nancy Miller: I am. Thank you for acknowledging me, I'm Nancy Miller, and I'm a consultant with the South Orange County Regional Consortium. The group started preparing for this transition to AB 1491 last year and established through several of their membership meetings a process for self-assessment and for fiscal reporting. So there's a quarterly fiscal reporting aspect.

It is included in bylaws that it's required for members to do this, and then they established a subcommittee that would develop tools for self-assessment that are based on the bylaws, the member effectiveness statute in their bylaws, the annual plan, and the three-year plan.

So we are in the process of assessing that document and then implementing it this fall as a beta test and then further discussing how that tool will best work, but the plan was already in place. And this group also switched from fiscal agent to direct funding. And during that process, established part of their member effectiveness was to redistribute excessive funding so that over 20% to members on one time or a reallocation basis based on need. And there's a submission process for that as well.

So that is written into their bylaws that consortium does do an annual review of bylaws and update the bylaws based on any new Ed codes that have been adopted for adult education through the year.

Renee Collins: Great. And maybe once you have that self-assessment, maybe that's something that you'd be willing to share with our consortium lead group as well?

Nancy Miller: Absolutely. And I'll share the bylaws in the chat.

Renee Collins: Thank you so much. Yeah, it looks like we have a robust chat going on on the side. Thank you so much. That's great. Let's go back up. We have probably another 10 minutes. So I'm going to just go down and see what maybe we haven't addressed at all.

If we choose to add an excessive carryover amount in Nova planning on 20% for members for 2023-2024, will it be a red flag or cause a problem since AB 1491 won't be implemented until the following year? It would be helpful consortium knowledge in order to see what everything looks like prior to full implementation. How about some of you who are planning to implement some type of excessive carryover on Nova or maybe tracking it on your own this year. What does that look like for you? And do you feel like there are any red flags associated with it?

Encouraging you to come off of mute or right in the box.

Neil had said, nope. I will begin tracking carryover once we finish the 2220 3/4 for expenditure report. It will be tracked at the consortium level and if you choose a member level it will track that as well.

Sherri: [inaudible] actually my question.

Renee Collins: Go ahead, Sherri.

Sherri: It was my question. And basically I wanted to-- In NOVA there's a little button now we can push and then put the percentage for the member carryover. So we put 20%. My question may be a little confusing. Is it going to mess anything up if I do it at the end of the year? Because I chose that. I mean, I just really want to see since we're not starting to track, but I want to see what it's going to look like at the end, and then, of course, notify our members along the way of their progress.

So just is basically is it going to mess anything up if I do it this way since it's not in effect yet? Because it's a new thing in Nova.

Renee Collins: Right, so you're trying to use some of the new tools that are being developed by ProductOps in NOVA I guess in Nova and yeah. Any thoughts on that? I know that we're still developing. I don't know that we can say, for sure. But I don't think that the intention is that they would be a concern. But any other thoughts on others who are thinking about using NOVA to start tracking now?

Veronica Parker: Renee, Mayra has her hand raised.

Renee Collins: Oh, thank you. Mayra, go ahead.

Mayra Diaz: Yeah, so just to address Sherri's question. So, yeah, the threshold tool is now available in seedbed. Don't be alarmed. We're still supposed to have a webinar working on setting the date for that, probably around May. Once we roll out the tools in Nova to track the carryover for AB 1491. And so even though that CFAD percentage carryover threshold is in there now by the consortia submitting their percentage, what that is supposed to do on the back end is really how to track and trigger the carryover.

That's all it's going to do. So once we go over the actual tools, what's going to be new. How you'll get to see the member carryover tracking versus a consortia carryover tracking, that percentage is linked to be able to identify what that number will look like. So it shouldn't necessarily mess up anything, but it would just tie to the logic of being able to track the carryover numbers for the member level and then as well as the consortia level.

Sherri: Thank you. That helps. We have a lot of members and it's going to be a trick to attract them. So I want to try to get a head start on it. So, thanks.

Mayra Diaz: Yeah, no, absolutely. We're definitely taking that into consideration. And so we want to make sure that the tools we release we've been working very expeditiously to try and get those rolled out, but those tools we're hoping to make those intentional to how the members be able to track their carryover the consortia to be able to easily track. If you were to look at Nova right now, that's not very user-friendly at the moment to track the carryover component.

And so once we release those tools, they should be more user-friendly. Fingers crossed for you guys to be able to understand and track the member carryover and the consortia carryover. Do know that we will be working with CAEP TAP to roll out a webinar to walk you through the tools and understand those new additions to Nova. So if you put in a percentage or if you opt out it's not going to break it, it's not going to affect anything. And it'll make more sense as we finalize those tools and put out a professional development training on that.

Renee Collins: Great. Thank you, Mayra. Janeth, go ahead.

Speaker 2: I was just going to say we to have like an internal process. I put a report together for our executive committee once a month, so we put together a kind of like a master budget of all the expenses from the funded members and where we are on a monthly basis. So everybody has access to that and what we have done in the past is that we do like quarterly presentations to know exactly where we are.

And then if we have any surplus we kind of put that ahead and transfer it as CAEP funds one time cost, so we sort of put it into a melting pot where everybody has accessibility to those funding and obviously with the much more direct deadline. And so that has been very helpful.

So to now have hopefully in the near future this opportunity through Nova I think it would probably hopefully simplify our process but at the same time, we do, do our due diligence as a fiscal agent to make sure that we hope to stay in that 20% threshold.

Renee Collins: Great. Thank you for sharing that. Anybody else want to share?

I'm thinking that we've answered a lot of these questions. I don't know if anybody has a particular question that they would really like to address that has not been addressed.

There were some questions that were referencing if the consortium had more than a 20% carryover, maybe what considerations would be state accept as maybe, a good reason potentially to carry over additional funds such as capital projects, maybe teacher shortage?

And it looks like according to Neil, each written plan will be reviewed by the state, but the state cannot take funds away. And if you have a capital outlay project or something of that sort that, it can be written into the plan.

Neil, I see your hand is up?

Neil Kelly: Yeah, I just wanted to take any mystery out of the state's review. I mean, you're going to give us all kinds of good reasons that will review that written expenditure plan. And I'm sure a lot of this makes sense. And we're going to be very levelheaded and understanding.

I think the point is we can provide you technical assistance to help if you're having a problem. If what you're doing is logical and it makes sense and it's dealing with regional issues, then maybe you don't need any technical assistance, and the state would be OK with allowing that to go forward. So it's just having that conversation.

So I just want to downplay the-- I don't know-- threat of sanctions or bad things. I don't think that's going to happen with the 20%. I think where the interesting stuff will happen is within the consortia defining the member level and what's the process. That's where it could get heated.

But at the state level, I'm not seeing really any conflict or issues other than having a nice conversation about what you intend to do and getting you help if you need technical assistance.

Renee Collins: Great. Thank you for that clarification. I'm going to jump up to the welcome and introduction and take a couple of questions from there before we wrap up. Dianne Avery asked, "How many consortia are choosing to put a percentage in NOVA? How much? And why or why not?"

Does anybody want to come off of unmute and talk about your plan? Are you choosing to wait a year, or are you thinking about putting in a percentage this year in NOVA?

Dianne Avery: And full disclosure, I still-- this from someone else that at state level or below that I was like, that is actually, exactly how I want I wanted to ask that question. So I plagiarized a little bit. Just being honest.

Renee Collins: That's OK. I see Heidi. You have your hand up.

Heidi: Yes, we're choosing to wait because it's going to take more discussion time from the point that we found out we have to implement this. Our current plan in our bylaws is that we have the 15, 30, 45, 60 targets so that if a member doesn't reach those targets, other members can put in a request. And we can move funds around.

We use the allocation amendments almost every year for our common cost funds because we've set aside money for the overall common interests. And they don't always get spent. So we distribute any leftover funds to all the members.

And some members don't take them if they already have carryover. So that's kind of been our process. So I suspect we will probably incorporate this 20% excessive carryover in a similar way, but we need time to talk about it.

Renee Collins: Thank you, Heidi. Anybody else want to share with Dianne what you're planning to do?

Sherri: We're doing the 20% from the get go. And the reason being for 20% is because the members have heard 20%, 20%, 20%. So we're not going to confuse them. We're trying--

[laughs]

Because it's what we know, right? It's what we've heard. And so 20% seems feasible, and we are trying it this year as a trial. And then our bylaws that are reflecting that as Eddie have spoken. And we're just going to see what happens. That's why I want the trial. Kind of was asking about that NOVA in the CFAD, that box, to see how it's all going to play out.

Dianne Avery: Sherri, can I ask? When you do the 20%, are you going to do 20% for each member? Or I know we've been having discussions, and one was to have 10% for each. And I wasn't sure exactly if we should just do 20% across the board for a consortium and add members or a different one for each member.

Sherri: I don't think we're able to do that in NOVA.

Dianne Avery: OK.

Sherri: So we have to do straight across the board for each member, and we're just keeping it consistent.

Dianne Avery: OK. Thank you so much.

Renee Collins: Any last comments on this particular question? Carla, did I see your-- you come up unmute? Oh, I guess not. OK.

All right. Well, I want to thank you for really engaging with us either in the chat, I mean, off of mute, writing into our Google Form. I want you to, if you can please, scroll to the end of the document. And there are three questions there-- four questions actually-- that I would like to encourage you to complete.

And the first is, "What was the most useful takeaway from this discussion?" And I do want to say, we had quite a large group. And typically, the peer learning circle model would probably not have all of us in one room together. We would often be in breakout groups.

But if you want to comment on that, whether you like the idea of staying together as a larger group or you think that would be able to maybe, have more opportunities to interact with folks if you were in breakout groups, we encourage that kind of feedback.

But anyhow, what was the most useful takeaway from this discussion? If you can go ahead and just fill that in the Google document? What questions do you have for future exploration? We'll certainly go through this document and make sure that we've captured them all. But if there are others that you still have that are lingering, please go ahead and add them.

And then if you'd like to participate in the future learning circles on this topic, you can just either put your name or yes. And then if you have any additional questions, we encourage those too. So you have about 5 additional minutes to come off of mute and ask any additional questions that you would like to as we're closing. But also, take the time, please, to complete those questions in the document.

And thank you to Veronica and Holly because I couldn't keep up with everything. And I have to say, I wasn't able to monitor the chat as well as I was the document.

Any questions? Anybody have any lingering concerns that they need to know something before we're done? Neil?

Neil Kelly: Yeah, Tom had a good question in the chat. He said-- let me just read it. "There's the definition of ineffective member relates solely to incurring carryover above 20% in a given year or are other performance measures considered."

So when you look at that Ed Code, right now, the only thing that we have defined as an effective member is the carryover in the Ed Code. Now, that doesn't prevent the consortia from going a little deeper and defining ineffective member via performance outcomes. But that would be up to the consortia because that's not an Ed Code.

But currently, right now, the Ed Code only defines ineffective member as it relates to carryover. It's a little vague on anything else related to ineffective member. So I hope that helps.

Renee Collins: Thank you, Neil.

Tom: Thank you.

Renee Collins: I've seen a lot of people say that they would like another PLC but I'm not seeing any questions for future exploration. And a lot of the PLC model relies on those questions. So if you have any, please pop them in there. That would be helpful for us in setting up a new PLC.

If there are any other questions that we missed addressing and you want to come off of mute and bring it up, please do.

Neil Kelly: Renee, I wanted to-- maybe, I missed it because I was answering the chat. Mayra, do we have-- there's comments in the chat about separating out in NOVA the consortia level expenses or consortia level budget.

Right now, we only can talk about consortia admin, but I know that's something we've talked about. Are we considering allowing NOVA to have a consortia level budget as an option? Is that something we've talked to product ops about? Or is it we're just trying to get through the carryover stuff right now?

Mayra Diaz: I know that that was an item that was brought up, and so we were exploring it and still looking. At the moment, it hasn't been separated. It's still broken up, or it's still reflected as it has been. And so there's no changes on that end, but it is something that we're taking back and looking further into. But just know that at the moment, no, it's not. It's not divided. It's not separated.

Neil Kelly: OK. Thank you.

Renee Collins: Great resources that were dropped in the chat. Emma, I see your hand.

Emma?

Not sure if she's still there. Emma?

No, we can't hear you, Emma.

Ah. "The darn new computers. They always get us." No problem.

All right. There are a couple of questions going in the chat. "What are some of the reasons for carryover and how can we stay ahead of them? How are consortia managing member participation, requests for teleconferencing, accommodations, et cetera?" These are great. Mayra, I see your hand.

Mayra Diaz: Yeah, so just wanted to address the comment I made in the chat and Sherri's follow-up feedback. So in NOVA, you are able to enter the percentage. And as I previously mentioned, so what that's going to do because it's tied to the CFAD, you won't be able to change it. So that was one of the points that I had made.

If you decide 20%, 15%, or opt out, once you guys sign off on the CFAD, it will stay locked in until next year's CFAD. You'll get to select whichever percentage you want to, or change if you don't want to. If you want to opt out at that point for next year or if you want to change the percentage, you'll have the ability to do that.