BOARD PACKET FOR MAY 11, 2016 MEETING

NOTE THAT THIS COVER PAGE IS THE TABLE OF CONTENTS OF THE PACKET THE AGENDA IS THE FIRST ATTACHMENT IN THIS PACKET – ON p. 2

TO: CCLC Board of Directors FROM: Kim Kruckel RE: May 11, 2015 Board Meeting DATE: May 6, 2015 Cc: Judy Arrigo The Board Meeting will be: Date/Time: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 6:00 pm Place: Child Care Law Center Offices, 445 Church St. 4th Floor, San Francisco, CA Contents of Board Packet and Attachments

1. Agenda 2. Minutes of February 5, 2016 Board Meeting 3. Substantive Work Report 4. Fundraising & Budget Report

Attachments: Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Attachment 1 Memorandum Retirement Plan Proposal Attachment 2 Financial Report 2015 - 2016 Attachment 3 Resume | Roberto Viramontes Attachment 4

CHILD CARE LAW CENTER

BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING

WEDNESDAY MAY 11, 2016

CHILD CARE LAW CENTER OFFICES

445 CHURCH STREET, 4TH FLOOR, SAN FRANCISCO, CA

AGENDA

OPTIONAL CALL-IN NUMBER 712-775-7100 PASSCODE 1013764 #

Action

1. CONOCOMIENTO

2. CONSENT AGENDA

a. Minutes from February 2016 Board Meeting

b. Substantive Work Report

c. Fundraising Report

d. Meeting Agenda

3. BOARD BUSINESS

a. New Board Member Election + Welcome

i. Presentation by Board Affairs Committee

ii. Election of New Board Members:

Mary Gutierrez

Roberto Viramontes

iii. Welcome New Board Members

b. Report from the Executive Director, Kim Kruckel

c. Resolution to Affirm Priority as a Legal Services Support Center

d. Policy Committee – Norma Ming

e. Development Committee -- Yating Wong

i. 100% giving campaign

ii. Planning for a Happy Hour or Breakfast Social

f. Finance Committee – Dan Newbold, Treasurer

i. Recommendation to establish a 403(b) retirement savings plan for employees

ii. Resolution: Business Master Signature Card for new officer signatures on First

Republic Bank accounts

iii. Approve 3rd quarter Financial Statements - Dan Newbold

iv. Present Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2016-2017 – John Uselman

g. New Business – Daniel Stringer, Fernando Gaytan

4. EXECUTIVE SESSION

5. CLOSING BUSINESS

Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Meeting #3

CHILD CARE LAW CENTER MINUTES OF MEETING OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Friday, February 5, 2016 At Holland & Knight, 50 California Street, Suite 2800, San Francisco, CA

The regularly-scheduled meeting of the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Child Care

Law Center (“CCLC”) was held at on Friday, February 5, 2016 at Holland & Knight, 50 California Street, Suite 2800, San Francisco, CA, with notice given in accordance with CCLC’s bylaws.

Directors present: Maureen Boyd, Ryan Bradley, Fernando Gaytan, Daniel Stringer, Yating Wong, Norma Ming, Bradley Brownlow, Lisa Holder, Moony Tong, Jorja Jackson Directors arriving late: Jorja Jackson (12:15) and Moony Tong (11.08) Directors absent: John Uselman, Brett Barley, Dan Newbold Also present: Kim Kruckel, Tessa Thym

Daniel Stringer, Chair of the Board, noted that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order 11:02 AM.

1. The first item discussed was Item 1 – Introduction (Daniel Stringer) a. Daniel Stringer led the board in an icebreaker

2. The second item discussed was Item 2 – Consent Agenda (Daniel Stringer)

a. Daniel Stringer proposed the following changes to the consent agenda: b. Add to the Meeting Agenda a discussion of term limits during Section 3h

(Administrative Board Items). c. Keep the first three items on the Consent Agenda d. Move Financials Report off the consent agenda and onto the regular agenda.

i. Brad Brownlow motioned to approve the proposed changes to the consent agenda.

ii. Maureen Boyd seconded the motion. All present were in favor. The motion passed.

e. Daniel Stringer motioned to approve the the consent agenda as modified. i. Brad Brownlow seconded the motion. All present were in favor. The motion

passed.

3. The third item discussed was Item 3(a) Board Business: Board Affairs Committee. a. Brad Brownlow introduced the discussion of board recruitment . We are looking to

fill 3 board positions. Daniel announced that Paola Laverde has resigned from the board. Maureen Boyd, and Jorja Jackson will not be renewing their terms. One position has been vacant since Amanda Hines Gold left in the fall of 2015.

b. Maureen Boyd proposed that we ask Mary Guitierrez, statewide campaign director for

i. The Board affirmed the need to recruit new members with financial skills, HR/personnel skills, and fundraising/marketing skills.

ii. Yating suggested bringing on advisory board members with finance skills.Ryan Bradley asked finance committee to draw up a job description of the desired advisory member

c. Jorja Jackson is scheduled to meet with potential recruit, Sarah Esmaili. d. Lisa Holder proposed looking for individuals with a healthcare perspective and

skills. e. Ryan Bradley asked if the board would be amenable to pursue Mary Gutierrez as a

new recruit. The board was in favor of this idea and Bradley Brownlow is available for a phone interview.

2

4. The fourth item discussed was Item 3 (b) Board Business: Finance Committee (Moony Tong)

a. Moony reviewed and explained the 2nd

Quarter Financials: i. We have more unrestricted funds this year from new grants. ii. The fundraising budget percentage is high this fiscal year. The fundraising

committee recommends Kim watch this percentage. iii. The board inquired about fundraising costs and the reported outcomes.

b. Moony reported that discussion and approval of the FY16-17 budget will be tabled until the next board meeting.

c. Kim Kruckel reported that the organization has the necessary funding for the next fiscal year because of contracts and grants.

5. The fifth item discussed was Item 3 (c) Board Business: Update on Milestones from 2015 (CCLC Staff)

a. Kim Kruckel reported on program success in the last year, as highlighted in the Substantive Work Report.

i. The Legal Lunch Roundtable regarding the impact of minimum wage on child care.

6. The sixth item discussed was Item 3 (g) Board Business: Lunch + Breakout

a. Board members broke for lunch.

7. The seventh item discussed was Item 3 (f-iii) Board Business: Strategic Planning and Communications: Communication and Social Media.

a. Melanie Ross Levin, Director of Engagement and Mobilization at the National Women’s Law Center, gave a presentation via Skype. The topic was social media as an engagement tool for the Child Care Law Center.

8. The eighth item discussed was Item 3 (f-i) Board Business: Strategic Planning and

Communications (Fernando Gaytan) a. Fernando Gaytan led the Strategic Planning exercise. Small groups answered the

following questions: i. What is the universe of child care that you want to exist? If funding wasn’t

an issue, what would you want the Child Care Law Center to do? If funding was limited, what would be your top three choices?

b. The board brainstormed ways the CCLC can grow in the areas of achieving Equity, Access, Quality, Systemic Change.

9. The ninth item discussed was Item 3 Board Business: Committee Meetings

a. Board Members met by committee for twenty minutes and reported back.. b. Board Affairs:

i. Brad Brownlow announced that Jorja Jackson will be resigning from the board.

ii. Brad Brownlow will stay on as chair of Board Affairs committee. c. Development Committee

i. The committee affirmed fundraising as a focus for this year. ii. The committee’s goals for the year are to reach 100% board giving for

every fiscal year, pitch CCLC in every social media platform, get each board member to be comfortable with giving an elevator speech in various social contexts.

iii. Paola was the chair of the board previously, there is no chair appointed as of now.

d. Policy committee i. Norma is the new chair of the Policy committee. ii. The committee’s goals for the year include working with east bay direct

services, partnering with legislators, and the press.

3

10. The tenth item discussed was Item 3 (h- ii) Board Business: Administrative Board

Items: IOLTA Survey Requirement a. Kim Kruckel explained that every two years, IOLTA rules require that we survey

private and legal aid attorneys to affirm that the Child Care Law Center should exist as a support center. Staff will be emailing board members the survey to share with professional colleagues. The deadline is May 2016.

11. The eleventh item discussed was Item 3 (j): Board Business: Review Meeting Dates for 2016

a. Kim Kruckel will confirm board meeting dates for 2016, currently set as May 18th,

July 20th, and October 19

th. Locations TBA. Oakland is preferred location.

12. The twelfth item discussed was Item ; Term Limits

a. According to our bylaws Section 5.4, directors may serve no more than three consecutive terms.

b. Daniel Stringer asked whether these term limits best suited the organization. The Board will ask the advisors at the Mills Clinic at Stanford Law School what the rationale is for term limits.

13. The thirteenth item discussed was Item 3(i) I: Board Business: Election of officers

a. Daniel Stringer motioned to re-elect Daniel Newbold as Treasurer. Moony Tong seconded the motion. All present were in favor. The motion passed.

b. Brad Brownlow nominated Daniel Stringer as Board Chair. Brad Brownlow motioned to re-elect Daniel Stringer as Board Chair. Norma Ming seconded the motion. All present were in favor. The motion passed.

c. Brad Brownlow motioned to appoint Fernando Gaytan as Secretary. Ryan Bradley seconded the nomination. All present were in favor. The motion passed. None opposed.

d. Brad Brownlow motioned to appoint Lisa Holder as Vice Chair. Maureen Boyd seconded the motion. All present were in favor. The motion passed.

14. The fourteenth item discussed was Item 4: Executive Session a. The board declined the need to enter into executive session.

15. The fifteenth Item discussed was Item 5: Closing Business

a. Ryan Bradley motioned to adjourn the meeting. Maureen Boyd seconded. All present were in favor.

Adjournment at 2:52 PM. Next meeting will be Wednesday, May 18

th, 2016 at 6:00PM. Location TBA.

________________________________ Secretary

________________________________ Date

Substantive Work Report 5.11.16 Page 1

To: Board of Directors

From: Kim Kruckel, Executive Director

Re: Substantive Work Report for the May 11, 2016 Board Meeting

Date: April 29, 2016

I. Policy Advocacy Highlights

Progress~ California’s Minimum Wage goes up to $15 by 2022

On April 4, 2016, Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 3 (Leno), which will raise the state

minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2022, giving California a path to the highest state minimum

wage in the country. Higher income, in and of itself, has a demonstrated positive impact on

family and child health and education outcomes. Almost ninety percent of child care workers

make less than $15 per hour.

Raising wages in child care presents specific challenges. Many families who need child care lack

the ability to pay more for it. The Child Care Law Center’s recommendations and issue

highlights are available at www.childcarelaw.org/updates.

New law helps low-income parents take Paid Family Leave

AB 908 increases the amount of pay for people who take Paid Family Leave. Studies showed

that lower-income families took Paid Family Leave less frequently than higher income earners.

Paid Family Leave funds are administered through the State Disability Insurance fund and are

automatically deducted from all employees’ paychecks. Benefits will now be 60-70% (on a

sliding scale) of past wages.

Fully Paid Parental Leave in San Francisco

The Paid Parental Leave bill makes San Francisco one of the first municipalities in the country to

ensure new parents fully-paid bonding time. The law requires San Francisco employers (with 20

or more employees) to pay the 45% of wages not already covered by Paid Family Leave.

New Legislation in the works -

Campus Child Care

A new bill in Congress focuses on the importance of child care for parents in school. The Child

Care Access Means Parents in Schools (CCAMPIS) Improvement Act would create a $67

million authorization for the Campus Child Care program, up from the current $15 million a

year. We featured this legislation in our tour of the College of Marin Child Study Center

Substantive Work Report 5.11.16 Page 2

California State Budget

The Legislative Women’s Caucus has asked that $800 M be added to the state budget to fund

child care and early learning.

Reimbursement rates paid to child care programs be raised to the 85th percentile of the current

(2014) regional market survey (we are using 2009 );

License-exempt providers be paid at 80% of the updated reimbursement rate (they are

currently at 60%);

Reimbursement rates paid to state-contracted centers be raised in targeted counties where

it lags behind the regional market rate

Update income guidelines for subsidized care, raised the exit ceiling and guarantee 12-

month eligibility

Create 25,000 new slots for children under three years old.

The Governor’s Budget for 2016-2017 and the May Revise

Governor Brown’s budget for 2016-2017 did not contain new funding for child care, and

included a radical restructuring of the existing early childhood care system - an Early Education

Block Grant to local school districts. Read more about it on our website. Assembly and Senate

Budget Subcommittees both turned down the proposals.

The Department of Finance assured legislators and advocates that more details and their full plan

will be back with the May Revise.

Child Care Protections for Working Families*

AB 2150 - Santiago & Weber

Removes red-tape reporting rules that hurt families; guarantee 12 months of continuous child

care assistance; requires current census data to establish income eligibility; establishes phased-

out income ceilings – so families don’t fall off the child care cliff. This bill will bring the state

into compliance with the CCDBG Act of 2014, which requires states to enact family-friendly

eligibility rules. Data across the country has shown that low-income families have been

“churning” in and out of child care programs.

Paid Family School Partnership Act*

AB 2405 – Gatto

Strengthens the Family–School Partnership Act by giving parents paid time off when they

volunteer in their child’s classroom, preschool or child care.

*These are Child Care Law Center bills

Substantive Work Report 5.11.16 Page 3

5. Improving Health and Safety Regulations

Child care professionals know best their capacity and need for training. That’s why the Child

Care Law Center went to them with a survey about child care health and safety. Nearly 600

professionals responded! The survey was offered in Spanish and English and the results will

inform our attorneys’ recommendations to the California Health & Safety Regulatory

Workgroup. The Child Care Law Center participates in this administrative advocacy group to

impact California’s poor rank in regulatory oversight of child care.

III. Housing and community development

The goal of our community development grant is to reform local ordinances that do not comply

with the Child Day Care and Facilities Act. This will create economic opportunity for both

parents and low-income child care providers by making it easier for providers to care for the

infants and young children in their community.

We have collected data on zoning, business and fire & smoke alarm policies from Butte, Fresno,

Riverside, San Diego, San Mateo and Contra Costa counties. These counties were chosen

because of a combination of low-income residents, high child care need vs. low child care

availability, and rapid job growth. Quite a few cities have high-cost zoning permits, and a few

have unlawful environmental impact fees.

Staff will analyze the zoning and business ordinances, and General Plans for the cities that seem

to be the worst offenders. For example, those with zoning permits costing more than $1,000 or

obvious problem requirements. They will then convene meetings with local child care resource

& referral agencies and other stake holders to decide next steps.

Impact: There are approximately 33,000 family child care home providers in California. We aim

to serve or impact 10% of them over two years.

IV. Technical Assistance to IOLTA–Funded Programs

Support to IOLTA-funded legal aid organizations in California is a core program of the Child

Care Law Center.

● Trainings on child care law for legal aid attorneys – see below

● Technical assistance to legal aid attorneys for their clients – more than 12 occasions

● Advocacy efforts with legal aid attorneys to affect systems change – 6 issues

Substantive Work Report 5.11.16 Page 4

V. Community Legal Education, Information and Referral

This program encompasses our legal information and referral service, trainings for the

community, website, publications, and communications.

1. Website/Social Media –Please follow us on Twitter (@childcarelaw) and Facebook (Child

Care Law Center). Put us on your LinkedIn resume too!

2. Legal Information and Referral Requests

67 requests between 1/1/16 and 4/19/16

3. Community Trainings, Workshops and Presentations

1. Fresno County Parent Voices - for parents and child care providers, regarding

mandated child abuse reporting and the ADA

2. Humboldt County Changing Tides Family Center - for child care providers,

regarding inclusion of children with disabilities

3. Bay Area - for legal services attorneys, regarding parents’ child care subsidy

rights

4. California Association for the Education of Young Children statewide –

regarding Inclusion legal services statewide

5. Practicing Law Institute – lawyers, statewide, regarding public benefits

6. Northern California - for legal services attorneys, regarding child care

subsidies

4. New publications:

● The $ 15 Minimum Wage and Its Impacts on Child Care in California

VI. Happy Baby Healthy Baby Legal Fellowship – A story from our Parent Subsidy Advocate

● Natalie has four children, ages two months, 3, 8, and 11. She was able to attend school

and work towards a medical assistant degree because of her child care subsidy. Her three eldest

children were receiving child care services when she became pregnant. Due to a pregnancy-

related illness, Hyperemesis Gravidarum, which causes severe vomiting and nausea during

pregnancy, Natalie was not able to promptly respond to the contracted agency’s documentation

requests. Natalie was hospitalized for her illness and needed to submit documentation for her

Leave of Absence (LOA) and best interest requests for the days the children were pulled from

child care while Natalie was hospitalized or gravely ill. Natalie’s illness was so severe that she

Substantive Work Report 5.11.16 Page 5

was bed-ridden with a nurse administered IV. Natalie’s community college worked with her to

obtain the required documentation for a leave of absence from school and held a slot open for

when she was well enough to return. The contracted agency, however, terminated Natalie without

any type of accommodation for failing to submit the requested documentation. Natalie was given

one week to submit the requested documents before she was sent a NOA. Her case worker,

despite knowing she was ill, left several messages information Natalie that if she did not submit

the requested documents by fax or dropping off physically at the contracted agency, she would be

terminated from the program. Natalie was too sick to fax or go to the contracted agency. The

contracted agency sent Natalie a notice of action that was returned to sender but the contracted

agency never tried to re-issue of follow-up with the parent. The contracted agency terminated her

child care services without Natalie ever being aware of her right to appeal.

● Natalie’s pregnancy-related illness lasted for the duration of her pregnancy. Her children,

including one with special needs, spent the remaining 7 months of her pregnancy and the

additional 2 months after the birth of their sister without any child care. Natalie could not afford

child care without her child care subsidy. She had pieced together from the voicemails and

documentation request that she had been terminated but because she never received her formal

NOA, she did not know she could appeal that decision or that she may qualify for other child care

services.

● It was not until Natalie attended a Parent Voices training in her hometown of Fresno that

she discovered she had a right to appeal an adverse NOA. Parent Voices connected Natalie with

the Child Care Law Center. CCLC reviewed Natalie’s file and discovered that her NOA had been

returned to sender but that the contracted agency had done nothing to inform the parent of her

appeal rights. CCLC wrote a demand letter to the contracted agency requesting immediate

reinstatement of Natalie’s child care services. The contracted agency denied any fault but agreed

to get Natalie back in the program. Despite the contracted agency’s denial to admit fault, without

CCLC’s advocacy Natalie would likely not have been offered child care services. The contracted

agency expressed their desire to work with the parent and the Dept. of Education was made aware

of the issue and also put pressure on the contracted agency to see that this parent receives child

care services. Natalie went in for an appointment and is awaiting her new class schedule. She is

approved for child care and will begin classes in the summer. Her new baby will also receive

child care services.

To: Board of Directors

From: Kim Kruckel, Executive Director

Date: May 4, 2016

RE: Reports -- May 11, 2016 Board Meeting

Fundraising

A. Pending New Grant Applications:

Associates’ Committee - for work to help CalWORKs clients access child care $50,000

Trio Foundation – for general advocacy $10,000

Women’s Foundation – leadership development & advocacy $5,000

Heising Simons – for policy advocacy $75,000

B. Grant Decisions and Awards:

Denied: Morrison & Foerster – for work to help CalWORKs clients access child care

($300,000 over three years). We may be eligible for a smaller grant from the local MOFO office, but we

were not referred for the 30th Anniversary Celebration Grants.

C. Cultivation/Stewardship Activities:

• Tour – The Child Study Center at the College of Marin with 15 supporters.

• One lunch with two donors (Ryan Bradley).

• Handwritten thank you notes and appeals.

D. Results from the Legal Services Trust Fund visit will be announced at the Board Meeting

E. 100% Board Giving Goal: Currently at 70% Board Giving for Fiscal Year 2015-2016.

F. Total Private Donations Fiscal Year 2015-2016 to date: $23,825.50

G. Next Steps: Plan a summer event – happy hour, or organization breakfast.

Retirement Contributions for Employees

The draft budget includes approximately $12,000 to match employee contributions to retirement savings

accounts. We intend to offer a 403(b) plan to employees upon board approval.

Draft Budget for 2016-2017

Income:

We enter FY16-17 (beginning July 1) with enough grant funding to meet our operating expenses. This is due

primarily to a new grant for Community Development activities from the Legal Services Trust Fund, and an

expected additional grant from the Heising Simons Foundation.

Expenses:

Expenses increase across the board. The budget includes these specific increases, in addition to the retirement

benefits:

• 3% pay increase for each employee, plus payroll taxes, for a total of $14,000

• A 2%-3% increase in program expenses related to the increase of staff size to 4 attorneys (6 total

staff)

• Continued contracts with development consultants to assist with communications and fundraising

($10,000)