1

AGENDA
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
LC8 NOW, INC.
LC8 TECH CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL

LEARNING TOGETHER AND FROM EACH OTHER

www.LC8Tech.com
joleen@LC8Tech.com
mb: 951-522-0451
wk: 855-LC8-TECH
fx: 855-5LC8-FAX

BOARD OF DIRECTORS:
MR. GARY LA FERLA, PRESIDENT
MR. DOUG HUSEN, TREASURER
MRS. HOLLIE WOODS, SECRETARY

School Board Meeting: LC8 Tech Charter High School

Date/Time: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 at 5:30PM
Location: Londen Institute
Crossroads Christian Church
Corona, CA
________________________________________________________________________________

CALL MEETING TO ORDER – 5:30PM Place Name Here

Oral Report by For

Assigned To Board Page
SECTION A—PRESENTATIONS

A.1 Report from the Executive Director Executive Director Report 3-8
Dr. Joleen D. Smith will report on the RUSD Public Hearing
from presentation to RUSD Board actions.

A.2 LC8 Tech High School Charter Petition Revisions Executive Director Report 8-9
Dr. Joleen D. Smith will report on the recommendations for Discussion
LC8 Tech High School Charter petition revisions.

A.3 LC8 Tech High School Charter Petition Submission Ms. Jessica K. Markley Report 10
Ms. Jessica K. Markley will report on the two school districts Discussion

 
www.LC8Tech.com
April 12, 2010
   2  

Charter School Statistics—Temecula, CA and Corona/Norco, CA

A.4 LC8 Tech Publications, Branding, Technology Mr. Joshua L. Smith Report 11
Mr. Joshua L. Smith will report on the publications and Discussion
social networking through various media

SECTION B—FINANCIAL REPORT/DISCUSSION

B.1 Current Non-Profit Status for LC8 Now, Inc. Executive Director Report 11
Dr. Joleen D. Smith will report on the status of the non-profit Discussion
and Mr. Richard Hansbergerʼs, School Lawyer, recommendations

B.2 Fundraisers for 2011/2012 Mr. Steve J. Smith Report 12

Mr. Steve J. Smith will report

SECTION C—CONSENT

Moved________Seconded________Vote________

All items listed under the Consent Calendar are considered by the Board of Directors to routine and will be
enacted by the Board in one motion. There will be no discussion of these items prior to the time the Board votes
on the motion unless members of the Board request specific items to be removed from the Consent Calendar.

C.1

SECTION D—ACTION

D.1

SECTION E—CONCULSION

E.1 Board Membersʼ Comments

 (Place comments from the Board. Reference them by name and the section under
which comments to action would be placed.)
E.2 Executive Directorʼs Announcements
 (Place any announcements for Action Plan and Calendar items.)
E.3 Agenda Items for Future Meetings

Regular Board of Directors Meeting

 (Place any agenda items for the next Board meeting and for future Board meetings.

 
www.LC8Tech.com
April 12, 2010
   3  

ADJOURNMENT

The next regular meeting of the Board of Directors is scheduled for_________________________________.

The meeting will be called to order at 5:30PM in the Londen Institute, Crossroads Christian Church, Corona, CA.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

A.1 Report from the Executive Director Executive Director Report

Dr. Joleen D. Smith will report on the RUSD Public Hearing from presentation to RUSD Board actions.

On February 22, 2011, LC8 Now, Inc. founding and support team members gathered to present our
High School Charter Petition to RUSD. LC8 Board, founding team, and support team members had
an opportunity to present our Collaborative Learning methodologies, teaching/administrative
credentials, and professional resumes needed to open a Charter High School in the Riverside
Unified School District.

Mr. Tom Hunt, RUSD Board President, made a recommendation to have an open mind and visit
CCHS pilot program that we are currently heading. I made numerous phone calls and email
communications to the RUSD Board and Gloria Crowder with an open invitation. They did not
respond.

Once the recommendation from RUSD administration was posted onto the Board Meeting Agenda, I
communicated with Richard Hansberger and the LC8 team about their Findings of Fact. Jessica and
I attended the March 21st RUSD Board of Education meeting and thanked the board, district
administration, and Gloria Crowder for their time and consideration.

RUSD FINDINGS OF FACT FOR LC8 TECH HIGH SCHOOL CHARTER PETITION
3380 14th Street — Riverside, CA — 92501 Board Meeting Agenda March 21, 2011

Resolution No. 2010/11-32 – Resolution of the Riverside Unified School District Board of Education
Denying the Charter Petition for the Establishment of LC8 Tech High School

Gloria Cowder, Director, Program Development and Extended Learning Opportunities

Mike Fine, Deputy Superintendent, Business Services and Governmental Relations

Short Description: Board of Education will be asked to adopt Resolution No. 2010/11-32 – Denying
the Charter Petition for the Establishment of the LC8 Tech High School.

DESCRIPTION OF AGENDA ITEM:

On February 2, 2011, petitioners for the LC8 Tech High School filed a petition with the District for
consideration for approval of the named charter school. Pursuant to California Education Code
 

 
www.LC8Tech.com
April 12, 2010
   4  

Section 47605, the Board of Education held a public hearing on February 22, 2011, to consider the
level of support for the petition by teachers employed by the District, other employees of the District,
and parents. A District team conducted a review of the petition utilizing an evaluation matrix tool.
Attached is Resolution No. 2010-11-32 summarizing staff’s findings and recommendations. These
findings and recommendations were developed after careful evaluation of the contents of the petition
and comparison to the relevant California Education Code, California Code of Regulations and other
legal standards.
Staff will present a summary of the findings and make additional comments at the Board of
Education Meeting that are incorporated in the resolution.

RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board of Education adopt Resolution No.

2010/11-32 – Denying the Charter Petition for the Establishment of the LC8 Tech High School

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL: Resolution 2010/11-32 Attached: Yes

RESOLUTION NO. 2010/11-32
OF THE RIVERSIDE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION DENYING
THE CHARTER PETITION FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF LC8 TECH HIGH SCHOOL
WHEREAS, the Charter Schools Act of 1992, set forth at Education Code Section 47600 et seq., (the
"Act") provides for the establishment and operation of publicly-funded charter schools in the State of
California; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 47605 of the Act, a school district governing board may approve a
petition for the operation of a charter school that operates at one or more sites within the geographical
boundaries of the school district; and

WHEREAS, a school district governing board may only approve a charter petition if the board is
satisfied that granting the charter is consistent with sound educational practice; and

WHEREAS, a school district governing board may deny a petition for the establishment of a charter
school if the board makes one or more of the findings listed in Section 47605(b), and sets forth
specific facts to support such findings; and

WHEREAS, on February 2, 2011, petitioners (“Petitioners”) for the proposed LC8 Tech High
School (“Charter School”) submitted a charter petition (“Charter Petition”) to the Riverside Unified
School District (“District”) Board of Education (“Board”) for the establishment of a new charter
school operating within the boundaries of the District; and

WHEREAS, the Charter Petition was accompanied by a “Charter School Teacher Approval
Signature Form” (“Signature Form”) that included the signatures of five teachers who have, by their
signatures, affirmed that they are meaningfully interested in teaching at the proposed Charter School;
and

WHEREAS, Petitioners also submitted a proposed budget summary (“Budget Summary”) and

 
www.LC8Tech.com
April 12, 2010
   5  

proposed monthly cash flows relating to the proposed Charter School; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Education Code Section (“Section”) 47605(b), the Board held a duly
noticed public hearing on the provisions of the Charter Petition on February 22, 2011, at which time
the Board provided Petitioners with an opportunity to make a presentation to the Board regarding the
proposed Charter School, and answer questions posed by the Board, and at which time members of
the public had an opportunity to comment on the proposed Charter Petition; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 47605(b), the Board has considered the level of support for the
Charter Petition by teachers and other employees of the District and by parents; and

WHEREAS, at its meeting of March 21, 2011, the Board further considered the terms of the Charter
Petition, and whether to grant or deny the Charter Petition, and provided members of the public an
opportunity to comment on the proposed Charter School;

NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE RIVERSIDE UNIFIED

SCHOOL DISTRICT HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The recitals above are true and correct.

Section 2. The staff report and comments presented to the Board by District staff at the meeting of
March 21, 2011 regarding the Charter Petition are hereby incorporated by reference.

Section 3. No Facility Specified. The Charter Petition fails to identify a single charter school that
will operate within the geographical boundaries of the District, as required by Section 47605(a), and
fails to identify the facilities to be utilized by the school, the specific location being proposed, and the
potential effect of such facilities on the school district, as required by Section 47605(g). (Charter
Petition, pp. 100, 120.) The failure to identify a specific location for the proposed Charter School is
not only a failure to comply with the requirements of Sections 47605 of the Act, but also makes it
impossible for District staff to determine, among other things, (1) the appropriateness and safety of
the facility for the proposed program, (2) whether funds have been appropriately budgeted for the
facility costs, and (3) whether the proposed location is consistent with law.

Section 4. Lack of Support. There is no evidence that the proposed Charter School has the support of
teachers or other employees of the District, as no employees expressed support for the proposed
Charter School at the hearing on February 22, 2011. There is also no evidence that the proposed
Charter School has the support of parents in or near the District, as no parents addressed the Board
during the public hearing on February 22, 2011 expressing their support or interest in the proposed
school. Furthermore, because teacher signatures, and not parent signatures support the Charter
Petition, the Board is unable to determine from the Signature Form whether there is sufficient parent
interest in, and support of, the proposed Charter School.

Section 6. Unsound Educational Program. The proposed Charter School presents an unsound

 
www.LC8Tech.com
April 12, 2010
   6  

educational program for the pupils to be enrolled, in that:

a. The Charter Petition fails to provide sufficient detail to demonstrate how the proposed
curriculum would support student mastery of the State content standards. The Charter Petition fails to
describe a coherent implementation of a standards-based curriculum and provide alignment between a
State standards-based curriculum, teaching, assessment, and learning climate. (Charter Petition, pp.
14-53.) The Charter Petition fails to identify the textbooks and other materials that will be used in the
curriculum, but rather speaks in future tense about the development of curriculum. Therefore, it is
impossible for the District to determine whether the instructional materials that will be used are
consistent with State content standards and research-based. (Charter Petition, pp. 23-25.)
b. The Charter Petition fails to adequately describe how students who are eligible for special
education and related services will be identified, assessed and served, as required by the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), without complete reliance on the District for at least the
first year. The Charter Petition fails to demonstrate an understanding and ability to provide special
education services to students with exceptional needs, and fails to describe how services will be
provided in the event the District is unable or unwilling to assume that role. (Charter Petition, pp. 47-
53.)
c. The Charter Petition fails to adequately describe how it will deliver its proposed academic
schedule with the anticipated staffing levels. For example, Petitioners have indicated, both in the
Charter Petition and verbally at the public hearing, that all 100 students will be instructed in
mathematics (Algebra I and Geometry) during first period (Charter Petition, pp. 30-31), but it is
unclear whether all students would be instructed by the same teacher, or whether two or three
teachers to be hired would be credentialed and highly qualified in the area of mathematics. The
Charter Petition also does not take into account that some students might require other levels of
mathematics (such as Algebra II) as 9th graders, and how those students’ academic needs will be met
during the Charter School’s first year of operation with limited course offerings. (Charter Petition, pp.
29-31.) Finally, the Charter Petition states that it will hire four (4) teachers during the first year of
operations (Charter Petition, p. 122), but states elsewhere that it will hire three (3) teachers during the
first year (Charter Petition, p. 85), and in fact budgets for three (3) teachers. (Budget Summary, p. 4
of 6.) However, the Charter Petition fails to adequately describe how the Charter School will be able
to ensure that all academic courses are taught by highly qualified teachers, as required by federal law,
with only three teachers.

Section7. The Petitioners are demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the program set forth
in the Charter Petition, in that:
a. Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that they have any experience in the administration and
operation of K-12 public schools generally, or charter schools specifically. (Charter Petition, App. C,
pp. 136-150; Charter Petition, App H, pp. 168-174.) This lack of experience with public schools, and
in particular California public schools, creates a concern about the ability of the Petitioners to comply
with all of the laws and regulations relating to public charter schools, whether in the area of special
education, State standards-based education, open meeting and conflicts of interests laws, or other
areas specific to public schools in California.
b. Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that they have experience identifying, assessing, and
serving special education students. The Charter Petition fails to describe how Petitioners would
identify, assess and serve special education students during the first year of operation without
 

 
www.LC8Tech.com
April 12, 2010
   7  

complete reliance on the District, nor is there any indication that they are likely to be accepted into a
special education local plan area (“SELPA”) in subsequent years as hoped. (Charter Petition, pp. 47-
53.)
c. The proposed budget submitted with the Charter Petition is not built on realistic enrollment
assumptions given the lack of community and parent support expressed for the proposed Charter
School. In addition, the budget does not reflect the costs of facilities consistent with the needs
described in the Charter Petition. (See Charter Petition, App. I, p. 176 and Budget Summary, p. 5 of
6.)
d. The Charter Petition contains numerous errors, inconsistencies and conflicting information, and
thus fails to clearly present and describe the proposed Charter School’s operations and program.
Furthermore, the errors and inconsistencies create a concern that Petitioners lack an adequate
understanding of what is required to successfully operate a public charter school and/or are not
adequately prepared to do so. Some of the errors and inconsistencies include the following:
1. The Charter Petition states that the Charter School has budgeted $8,000 per full time employee
for health benefits (Charter Petition, p. 112), but the proposed budget states that $7,000 will be spent
annually per FTE (Charter Petition, App. I, p. 175; Budget Summary, p. 4 of 6.)
2. The Charter Petition states that the Charter School will need approximately 10,500 square feet
of facility space for the first school year (and approximately 44,000 square feet once all grade levels
are filled) (Charter Petition, p. 100), but the proposed budget is based on rental of 5,495 square feet.
(See Charter Petition, App. I, p. 176 and Budget Summary, p. 5 of 6.)
3. The Charter Petition reference at “Appendix I” a “narrative description of a typical daily
experience for an EL student” (Charter Petition, p. 44), but Appendix I is the proposed budget, and
the other appendices do not include the referenced EL information. (Charter Petition, App. I, p. 174.)
4. As an example of “Collaborative Teacher-Taught Interdisciplinary Thematic Units”
offered, the Charter Petition includes a “Political Studies” unit comprised of “Physics and Algebra II.
(Charter Petition, p. 20.)
5. The Charter Petition includes confusing information about how the Charter School will satisfy
college entrance requirements, making reference to “units” required for UC “A-G” requirements,
when it appears to mean courses. (Charter Petition, p. 36.)
6. The Charter Petition misrepresents the demographics and academic performance statistics of
schools within Riverside Unified School District (Charter Petition, p. 22), suggesting a lack of
understanding of the community it seeks to serve.
7. The Charter Petition states that the Charter School Board will be responsible for hiring
employees (Charter Petition, p. 71), but elsewhere states that the Executive Director will hire all
instructional and non-instructional staff. (Charter Petition, p. 77.)

Section 8. Description of Charter Petition Elements. The Charter Petition does not contain
reasonably comprehensive descriptions in the following areas:
a. Educational Program. The findings listed in Section 6 above (unsound educational program) are
incorporated here by reference.
b. Governance Structure. The Charter Petition states that the governing board’s Articles of
Incorporation and Bylaws are attached as Appendix E, but the Articles of Incorporation are not
included. (Charter Petition, App. E, p. 152.) The Charter Petition and Appendix E do not adequately
demonstrate an understanding of conflicts of interests and open meeting laws that apply to public
 

 
www.LC8Tech.com
April 12, 2010
   8  

agencies in California. For example, the Charter Petition states that the proposed Charter School
Board would comply with the provisions of the Brown Act and the Political Reform Act (Charter
Petition, p. 71.) However, the Bylaws themselves include procedures that are in violation of, or
inconsistent with, the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act, such as the ability to hold a meeting if
notice is waived (p. 154), and the ability to take action without a meeting (pp. 154, 157). Similarly,
the proposed Conflict of Interest Code at Appendix G fails to acknowledge or incorporate provisions
required by the Political Reform Act. (Charter Petition, App. G, p. 165.) In addition, the Charter
Petition fails to adequately describe how the governing board will ensure parental involvement in
governance. (Charter Petition, pp. 74-75.)
c. Student Discipline. The Charter Petition inadequately describes the process and authority by
which students can be expelled from the proposed Charter School. It is unclear from the Charter
Petition which person or body is responsible for conducting an administrative hearing, and which
person or body has the authority to expel. Rather, the Charter Petition reads: “A student may be
expelled either by the Executive Director or and [sic] Administrative Panel following a hearing before
it or by the Board upon the recommendation of an Administrative Panel.”(Charter Petition, p.
106.) This confusion could lead to a lack of notice and understanding about the process, and creates
the potential for due process abuses. In addition, the Charter Petition states that students with
disabilities may be entitled to additional rights with respect to the student discipline process, but does
not describe what those additional rights include, calling into question whether Petitioners are aware
of what those rights entail, and whether students with disabilities will be properly informed of those
rights. (Charter Petition, p. 111.)

Section 9. The Charter Petition includes insufficient detail, cohesiveness, and consistency in many
other areas not specified in this Resolution. Nothing contained in, or omitted by, this Resolution shall
be interpreted to be express or implied approval of any of the Charter Petition terms.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE RIVERSIDE UNIFIED SCHOOL

DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION that the Charter Petition is hereby DENIED based on the
findings set forth in this Resolution.

A.2 LC8 Tech High School Charter Petition Revisions Executive Director Report
Dr. Joleen D. Smithʼs report on the recommendations for LC8 Tech High School Charter petition revisions.

Action Plan:
1. The LC8 team is currently addressing some of the Findings of Fact and preparing the Charter
Petition for a future submission to another school district.
2. The LC8 Tech team has debriefed our presentation and the action to take in preparing for a
future submission to another school district.
a. Some concerned that our Public Hearing presentation could be too intimidating or
threatening to a district and suggested we tone it down to a more simplified
version...like PowerPoint or a hardcopy format for the next time we present.
i. A SIMPLIFIED VERSION IS PROBABLY BEST. HOWEVER, I THINK YOUR

 
www.LC8Tech.com
April 12, 2010
   9  

IPAD PRESENTATION WAS FUN AND ACTUALLY CAUGHT THE

DISTRICTʼS ATTENTION. REGARDLESS, BUILDING UP THE POLITICAL
SUPPORT FOR THE SCHOOL BEFORE YOU PRESENT IS REALLY THE
KEY, NOT THE PRESENTATION ITSELF; THE PRESENTATION CAN BE
SIMPLIFIED ESPECIALLY IF YOU HAVE THE POLITICAL SUPPORT OF
PARENTS AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS (AND ONE OR TWO BOARD
MEMBERS IDEALLY) PRIOR TO MAKING THE PRESENTATION.
b. The earliest date LC8 Tech can submit our Charter High School Petition to a different
district to open a school in fall of 2012—
i. THERE IS NO RESTRICTION, BUT ITʼS ALWAYS ADVISABLE TO CALL
THE DISTRICT AND ASK THEM IF THEY HAVE AN INTERNAL TIMELINE
THEY WOULD LIKE YOU TO FOLLOW. THIS BUILDS RAPPORT WITH THE
DISRICT AND IS THE APPROPRIATE THING TO DO.
1. Temecula District
2. Corona/Norco District
c. The general ruling to submit a Charter Petition to two districts simultaneously—with
the purpose of opening two Charter Schools in the same year—
i. YOU SHOULD NOT SUBMIT THE SAME PETITION TO TWO DISTRICTS IF
YOU ONLY INTEND TO OPEN IN ONE DISTRICT; WHILE NOT
PROHIBITED BY LAW, IT IS DEFINITELY FROWNED UPON. IF YOU
TRULY HAVE THE INTENT TO OPEN IN BOTH DISTRICTS, HOWEVER,
THEN YOU CAN SUBMIT TO BOTH DISTRICTS WITHOUT A PROBLEM.
LAST YEAR, A CHARTER ENTITY SUBMITTED TO SOMETHING LIKE 17
SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN CA SIMULTANEOUSLY, WITH THE CLEAR
INTENT OF OPENING A SCHOOL IN EACH DISTRICT.
3. RUSD Section 1—Include more names of credentialed teachers on a signature form. Include
parents and students signatures on a form stating that they would be interested in enrolling in
LC8 Tech High School.
4. RUSD Section 3—It is NOT required in Charter Law to include a facility…it is recommended
that we include some type of drawing and design of a possible facility for LC8 Tech High.
5. RUSD Section 4—LC8 Tech will publicize through various means to gain support of faculty and
sufficient interest of families from the school district we are submitting the petition.
6. RUSD Section 6—Include in specific detail how learners will accomplish college preparatory
academics through staffing and schedule.
7. RUSD Section 7—As the petitioners, we will strengthen sections on public school
administrative experience, ability to meet Special Needs, clarity on the districts demographics,
and district parent and student support, Budget items (Edtec will revise where needed), and
involvement within the community.
8. RUSD Section 8—Revisions and additions to the Governance (with Richard Hansbergerʼs
assistance and expertise) and Student Discipline.
9. RUSD Section 9—Richard advised that this is a general statement used by districts to
recommend a denial to its Board. This is an area that can be ignored.

 
www.LC8Tech.com
April 12, 2010
   10  

A.3 LC8 Tech High School Charter Petition Submission Ms. Jessica K. Markley Report
Ms. Jessica K. Markleyʼs report on two school districts—Public High Schools & Charter Schools Statistics—

1. Temecula, CA

a. District Public High Schools

i. Temecula Valley High School
ii. Chaparral High School
iii. Great Oak High School

b. Charter High Schools

i. Temecula Prep
1. Site-based
2. Classical Model
ii. River Springs
1. Homeschool/Independent Study
2. Renaissance High School Academy
a. Hybrid (3 days a week of on-site instruction)
iii. Julian Charter School
1. Non-site based instruction

2. Corona/Norco, CA (highlighted schools are not listed on the districtʼs website)

a. District Public High Schools

i. Centennial High School
ii. Corona High School
iii. Norco High School
iv. Orange Grove High School
v. Pollard High School
vi. Roosevelt High School
vii. Santiago High School
viii. Kennedy Middle College High School
1. Alternative School
ix. Corona-Norco Alternative School
x. Centennial Vista High School
th
1. 11 Grade only (28 students)
2. 2010 API scores available
xi. Corona Vista High School
th th
1. 10 -12 grade (5 students)
2. No 2010 API scores available
xii. Norco Vista High School
th th
1. 11 – 12 grade (29 students)
2. No 2010 API scores available
xiii. Victrous Bower School for Exceptional Students
th
1. PK – 12 grade (51 students)
b. Charter High Schools
i. None
1. The only existing charter is Bert Corona Charter School
a. Serving 6-8 grade low-income students

 
www.LC8Tech.com
April 12, 2010
   11  

A.4 LC8 Tech Publications, Branding, Technology Mr. Joshua L. Smith Report
Mr. Joshua L. Smithʼs report on the publications and social networking through various media

1. Brochure
2. Business cards
3. Prezi Presentation Page and loaded on iPads
4. Letʼs Collaborate! KA1 Infographic
a. Future plans to complete Infographics on all 7 KAs
b. Future plans to complete the publication of the curricular tool, Letʼs Collaborate!
5. LC8 Facebook
6. LC8 Twitter

B.1 Current Non-Profit Status for LC8 Now, Inc. Executive Director Report
Dr. Joleen D. Smithʼs report on the status of the non-profit and Mr. Richard Hansbergerʼs, School Lawyer,
recommendations.

YOU CAN ACCEPT TAX DEDUCTIBLE DONATIONS NOW AS LONG AS YOU CLEARLY TELL
THE DONOR THAT YOU ARE “TAX EXEMPT PENDING.” SOME DONORS WILL REFUSE TO
DONATE TO YOU UNTIL YOU ARE TAX EXEMPT. HOWEVER, THE IRS TAKES
APPROXIMATELY 6-9 MONTHS TO ISSUE THE TAX EXEMPT DESIGNATION. MY BEST GUESS
IS THAT WEʼLL PROBABLY HAVE THE TAX EXEMPT BY JUNE OR JULY 2011.

1. Should we start a nonprofit corporation in the publishing of the book and publication of
educator tools on our website? Then, when approved to open a Charter School...open
another nonprofit for that?
a. Itʼs important to remember that being a non-profit corporation and being tax exempt
are actually two separate things (in other words, you can have a non-profit corporation
that is taxed).
b. Thus, your existing corporation (LC8 NOW, Inc.) is a fully formed non-profit
corporation under state law that requires a board of directors, so you must keep the
board in place. This corporation operates the charter school. If you do intend to
pursue the charter school, youʼll need to keep this corporation active and finish the tax
exempt filing process with the IRS. If you decide not to pursue the charter school,
then we would need to dissolve the corporation.
c. You could and should form a separate corporation to handle just the book publishing
and related business activities. You can form this corporation and begin business
activities under the new corporation immediately, but if you want to seek tax-exempt
status for this corporation then you would need to file for tax-exempt status with the
IRS for this corporation.

 
www.LC8Tech.com
April 12, 2010
   12  

B.2 Fundraisers for 2011/2012 Mr. Steve J. Smith Report

Mr. Steve J. Smithʼs report

 
www.LC8Tech.com
April 12, 2010