Skip to main content
California Department of Education Logo

CNAC Meeting Minutes for October 21, 2013


Child Nutrition Advisory Council

An Advisory Body to the State Board Of Education

Meeting Minutes

October 21, 2013

Members Present

Carol Chase Huegli, Caroline Danielson, Trish Vance, Clell Hoffman, Nori Grossmann, Colleen You,
Barbara Rohrer, Lawrence Herrera, and Soo Zee Park

State Board of Education Member Liaison

Niki Sandoval

Representative for the State Board of Education

Beth Rice

Members Absent

Nikki Sandoval, Lucy McProud, and Marni Posey

Also Present—California Department of Education

Louise Casias, Jackie Russum, Carol Bingham, Sandip Kaur, Martie Hague, Sharon Freschi
Heather Reed, Karen King, and Janice Hunt

Call to Order

Lawrence (Larry) Herrera, Chair, called the meeting to order at 10:11 a.m.

The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. Introductions of members and other attendees present was also recited.

Approval of Agenda

Soo Park moved to approve the agenda for October 21, 2013, and Barbara Rohrer seconded the motion. The Child Nutrition Advisory Council (CNAC) voted to approve the October 21, 2013, agenda.

Approval of Minutes

Colleen You moved to approve the minutes of the September 16, 2013, meeting. Nori Grossmann seconded the motion. The CNAC voted to approve the minutes of the September 16, 2013, meeting.

There was no public comment.

Agenda Items

Item 1

Niki Sandoval was connected to the meeting via conference call.

From the Nutrition Services Division (NSD), Sandip Kaur, Director, and Carol Chase Huegli, Associate Director, provided the Director Updates.

Subject: Nutrition Services Division Director’s Update
General Updates

There were no general updates.

California State Office of Oversight and Outcomes Food Fight Report

Ms. Kaur informed the CNAC about the California State Office of Oversight and Outcomes Food Fight Report. She said the NSD is finalizing the required status report to the Legislature. As mentioned in the last CNAC meeting, the California Department of Education (CDE) was required to report on 31 additional reviews completed before June 30, 2013, and the assessment of workload and resource needs for the CDE. The status report has been submitted to the Legislature and can be accessed on the CDE Assessment of Staffing Needs Report 2013 - Legislative Report [Note, the previous Web address is no longer valid] Web page. Ms. Kaur said out of the 31 additional reviews, all issues were resolved except for three districts.

Ms. Kaur also explained the progress by the California State Auditors in their audit of both the CDE and at least 15 school districts as required by Assembly Bill (AB) 110. They selected 19 districts to review and the report is due to the Legislature by March 1, 2014.

Ms. Chase Huegli informed the CNAC that The California Endowment released a report last week which included a survey of opinions of the new meal pattern (NMP) from parents and students. The feedback from the survey was mostly positive and, the parents and students preferred the progressive NMP over the old meal pattern. This validation and support is very reassuring to the NSD.

Legislative Updates

Ms. Chase Huegli provided the following updates:      

Assembly Bill 290

AB 290 was approved and signed into law. This bill requires an hour of training in nutrition for the required orientation at the sponsor level of child care centers.

Assembly Bill 626

AB 626 was approved and signed into law. This bill is sponsored by the State Superintendent of Public Instruction (SSPI), Tom Torlakson, and will be effective January 1, 2014.

Item 2

From the NSD, Carol Bingham, Senior Fiscal Policy Advisor, and Sharon Freschi, Associate Governmental Program Analyst, provided information about the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF).

Subject: Local Control Funding Formula

Ms. Bingham provided the CNAC with an overview of the LCFF including the funding provisions and details. She talked through the handouts provided.

Larry Herrera from the CNAC asked what provisions of the previous funding methodology would remain and what provisions are new to the LCFF. To answer this question, Ms. Bingham showed the CNAC the CDE LFCC Budget Act for 2013–14 letter.

Soo Park from the CNAC asked about the timeline and process of implementation. Ms. Bingham stated there are eight key priority areas in the state plan. Some of these include: student engagement, student achievement, basic services, course access, parental involvement, and other student outcomes. Ms. Bingham also shared some of the timeline dates for the LCFF including: July 1, 2014, the regulations for the LCFF will be in place; March 15, 2015, the LCFF plans will be in place; and October 1, 2015, the LCFF will be adopted. Ms. Bingham shared the CDE Local Control Funding Formula Web page, which contains general information and is the main page on the CDE Web site for all the information regarding the LCFF. The CNAC also asked about the LCFF legislation and the set of revisions signed by the Governor on July 1, 2013. Additional cleanup legislation was signed on September 26, 2013. The pieces of legislation and revisions are available at the Local Control Funding Formula Web page under Legislation. For additional information on LCFF implementation and general guidance on how to get started on the LCFF (i.e., how to include parents with the process, etc.), review the Local Control Funding Formula letter issued jointly on August 7, 2013, by the State Board of Education and the SSPI.

If the CNAC members would like to receive further updates regarding the LCFF, they can subscribe to the e-mail list by sending a "blank" message to If the CNAC members have any questions directly related to the LCFF they can look at the Frequently Asked Questions, located at the bottom of the CDE Local Control Funding Formula Web page, or they can be sent by e-mail to or by phone to 916-324-4728. Ms. Bingham also provided the link to the 2012–13 categorical programs used in the calculations for the LCFF, available at Categorical Programs on the LCFF Frequently Asked Questions Web page.

Ms. Freschi sent an e-mail to all School Nutrition Program (SNP) sponsors on October 2, 2013. This e-mail provided local educational agencies guidance as to how changes related to the new LCFF affect SNPs, and more specifically, SNPs that participate in the federal alternative meal counting and collection procedures known as Provision 2 and Provision 3. The CDE distributed this information by e-mail in order to disseminate this comprehensive and complex information as soon as possible. The CDE is also issuing a Management Bulletin (MB) with the same information. The CDE will disseminate additional information as it becomes available.

As part of a larger discussion, Clell Hoffman suggested that the Free and Reduced-price Meal Applications should also be available online. The NSD has an application on its Web site, but it’s a paper application. Private vendors offer online solutions for districts/agencies that want online or scan-able applications. The NSD staff agreed that although Mr. Hoffman had a good idea, the CDE does not have the resources to provide an online prototype application at this time.

CNAC Recommendations: No recommendations, only discussion/information sharing.


The CNAC adjourned for lunch at 11:45 a.m.

The meeting was reconvened at 12:45 p.m. after lunch.

Item 3

From the NSD, Martie Hague, Staff Services Analyst, provided information about the Meal Time Management Student Survey and shared the results.

Subject: Meal Time Management
Student Survey

Ms. Hague informed the CNAC about the Meal Time Management Survey and the results of the survey. She said that 5,306 principals were surveyed from different elementary school districts and there were 346 responses, or a 6.56 percent response rate. The NSD will be sending the survey out again in mid-November. The NSD will also draft another survey, similar to the survey for elementary school districts, for completion by middle and high school principals.

Ms. Hague reviewed her two handouts, entitled “Time to Eat Survey—Elementary School” and “DRAFT Time to Eat Survey—Middle and High School.” The first handout, “Time to Eat Survey—Elementary School,” included the results of the first survey and the questions, such as:

  • How many total minutes are allocated for each lunch period
  • How many minutes of the lunch period are dedicated to eating and how many minutes are dedicated to recess/play time
  • When the school site schedules recess
  • How many food service points of sale does the school offer
  • What food service options their site offers during lunch
  • If teachers or other faculty are permitted to detain students in the classroom for any portion of the lunch period for disciplinary measure
  • The biggest challenge the school faces in providing sufficient time for lunch
  • Any comments or best practices to share

Some preliminary results from the first survey included the majority saying:

  • 40 (33 percent)–45 (38 percent) minutes of total time was allocated for each lunch period
  • 20 minutes was dedicated to eating (48 percent) and 20 minutes was dedicated to recess/play time (43 percent)
  • They have recess scheduled immediately after lunch (71.3 percent)
  • They have the school offer one to two points of service (82 percent)
  • They have the traditional cafeteria line (289 schools), salad bars (158 schools) and grab-and-go meals (91 schools)
  • They do not allow them to hold back students for punishment during their lunch period (70.7 percent)
  • They have no challenges with providing enough time to eat (65 percent or 160 schools) or having staffing shortages (59 schools), long lines (41 schools), space limitations (39 schools), student behavior (28 schools), scheduling (25 schools), or a large student population (21 schools)
  • They would recommend implementing recess before lunch (22 schools), having enough supervision during meal times (11 schools), and having set times for eating (10 schools)

The second handout, “DRAFT Time to Eat Survey—Middle and High School,” was a draft survey for middle and high school levels. The CNAC discussed adding additional questions and edits to the middle and high school survey. Some additional questions discussed were:

  • Do they schedule any of the following during the lunch period?:
    • Student government
    • Pep rallies
    • Fundraising
    • Club organizations
    • Homecoming committees
    • Intramurals
    • Costume contests
    • Dance/cheer practices
  • If so, how often? What is the procedure for getting their lunches? Are the students allowed to take their lunch to the meeting areas? What about the students who can’t get their lunch and bring it?
  • How many different places/locations can the students get food?
  • How many lines? Vending machines?

The NSD will finalize the survey questions. The NSD will also clarify and add more description to what the “point of sale” means in the questions. The CNAC said the definition “point of sale” can be confusing. The CNAC shared that schools should be encouraged to create policy or guidelines so parents can submit comments if their child is not getting enough time to eat. The CNAC also shared that the NSD should include the purpose of the survey when it is sent out to the principals to increase response rate. In the December CNAC meeting, the California Food Policy Advocates (CFPA) will share their survey of adequate time for meals targeting both students and parents and its results.

CNAC Recommendations: No recommendations, only discussion/information sharing.


Item 4

From the NSD, Louise Casias, Nutrition Education Consultant (NEC), and Clell Hoffman provided information about the Serving Line/Point of Sale and Configurations in Relation to Salad Bars.

Subject: Serving Line/Point of Sale
Configurations in Relation to Salad Bars

Ms. Casias informed the CNAC about the peer-to-peer Webinar on salad bars for food service directors. Three food service directors from different districts provided their different perspectives and solutions on how they made their salad bars work and overcame the obstacles while still following the laws, rules, and policies. Fourty-two food service directors participated on the Webinar to listen and talk to other food service directors and have their questions answered. One of the food service directors who spoke about his experience was Clell Hoffman from the Albany School District and also the Child and Adult Care Food Program representative for the CNAC. Mr. Hoffman informed the CNAC that his service requires the students to first go into the entrée line to get their three components for their reimbursable meal and then the salad bar, which is at the end of the serving line. To overcome obstacles, student volunteers are the monitors for his salad bar at the end of the serving line to make sure the students have all the components for a reimbursable meal. Whereas, the food service director from the Riverside school district said they have their salad bars first in their serving line. Then, after the point of service, they have an ambassador at the end of the serving line. The ambassador position is a two hour position and additional federal reimbursement (six cents per lunch) funds the ambassador.

Ms. Casias also informed the CNAC that the NSD has not received any alternative solutions for ways to ensure students choose appropriate types and amounts of vegetables from a salad bar. Ms. Casias explained that having the salad bar is a good marketing tool for schools, increases participation, and makes it easier for students to choose a reimbursable meal including all three components and ½ cup fruit and vegetable.

CNAC Recommendations: No recommendations, only discussion/information sharing.    


Item 5

From the NSD, Karen King, Child Nutrition Supervisor (CNS) I, and Janice Hunt, CNS I, provided an update on the Administrative Review (AR) process.

Subject: Administrative Review Progress Report

Ms. King and Ms. Hunt provided a brief update of the AR process. The NSD sent notification letters to 349 SFAs scheduled for AR review this school year. The letters were sent to the food service director, chief business official, and the district Superintendent. The letter included the name of the state reviewer and phone number, and a copy of the Off-site Assessment Tool. SFAs were asked to work with their assigned reviewer to complete the tool, with the goal of completion at least four weeks prior to the review. Fifty to sixty NSD staff will conduct these reviews throughout the state. The first review is scheduled in November 2013 with Roseville Elementary School District. There are approximately 1,330 active SFAs in California; therefore, the NSD must review approximately 445 SFAs each year of the three-year cycle, assuming that the reviews are equally spread across the review cycle.

The NSD is requiring attendance to the pre-review workshops for SNP sponsors receiving an AR this school year. The curriculum for these workshops is standardized and each will be three to four hours in duration. The purpose of the workshops is to assist SFAs in preparing for the on-site portion of the AR. For sponsors who miss the pre-review workshop, the California School Nutrition Association presentation at Palm Springs on Thursday, November 14, 2013, at 1:00 p.m. will cover the same content as the other pre-review workshops and will count towards the requirement. The NSD also created a guidance document, the NSD On-site Review Guidance, which provides a list of documents for SFAs to organize in preparation for their on-site review. This document is provided to SFAs at the pre-review workshops. 

Ms. King and Ms. Hunt provided a list of all SFAs scheduled for review this school year that the NSD will disseminate to all SFAs by e-mail. The NSD is also developing a MB to explain the purpose of the AR review, scope of review, organization of the AR process (off-site/on-site), and to provide resources available to SFAs.

CNAC Recommendations: No recommendations, only discussion/information sharing.  


Item 6

From the NSD, Heather Reed, NEC, and Jackie Russum, Program Manager of the California Healthy Kids Resource Center, provided information about the nutrition competencies.

Subject: Nutrition Competencies

Ms. Reed and Ms. Russum informed the CNAC of the nutrition competencies. They handed out the 2011 Nutrition Education Resource Guide (NERG) to the CNAC, which contains the Health Education Content Standards and the 2010 nutrition competencies. They also handed out the draft of the food literacy competencies that will be included in the revision of the nutrition competencies and the NERG. The revision is to be completed by June 2014.

They informed the CNAC that the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) adds another layer on top of the nutrition competencies. For example, the input submitted by the CNAC for the CCSS, incorporating more nutrition education language into the math framework, was very well received. Ms. Reed and Ms. Russum said the competencies are more specific, as shown in page seven of the NERG, and the state content standards tend to be more general guidelines. For example, for the state content standards, there are Health Education Content Standards that cover six general content areas of health education, including nutrition and physical activity, for students to master making positive health decisions. The nutrition competencies cover the nutrition and physical activity content areas as well as more specifics such as nutrition in the life cycle.

The new food literacy competencies will focus on practical skills such as:

  • Where does my food come from?
  • How do I prepare it?

These practical skills can be very useful and fun when learned by the students. Ms. Reed stated Recommendation 5 from the Institute of Medicine Report on Schools is that “Government and education makes schools a focal point for obesity prevention and includes food literacy.” The revised nutrition competencies, which will include food literacy, will help do this.

Process for Updating the 2011 Nutrition Education Resource Guide

Ms. Russum informed the CNAC of the process and steps planned for updating the NERG which include, making the NERG available online, sorting certain features such as by content topic area, and adding some new materials to it. It also includes doing a peer review of all the current and new resources in the NERG. The new NERG will include the food literacy competencies fully integrated into the existing competencies.

To conduct the review of materials, the California Healthy Kids Resource Center will:

  1. Receive complete and comprehensive feedback from reviewers (how well the competencies are addressed) and
  2. Provide any further input and recommendations (i.e., anything that needs to be added, etc.).

Ms. Reed and Ms. Russum said that some of the existing competencies address food literacy and that the food literacy competencies are not independent of the existing competencies. A student needs to master all of them to be competent in nutrition, not separately or individually. The CNAC mentioned that gardens should be included for the application aspect.

Next Steps

Ms. Reed briefly mentioned the next steps planned for the nutrition competencies. Ms. Reed said the planned timeline of comments will be the end of November 2013 and the revised NERG will be completed by June 2014. If they are evaluated in the same consistent way, they have the assurance that they are meeting the competency icons (gardening, cooking, etc.) for different categories. Ms. Reed shared that approximately 500 people have received training on the current NERG, but the NSD has no evaluation of its use. The CNAC mentioned it would be better if the food literacy competency was integrated into the other eight existing competencies in the NERG rather than adding an additional competency. They can integrate and promote nutrition into the English, math, and science subjects as well as include parent resources. This way, it might be more effective and better received. The CNAC also suggested trying to survey teachers and food service directors from different school districts and incorporating this information and feedback into improving the NERG for application by school districts.

CNAC Recommendations: No recommendations, only discussion/information sharing.          


Item 7
Agenda for the December 9, 2013, Meeting

The following were suggested as agenda items:

  • NSD Director’s Update, Legislative Updates, Update on fund audits (Budget Change Proposals, Cafeteria Funds, etc.) with Sandip Kaur and Carol Chase Huegli
  • CFPA Survey Data
  • Meal Time Management Survey (Updates)
  • Objectives/looking at old goals (Reflecting back on year and talking about next year)
  • Beth reporting on status for filling/applying for positions/vacancies for CNAC (Getting other vacancies filled?)
  • Heather Reed and Jackie Russum with nutrition competencies
  • AR Progress Report (Update on AR process)
  • Agenda for the next meeting

Larry Herrera moved and Soo Park and Trish Vance seconded that the meeting be adjourned. The CNAC voted to adjourn at 3:00 p.m.

Questions:   Nutrition Services Division | 800-952-5609
Last Reviewed: Tuesday, June 6, 2017
Trending in Commissions & Committees
Recently Posted in Commissions & Committees