tv [untitled] September 25, 2010 5:30pm-6:00pm PST
the reports on what has been administratively approved by the board. frankly, to review them, i had to look at the orangals in the file, which i prefer not to do. i don't want to be responsible for messing up the order or whatever. that is the only way to have done it before this meeting. that is all there was, the originals. >> commissioner lee? >> thank you president kim and commissioners. i just wanted to do a couple of things. one is reinforce the council member's resolution. we might go so far as to say in the administrative regulation, but just to establish a mechanism that we've discussed
to flag the issue -- or the pattern of a single contractor being engaged by two different school sides or departments independently without an intent to cirque extent the process. but as it so happens, different people see a need for the same provider in some cases without knowledge of the fact that another school or another department may be engaging with the same contract. i wanted to clarify, it is not an attempt to circumvent this threshold. it is an inadvertent loophole if the perspective is that every single vendor, the amount is $25,000 that the vendor engages with. we understand that is the perspective, and we will find the right way to address that.
>> i just want to ask. we ask the question where should we discuss this. i just want to give the pin chronic that the rules committee is the appropriate place. this is a policy change that came through the rules committee. the implementation of that policy change is the appropriate discussion of that committee. i think that is the best place to do it. it don't think we should worry about what we have to do, but implementing the policy change. >> no other questions. role call, please?
>> five ayes. >> there is a major professional development contract for the national urban alliance. i was not supportive of this contract, which was significantly bigger last year, and so i am not prepared to support this regardless of the fact that clearly by testimony and also what we know, there are schools like this -- schools that like this. the things that i have learned about this, and some that i knew last year before we began, last year we actually reduced the amount of this contract last year because we weren't able to recruit into the program for schools to participate the full complement of schools that we could accommodate with the amount of
money in the original contract that we did. even though this was a professional -- ongoing professional development for these schools that are essentially free to the schools. this is centrally spent money. they don't have to spend their site funds on it. but also, when we were doing -- i understand that we are talking here about -- i take it back. i was going to say last year we talked about this mostly being federal professional development dollars. as i recall, this actually is tier three money that we are talking about today, now unrestricted money. when we were making those cuts, we did ask for a sort of plan for the major areas of expenditure in formerly restricted money that is now unrestricted. i think, as i recall, this is one of the main examples we
used. not this contract, but would you give us a strategically based plan for professional development resources. what professional development resources do we have left? at least i believe that we have made major cuts in these areas, that we might have cut this very money, formerly restricted state funding that now we can spend it on whatever we want. overall that department was cut some 60% to 80%. what have we got left? how do we plan to deploy it? how is it in support of our academic goals? not having seen that -- and i want to make clear i am not asking for a complex plan that is going to take somebody weeks to develop. i just would like -- and i
think we said that at the budget hearings, kind of a list of the professional development resources we have left. those that are restricted, mainly federal dollars and those that are not, and what areas do you want to target them at? convince me they are strategic to meet our goals. so not having seen any of that, i am not prepared to support this and am kind of disappointed that we are proposing to go forward. also, the part of that strategic thinking, i think i would like to have it explained to me what limited dollars are to be spent on limited schools? i have nothing against these schools. i am very supportive of them. but offense, would they be -- which they are obviously not, schools in the support zone? this group of schools as far as i know are mainly schools that
were recruited last year to be in this program. some of them, the a.p.d. staff went out and said to them we want you to sign up for this rather than a school plan. >> i uns. commissioner wynns and i had conversation prior to this. i want to make sure. what you are asking, and i will take this to the academic professional development executive team. you are asking what funds do we have left for professional development, and how do we deploy those funds, and what will they be used for, and how does it address our district goals? i think what i hear you saying is that you would like something very simple that basically outlines those things in that way, and i believe that can be prepared, and i'm more than prepared to take that to the executive team and request that. >> support garcia?
>> i do want you to know that this summer i attended one of the training sessions. all these schools mentioned here came up to me and basically begged us to do whatever we could to bring this back for their schools. this was a voluntary thing. they no longer had to keep up with it. they felt it has made such a huge impact. just about every single staff person was there. they made a commitment to come in not because they had to, but because it was something they really wanted to work on. they saw it as an essential part of the work they were doing on the school site. that is pretty much the reaction i had from all these scores. we were ready, as you mentioned , commissioner wynns, ready to pull the plug on it. it was a single larning expenditure.
we cut it down as much as we could, and we have all summer received from all of these schools a willingness to say look, this is having an impact on our schools. we are really interested in developing some data on it. this year we want to spend the resource to create more of a trainer of trainers model. that is what they want to do. most of these people at these school sites, which incidentally are all really teachers, have said to us they would like to have additional trainer so they could go out in our distinct to be doing this type of work. it was really not talked down i can generally tell you, because i got mobbed on this thing, people coming to me saying what is it going to take? we need to have this in place. >> with all due respect, mr. superintendent, do you think they would have mobbed you to
have it if they would have been expected to pay for it out of their site funds? tet great to have something gifted from the district, to have an extra development project they are not paying for. the schools on this list -- willie brown is the only one in the bayview and one we have committed to close. none of the other schools on this list are priority schools that we heard about in the superintendent's zone. i didn't support this the first time around, and i am not prepared to support it tonight. >> are there any other questions or comments from board members? role call? whereupon a role call vote was taken.
>> it fails. >> did commissioner mendoza vote on this resolution? >> madam chair, would you mind if i confer with the particle amount aaron, what she is referring to when she said it is permissible to register your vote? i want to confirm there is a board rule or something that i am not aware of. >> item two is superintendent's proposals first reading, none tonight. >> the next is a board members proposal, none tonight. we are moving on. item s, board members reports. the first is our report from the augmented building ground and services committee. this is chaired by commissioner mendoza, who had to leave tonight. i will do a quick update.
the facilities record on the opening of school, everything happened very smoothly with the exception of the preschool at montessori, which i hear now will be reopening. but all other construction actually happened on schedule. where there were some concerns, letters were sent out to parents, and i believe that was at i.s.a., international academy. and in terms of educator housing, which was brought up earlier, we will be getting the same exact prosecutes takes at the committee on the agenda item. next is a report from the augmented curriculum and program committee from september 7th. commissioner fewer? >> we had a very short meeting, thank goodness. the committee recommended -- i mean the committee adopted the recommendation from staff,
which was to bring this back to the next crick larry meeting so we could answer questions -- curriculum questions so we could answer questions brought by staff. >> our next report is the augmented ad hoc committee on student assignment, which i heard was a nice and lengthy meeting from yesterday. commissioner wynns? >> thank you. yes, we had a lot of people here. that was really good, i think. we had a lot of testimony. we had three items. this is how we organized our agenda. at the actually had two resolutions pending before the board now. one is 24 s.p. 2 which is the adoption of new ten ands areas for elementary schools and the proposed middle school feeder
pattern. the third item was a separate resslates to a general education transportation policy. those were action items. we divided the meeting into three component, one on the elementary school feedered pad -- one on elementary school ten ands areas, one on middle school feeder patterns and transition. woe took testimony on each. >> wow. >> this is what the economy do. the committee recommended that the board adopt the proposed elementary school feeder patterns. there are a few changes recommended by staff. they are actually small changes that address the issues -- that came up in the community meetings and input, which is really great, things that staff may not have been able to take into consideration related to certain transportation routes, related to some actual geologyal things where a hill
isolated one part of a neighborhood. there were other adjustments, the placing of certain -- evening out attendance areas in certain neighborhoods, which avoided the concentration of several housing prockets in one elementary school attendance area. and generally speaking, with a few exceptions that were brought up last night -- there may be a few very small further adjustments based on testimony yesterday, the committee is recommending that the board adopt those elementary school feeder patterns when it comes up for regular action before the regular board. the second part of that resolution, the proposed draft middle school feeder pat erps,
the committee considered the staff recommendation that that the middle school feeder pattern be fazed in. that means they won't be used next year. the draft will go away as we have said in all the testimony. i have to report that most of the testimony yesterday was on the middle school feeder patterns. there were people from certain schools that were urging us to adopt them as they were proposed in the draft because they like them. but generally speaking, there was more concern about it and support for the idea of this fazed-in adoption, which is also what has been heard in the community meetings and other feedback mechanisms. the committee yesterday evening consisted of commissioner mendoza and myself because commissioner kim was not able to be there. but the two of us as the quorum of the committee recommended to the board that at the next meeting, that the board support
the substitute motion that will take the place of the first reading, the first draft of this policy. the substitute motion will include those slightly amended elementary school attendance areas and the policy language that talks about the phasing in of the middle school feeder patterns not this year, but that we will use middle school assignment mechanisms for the coming year, which will just take out the feeder patterns, and we will have fewer steps and tie-breakers. so essentially it will be more of a choice system for middle school next year, an open choice system for the whole district, more like what we are using now. we should remind people, as we did last night, that the middle school process has been the one that has had the highest positive results for students, parents and families in recent years. that is, percentage just under
or over 90% of participants have gotten one of their choices in the middle school process, and more than 75% have gotten their first choice. we can have some confidence that -- since it won't be too different, that it won't be too different -- it won't give us a significantly different result that we can anticipate for next year. that was the recommendation on the first resolution. the second resolution, the general education transportation policy i would commend to the board members who were not there, which i think was commissioner kim. most of the board members were there for at least part of the meeting and the details are available online to the public. the staff is recommending that we not have the second reading of the transportation policy until november 8.
these changes and the work that is being done now have really taxed the work of the staff, which we at the committee, and most members of the public wanted to commend the staff for the extraordinary amount and quality of the work that has been done on this project by the staff. the second part is the transportation policy -- questions were posed to the board and the public, questions like not grandfathering in bus stops starting next year. if we make changes in the transportation policy for general education, lots of bus stops and maybe bus routes will entirely go away. questions were posed to the board. for commissioner kim in particular, if you want to weigh in on those, you should do that. but i think that the staff's recommendation is based on the belief that adoption of the policy, the elementary
attendance areas and the question of a phase-in of the middle school feeder pattern, that needs to be done first before the transportation policy. so the committee was in support of that delay until november 8th, and also i just want to end by repeating for the public that we can make such a delay without affecting the attendance process for next year. so this will be -- we will have a new transportation policy. those questions such as are we going to have transportation to after-school programs? are we going to grandfather things? which routes might go away? which stops might go away. that will be known by the public well in advance of when they need to make their applications for school next year. i think that's the end of the report. we will continue to meet monthly. can i say the next meeting is october 13th, which is not a monday. that monday is a holiday, so we
are changing it to the wednesday. >> all right. deputy superintendent lee? >> thank you, president kim. i just wanted to make one minor convection to commissioner wynns' report, which is that the november board meeting that we are looking at for the transportation policy to come back and be active on is november 9th. >> excuse me. the 8th is the committee meeting. >> right. thank you. >> thank you. item t is report of closed session action. >> president kim, i just want to announce that the next meeting of the rules committee is monday, seven 20 at 5:30. >> thank you. close session actions of seven 9, 2010. the board of he vation by a video of 4-3 approved the chief, program administrator. in a claim against the district , by a vote of five eyes and
two. ed board approved a setment and release agreement in the amount of $38,000. the board by a vote of five eyes and three and sent, approved a resolution of intent to -- to suspend the employee pending hearing. >> item u. other informational items. tonight we are adjourning our meeting in memory of listened apierce, a cousin of principal james jerky, who passed away on august 23rd, 2010. linda was born in san francisco. they received her teaching credentials from essex state university. she enjide a 30-year career with the s.f.d. with a love for first grade classes. she loved her city pie the bay,
>> we thought we wouldd< take ts weekly video out on the road. we are here at recology at the recycling center. if you ever wondered where your recyclables go, and this new mandate for composting, the new challenges and mandates around recycling, what we are trying to achieve -- it all starts right here. we just marked an important milestone in our city. i would argue important this nationn francisco has now achieved a 77% diversion rate, the highest in america. no big city can lay claim to diverting that much of their waste, and that is why that
composting requirement was so important. this is why our efforts to consumption and distribution and the like of plastic water bottles is so important. it is because we want to reduce that waste going into the landfill. we want to reduce the burden on our environment. we want to create jobs. the folks on the line behind me and above me, those are folks that have employment because of these programs. we have added over 118 people in the last couple of years to the roles of the employed in these green collar jobs because of the recycling and composting programs. we actually created economic stimulus by building facilities like this and putting people to work to do that job. ball the folks out here in the hard hats are also supported by people in the office is doing the processing, doing accounting, doing the bookkeeping, so there is a multiple in terms of jobs that are created because of programs like we have established.
it was error, we were less than 50%. when i first w6urw@8yyixorwakñwe were roughly 35% effective, which was pretty impressive. it was higher than almost any other big city in this country, but we had an= reaching 50%, and they said it could not be done. we said we would reach 70%, and i was so proud when we broke 72%, and here we are with a goal of 75% by 2010, and not only did we achieve that. as i just region, we are at 77%. on our way -- ahead of schedule in fact, to be at 0 waste by 2020. there is no city that i know of anywhere in the world that could ever even imagine within the next number of years to be at zero ways. this is achievable because think about this -- even though we are
at 77%, the remaining trash that comes here that ends up in a landfill -- already, we have identified 2/3 of it that could easily be diverted if folks would do more composting at home and do more recycling at home and use these bins you see behind me. i do not want this to become a psa for our recycling efforts, although that is always good, and remember, it is the kids teaching the adults, which is always good. but this is good for the environment, good for the economy, and a san francisco can do this, cities across california and cities across america can do this. i will remind you of the great line by michelangelo, who said that the biggest risk is not that we aim to hawaii and miss but that we aim to low and --. it would have been easy for us to have a goal of 50% recycling rate by 2020. a lot of states, a lot of cities across the state, that will be
tow%8x4ç:vw1qs8mna ++%uq when you do that, you get people to organize that quality of imagination, where people in the private sector and public sector, using the entrepreneurial and innovative spirit coming up with new ideas and attitudes that may seem untoward or a little controversial or extreme at first, but suddenly, when you peel it back and look back two or three years, you go, "my gosh, that makes so much since." if you make a few mistakes in the process, but ultimately, you create a goal that is accomplished that becomes an example for other people and other cities to achieve with similar goals and accomplish similar efforts. we are really proud of our collective effort in san
francisco and the people in a city that have stepped up. they mocked us a bit. i even was a little concerned about the composting requirement at first, but now i'm doing it. other folks are doing it, and it is really exciting to achieve these extraordinary goals. green collar jobs. the new economy. this is our future. this is real. it is happening now, and it could be happening everywhere else, not just in the great city and county of san francisco. >> i work with the department of environment and we are recycling oil. thank you. we can go into a refinery and we can use it again. they do oil
IN COLLECTIONSSFGTV: San Francisco Government Television Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on