>> i apologize. what is the question? >> do we need a physical quorum of the board present during the board meeting? let's say that commissioner maufas is participating in a teleconference from her home while three other members of the board are somewhere else. is there a quorum if three members of the boardroom are in the room, commissioner mall office is at home and the three of us are somewhere else. >> your interpretation that as long as they are within district boundaries, but not necessarily in the boardroom, would be allowed. what i want to do is actually look at the government code 54093 and make sure that there is not additional text that would contradict that conclusion. that is something i need to get

back with. if in fact this is the same language, then that is a reasonable interpretation that members of the court could be within district boundaries, but not in the court room. >> i am not objecting to that. i would like to know. we have operated under a different obsession -- a different assumption in the past. >> i object. we need to have a physical quorum. we ought can have any role that we want as long as it is not more progressive than a law. >> that is right. it cannot be more permissive than the law. you might consider for reasons of public meetings and people having a sense that there is a public meeting in a way that they may observe, you may prefer

to have physical presence. >> are you making a motion that we should amend this? >> as long as the quorum of the members of the board participate from the location, parentesis, have a physical quorom. >> if this was the entirety of the section of the government code, this could contradict this language here. >> i would like to share support to change the language that there has to be a physical presence.

this amendment to the language that is in there. it is actually following our practice. >> i would probably leave the code referenced in in case tech code section actually changes. one of the benefits that we have to do invest is when the csba sees that case law has changed, they notify us. please feel free to jump in. the vantage to keeping this section in here, it makes for an ease of those updates. while our language is over and above the law, it does not contradict the law.

>> i think we are agreeing by acclamation to change. is that correct? to change the language to bring it into accordance with our current practice. >> may i read what i wrote down to you? the section reads, during the teleconference, at least a quorum of members of the board shall participate within member boundaries. so long as a quorum of memories -- members are physically present at the location. >> i think that is wrong. the second one contradicts the first one. during a teleconference, about least a quorum of the members of the board should participate from the location and constitute a physical quorum. it does not matter if they are within the fiscal jurisdiction. if you are at the meeting, you are within the physical

jurisdiction. >> thank you. upon review, if it does look like it is problematic, but is it alright with the board to remove that reference? on page 119 of the version in your agendas, under consent of items, article two, section 8.5, that is in the red box, correct? >> commissioner, i am sorry. >> page 119 in your agenda.

>> do you have the series number on that page? >> 9322b. >> it is the paragraph. a member of the public requests. if the request to speak about any item on the consent calendar, then that item shall be severed to allow discussion and a separate vote on the item that does not on line with our current practice.

we have asked members of the public to comment on a consent items before and give board members the option of severing them. we should either strike that paragraph or reword it to align it with current practice. >> which is your preference? >> mine is to continue with our current practice. i do not know how other people feel. >> it seems like it might be wiser to write down the actual practices rather than actually striking it. >> do we have this written? >> is there a box that you are looking at? >> it is article two, section 8.5.

>> if you are willing and comfortable with it, we can revise the language as commissioner norton just they did it now. -- stated it now. >> we could vote subject to questions on certain items. once we have been through everybody's questions, we can say that we are proving with the exception of these items, whatever they are. >> what we're doing is adopting the current provision then the resolution would be permitted, consistent with that provision. you could vote on that. >> we do not have the language. >> we have had this for a long time. is there a reason we are rushing to a vote on this besides the fact that we have held onto it

for a while? the sense that i am getting is that people are a little bit overwhelmed by all of this. i heard from a couple of board members. there has been a lot of things that have changed. it is hard to match up the red line with the version in the board book. is there a reason why we did the suspension of rules and why we do not have time to go over it in january? >> i do emphasize that we had the augmented committee meetings on this. if we did not have people come forward with these kinds of concerns the fact that time. i would be happy to vote for approval on this. 2 night's exercise is exactly what we would want to do in those committee meetings. if we can get a commitment that

that is what we would like to do at the next rules committee, then we would do that. it is important to be accountable. it has been a year on this project. i do not know how many additional concerns commissioners have. if it does not concerned, then maybe we should take care of it this evening. if there are three dozen concerns, as i would be happy to entertain the issue at rules committee. >> we tried to rely on committee meetings and come to as many as possible as well as the other committees we are responsible for. i have a handful of comments or questions. do others have comments and questions? >> i wanted to comment on whether to postpone or not. >> i probably have about10

altogether. >> i have about 6. >> my comment is regarding commissioner murasi. commissioner fewer: i just wanted to concur. i am guilty of not attending the meeting about this. the board believes that late- night meetings can affect the board's decision making abilities and can be a burden to staff. regular board meeting shall be adjourned at 10:00 p.m. i am going on with our own meeting conduct. also, from what i'm hearing right now during this kind of conversation, perhaps it would be beneficial and helpful to staff if board members submitted

the questions ahead of time so that they could research all of those things like p120. to ask staff 25 questions is on fair at this time considering is close to 10:00 and they are not prepared for these questions. if we had done due diligence, we would have these questions at hand and we would have received the agenda ahead of time. i am as guilty as other board members of not doing due diligence to the spirit i would appreciate a postponement of this vote so that we cannot allow staff time to answer these questions versus going back and forth about clarification.

that is my opinion. >commissioner wynns: i am in favor of postponing. it would be our normal process. what we have to do is not vote -- taking it up for a vote tonight. we can postpone that until the next meeting or whenever we want to. i appreciate why dr. murasi said. this is long and complex. we need more eyes and discussion on this. we talked about doing this as a commission as a whole. instead, we decided to augment the committee meeting. i think that submitting

questions is a good idea. this is the discussion that we wanted to have at the committee meeting. i want to suggest that if will submit questions, that is great. what we ought to do is have some kind of committee at home. we have to agree to all sit down at a meeting whose only purpose is to review this. our plan is to use this process to do all parts of the manual so that this won't ever have to happen again. it has happened without completion how many times?

four or five times in the last 10 years? i do not think we are ignoring our responsibility. it is about how we operate. this discussion makes us realize that we need another step. >> can we agree to do this as a committee as a whole? is that what we are hearing? >> we had this discussion over rules committee. part of why we make the decision is that we had so many topics to discuss at the committee and the meetings which we keep postponing and postponing. several got dropped already. we made some agreement that we

wanted to reduce the committee rules from twice a month to once a month. >> now it is zero. >> to me, it is ok. my preference is to keep it at the rules committee. i think that murasi is doing a great jobs during the discussion. every time we go through it, we find something else. i think i am in favor of having another step and having it augmented in the rules committee. we can treat it almost like a committee. this way, we do not take away a topic that we would otherwise covered. if you really want a committee, you have to understand what we are going to cover.

>> i will plead guilty to not coming to the augmented rules committee. the difference between a committee as a whole and a committee is that when we discussed the rules for our committee, we all felt that we wanted to trust our committee to share the work of the board. that committee as a whole is really the acknowledgement that this is work that we need to participate in. you cannot do this effectively by having three people and not having all of the members of the board. i hear what your saying, commissioner yee. there are so many topics that i do not want to give up. i will say that getting this on the board agenda to a meeting that i know i'm going to attend

got me to read it. i think we have to say, either it is a priority for us to get our policies in the manual and suck it up and do more meetings, where i have to say that we are going to have the rules committee do it and have some things slip through that we later do not like. we started two years ago. we just need to finish the work and have the committees as a whole that we need to have. >> commissioner, did you have a comment? i am going to suggest having yet in the committee as a whole. it is a whole board discussion. i think that you can bring to the committee as a whole some of

the elements that occurred during the committee meeting which i think are important and valuable. i think this is more of a lack of time and ability to come to another meeting than we are just completely flaking on it. next year you can think about all of the committee as a whole meetings we are talking about. can we hold some of the other conversations in a board meeting? we do have meetings where it would be more appropriate to have something larger that is not as deep and controversial. this is not controversial. this is just a lot of fine print and a lot of details. it has to be really clean. for us to find so many questions that we have unanswered, that

makes us a little bit nervous to go forward. >> i am satisfied that my colleagues appreciate the magnitude of this work. it is really important. we did speak at length. we wanted all seven of us to roll up our sleeves and do what commissioner norton did tonight. commissioner mendoza identified the issues you have with it. these are the most important policies. they cover and -- govern us. the third monday in january as a holiday. we may not have a rules committee. i am happy to have it at committee as a whole. i suggest that we get our questions and concerns to staff in advance. they have spent many, many hours on this already. >> does everybody have their

redline and board copy? your responsibility is to search through this just as you did tonight. you have to get questions on this so that we can have a full, clear discussion. it can be one of our first committee as a whole meetings. this could be our first committee as a whole meetings we have in the next year. thank you for all of your effort on this and for moving this forward. and what you're hearing from us is a clear commitment to move

this forward. >> i do not know if this item -- i am questioning the first item for the committee as a whole. we did postpone a very important discussion last week. was it two weeks ago? that is exactly what the supervisor brought up about how important that was. i wanted to suggest that perhaps it is our second meeting. >> i think you enter staff and the leadership will have to go through and make some decisions about priority and went to present it to the board. >> i just wanted to also recognize somebody that came all the way from sacramento for this. i just want to thank you for your help to us through this process and apologize that we

are pushing it off for a third month. >> i was right in san diego when i told you. >> i should be charging by the hour. >> we're glad you're laughing. go ahead. >> i just wanted to mention that the way csba breaks down its policies is that it has zero- 9000. there is no 8000. after 9000, there are seven remaining. keep in mind that 9000 -- it first went through csba and took

its policies and signs our policies and integrates their policies into their board policies. they make recommendations and suggestions. it went to the rules committee two times. we have been thinking of this as something that we might have gotten through in the spring. this is also something that you might have wanted to get to during the 12-13 school year. this is important. do you want to hear what the best intents of this somewhat painful process art?

we have citations within each policy to the government code. people can look at what is behind us. we have accessibility as commissioner. it is not just online, but it is online and searchable. they can say, what is the policy for retention, keeping a child behind? they can do a search for that. it is taylored with the csb process of integrating it with ours. we get the change in the law. we have some policies dating back to the 1980's. we have policies that are a bit older than that as well. once we have gotten everything updated, we want to make sure that our policies are up to

date. there are a lot of benefits of going through this process. it is time consuming. i want you to have in mind that there are seven more series to come. >> remember, the board has passed policies that are related to all of those other seven sections. however, what they actually governed much more, they certainly are you need policies related to those things. but they actually the fine is the way the school district is run. this is about the way we run the board. i think we can reasonably expect that. most of the review we will do is done by staff. they will be telling us, here is

the old regulation that was unworkable. the administrative policy is coming out of our ears. it is the longer necessary. it should be different. it may be endless and take forever. we did this one first knowing that it was our expertise that were relevant here. it was our most complex group. our expectation all along is that we were doing the hardest work first and that the others were being more staff driven. think about how long is going to take us.

>> i wanted to see if the commissioner will articulate how we are going to move forward in terms of the other series and how we are sinking about allowing the other school board committees to tackle it instead of the rules committee. would you like to say something about that? >> we have the discussion about the eight other sections. they go with personnel issues that could go to the personnel committee. some deal with facilities issues. i do think that there is a shared responsibility for different committees to take on different sections rather than have the rules committee look at all eight remaining. we just do not have the expertise. that was the recommendation from the rules committee.

>> ok. do we procedurally need to do anything for postponing? we voted to suspend the rules, but we are not actually going to do an action? >> i move that we postpone action on this until the call of the chair. >> to the call of the board chair? >> at our first meeting in january, we always re-adopt our rules. we would have to adopt a new version of this. >> suspend the rules and not re- adopt the rules. that would tell the public