the expenditures that co-relate to that. in addition to this, in the budget book that is in exhibit 6 a, that also gives you revenue along with the expenditure and the amount that is to be flexed. some of the other programs like the supplemental remedial instruction programs and the grade 9 math class size reduction program have traditionally all been always been unrestricted and are included in exhibit four, i believe, in as district revenue and those programs are used for the purposes for which they were originally intended.

>> it is a lot more confusing than it was in previous years. i just remember last year it was much, much easier to follow and i don't have an example of the chart in front of us, but i couldn't tell you from the three charts what we're flexing and what we're not. i'm not getting it at all. >> i'm wondering -- >> are you responding to vice president norton? >> yes. i am adding to her question that perhaps -- should i stop talking? my train of thought may never come back. i was just going suggest that perhaps for next tuesday, when we have a full discussion on the 3 that we perhaps have it in a form that is maybe a little bit more lucid or easier to read. would that be an ok

recommendation deputy superintendent? >> commissioner, i think that is fine. the one question that i'm going to ask her to help us with is procedurely, there was this change that is referenced in the language of the special order that calls upon the public hearing that is taking place right now and i believe a vote to approve the use of the tier 3 funds to take place prior to the meeting at which the budget is adopted. so just procedurely, and i don't -- unfortunately know all of the details about whether the augmented budget committee having a discussion and action item on that piece whether that would suffice and meet the requirements of the a law that was passed in the last year. >> unfortunately not. it has to be at a regularly scheduled board meeting and i

don't believe the augmented committee meeting would constitute that. i may be wrong but -- >> commissioner wynns? >> we have to get a separate meeting reform >> it says regularly scheduled. we could not change it to a special meeting of the board? we are planning all to be there. >> that is an option. why don't we look at that. >> it meets a regularly aagendaized meeting. >> i'm going to advocate for that. the first thing, besides like everybody else, saying what does this mean? when i got this, in addition to that, i am absolutely unprepared to vote for something that says that we have made explicit the purposes for the ch the funds will be used because there is absolutely no discretion of the purposes for which the funds will be used. i would be satisfied but i would

think we would have published something that says we're going into the general funds being used for the following purposes, maintaining class size and i don't think the public would have a problem with that, but it doesn't say that anywhere here. then i want to also ask maybe this will help, i don't know. i need clarification myself. what was in the agenda, which i presume is what the public has, certainly what is available online, not this, doesn't anywhere say how much of these funds we're going flex. so it doesn't. the biggest problem is the target instructional improvement. our so-called screent dollars, some $38 million. in this document, it looks like we're flexing 5.35 million of that, which is fine but this -- what we have published in our agenda would not tell anyone that at all.

so i, you know, and i would like -- i think that people need to know exactly how much of what we're flexing and i also think they need to know which i don't have a problem with, but i need it explained for the public and to us i guess, but mainly for the public, we're not doing. i need us to say -- so i'll give you my favorite because i'm -- i've been advocating for not doing this for a long time. we're not doing the community-based english language training and child care that was generated funding under the initiative and why we're not doing it. because, you know, i think that is the kind of thing we need to do. we need to say why we're spending this none a different way. besides the ok, we have no money and we're looking for any way we can to be able to sustain our core programs like instruction

in the classroom. but all that is presumed in the resolution, not explained. and so that's what i'm asking for, that we -- i don't think -- i understand it is a little different notice, but otherwise, we're planning to have that meeting anyway and i think that it is the only way we can actually meet our public obligation to really discuss this because we don't even know the answers . i'm unprepared to vote for this. >> >> a sense i'm getting and i agree that we're not going to have much of a discussion on this tonight rather than trying to figure out the details at this point is to give us the details before the next meeting and when we will change that meeting into a regular board meeting special session, i guess. agendaize it. it should be ok, right? >> right. to be clear.

the requirement that there be a public hearing prior to the action this constitutes the public hearing. if there is under discussion friar the action item, that will probably fa till sate what the board -- facilitate what the board members are concerned about. >> so dough do we have to take any action tonight? >> you do not. >> ok. >> i just want to ask her our parliamenttarian, it has other action items on it that refer to the budget committee, does that mean we move those on the a regular meeting on the agenda or is there other action that has to be taken by the chair of the board? >> it can be done in a special meeting and you can have the

other kind of discussion to -- too. >> i need to ask mr. davis, are you saying that this meeting we are having right now this discussion constitutes the duly required public hearing? because i don't agree with that. it says right in the resolution that the public hearing specifies in detail what we're doing with the money. >> if this amount of information that was provided at the public hearing is insufficient for the board to make a decision, this can still constitute the public hearing but you're going need the additional information before you make the decision. you can agendize another public hearing prior to it or not. we're talking about a qualitative statement rather than actual legal requirement. it can be done either way. >> but we're clear legally

seeing in the requirement for a regularly scheduled meeting just means that we schedule the meeting using the normal legal process. not that it has to be our regularring? >> exactly right. it has to be an agendized meeting. >> let's just move on. let's move on. we're not going to take any action on this item right now. ok? on tuesday. so we're going to change that augmented budget committee meeting into a regular full board meeting as a special meeting. >> can i ask a question to deputy superintendent lee? if it is possible to give us this information in the form that we have had it in previous yeerks which was much clearer as far as i was concerned with what was being swept and what wasn't being swept and how much was being swept and then in addition the request for what are we actually doing with the money?

>> not question that commissioner wynns asked? this is not sufficient description of what are we actually doing with the moneys that are being swept into the general funds. >> we can -- i think we can provide information about that latter question. i do -- we'll find a way to shed light on that. what we're anticipating is that to the extent funds are swept or flexed, it really is generally to offset cuts in the general fund. we are not anticipating identifying particular expenditures that we are going to link to the amount -- >> sorry, i was not asking for that level of details. what i was just repeating,

commissioner wynns' request which i understood to be a description of we're using these funds toward the following activities that we haven't been able to support out of the general fund or to maintain these activities. >> if i may, just a clarification about the meeting on next tuesday evening and if i heard correctly, commissioners are contemplating replacing the augmented budget committee with a special meeting. >> let me try to clarify. there are some items that are scheduled for the budget committee right now. so -- and it was mentioned that we could take it under all of these items in the special meeting. however, i'm going to end up recommending that we have two meetings back-to-back. one that will handle those items and one that will just deal with the budget. ok? so -- are we clear now?

ok. thank you. >> i understand it is not a legal requirement. i'm making a request that we may have a description of what we're not doing, that we used to do with these categorical funds. i understand it is not a requirement of the law but i would like and i think the public would like to know that and i would like to public to know that. >> i support that notion. let's get that down. let's move on at this point. we're good, right? so as i said, we are not taking any action on this item. we're going to move to -- i want to announce the following initial proposals. number one, 2011-2012 initial

proposal for a successor contract from the san francisco unified school district to the civil service classified bargainanning units of local 6, 22, 38, 39, 40rks66, 104, 261, 377, 718, 85 3,1176 and 1414. number two, 2011-2005 initial proposal for a successor contract from the sheet metal workers' international association local 104. number three, 2011, 2012, initial proposal for a successor to contract from the united association of journeymen and apprentices of the plumbing and pipe fitting industry, local 38. public hearing on these proposals will be held at the regular board meeting on june

26, 2012. item michigan? >> i just want to make a disclosure. we don't believe any longer i have a financial conflict with the contract for building trade with the ironworkers because my husband is not an official with the union anymore but just for full disclosure for the board and the public, he is a member of that union and the conditions of the contract would apply to him but i have no financial interest in it. >> thank you. >> item m, discussion of other educational issues tonight. none tonight. item n, consent calendar resolution removed at previous meetings for a second reading and action. none tonight. item o vote on consent calendar, moved and seconded under section f. roll call, please. >> consent calendar vote.

>> yes. sorry. >> miss tom? >> yes. >> thank you. misfewer? >> yes. >> miss mendoza? >> yes, except on items 11, 23, 33 and 34. >> thank you. miss norton? >> aye. >> miss wynns? >> aye. >> mr. yee. thank you. >> item p, consent calendar resolutions severed severed for board discussion and immediate action, that would be -- jill? >> thank you. i just wanted to -- i don't have

a problem with this. what i do have a problem with is if you read the description here, you can tell this description was written by the people who designed and owned this program. and we had a similar issue with the teach for america. i understand that it is easy for our staff people to just lift the language out of the promotional materials for the people with whom they make contracts, i'm just requesting that we try review for that and try sk them not to do that. -- ask them not to do that. these are legal documents that we votes on and pass saying this is the best program there is. if our staff wants to assert that and ask us to vote for that, great. but it is clear that this is unrelated to their performance in this school district. it is more the description of the people who designed the

program and their commercial products, they own them. you know, i'm asking this be changed. i just want us to pay attention to that. thank you. >> point well taken. will do. >> any other comments? roll call, please? >> miss tom? >> yes. >> miss fewer? >> yes. >> miss maufas? >> yes. >> miss norton? >> aye. >> miss wynns? >> aye. >> k 18? commissioner fewer? commissioner fewer:thank you, president yee. this is a about going into a contract with a consult and to help us with their real estate transactions and i'm consulting. now i am -- i was concerned

about this last year because i think it would be better for district to actually hire their own in house real estate person. i just think, you know, we have someone full time that has some institutional memory also about real estate transactions and actually not to be a consultant but to be part of our team and represent us instead of an outside agency doing so. i realize that this is for $65,000 and i think deputy superintendent said if we were to hire someone full time for this position, it may cost $141,000, i believe. so i would just like to discuss this perhaps for a couple of minutes about what is the best use of this $65,000 where we put it toward a person that works full time for us or toward a consultant which is on a part time basis? we will be having many more real

estate transaction coming up and i think also it will be helpful to have an extra person on hand to actually coordinate with our legal department around pending real estate transactions and since the funding or the proceeds from the sale of real property, i think we do have that little bit of extra money to put it toward a full time position that they could actually be full time staff working with us. >> any comments? any other comments? commissioner maufas? commissioner maufas:thank you, president i guess i have more of a follow up of what commissioner murase was saying. must we pay that high an amount?

maybe, you know, we can find somebody. it is a tough economic market out there. but i would like to see if that is doable in some regard. maybe the person is not full time. maybe just a quarter time. but with a large knowledge base that is still an encyclopedia available to us. i would also like to second the possibility of exploring what we could do with that money if we -- we do pretty well withing two dollars that we have available to us. various efficiently and effectively. i would like to see it apply here as well. >> commissioner norton? commissioner norton: i actually think -- i like the idea of

exploring sort of different ways to fill this function. i think, you know, i think it is really important that we have someone with real estate expertise and deep knowledge of the markets. that kind of favors an outside person. i also, you know, it does bother me that we're contracting the cbre and they are getting paid a nice contract for their services to us and then on top of that realizing profit from, you know,

agreed to reduce their commission a little bit. that is, i think -- it is a little problematic to me that they are getting paid, we have a contract with them and they are getting commissions on -- at market rates. so i just -- i'm prepared to support this for this year, i do think that this should be part of a larger discussion that the board has about what are we really -- where are we going with our real estate function? is this still the best way to do this? is there a better way to do this? what kind of person at what salary would we look at doing this if we brought it back in house? >> can i make one more -- i'm looking at their dates of ssts don't start until july 1 -- services don't start until july 1. we have one more important meeting. is there a possibility that we could have some more discussion about this and get more information, i believe i overheard the commissioner mumble that we might consider an r.f.p. process. i believe there would be a significant response that would beg us to reconsider. if not, that's what i'm putting on the table. there is also a question about our timing of this and if not as

r.f.p. process, which takes a significant amount of time to go through, i get that, but i would like to have that for board discussion before the next regularly scheduled board meeting, which we have one at the end of june. so this particular contractor and i'm ready to support this. but i would like them to be on notice that we as a board are exploring another option and i think it should go out and we should see the response before we really commit ourselves to somebody who is regularly with us. and that's not just -- i'm looking at you deputy si superintendent lee but also looking at our incoming superintendent and outgoing superintendent. i think an r.f.p. process would be an excellent way to go about this and i think the response would be considering the fiscal

climate. thank you. >> first of all, i need to point this out to the board. several years ago we eliminated this position because of cuts. our redepartment in this school district has been asked to cut now, what are we up to 20%? >> probably -- 5% incremental for the next year. >> right. on top of what we have been asked to cuts and more for next year because everybody is having to cut. yeah, in an ideal world, it would be nice to have a full time person that would do that, but when you add benefits and so forth, that's what raises it. the other thing is -- correct me if i'm wrong, though. didn't we have an r.f.p. when we originally put this out? >> yes thambings two years ago. we did -- that was two years ago. we had multiresponses. i believe three firms were interviewed.

i think he participated in that process. cpre was the selected firm and since the selection took place two years ago, as a staff team, we have found them to be quite effective in meeting our needs. so -- >> i don't mean to interrupt but i would like to make some comments after you're finished. >> i just wanted to emphasize to the board that we have thought through the feedback that you provided on this issue and have taken a good faith attempt to try to think through whether there are other alternatives. we continue to believe after having gone through that, that thought process that this is still reflected in the fact that we're bringing it forward as a recommendation. we have made a lot of progress in this whole arena over the last couple of years. it was something we heard about

justifybly and for good reason from the board as something that we needed to pay more attention to and have a more professional level of expertise. we think we have done that and we're not all the way there but we're getting there and i think there is a track record that we're building that demonstrates the improvement in our ability to strategicically manage our real property assets. and it is not that cb rench or any consult apt is the driving force behind that, but it is an important resource for us as our staff team to have at our disposal. it is partly for cost effectiveness, but it ises also reflecting the resources available to a professional real estate firm with professional real estate expertise. not just an individual but with the analytical knowledge and all of the research knowledge that is available through a firm, we think it is actually a much better fit in terms of meeting our needs through this mechanism

than through having a staff person, whether it is part time or full time dedicated on the district's team per se, that has been our experience. we have tried it both ways. and we have had very different results. so we're happy to explore more. we're happy to continue to, you know, answer questions that you might have, but i will say that i think to a person all of the members of a team that have been working on this whole arena feel pretty strongly that this is -- this configuration is going to suit the district's interest as well as or better than what we had before. >> so thank you, deputy superintendent garcia. i respectfully push back a little bit on the superintendent because i know everybody is supposed to cut back.

i believe that we have somebody working for us full time in the real estate capacity that can more than pay for the money that we may be getting, the revenue that we may be getting could more than pay for a full time person. i understand expertise. we could always seek expertise. it doesn't mean this doesn't prohibit us from getting expertise from a real estate firm. it just means that we would have our own full time person, for example, i have attended many meetings now and i think it would be fabulous to have someone who is knowledgeable about real estate on our team as one of our team players and i think actually it could be -- a cost benefit to the district having somebody on our real estate and looking at our real estate and how best we can use our real estate working for us full time. i am -- so i differ from my

colleagues. i am not prepared to support this tonight because i think there is a better way to do this. i think in my judgment fiscaly, it would be more important to put a little bit more money in now but to realize that this could be also revenue-generating for the district and better use of our real estate too. i understand that c.b. richard ellison, i have to say they like the consultant they have given us. he is fabulous. we have a positive and productive working relationship, but i think it is time that we own the person that does the real estate and that they have our interests in the forefront and they are directly for us and for our interests. so thank you, deputy superintendent. >> what i would like to do is