to dance, into costume design. they were an incredible bunch of kids. i started looking into their academics. i took my son, who was regressing terribly at another school that was failing him, to edison. it changed him. his reading level, his riding level, his comprehension of math has jumped threefold. as a single mom in a community that is being gentrified, where we are rapidly becoming invisible -- how passionate i feel about this school. how passionate i feel about the teachers that are out there, involved in all aspects of their students' lives. they get involved with the community. they really come out and become very involved with the parents. they interact with the teachers. i am here to urge you to please

listen to somebody who has seen great changes, who loves the school, and who has become a new board member. i would like more time to get the word out about what a wonderful jewel you have. please be responsive to the parents. check out our kids. come out and see the wonderful job the children do for the carnival parade, and their parents. please listen. as the speaker before me stated, look at the soul of the kids. look at the soul of the school. you have a wonderful thing here. please continue the charter. thank you. >> before we go to board cummins, what did the committee -- comments, what did the

committee recommend when you were there? commissioner norton: the committee did not review. it came straight with the budget review. president mendoza: what was the original recommendation? commissioner norton: two in favor, one opposed. it was a positive recommendation. vice president yee: i am going to take some time here. first of all, first of all, i am feeling very torn in this process. we had the assumption that they would come like they always do. pretty clean proposals. what is easier to accept the recommendation -- to me, as many

as today. there are a lot of questions. when we go through this process, it goes to the budget committee. you review and you ask questions. there is a more give-and-take in terms of the responses. there are times when we might say no, that particular answer is not good enough. we would like you to go back, and by the time we get to the full board meeting, give us a better explanation. in this process right now, we are not giving them the opportunity. i feel really uncomfortable with this. part of it is that they are not a new petition. they have been in existence for

a while. it is a change from a for-profit group to what they are now. it gives me a sense that they are doing the right things for the students. somehow, i don't get -- are we saying that they are getting less money than they have in the past? that is possibly when they may not be able to manage the budget. is it the way they are answering it? is that not making sense to us? the other question i had, what is the deadline on this? is there a deadline or you have to vote on that today. i really want us to bring it back to budget committee said that we can have a discussion on these topics. now we are dealing with a school

that is fully unrolled, not a start of organization. -- start-up organization. >> i will answer the process part of that in the timeline. we received a request, a written request from the division at the state level on march 23 to review what the state department said to bring this back to the district. the also put a timeline on this. it coincides with their state board of education meetings. he would fast track an appeal to that state board of education.

that is why this was so expedited in that way. it will outline board policy and through guidance of myself and other district staff members. we did compress the review process. there will be an answer on the process. commissioner yee: one more thing on the process. i was a little surprised the first time they were horrid -- awarded the charter. it will come back to the local district. does anybody know what the rationale was behind that? it is a little funny.

>> i have a phone conversation. prior to the letter being submitted to the district, we had submitted the findings on the petition, a complete edition. it is my understanding that that is why they asked it to be resubmitted to the district as a complete petition. it has to be based on the same original prediction that -- petition. i can only assume that we're going to the process again. >> the charter was not first

awarded by the state board of education. it was awarded by the support of education. when they were prepared to revoke that charter, a deal was struck. real love discuss the kind of leverage that was awarded. to prevent revocation, it was not up for renewal. the denial of a renewal was not made at that time. this was the district's charter. they wanted to be a state charter, and they were. it was why it was submitted to us in the first place. before we get to

[unintelligible] the was the appeal of the charter held by the state board, to be appealed to the local board first. that was the requirement. i am not aware of if there was any choice of the implied testimony this evening. >> if this were to go back to the state, where they get passed through the state board? >> i can't speak for the state board of education, but thinking just based on process and what i have experienced in the past, the were looking for the actual petition to have findings on would be a the one that we submitted to them. commissioner feweryee: was thatl

on the process? >> as you recall, on the budget committee, that was insufficient on many categories. they had missed the deadline to submit it. this was updated information, and they were unable when they came to the committee, my memory is not that good. they did not have the information from the management company. they did not have that pertinent information in time to submit it for the deadline. when they submit it to us, it is sufficient. we couldn't. as a board. that is why they came back now. president mendoza: commissioner yee, did you have any -- commissioner yee: in terms of

the other part of my questioning, the whole piece of give-and-take and the issue of how much less money they're getting? if they're operating now, independently. and they're not going broke or anything, what is so different from this how we go forward? >> my concerns are twofold, really. this document is meant to be a promise of how the organization is going to work going forward for the next five years. and some of the information provided here was a reflection of what has happened in the past rather than a documentation of how we're going to operate in forward.

based on the criteria we have set out, what we need to have, this is what is going to have been going forward. largely around the financial section, they don't have to choose an auditor that has these qualifications. we give this information to the board of education. we did articulate that in our comments on the first time around. it has not been added since then. there is more information about what has happened in the past, but not more information about the commitments going forward. it is really about the

understanding of the petition's, of how you are going to address what you're doing going forward. not a reflection of what you have done in the past. it looks like they have a healthy balance. i don't know that the numbers reflected here are articulating every expenditure that we have. as an example, i think the benefit question is something that came out. i went back through identifying each of their assumptions when they have the numbers of teachers. the clerical support to and multiplied out. we don't get the same numbers. it does not mean that we're going to be bankrupt by any

stretch of the imagination, but we don't have the same numbers. it is not articulated clearly. there are charter school association templates better very straightforward. most of them are plugged in and execute. i can tell that it is not a formula driven. we have different numbers. that is my biggest concern. commissioner yee: when you say you have different numbers, how far off are they? i can't read this it is so small, but how much are they stated? >> in yaear one, i'm looking at

the benefits page. i'm not sure exactly what you have in front of you. it is listed ont he pet -- on the petition. the my calculations, it would be 639,154. similarly, it is vs 665,000. 656,000 vs 693,000. so on. they are not huge differences, but it makes me wonder where we are missing here. those are the kinds of things that make me think that it is not where it needs to be in order to have confidence that we would be able to have -- you

would have the [unintelligible] commissioner yee: i don't want to go through item for item, but to get a sense, is there someone in the group that can respond to that particular item? >> if you are answering the question that has come out. we want specifically the differential explanation. >> we develop to the budget

based on the previous history. our benefit based on previous histories, quite a lot of our teachers don't take the benefits. we give them incentives. they kind of joint their spouse. commissioner yee: rather than doing average cost of a full- time, you're using actual figures? >> the budget is very conservative. our current year, the revenues are also lower.

we are very conservative. we have received the nonprofit status. commissioner wynns: i don't want to -- and not speaking for other members of the board, the members of the curriculum committee that voted in favor of the positive recommendation voted against the charter. the deficiency is unrelated to the presentation of the curriculum.

this is really difficult work that the staff has done here. it is possible for us to understand. i know is very difficult, and i appreciate the work does -- that has been done. i am unable to support this. i think that we have an ongoing history with the school. i think there is an issue about this being submitted as renewal. the committee was about how you are new here. we're not responsible for anything that happened before. frankly, i still don't think --

we have the additional burden that is submitted to us as a renewal of a school that does have a very difficult history not only politically but lots of other issues in the community and with the school district. what of the things that has been a difficult in recent years, this school like other charter schools, we don't hold the charter. they have come to us as flirting with the idea of giving up their charter and coming under district management. we have made a lot of concessions in the interest of trying to pursue -- not just wanting them back, but what does it mean for the district? i also think that this administration has put a lot of effort and staff time into trying to work with her

school's that have told us that they are considering making a move like that. for me, that this kind of one of the more recent ongoing complications that we have had at the school. i appreciate that there are people that live in our community that like the school and worked there. in the complex community, there are people -- frankly, i don't see anything in this new submission that addresses of the of the concerns i have before. i will not be supporting this. i will be supporting the resolution to deny the charter.

commissioner maufas: i am in agreement with vice president yee. their questions will have to ask that there is no real chance here for dialogue we have to listen to -- i will try to ask some questions. first, i am looking at the member of the curriculum committee. it was quite strong. this is a running operating the school. running today, of all students, families and teachers, children are learning. i am on the little -- i can't get my mind around it.

it doesn't look like the same thing going forward. can you give me some explanation on this curriculum? it says here that you don't believe you can implement it. is that a recommendation from the wall? >> page 8. at the top of page 8. the first listed reason -- >> thank you, commissioner maufas. to clarify, demonstrably, that

would be the overarching program. the specific findings are included underneath that particular crowns for the nile. there is also another citation on the rental process that specifically cites an unsound educational program. this is the broader context that might include financial rationale. it might include other programmatic elements. we did not include the actual curriculum or the educational program. >> what is letter l? the district to choose not to attend the charter school?

what is that? >> that is the boilerplate answer that is put there. of a transition out. -- how they transition out. >> the separate items, again, they are boiler plate items that are not filled out. >> at the beginning, these packets are fairly comprehensive. the actual recommendations and staff findings start on page 4. we are just reciting for your purposes to see what the general scope is. >> you made mention that you thought it was clear that something else was submitted to the states in regards --

>> we can't review anythingd ifferen -- anything different. my conversation, when they sent a formal letter of request for review to the district, she was asking me about the petition itself because she was referring to certain sections that i did not have on hand. it was not part of the original petition that i had. my assumption -- it was different from the one we actually reviewed. in the process itself, what ever petition that we reviewed the that was submitted on september 15, it was submitted to the

state on appeal. when the review those findings, they are looking at a petition, but if it doesn't matter, that is where the phone call was made. we started doing citations, it was not the same petition they were referring to. i can only guess that based on the legal review, because it was a different petition, they requested that this new petition be resubmitted and reviewed in the local district. >> all of that information is what the state saw? >> yes. commissioner norton: yeah. i had a question where you talked about employee rights in the staff commentary?

is that common to have that kind of language in interpreting our own policies and procedures? where teachers can take unpaid leave to work at the charter school? is that common? >> it is not common for the charter school to represent that information or any interpretation of our policies or procedures. with our locally authorized charter schools, we do describes -- we have a section around employee rights. it is very distinct. our policies and procedures, our rights and the charter schools. the charter schools do not propose - - for example. the charter schools cannot make

promises to that employee if they return. >> that language is problematic. we can reach agreement with our bargaining partners. we can make certain concessions and offer that to the charter schools. they say that teachers who leave will be a credit when we return here. that is the sole discretion. that will have to be eliminated from this petition. commissioner norton: were we to vote to issue the charter, that would have to be changed? would the board have to amended prior to a vote in favor? >> yes. >commissioner norton: with our other charter schools, do we have language similar to this?

is the unusual piece