conviction is substantially related to the job? and then we have concrete examples, and then also kind of laying up the process. in addition to speaking with you and other stakeholders so far, we have met with the housing authority and the office of housing contractors, and there was the san francisco chamber of commerce. i actually spoke with them this morning, and i believe we will be meeting with them by the end of the month. the small business advisor council. so i shared with the small business commission staff what we put together with the stakeholders, and they actually gave me input about the forums, so what i want to ask is if the commissioners would be willing to co-host the forum with us, to

make sure that they give their input on this kind of legislative proposal, and i just want to highlight the simple forms, sample application form, a sample letter requesting additional information if you want to obtain more information about the rehabilitation process, or letters of recommendation or anything that might give you more information or evidence of how a conviction is related to the job. we can hopefully provide those forms with in the compliance guidelines. again, we are looking for stakeholders to give us what they need in the compliance guidelines. in conclusion, i want to take any questions from the commission. this is to ask you to cohosts the forum to find out what the need is in terms of the employers and employees. thank you. president o'brien: any questions

from any commissioners? ok, thank you for the presentation. >> thank you. >> commissioners, we agendized an item. the commission cannot just direct staff to work on the outreach with them. president o'brien: yes, i do want to make one comment. i do not want to make it long because it is late. the tests that some of the conviction is somehow related to the job they are applying for. i do not want to see an employer having his decision being questioned as to whether he thinks a conviction is relevant to the position of the job that he is applying for. i think it would be more important that they have the latitude to determine whether or not the conviction is a serious enough offense to say they are not comfortable working with the person.

just a comment i want to make. i think you should work on the program, and we will work more on it. >> we need to move to public comment. president o'brien: i am sorry. public comment. clerk: i have one speaker card. >> i am wearing more than one hat. i will be brief. i have been a small-business owner for over 40 years, if you include deliver the bulletin, and i do not think any of you are old enough to remember that. my second hat is i am formerly incarcerated. i served years in federal prison for a marijuana conviction. last year, a worked with the reentry council on civil engagement, and i do not want to give you a litany of anecdotal experiences, but i am coming to truly wearing two hats as a san franciscan, because i would urge you to participate in this

process. as a small-business owner, the legislation that will be proposed, i would be covered, because i have the five employees or less legislation -- it would not be covered under the human rights commission. above five employees, there is a process we are working. so i think what my main message to the commission is the case you are the small business commission for our city, and you do have a tremendous influence among the small business community is that there is nothing to be afraid of. one of the primary concerns of any small business person is the unknown deaf ear, and i am coming to you today, and i know you were all tired, to assure you the process that is being undertaken is really for the

benefit of small business -- small-business owners, not a detriment, to give them the best possible pool of not only competent but exceptional workers. that is my contribution to your consideration. president o'brien: thank you very much. next speaker. >> thank you. i did not realize how late you guys were , so the thank you. you guys should put that in the public record or something. i am here to speak on this legislation are possible legislation because i, too, have two cats. i am the convict and a small- business owner. when i got out of prison, i could not find a job. i would work, you know, cash jobs, and sometimes i would not get paid.

what are you going to do? fortunately, i had the opportunity to get a line level hospitality job. i worked my way up through management, and when i got out, i did not even know how to use a facts machine. i to though can attest as a small-business owner how hard it is for businesses in san francisco, and i definitely do not want this to be another burden to my fellows in the small business community. i do want to of communication to assure that this action becomes an additional resources to myself and the small business community and the work force. thankfully, i was given the opportunity. if i was not given the opportunity, i may not be here right now. i might be in jail. i got a shock, and that shock has me here today. for the city of san francisco to

allow a small box on a piece of paper to dictate who has a chance at their life into does not, so we're just too smart in san francisco and too compassionate to allow a little box on a piece of paper to determine whether or not you get a second chance in life, so thank you, and thank you for staying up so late tonight. president o'brien: thank you very much. any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> i would suggest that we work with your office because i do feel this is important legislation to move forward here, and i appreciate these two gentlemen coming to speak on behalf at this -- behalf of this this late-night. there are other associations in san francisco that would like to participate. >> so, commissioners, can we may be direct this to the

legislation and policy committee for taking a look at it on a deeper level for the commission and and also possibly for the outreach committee vote to work on the outreach and working with hrc? >> .thank you. president o'brien: ok, next item, please. clerk: commissioners, item 10, an update and discussion on the san francisco planning department pavement to parts program, which will be continued to a future meeting. just to note, inside the left front cover is the legislation page report that you have requested. >> commissioners, due to the late time frame, i will just submit to you the director's report in writing. clerk: commissioners, item 12,

the letter is dated and policy committee report. commissioner: we have nothing new that was not discussed here tonight. clerk: item 13, the permitting committee report. commissioner: i have nothing. clerk: item number 14, the outreach committee report. commissioner: i will submit. clerk: item 15, the president's report. president o'brien: i have nothing to report. clerk: item 16, the vice president's report. commissioner adams: we had a good event. janet.

we had a great board of supervisors meeting. " i have been attending -- i went to the opening of super duper, which is a hamburger place in castro. it opened up their second location, which was fun and exciting, and i went to the 75th anniversary party a couple of weeks ago. family unscrewing clean family, same street. that is my report. commissioners, item 17, commission report. commissioner: just one last thing. i met with people from chinatown, and there is a program for chinatown and north

beach, so we are excited to get people out in visiting our local merchants. president o'brien: commissioner clyde? commissioner clyde: on may 23 with commissioner njn -- jane kim, they were meeting about the licenses for abc and a way to clarify those conditions when conditions are met. i did find supervisor kim very responsive to the needs of both the residents in the community as well as the business owners. i also attended the mid market arts kickoff on at the 20th with mayor ed lee, and that was just

a great get out in the street with music in the streets, even a a little bit of wine and beer in the streets. it was great fun. i also attended an awards party of the company on market, and i just want to note that it has grown in a year from four companies to know 160 companies that are a part of that. thank you very much. president o'brien: thank you. next item. clerk: item number 18, general public comment. president o'brien: seeing none, next item. clerk: item number 19, new business. president o'brien: seeing none, next item. clerk: item number 20,

adjournment. we are returned -- adjourned.

ok, i went to call this meeting of the ad hoc board of education for june 13, 2011, to order, and if you could notes that the three members of the committee are present, commissioner of fewer, commissioner norton. we have four informational items on the agenda, and so, we are going to -- how do you want to

do this? do you want to do of for you are short or three short presentations? do you want to do them all at the beginning? do you want to do that? >> yes, i think that would be great, commissioner. commissioner: ok. >> i have copies for the public, an idea of some eight copies. so the focus tonight, we wanted to give the board an update on the approach we are going to take to revise the attendance areas as well as the timeline and provide some feedback to a couple of elements of the feeder patterns that were raised at prior meetings, particular transportation, and the order of the tiebreaker process, and then to talk about the monitoring of student assignment, just giving an overview of the scope of

work that the advisers are helping us with and see of the board has any specific questions they would like us to explore in the annual report, and then the future meeting schedule, so the first couple, the first slide, is kind of a reminder of the guidelines of revising the elementary attendance areas that are in the board policy, so the board policy calls for staff on an annual basis to review the attendance area boundaries and make recommendations to the superintendent if any modifications are needed, and if the superintendent would modify -- notify the board, and in reviewing the attendance areas, these were the factors that steps should take into consideration, the neighborhood demographics, where students live now and where changes are expected in the future, the availability of facilities, traffic patterns, the availability of programs, and

the prekindergarten to 8. this was in p5-101. this was developed with working with demographers, and we gather data and got feedback from the community and evaluated that, and the board approve the elementary attendance areas, so it has been less than one year since these boundaries were approved by the board, so we think for the first annual review, we are recommending that we look at how the number of kindergarten applicants from 2000 -- for 2011 compared to the number used when developing the boundaries, so when we were developing the boundaries, but the average number of kindergarten emesis residents, so we thought we should look to

see that for those in attendance areas, is there was an attendance area that had 385 residents, that is so many poor grade, how many kindergarten applicants did we have, and what is the difference between the two, and then do them for all of the 58 attendance areas and then recommend any adjustments based on those findings, so if there are two attendance areas close together, and in one case, the number is greater, and in another, it is less, we would obviously explores ways to balance that. the second thing we would do is review suggestions from the community, and we have already received as suggestions in particular to look at the mckinley boundaries and also looking at another, and what is important to remember is you just cannot adjust one attendance area, right? if you get a suggestion a just

one area, it is also a suggestion to change another because it would be changing the boundary between two, and we also got some others, like near loma -- muir loma -- mira l;oma. we will look at the recommendations. there was a type of maybe in some of the documents that said 2010, so i just want to make sure that everyone understands we are talking about 2011, so in the next two months, and if anyone wants to email specific suggestions and to meet and talk about it, they can send it to the email address, and we will about d. wade any suggestions that come in to that forum, as well.

commissioner: can i just ask -- most of us got the same recommendations you got. because the suggestion said this, which i know to be true, the neighborhood and at 30th street, not 29th street, but here is a problem with that. if you just moved it one block and drew it on 30th street, then the southern side of the streets would be in the other, so what i'm interested in as an example is what we do about -- do we always run a line down the middle of the street, is my question, because it is an interesting question. i mean, the issue of the kind of coherence of the neighborhood is a good question, but, of course, in that case, you'd want to draw it sort of between the backyards. >> so i think maybe these will help highlight house staff is

going to vote all of the requests, and one is can the law to be consistently applied to all suggestions? so the suggestion to keep all of the neighborhoods together cannot be consistently applied. school district attendance areas. but it is definitely a factor that we look at where possible. we want to see how suggestion would impact the number of kindergarten residents, and speaking of one, it would make it bigger, and there is already a concern that it is already too big, so we will look at the impact on the average number of residents. we also looked at how it would affect the diversity of each attendance area. obviously, in this case, it would impact the attendance. just to the south. we would see it changing it would affect the size and diversity of enrolling. if it is making one bigger and one smaller, is that helping balance perfect and then the

barriers. that is particularly pertinent to, for example, the valuation of the suggestion for rosa parks, because there is one that is a huge traffic pattern. so we have looked at but have not even begun to evaluate this suggestion is that we want to actually do the valuations at the same time and looked at all of these factors, and then based on that come back to the board and recommend revisions its provisions would have minimal impact or would improve the demographics and the balance of students in each attendance area and avoid topographical barriers and if the logic could be consistently applied, so we will definitely look at all of the logic and avowedly everything that is suggested, and then we will oppose suggestions and staff findings on the web, so there would be an opportunity for people to see what we found from the revision, and then we would share a recommendations on the august 8

ad hoc committee meeting. et commissioner: i just want to clarify, and then commissioner norton has something. i appreciate this. analysis is always a good idea. however, none of those necessarily address the issue that was raised about álvaro. i am not advocating that we try to keep all neighborhoods in a coherent attendance area pattern. it is impossible, and you are right. not all neighborhoods have very clear boundaries, so when they are -- i just want to know where in those principles can you take that into consideration, and will he report back to us on this issue, or have you already looked at that? of course, it is easier, and all of the attendance boundaries that i know what actually go down the street, the middle of

-- street. people live on both sides of one street generally should go to the same school, unless it is during boulevard -- geary. >> we will look at that, and we can superimpose city boundaries on our boundaries and see where they change, and we can explore the difference between having the majority of our attendance areas are down the center. i think when we were doing it, there were a couple of exceptions, and they were actually an exception to keep city neighborhoods together, and there was one, i think. at any rate, one of the revisions we made was looking at how we can do this to a-as best as possible, so where possible, we try to do that. we just cannot guarantee, so we will do it as part of the evaluation.

commissioner: commissioner norton? commissioner norton: it seems to me that we want to look at what the pools were like. >> thank you. yes. the last part of this presentation tonight is actually specifically around monitoring, and one of the questions on there is what would the board like us to review as part of the process so that we can fall back in to see what impact that has, so maybe we can maybe even go into more detail about that. commissioner norton: the composition seems to be part of it to me, too. if you can adjust a line and have a more diverse pool, that

might be something we want to look at. >> that was in the original design and will continue to be as we look at suggestions, however impact, not just the size but also the demographics. thank you. commissioner: commissioner m urase? commissioner murase: no. is very different from south, and you end up concentrating a particular group by using that line. >> ok, thank you. i will definitely.

so we will plan to come back to the border with august 8 meeting using this process and timeline that we have just outlined, and the next section of the presentation is about. peters, and it is responding to two areas in particular that have come up, but just in case some of audience members are not familiar with the background, i thought i would take a second to provide some context. i think, in march 2010, the board approved a policy that included the development of elementary feeder patterns for elementary schools to feed into particular middle schools, and there would be an initial assignment based on the process. in august, the staff recommended which would feed

into which schools, and then in august and september, we received community feedback through lots of different forum s, and based on that, the substitute motion was presented by the superintendent, and that was to delay the feeder patterns for a year and to the interim year have a tie-breaker involving its siblings, so that is the process we use this year. in february, staph submitted revised kindergarten through eight feeders, and throat march and may, groups did a lot of work, community engagement, and we got a lot of feedback, and based on that, staff presented revised items to the board, and those are scheduled for their second reading tomorrow. some of the revisions included

instead of having an initial assignment straightaway and then going to choice, we would have a choice process through 2006, and then starting in 2007, go to initial assignment. we also had modifications. thank you. i am having problems. >> i think everyone knew what you meant. >> and that we would also remove the attendance area boundaries for middle school and a few other elements based on the feedback, and so these are the recommended feeder patterns that are before the board for action tomorrow night, and i just wanted to touch on why some of them are non contiguous. proximity was definitely a priority, but it was not necessarily possible given where students live, and we also wanted to make sure that