>> the long pole in the tent here is the funding and i continue to work that issue as it stands. >> ok. >> so i have a clarification on that. so what is it about the funding? what did you just say about the funding? you secured the funding? >> i'm sorry, i used a term -- the long pole in the tent. it's something that we say, long pole in the middle holds everything up. so my issue is -- >> i'm not familiar with that analogy. so it means for a lay person, it means you have the funding? >> the funding is the issue. >> so you think -- >> the people will be here. my issue is coming up with the funding. i have not identified all the funding i need at this point. >> ok. i think that's different than what we were told last night. last night we were told the funding was secure. and that nobody wanted to mislead the public that the funding was not secure, that that was a problem. so i think that's a little different from what i heard

last night. >> funding is available for the lowell position. >> but not for all three, is that correct? >> yes, ma'am, not for all three. >> thank you very much. >> on the amendment? >> a comment that was just made. my memory is that's exactly what we said last night was that funding was secure for one position but the rest was pending and the date would both allow for -- to secure the funding and to deal with this technical issue about the row tirmente -- retirement date of at least one member. >> perhaps i heard wrong. my apologies if i did. >> ok. any other comments on the amendment? commissioner maufas? >> i'm just going to say this for the record, i really am only going to be supporting one extension. i think it's absurd but i'm willing to do one extension based on somebody is having a

retirement issue and it is not regarding the funding at all because i have my own objections to that. but i understand that you have folks who are already in the hopper and i can be supportive of the amendment for the date. >> and then i would also like to just say for the record that it seems as though this amendment has been modified, or modified a couple times. so this further extension considering that the individuals you're talking about might be ready, they're not ready right now as we're voting on it. the funding is not secure for all three as we're voting on it right now and that's exactly what the resolution says, that it would not be at any cost at all to us, we can't be assured of that. i just -- i think this could be very open-ended. i can see us having an extension to january 1, february 1, to april 1. i just don't see where this

ends, actually. you're coming to us and saying that you have funding for one but you don't have funding for all three. we're asked to vote today for an extension for all three. i just think that it's sort of a -- if i can use the term, sort of a moving target date. so it's very ambiguous, i think. this is not a good way to set policy. thank you. >> commissioner maurasi? >> i have a point of clarification. the issue of the funding is because the district has reduced the funding for these instructors, is there not a new, additional staff that you're adding that the district has cut the budget for these staff? >> these are actually folks that will be added over and above what's there now, folks that in the resolution in the

back there is a little piece that talks about the genesis of all this. this is all been precipitated by some requirements by the federal government and the contract that the district has that specifies two instructors per school. two schools on probation at this point and the potential to lose those schools and those two programs if we don't move forward with some type of hiring. so the decision, then, from outside was to look for outside funding because the district was strapped for funds and the principals were not able to make that decision, make that commitment, and then to do the hiring. . then there was the resolution that were put on the other requirements and consequently we're here trying to come to a resolution of some sort. but those are not replacements for somebody who's going away

but folks that vent been there in quite a while. commissioner maufas: just from trying to put this together and as vice president yee with his resolution and the jrotc staff, tell me what your title is again. >> [inaudible] commissioner maufas: thank you. working with commissioner yee in trying to put together something, you can just tell me, have we done anything like this for any other kind of staffing issues that we have? i was curious yesterday but i just couldn't get to my head around all of the sewing together of what we're trying to do. so i'm just curious, have we had circumstances such as this or something like this, this

may not be -- it may be somebody else who might know because she has some historical knowledge base -- i'll wait for your answer, sorry. >> well, this is a one of a kind and so the answer's no. i'm certain that we haven't. it's a unique program and the answer's no. >> i would like to clarify one thing, though. there was a presentation and we're hiring someone for curriculum department that's funded by outside source, by, you know, by foundations or whatever. so there are people who are hired that work in our district that are paid by outside if that's your question. i'm not sure -- commissioner maufas: there's that but there are other layers that are added onto this particular onion. so combined i wanted to know if we had sort of the whole package together. i know we do other things such

as -- you know, we have outside sources that fund staffing positions but there's a lot going on here. >> i will tell you that when they are specially funded, if the funds don't materialize the position is gone. >> my comment is this. that i sat down with the major in trying to figure out what's needed because we didn't know about these three people. and at the time i asked specific questions about timing and dates and funding and, you know, a -- first of all, is

there even a program that would allow for people to get a credential and i checked on that and sure enough there is. so a lot of things were said at the time and the amendment language to change the date, i will support it but i'm reluctant to because at the time of our discussion i asked about all these things. and i was willing to talk to my colleagues. vice president yee: what i'm hearing from some of my colleagues is that, well, what if you don't raise the money and so forth, are you going to come back and change the date again? i am not going to extend any

more dates on this. i think we've given -- we've been fairly flexible extending it from the first two years and some more, we're doing this and we're putting some amendment language to get it to november 1 and so at this point i hope that your perspective on this of what could actually happen is going to be correct and that we can move forward and if it doesn't happen it's not going to happen. i'm hoping that it will happen for you, for us. but i will just tell you personally i would not support anything beyond this. somebody else could do it if they want but it won't be me. so roll call for the amendment. commissioner fewer: no. commissioner maufas: yes. commissioner murase: aye. commissioner norton: yes. commissioner wynns: aye.

vice president yee: aye. that's five ayes. vice president yee: ok. so on the resolution itself, comments? commissioner maufas: major, i had a couple of questions, just as we saw yesterday about how there is a commission's officers and enlisted personnel at each site, is that correct? one of each? and that's in compliance? >> the program is designed to have an officer, commissioned officer, generally someone who would have already done it and then an n.c.o., a lower ranking individual as an assistant. and the requirements over the years have never been for the n.c.o. to qualify for the program through the government, to get the government credential, to have a college degree. that's slowly changing as the army and military changes their

requirements. so that's the way it was set up. we don't all have that in every place because we've lost some folks, general powell left, we lost lieutenant colonel over at washington through retirement, etc., etc. so we haven't been able to replace people. so we're having -- some of these programs are run by n.c.o.'s who should have been in the secondary position and not been the supervisor of record. commissioner maufas: and just so i'm clear. you can't have two n.c.o.'s. maybe one who has the -- or is that the this thing that puts them over? they have the college degree? they're at a different level? >> yes. it's possible to have an n.c.o. run a program when there's no officer available. if you have two n.c.o.'s then one of them has to have a college degree. commissioner maufas: ok. >> in order to do that.

vice president yee: any other questions, comments on this? commissioner fewer. commissioner fewer: so i think that the purpose of doing this is to be more in compliance with the guidelines for the jrotc program, is that correct? >> yes, ma'am. commissioner fewer: ok. but according to our jrotc enrollment and i know you gave us some numbers but this was actually presented to us from our planning, research and accountability and i think that they probably are pretty accurate also. and so i'm looking at -- so when we talk about compliance, now, so i'm a little confused because yesterday at a meeting we said we had eight jrotc

instructors, i think, one, two, three, four, five, six, we have seven currently, is that correct? there's nine? >> there were seven people that were going to go to the alliant university orientation. there are a few folks who were planning on retiring. commissioner fewer: who presented this to us? i'm looking at this paper that just says, jrotc teaching credential, status and timeline. so we have seven listed here. does that mean that two of them are not currently in the timeline? is that what you're telling me? one, two, three, four, five, six, seven. there's seven here. does that mean two are not in the timeline? >> there are two that you're going to have to help me out, give me one second. commissioner fewer: ok. >> i thought i had nine of them listed here. there's only seven listed here. commissioner fewer: there's seven on here and you say that there's nine. it looks as though we have some

missing folks. >> there are nine. there are nine. seven of which are enlisted and two of which are commissioned officers. commissioner fewer: so it looks as though we have two commissioned, one at local and one at balboa, yourself, major. >> i have no idea what you're looking at. commissioner fewer: oh, ok. i actually don't know what i'm looking at now also then. if i'm told that you currently have nine instructors and i'm looking at this and i see seven, does that mean that two of them are off this list because they are not part of the timeline to a credentialing program? >> two of them are going to retire, two of them are planning to retire at the end of the school year and they're not going to participate in it. commissioner fewer: i see. we currently have nine but at the end of the school year we find ourselves in may, 2012, we'll only have seven, if we

don't hire these new three, is that correct? >> correct. commissioner fewer: ok. so we are doing this so that we will be in compliance with the federal jrotc program, is that correct? yeah. so i am looking at jrotc guidelines which i got off the website under the jrotc program, the department of defense. section eight, item eight, subsection b says that they'll be staffed with a minimum of two instructors as we're trying to adhere to. it also says local school officials are the hiring authority, right? according to -- accordingly all instructor applicants are subject to local policy concerning qualifications and employment contracts and i think right here because after two years no one complied with what our policy was. then i'm looking at here that

it says, for jrotc program to remain viable, now, our policy and i'm sorry to have to correct you, but i believe, and it could be that my recollection is wrong also, but 50 was not the number, 50 was the number of students that if a school had 50 or less then they may choose to elimb nat the program but by -- eliminate your own program but by your own guidelines and the department of defense it says, again, section eight, item g, for a jrotc program to remain viable, it must retain at least 100 students or 10% of the eligible high school population. i'm looking at our numbers here and i see that be a hamlin condoleezza rice high school, well -- abraham lincoln high school has less than 100, local has 77 and george washington has of a.

-- has 56. so george washington, only 6.4% of its population are in your program and at local only 8.8%. so you're in violation of not having a viable program by the department of defense standards . so we are attempting here to meet the minimum standards that you state here, however your program doesn't even meet the minimum standards set by your own department of defense guidelines. so i just don't see why -- quite frankly when i see at local 77 students and you plan on hiring another instructor for local you're going to have two teachers for 77 students, out of how many sections that are taught a day? that seems as though it is not excessive but it may be what all of our science and magget classes should have that student to teacher ratio. i think my point is, major, that we're doing all this

again, making a lot of changes when really many of our programs in this district are ready -- already are in violation of the own department of defense's guidelines for what is a viable program. set forth by the people who actually run the program and pay for it. so we're doing this to be in compliance but yet we're out of compliance on so many other things. and even if we hire these three, we will still be out of compliance. so i just think this is not a good way to set policy. i think that if we're going to say that we're doing this to be compliant then we should, you know, actually be compliant and actually the program should comply with its own guardians of its program which is the department of defense. and when i look at this, you

know, now also with the extension of the date, i feel like we set policy two years ago and the majority of the board approved it and i wasn't one of them to approve it but the majority did approve it and we're doing this because that policy wasn't met and again by your own department of defense guidelines it says that all instructor applicants are subject to local policy. so i just want to reiterate that i just don't understand sort of why we're setting policy like this and i don't think it's actually a very smart way to set policy for a school district. thanks. >> may i say something? i called this afternoon and did a head count at all the schools. lincoln is 126, local's 79 and they have 25 students that they

are processing for the independent study program and consequently they'll be in the jrotc program. and it will bring their numbers up to 100. washington is problematic, it's been problematic for years. i will concede that. these numbers do not indicate any of the leadership labs or drill labs that will be put in place. i anticipate every school to be at 100 or better. probably by this time next week. commissioner fewer: if i may respond. so i'm looking at this jrotc drill lab. i see the count 000, 0er zero at be a ham -- abraham lincoln, zero at washington, three at lowell. i see jrotc section two, i see zero at abraham lincoln, zero at galileo, zero at george washington, i see four in a class at lowell high school.

which you want to put another instructor. zero at mission and zero at phillip. so i'm looking at jrotc rivalry. i see zero, abraham lincoln, zero balboa, zero at galileo, zero at washington. i see two at lowell. i see zero at mission high school and zero at burton. so a lot of these class sizes are very, very small. i'm looking at also, let's see, i could look at another class here. naval science one, i see zero at lincoln, zero at balboa, zero at washington, zero at lowell, zero at mission and 84 at burton. so it's sort of the same numbers across the board here. so i'm sort of wondering, even with these class sizes, how many sections does a teacher teach or how many sections of

jrotc are there in a school day , how many students are instructors actually teaching and, you know, we're not including students who participate after school. we are actually just including students who are currently enrolled with the master schedule and this is where we get our data from. so i think your numbers might show a higher number and a head count maybe and also, you know, we're also looking at a 10-day count but things change, too. so these numbers quite possibly could even be high. again, i don't see how the numbers sort of justify it. vice president yee: can you respond? do you have a response to that? >> well, there are no students at any of these schools in any of the navy one, two, three programs because it's only at burton. the army programs are at the other schools.

s.i.s., as you all know, is less than 100% accurate, all i can tell you is that i called and got the numbers. as i was leaving the school, changed by two. the drill labs and leadership labs traditionally are sort of -- they are sort of hand loaded after the regular classes get put in place. some students come in to do those that may not be in another class. and some may go on and do that other drill lab as well. so once the hard enrollment for the school day gets established then we sort of hand enroll the other ones. lists are provided to counselors, the counselors take care of it. it's not something that is automatic as the regular class loading is. so it takes some time. and it's just the way it's been

over the course of the 17 years i've been here. commissioner maufas: so i just want to respond to commissioner fewer's sort of question. you had recalled what when he done previously. no, you're correct. i just wanted to reassure you that what you recall is correct. because i recall those same things. so, if i'm understanding correctly, between us and you, i'm going to put this to you, 10-day count, you'll have a hard and fast number, tell me when you'll have your number that you believe will be true? because i'm going to ask our staff to compare and as we go forward i want to know those numbers myself. and i don't want -- i'm going

to ask you. when -- when do you believe you will know that you have the correct numbers for your class sizes at school? >> the numbers are not that different. their number is 910 and our number is 874. total. and in fairness we're not to the 10-day count. what commissioner maufas: right. >> so i don't have any reason to dispute what their numbers are and what -- and when the 10-day count happens then we'll know what they are. commissioner maufas: ok. so i want to again just acknowledge, i did know about the instructors, i knew before we had the last board vote because i had spoken to you and you had told me back in march that there were folks, three, that you had -- that really wanted to come to san francisco. so i knew about them.

but in regards to the rest of our policy regarding jrotc, i still believe firmly that you all need to be in compliance and i have to tell you that i really appreciate your statement when you came to the board, i'm talking about what had not been a real active effort to comply with what the board's request was around seeking further education because this was what other teachers and folks that wanted to be instructors in the san francisco unified school district do. so i want to thank you for the acknowledgment and really a promise that you were going to be on top of it and the folks that you would be working with, to ensure that they are on top of it. so i appreciate that. and i had spoken earlier to vice president yee, i need to see that in action before i really even move towards being

open again to jrotc instructors , just as other instructors are at sfusd, particularly those who are p.e. credentialed. my position remains the same but i want to acknowledge i did know about the three instructors so i want to tell you that. commissioner murase: i think we need to acknowledge that the big picture of overall trend of enrollment at jrotc is in part because the program has been influx based on decisions of this board. so i think we really, the board needs to take some responsibility for the fact that the numbers are not where they once were or where we would like them to be. and i personally would like to give a fully staffed program a chance, i just don't tchi we expect, you know, big numbers for a program that's been under attack for a while and that, you know, i think the program deserves to have a chance to be

fully staffed pending funding and check in a year from now what do the numbers look like. commissioner maufas: if i may reply to that. that speaks to what i spoke to. i would like to agree with that but then every other program that we have had at sfusd that has been cut because of funding or because teachers can't stay in the profession, because of the cost, they then deserve the same and if we didn't go through program by program that sfusd no longer has based on that argument, commissioner, then i'd be behind you on. that because we can't go over every single one that is not with us and all of the professionals and all of the teachers and instructors and all of the folks that have had to leave the teaching profession because we're not funding education properly, i can't move jrotc up to the top of the list. there's so many more who have gone before them.

vice president yee: what i would like to do right now is have roll call. commissioner fewer: no. commissioner maufas: no. commissioner murase: aye. commissioner norton: yes. commissioner wynns: aye. vice president yee: aye. >> that's four ayes. vice president yee: next will be j, request to speak regarding general matters. i only have a few cards here. that would be