recently announced. with that i'd like to say jim lecure in the back of the room was the inspiration of the contest and i look forward to working with the environmental specialist in the curriculum department to do more in the environmental education field coming up. so thank you for the evening. >> thank you. there's actually a speaker -- i have a speaker card for this item. james lecure. come on up. >> dr. garcia and kim-shree maufas and jill wynns and the others that may or may not know me. i'm james lecure and taught at soda for 10 years and began advocating for the futures contest in the late 1990's trying to push environmental education in the schools which

seemed to be lacking. some of the students and teachers being honored tonight for their environmental work stem partly from my and many other people's efforts. i assume we all understand that our world is severely threatened by a decaying environment and that this threat is equal to or worse than any other threat that we may face. how do we bring home environmental issues to all students? only repeated contact in class gives credence to such studies and empowers each student with the tools they'll need to act and vote intelligently. environmental education is real because it involves personal survival. it is interdisciplinary. it keeps kids in school. i suggested that sfusdd not only straight its strong support for an environmental program, but i suggest the board, one, set aside a time on it to meet with environmental

educators throughout the district with nick and the new person that's coming and consider what more can be done to promote environmental education. and two, encourage not demand environmental lessons be given in all subjects as part of each teacher's regular course . mr. kasner, nick, director of sustainability and i have funded an environmental futures contest out of our own pockets for two years. and one thing the board might consider is helping with that. you will say there's no money or spare time for the environment, but the cost of effectively doing something now is infinitely less than the cost of future environmental catastrophes. this is a really inexpensive request. we've been doing this anywhere from $5,000 to $3,000 a year. and it will do a world of good and much good for the world we

live under a dark and terrible cloud. our children and grandchildren must understand what to do about that cloud even if we do not. and dr. garcia, i'd like you to go fishing because the salmon are really running now. [applause] >> thank you. let's move on to the next item. we're con. -- we're done. item d, student delegates report, elvina fan and karissa tom. >> ok. so yesterday was our first s.e.c. meeting of the year and were able to see returning members and meet new s.a.c. representatives, and we also were able to finalize the s.a.c. calendar which you should all be getting right now. thank you. >> and also at our s.a.c. meeting yesterday we talked

about having our retreat with the youth commission at city hall and it's going to be again on august 27 and also august 28 from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. at city hall where we're going to review how to write resolutions, have diversity training and also have some public speaking courses. >> ok. thank you. fnished with reports. so item e, parent advisory council p.a.c. report. there will be no report tonight. they will start giving us a regular updated report starting at our next meeting. so item f, public comment on consent items. ms. plaque, linda plaque and

mr. dennis kelly. >> mrs. plaque's item i don't think was on the consent calendar, it has to do with pars. i'm dennis cutty, president of the united educators of san francisco and am pleased to be here this night to hear mr. garcia is now dr. garcia. [laughter] >> well, kind of. all right. all right. i wanted to talk about a number of items. i'd like to group them together in three groups for you. first is items k-16, 17 and 18. they have to do with after-school programs at three of the schools. each one of these programs comes with an evaluation that

costs $1,250 or $2,250, in that range for each one of them. and the question i have really is, what is being evaluated in these programs? are these programs being evaluated on the basis of whether or not specific children in specific schools who are in these programs are being helped to move forward in terms of their achievement, or is the evaluation an evaluation that simply notes how many meetings there were and how many people attended and all that? so it would be helpful for us to know what kind of an evaluation there is for that. on k-28, 29, and 42, you have three items which have to do with a particular math program which is being brought in for $30,000 of one school and $60,000 at one school, $80,000 at a third school.

for $60,000 and $80,000, the district is turning to the era and to the s.i.g. grants in order to fund that. for $30,000 at the one school, you're doing this through weighted student formula. and the question really is, what schools -- what other schools have this kind of wealth that they're able to spend $30,000 on a math program as good as it may be when there's so many other cutbacks people let go and all that and as we're just clawing back up to full employment again, where do these people get $30,000 additional? the third grouping starts with 2-c. and it includes k-11, k-46, k-49, k-50, k-53.

2-c asks that you pass a resolution to accept memoranda of agreement or understanding from a variety of community based organizations, although it may be retroactive -- excuse me, these are actually proactive, that you're actually accepting these from a variety of organizations for a variety of different purposes, some very school-specific, some say that they affect virtually every school, some say that, you know, a lot of schools, some things like that. and yet it seems to wave your oversight of these activities by passing something that would simply say, know, these are going to be ok eventually. now, you compare that to k, 11, 46, 49, 50 and 53 all of which are retroactive resolutions and all of which had to come before you specifically in order to

say that yes, it was ok to make these changes or to work with this program. we didn't intend to fund it under the table or anything like that, but, you know, we are looking at it separately. so the question really is why do you have 2-c? why is 2-c being handled in that matter instead of being handled in the matter of k-11, 46, 49, 50 or k-53? thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. kelly.

>> ok. before i get to g, then, i've been asked to announce this for the following -- not the following, but for a few meetings. as a reminder to the public in accordance to 11-2 of board policy page 120, and an individual wishing to address the board on agenda items or matters other than those calendarred for board action can call the board office. by 4:30 on the day of the meeting or by completing a speaker card on the evening of the meeting prior to the item being called. cards being turned in at the same time an item is being discussed will not be accepted. so that was just an announcement. let's move on to g. consent calendar.

can i have a motion for the consent calendar? >> move the consent calendar. >> second. >> any items corrected by the superintendent? >> yes. there's a number of corrections. the first set of corrections are to the summary page or the table of contents on roman numeral page 21 for k-42. the requesting department should read "the baby zone." and for the summary page on roman numeral page 22 for k-51 and 52, the requesting department should read "i.t." instead of student support services department. there's a correction to item 118-23-k-2 on page 72 and 73. the consultant's name should read "adriannaklein" spelled

k-l-e-i-n and also the roman numeral should reflect the change as well. there are three withdrawals, on resolution 118-23-w-28 on page 54. we'd like to withdraw that. as well as for item 118-23, k-25 on page 118. and item 118-23-k-48 on page 166. so that's item w-28, k-25, and k-48. >> do you have all those noted? any items removed for reading by the board? any items set up by the board or superintendent for discussion invoked tonight? commissioner wynns? >> i'd like to sever 2-e-c-2 on

page 25. and actually how about -- i prefer just so sever the whole 2-e because i'd like to ask a question what mr. kelly asked and that's earlier in the 2-e item. >> commissioner maufas? >> i'd like to sever k-28, 29 and 42. 28, 29, and 42. [inaudible] >> correct. thanks. >> ok. let's move on, then. just move on to next item which is -- oh, the roll call vote will take place under section o . and item h, superintendent proposal held for speaker card

and action. none tonight. item i, board members' proposal held for speaker cards and action. already moved and seconded on august 9. report from the rules and joint meeting of curriculum and ad hock personnel labor. and this is an item that is 11 8-9-a-1, reconsideration of 115-20-24-sp-2, amendment of resolution number 95-2-a-26-a-2 permitting jrotc students to utilize independent study to obtain physical education credit to extend the independent study option for jrotc students through the 2012-2013 school year. so it's been moved and

seconded. so the report from the rules committee, please. >> the rules committee met to review the resolution and voted to forward to the board with a positive recommendation. >> also the curriculum and ad hock committee on -- >> so i can give the curriculum report and commissioner maufas can give the personnel committee report if you want that. >> that's what i with us going to do. go ahead. >> so the curriculum committee heard that last night. we forwarded it back to the board with a positive recommendation, and with a request that the board consider amending the item to extend the window for hiring of these people. i don't think we specified but

were thinking november 1. right? yeah. >> so reading of the resolution by myself? >> i'm sorry, by president yee. >> one more committee report very briefly. the ad hock committee on personal relations forted it back to the board. we were missing one commissioner, president mendoza. so we forwarded it back to her without recommendation. >> thank you, commissioner maufas. any more reports? ok. reading of resolution by norman yee. so basically says further be it resolved hence fortney new instructor of jrotc will have the necessary certification and/or credential to provide general supervision of the

independent study in p.e. and this reconsideration request is for the purpose of adding the following language after the paragraph above. and it says, be it further resolved the above requirement for new ars to jrotc shall not apply to three instructors currently in the process of completing school district hiring procedures to begin p.c. in the 2011-2012 school year as long as the following three requirements are met. number one, each instructor must become a qualified intern in physical education to provide general supervision of physical education, independent study within six months of their date of hire. number two, each instructor's date of hire must be on or before september 1, 2011. and number three, each instructor's full compensation

costs, including salary and benefits shall be paid entirely by the department of defense, funding, and private designated matching funding obtained by the school site and/or jrotc. [inaudible] shall not end expend funds for these three instructors for the 2011-2012 school year. if these three conditions are not met, the instructors have failed to meet the conditions or who do not have funding to pay their full compensation costs shall be terminated immediately. so that's the reading. i have one speaker. a speaker card for this. and that's jerry paratori. so you have two minutes. >> good evening, jerry paratori, director for the

jrotc program in the district and i'd like to provide a quick overview and update on the program at this point. there are some numbers i called around and got for all the schools. i sent an email to all the board members. hopefully you are able to get the data. my numbers are slightly higher than what is being reported at f.i.s. i have 946 people -- students enrolled in jrotc at this time. notice that every program is above the threshold of 50 students which was set by the school board several years ago as a viability threshold. as far as inclusion into the programs for credentialing, the district has set up a c-best training preparation class and i have five of the teachers who will be there friday for that. tomorrow i have seven folks going down to alliant for the orientation. one of those individuals can't even join the program because

he hasn't been hired yet but he's leaning forward as we say and anxious to go and get things done. and as far as hiring dates, the navy guy is unavailable to technical reasons until october 3. funding still is problematic. and november 1 if you'll give that to me is the day i'll work with for the funding. we're still having some issues. as the district know, it's tough economic times everywhere. but i remain optimistic we'll be able to get the funding in order to complete these hiring. and thank you for your time tonight. >> thank you. board comments? commissioner wynns? >> thank you. i want to thank commissioner yee because we've had to

resolve some issues that have come up recently so we appreciate this and also want to make a motion that we change the september 1, 2011 hiring date to november 1 because it's on or before so if they come before, that's fine. this will just allow for the one or two people that may not be able to brought onboard until close to that date. >> i'd like to second the motion. >> discussion? commissioner maufas? >> so i guess i want to begin with indicating that because mr. paatori wasn't here yesterday when he had the ad hoc, there were a few questions we couldn't get answered and if you can come forward, you can just come and sit and we can get some of the questions answered i had yesterday and then if we have somebody from our h.r. department who can also be available to us to answer questions. and i appreciate you coming back to the microphone.

>> ms. maufas? >> go ahead. >> procedurewise, there's been a motion to amend, so let's -- >> so it's around the date, right? i understand that. >> ok. >> that's what my discussion is about so i thought i'd ask him to come and sit if that's ok. ok. so if i understand it correctly, and i want to make sure i clearly understand. so there is someone who can come right away and join our program before the september 1 deadline, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> just one, though? >> there's actually two of them here at this point. one has been funded by the alumni association at lowell and he's ready to start on september 1. there's another individual who has retired. he's in the area. he is past his threshold as far as the government is concerned to be hired. he's the one i am waiting on funding for. he's available on september 1

but my funding is not. the other person is a navy program and he's not available until october 3. >> ok. >> there are some technical things with the date of retirement and when you can actually go into the teaching and have the government provide matching funds. >> ok. so to cover everyone, you're asking for the date of november 1, is that correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> and that's solely it, and that was what was commissioner wynns just asked for an extension or you asked for november 1? >> to change the september date to november 1 but it says on or before, so that wouldn't, you know, it wouldn't mean it has to be november. >> right. that's fine. ok. and the person who is around

october, have you -- is there a certain -- are we certain of the funding for that person as well or that's sort of in the works, also? >> in the works. >> ok. but no matter what -- >> 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 yesterda