i don't know if you have that available. >> we understand that it isn't that easy to just say that this can automatically work or you want to be at the table. and also to address that makes you uncomfortable that is all youth rather than just public school because that is what we're here for, i think that would create this division in the city of san francisco i don't think it would make us look really good, and it would be really hard to the minister that kind of -- you know, like

private school kids paying this much in public school kids not paying this much. there are low-income kids at private schools. i don't have a number for that, but kids could be on the same level as public school kids as well. >> i wasn't separating public from private schools, and i'm just saying some you can pay at some you can't. i am ok with leaving its if we do the urging of working together peace. commissioner maufas: sorry to continue the words, but would you consider as a the same in the very first, instead of saying the support, may be considered believes in free passes for all? >> as of of supports the idea --

commissioner maufas: does that work for you all? believes in free muni passes? >> i believe is a bit too passive. that is a good idea, i don't know. coming after the urging, it just seems as if -- we should think about it, but not actually do anything. that is how i feel. >> i like the idea in the first resolve of the suggestion that we say supports the idea of free muni fast passes. and in the other resolve, change -- building on what commissioner

mendoza said, the the board of education authorizes the district to participate in the work that the mayor's office, blah, blah, blah. the second one says will get the staff to work with everybody else. we should just say supports this kind of a term of art, almost a legal give money to any public arena. >> i agree, i can completely understand how that could very easily be misconstrued. i know if i can think of any -- something else to put in there

right this moment. >> the whole thing is to urge everybody to work together, authorizes feels so "we'll let you." can we say encourages or urges the district? >> [inaudible] >> that's fine. >> the board of education -- the sentences could unified school district adjoins the work? how about that? >> he mentioned that we can say

supports the idea of, let's say, the design, the launch. what've we added those and to make you guys seem like you would join the process rather than just supporting it right away. i understand support is a crazy word. adding the words that you gave us, when that make it better? >> can you read what the board of supervisors has? >> the first result clause in the legislation is resolved at the board of supervisors of the city and county urges the metropolitan transportation commission to work collectively to design, secure funding for, at lunch program with a clear timeline that provides access to free of charge to san francisco in youth. i think that is the pertinent

clause. >> if that is ok with you guys, the support and with the board of supervisors is doing, allowing them to join forces and allowing them to be at the table. we agree this is a good idea and we want to participate. that would make sense if that makes sense to you guys. does that speak to your meeting with your fellow students was about? >> yes. for some reason, we did not add that because we did not want our resolution to look like david campos's resultion. [laughter] we tried our best.

>> prove to be told, i love it. >> is there a question? >> in terms of doing the rewording, does it still speak to what the youth wanted as far as having us participate in the larger conversation? >> i and the student advisory council coordinator. i do believe with of the rewording that is being discussed, it was still get the idea across of what the students wanted. >> student delegates, i defer to you. if this is ok, then i would say that we would -- could we read that phrase into the record? other student delegates also

hoping that this also is agreeable to you. that is great. student delegates, am i hearing that is fine? >> we agree. >> it sounds like we want to do an amendment to the resolution. but we haven't written it out yet. >> [inaudible]

>> if i could say my understanding is, and they can say that they have got it wrong, what i understood is that we can to an agreement was to add in the first part of the resolution, to add the word " idea after supports. to add a version of the first results from the police supervisor oppose the resolution that says it talks about the school district rather than the city. and on the student delegates resolution, i got lost. >> the san francisco unified school district adjoins the work that the mayor's office and

municipal transportation agency at the second therefore. >> if you take out the words supports, that doesn't. >> for the first resolve, we will add the -- >> did we want to keep in that the board of education joins the work? i thought we were going to say that we join the work rather than having the board of education, is that correct? lough's -- >> sfusd, not board of ed. it joins municipal, blah, blah, blah. we need motion and a second to amend the resolution.

>> so moved. i move to except the proposed amendment. >> great. do we have to vote on general consent? adding the language of the idea of designing and securing funds, that was noted in supervisor campos's, urging to work together and taking out the board of ed. and joins the work of the mayor's office, etc.. ok, so any other comments? commissioner fewer: can you make sure that everybody gets a clean copy of that, particularly

student advisory council? >> if the authors are agreeable, if you would be able to add everybody on the board's name to the resolution. >> that sounds great. welcome to the process, ladies. that was good. roll call, please. >> [roll call vote] five ayes. >> nice job. [applause] >> thank you for coming out, you have to go home now. we are going to go back to item p severed for board discussion

and immediate action. several items were pulled. >> during comment on this particular item, k4 about professional development and how it was going to be delivered, and you know what the questions were. if you could just address those questions. >> what did the dollars include a? it includes teachers stipends for saturday. three days of training on saturday. it also includes training and a coach that will be working with the teachers to implement in the

classroom. this is training that has been going on for 34 years. it is promoted by first five. >> the next item is item k6 through 11. can we vote on them all together? >> it's better to vote on the -- president mendoza: we move this one already? roll call on item k4. >> [roll call vote] five ayes. commissioner maufas: thank you. so, on k6, i think my questions were very similar.

my questions are sort of similar to the vice-president's, but i also have my own questions. i am really waiting for the parent engagement plan to come forward. i am finding it difficult when we get things piecemeal to us. i am waiting for a plan so that i can -- and we don't have to say that this is another piece of it and where does this fit in the plan, it is a concern, but is also my question. how will this be rolled out? when will we get a plan that i can see in the totality and the pieces fit and to make sense to me. they don't make sense as they are being presented to us.

>> this is ongoing pd, work that has preceded the involvement in the partnership of parent engagement. the plan itself has been a gen dies. i have a draft of its. we have seen several iterations of the previous plan. they have been working with multiple agencies to get feedback on the work that has been done. it is now october, in a very short time, i have seen the paris tool kit, and a very lengthy draft version of the plan with significant details. it has been at legendize, i am

not sure what meeting that is, but i have been told. >> it is going to be agendas for the december, i believe six committee as a whole as one part of a larger discussion around our priorities. we have october 18, the general discussion. the parent engagement plan will be discussed september 6. >> at the end of the year, they give us feedback as to where they needed additional support with respect to their own evaluations. and they identified areas where they felt like they needed additional professional development. these areas are allowing for what the request was. it is retroactive because what

we submitted in the spring and professional development, when we submitted this on time, we had a enough money in this professional development line item that was rejected by budget and when i was contacted, the amount was not whether we had proposed in the spring. what we submitted with the budget planning process. we assumed that is what floated, but that is not what took place. i was not informed until this was kicked back to me with insufficient funds and we had to find another funding source and find out why what i proposed to be loaded wasn't loaded to the way i directed it to be. that is why this is retro. president mendoza: i still have questions, but go ahead. commissioner maufas: will you

please -- when she comes, i'm assuming, to give the presentation in december, because we have been piecemeal some of this, though she be able to go back? this will be passed to the moment of this. i want to know how this is connected and how this will work with the development that will be ongoing for the parent liaisons'. all of that in the december meeting, there are other pieces that we have had in the past. i want to know how they will be integrated. >> i don't see pieces because i see the whole plan, but my interaction is much more frequent. if it was again dyes that this is what we want to present in its totality, that is what you will get.

i apologize -- >> the board has been waiting a long time for a comprehensive plan, so i understand you're connecting every day, pretty frequently throughout the week. we look forward to the whole package. thank you. >> since it was pulled, he said it was identified and approved on the seventh through student support and then if needed another sponsor? >> when i was approached about the professional development plan, what they requested that professional development, i sat here is the code you are going to use, the whole budget item is

set up and in a consultant line, you have significant funding. $25,000 there. then i was informed when this was submitted prior to their start date, it was on september 29. it already took place. they have that they already secured, the site, the location, the african-american cultural center. that was kicked back. it was insufficient funds. they had to investigate that and found that there was only $4,000 in that line-item, so we had to do some investigating into that and identify other funding to be transferred into that account to make up for this total that i thought was significant funding, i assume it was what was loaded in the spring. >> that is fine, but this is a

perfect example of having something go forward without knowing where the money is going to come from. i understand it was kicked back, but i don't know where the disconnect happens between budget, finance, and the budget. this frustrates me to know land. -- no end. one of these days we are going to get stuck because we have already started a contract, and we have people who have already done the work, and we do not know where the money is coming from. i want to emphasize the retroactives are inappropriate. we need to figure out, but i

continue to see retroactive, and i do not think we should have these ever. commissioner fewer: i would like to speak about the bay area apparent action network. they have trained many of our parent leaders, but many of them on our advisory councils, so they have trained a lot of the parents theory goes -- of the parents. they would like to continue the work they had originally, so this is building on what they

have already learned. i think this is exactly what they need help with. i am ready to support this. >> for the record, it is not about the content. in days about the process of how we do it. is there is no more comment on items 6 through 11 -- commissioner wynns: i want to comment on the retroactivity. if you could comment about the issue that we thought this was there, and we need funding for it, that is something i would like to know.

an e-mail would be fine for me. the other thing is the issue of retroactively, i appreciate the concerns about that, but on this issue when the money you think is fair from a certain source, that is a legitimate retroactive ishiguissue. you are making an amendment, because you have the wrong names, so there are things that become an attractive -- retroactive through nothing we can control. and we have had people say, they

did the work, so we have to find a way to pay them, so if there is a way to distinguish them, most of them are just all the information is not there or the money is not there. we make those judgments ourselves by looking at the reasons, but some staff inside might be good. >> this is somewhat of a moot point, up because the reality is we are moving to make this electronic. it takes so long. some of the problems we have had is that we are so antiquated in how the process moves along that

it can take 30 days to 90 days. when you have things planned and they go through the system, nobody has 30 days to 90 days. we have been piloting this. i believe this will not be an issue by next year. there are a few glitches we want to take care of, because we tried it out and got some input from people. once this is done, you will instantly know the funds are not there, because it will be rejected immediately if the funds are not available and if people do not sign off on it, so

the system will change radically, and we are very close to durin fiveoinoing that. we are going to do it right. we have identified a few issues. we are going paperless, and our big frustration has been we have antiquated technology to get us there. we are scaling that up. this will not be an issue. >> this issue will go away. one down. >> roll call please on items 6 through 11. i thought you were bunching them

altogether, so go ahead. >> 7. k8, k9, 10, and 11. >> are you now doing all the -- >> i am just telling the folks that are here so they know. >> i get the idea of the kids wanted to go on the use backpacking trips, but it seems like a small amount for five middle schools, so how many kids are going? i was reading the selection