humor that has and will enrich children for a generation. >> thank you. we do not have any public comment. commissioners. commissioner wynns: i want to thank the superintendent for bringing this forward. when i read this article in the newspaper -- i am sorry. >> excuse me, public comment. >> dennis kelly, united educators of san francisco. renaming one meadow is easier than changing all of the plaques on all of the buildings. we did not have to name this for hisband, which is what we were worried about.

this goes to the accomplishments and they do not touch the heart of what he has done. every single teacher, when they look at a supplement on their checks, every single teacher, every single employee has been made better thanks to the proposition of this century. thank warren hellman and any of us that have spent every single friday of every one of those campaigns in his office. this is ending -- incredibly appropriate. the teachers and the union support costs. >> thank you. >> thank you. i want to thank the superintendent for breeding this

forward when i read in the paper about the supervisors proposal. i was very happy to hear that. it is hard to explain to people outside of san francisco what warren hellman and his leadership in the downtown business community has done. i have to say that when i was president, the board came up with the idea of going to the business advisory council. it has transformed our relationship with all kinds of leadership in the city. what is unique about him is what we would want for every community person. the more he learned about the school district, the more his instinct was to say, what can i do to help you? he has the resources to do a lot to help us.

he never said, i will help you if you do these things. he always says, what can i do to help? how can i get others to help you? my personal thanks are unbounded. i would add to mr. kelly's list every single middle school student in san francisco. and now the whole bay area every year as well as all of us and all that we have gotten from the san francisco bluegrass festival is beyond things. >> i am glad we are doing best. i think that warren is really why san francisco ended public schools are so special.

>> i just wanted to give a shout out to a fellow alum. he is a great example of an alumnus who make sure that our children have unique opportunities to learn. >> i have never really had a chance to publicly thank him for the work he has done on behalf of our students and staff on behalf of their families. when i talk about the level of generosity to other people across the country that are involved in public education, their response is utter disbelief. when i encourage them, you could do this here, too, they almost

run. they don't think they can find these kinds of people in their own cities that care about public education. it is the combination of an open mind on both sides. a conversation can begin. we have been fortunate to have the right people at the right time in the right space. our children have benefited from the open mindedness and generosity of an open heart that was present. you can find these people in your cities. >> i wanted to ditto what everyone said. warren, if you are listening,

thank you. >> he is a true champion for public education. that is how we have always look back at him and identified with him. i am grateful for what he has done in the business community. he continues to draw folks in and remind them of their responsibility. he has supported schools in a variety of different ways. we started a partnership with him. it was the most histerical first year we have ever had. he received a bunch of letters from the kids. they were thanking him for the hot dogs and the beautiful bus. not one made a comment about

the music for him being able to come to the park. the kids got more and more exposed to the bluegrass. the sixth graders look forward to it. it is a wonderful thing. i do not know if it has anything to do with m.c. hammer showing up. he has been tremendous. his sense of humor and his wit and charm is a very endearing. you can have a very serious conversation with warren and walked out of there and not feel like it is a very serious conversationw. e love you. we thank you. we are grateful for the contributions you have given to

the school district and san francisco. the board of supervisors are putting forward something very similar. this will go before the rec and park commission. we want to be able to walk through hellman meadow very soon. >> get well. we are all here thinking of you. commissioner fewer: yes. commissioner maufas: yes. commissioner norton: yes. president mendoza: aye. >> seven ayes. president mendoza: thank you, warren. so the other item is -- this is

on htthe motion of the california school board to reap -- replace policies and procedures. i need a suspension of the rules to consider action at first reading. >> second. commissioner fewer: yes. commissioner maufas: yes. commissioner murase: aye. commissioner wynns: yes. vice-president yee: yes. president mendoza: i need a motion and a second for introduction. this is the formal introduction. a report from the rules

committee. >> predating my service to the board, the board of education stopped at a measure to put all of the policies online for greater transparency and accountability so anyone and everyone would have access to the policies that the board has adopted over the years. since this is the first major agenda item of the rules committee that i was asked to chair. so i would like to thank yee. and to thank those who work on the project. the executive secretary, and the now retired susan wong. we benefited greatly from the expert advice from the council school board association who has joined us this evening from sacramento. there has been succession and

assurance. we will be hearing from staff. what you have today is one section of board policy that is with policy 120 that governs board rules and procedures. the staff and committee members went through the procedure with a fine tooth comb. all board members were invited to the three meetings where we examined these policies. i hope you'll join me in adopting the policy at first reading. we have quite a few additional chapters to get to. we invite all of the board colleagues to join us to -- join us in this difficult time. it is a game changer in terms of finding public access to these policies and making public access real in the district. i would like to ask staff for comment. >> we need a reading of the

resolution by eight designee. >> the superintendent's proposal, the adoption of the california school board's association series 9000 board policies and regulations to replace current board policies and regulations p120. the san francisco school district can adopt a series 9000 board policies as revised to replace current board policies and regulations that are regulated with board rules and procedures. except for article 3, which will remain. that last phrase is in addition to clarify. >> we do not have any public comment on this. comments from the board? commissioner norton: i do not

know how we want to do this. i have a number of questions. if you want to have me start off. starting on page 100 of the virgin in your board agendas, section 9320e, we were discussing meetings and notices. under other gatherings, no. 6 does not appear to take into account the board structure of augmented meeting. an open notice of a standing committee of the board, the majority of the board members

who are not members of the standing committee can attend only as observers. >> i am sorry, we are on 9320e. >> it does or not reference augmented committees. what do we do when members do not vote? if you are a member of the committee, but you are not attending. is that clear enough? that is the question that i wanted to ask. >> this is about the location of the meeting. the augmented committees are covered under the committee's action, which does specified that the parliament and members are not voting members, but they may participate in the discussion. does that address your question?

>> do we need the part that says that provided that the board members who are not members of attend as observers? it does not have anything to do with location. >> it discusses what constitutes a majority. board members who are attending the meeting are not for the purposes of that meeting contributing to the majority. >> can we not say that? if we put in the party apart only being reserve risk -- observers, can we say that they cannot constitute a majority? >> commissioner norton, i want to apologize. i was looking at a different section. i was on the wrong page. my apologies. >> always on e.

>> i think we are on the same page now. is that correct? i apologize. what we can do is specify atten d only as observers. we could say attend only as non-voting members? >> it does that include not contributing to a quorum? >> that is a good idea to put in as well. >> later on in that same section, it is on page 102 when we are talking about teleconferencing. there is a section where the third paragraph says during the teleconference that at least a quorum will participate within district boundaries. i was under the impression that

we had to have a physical quorum present. >> the way i read this rule is that as long as the majority of the board is within the district limits, we can have the whole board on teleconference. >> let's do it. >> i apologize. what is the question? >> do we need a physical quorum of the board present during the board meeting? let's say that commissioner maufas is participating in a teleconference from her home while three other members of the board are somewhere else. is there a quorum if three

members of the boardroom are in the room, commissioner mall office is at home and the three of us are somewhere else. >> your interpretation that as long as they are within district boundaries, but not necessarily in the boardroom, would be allowed. what i want to do is actually look at the government code 54093 and make sure that there is not additional text that would contradict that conclusion. that is something i need to get back with. if in fact this is the same language, then that is a reasonable interpretation that members of the court could be within district boundaries, but not in the court room. >> i am not objecting to that. i would like to know. we have operated under a

different obsession -- a different assumption in the past. >> i object. we need to have a physical quorum. we ought can have any role that we want as long as it is not more progressive than a law. >> that is right. it cannot be more permissive than the law. you might consider for reasons of public meetings and people having a sense that there is a public meeting in a way that they may observe, you may prefer to have physical presence. >> are you making a motion that we should amend this? >> as long as the quorum of the members of the board participate from the location, parentesis,

have a physical quorom. >> if this was the entirety of the section of the government code, this could contradict this language here. >> i would like to share support to change the language that there has to be a physical presence. this amendment to the language that is in there. it is actually following our practice. >> i would probably leave the code referenced in in case tech code section actually changes.

one of the benefits that we have to do invest is when the csba sees that case law has changed, they notify us. please feel free to jump in. the vantage to keeping this section in here, it makes for an ease of those updates. while our language is over and above the law, it does not contradict the law. >> i think we are agreeing by acclamation to change. is that correct? to change the language to bring it into accordance with our current practice. >> may i read what i wrote down to you? the section reads, during the teleconference, at least a quorum of members of the board shall participate within member

boundaries. so long as a quorum of memories -- members are physically present at the location. >> i think that is wrong. the second one contradicts the first one. during a teleconference, about least a quorum of the members of the board should participate from the location and constitute a physical quorum. it does not matter if they are within the fiscal jurisdiction. if you are at the meeting, you are within the physical jurisdiction. >> thank you. upon review, if it does look like it is problematic, but is it alright with the board to remove that reference?

on page 119 of the version in your agendas, under consent of items, article two, section 8.5, that is in the red box, correct? >> commissioner, i am sorry. >> page 119 in your agenda. >> do you have the series number on that page? >> 9322b.

>> it is the paragraph. a member of the public requests. if the request to speak about any item on the consent calendar, then that item shall be severed to allow discussion and a separate vote on the item that does not on line with our current practice. we have asked members of the public to comment on a consent items before and give board members the option of severing them. we should either strike that paragraph or reword it to align it with current practice.

>> which is your preference? >> mine is to continue with our current practice. i do not know how other people feel. >> it seems like it might be wiser to write down the actual practices rather than actually striking it. >> do we have this written? >> is there a box that you are looking at? >> it is article two, section 8.5. >> if you are willing and comfortable with it, we can revise the language as commissioner norton just they did it now. -- stated it now. >> we could vote subject to questions on certain items. once we have been through

everybody's questions, we can say that we are proving with the exception of these items, whatever they are. >> what we're doing is adopting the current provision then the resolution would be permitted, consistent with that provision. you could vote on that. >> we do not have the language. >> we have had this for a long time. is there a reason we are rushing to a vote on this besides the fact that we have held onto it for a while? the sense that i am getting is that people are a little bit overwhelmed by all of this. i heard from a couple of board members. there has been a lot of things that have changed. it is hard to match up the red line with the version in the board book.

is there a reason why we did the suspension of rules and why we do not have time to go over it in january? >> i do emphasize that we had the augmented committee meetings on this. if we did not have people come forward with these kinds of concerns the fact that time. i would be happy to vote for approval on this. 2 night's exercise is exactly what we would want to do in those committee meetings. if we can get a commitment that that is what we would like to do at the next rules committee, then we would do that. it is important to be accountable. it has been a year on this project. i do not know how many additional concerns commissioners have. if it does not concerned, then maybe we should take care of it

this evening. if there are three dozen concerns, as i would be happy to entertain the issue at rules committee. >> we tried to rely on committee meetings and come to as many as possible as well as the other committees we are responsible for. i have a handful of comments or questions. do others have comments and questions? >> i wanted to comment on whether to postpone or not. >> i probably have about10 altogether. >> i have about 6. >> my comment is regarding commissioner murasi. commissioner fewer: i just wanted to concur. i am guilty of not attending

the meeting about this. the board believes that late- night meetings can affect the board's decision making abilities and can be a burden to staff. regular board meeting shall be adjourned at 10:00 p.m. i am going on with our own meeting conduct. also, from what i'm hearing right now during this kind of conversation, perhaps it would be beneficial and helpful to staff if board members submitted the questions ahead of time so that they could research all of those things like p120. to ask staff 25 questions is on fair at this time considering is close to 10:00 and they are not prepared for these questions.