>> i am not familiar with what the year agreement actually says. it is in your folder? really? i am going to review it. >> thank you. i am a little interested. that means we have not done this for 19 years. i would like to know why, and this is interesting to maie. >> side and -- set aside the fact of we have not done it. i was under the impression we

just as do transfers based on limitations with our own policies. we comply with the law. there are conditions. you work with the district, and it requires us to approve these, except we are allowed to have some of the policies that do not allow the systems out of district people to jump ahead of students who live here, so i am just interested if we are proposing to do anything differently, and once we pass this, i am wondering whether the other districts do this, too, and does that mean we will not be letting anyone in? >> we have not done this before. goothe law changed last year.

under certain conditions, we could revoke the permit, for example if there is chronic behavioral problem. you cannot require people to annual labor in new -- annualyl renew unless you have a contract. now we have 70 neighboring district we get students from pure your region we get students from. we are trying to collect them and have the board approved the company'template, so when they s the board approved it, we can say yes. >> it is correct we're not going

to approve for district said do not have the agreement? >> we have been continuing to approve them. and it means we tell them when we get a contract with your district, we will have to end willie drove both -- annually renew. >> it is in their interest not to pass these agreements basically. doug >> if they want to provoke an have flexibility, it is not in their interests. >> students who live in other districts, is they do not passes, we cannot make them renew annually or remove the of from our schools? >> right. >> that is a little backwards in my opinion. i understand that is not your doing, but we should object to that.

>> commissioner, do you want to say anything? >> in may be silly, but there are so many silly laws, this just adds to that. good >> i understand, but i think we need to tell people, particularly if they do not pass them, that they have put in place something that is not unusual. we have a whole body of law, but we ought to be part of the discussion. we should be saying this is not a workable system in my opinion. commissioner fewer: it was in my package. i do not know where it went. i wanted to know how many students do we except, and how

many students do we actually sent to other districts? it means other districts can reverse happethat, so i am wond, do we take more students in then we send out? >> in be approved over 1000 students, k-12 that are coming into our district. i do not have the number of students the and we send out. i can get that. >> i think that would be interesting. i did not realize we did over 1000 of them, because that is 35 pretty high. 1000 seems like a lot. i would love to hear back about

how many trees send out to other districts. >commissioner norton: i want to second the request and the list of the districts of who is coming in and where are our students going, and i was going to suggest maybe that is something they would like to look into it. >> if possible, can we also figure out which school they are in-house -- they are in? >> i think it brings more transparency to the process. issue did come ofup, and we are

monitoring. we have heard arguments there are not enough sense francisco's students to apply, so we are making a big push to encourage students to apply, because that is one of those schools in with a high percentage of district transfers. i hope we will spend the next few months and related looking at this issue and really monitoring it. >> i guess that is it. any other comments? roll call please. [calling votes]

>> seven ayes. rassa the next businesses public hearings. -- >> the next business is public hearings. gooi have two speakers. you have two minutes each. >> the union and the public have now received the initial proposal for the contract between the district and the union. you have received our proposal,

but it will be made available, so there will be an opportunity for public comment at that time. the public should know that the employees have already contributed in salaries and benefits. we have contributed over $40 million we are looking to get back in this contract. in 2008, the voters passed proposition a, and that $40 million has been given back in the following herriot's -- following areas, for working hard to fill areas, advanced course work and longevity in the district, but the most important loss has been for the students. the students have lost eight

instructional days in the last two years. as we enter discussions, the goal is to get by with the students have sacrifice. -- to get back what the students have sacrifice. we asked you to support those efforts. >> congratulations to president yee and vice president rachel norton. we wonder why the superintendent was speaking about limbo for the coming semester. the school children, their families, the educators at our schools are preparing to enter a winter of discontent. when we look at the proposal of the school district yet again, we know who is going to bear the burden of the tacuts.

we at united educators of sentences go no -- educators of san francisco know that is government at higher level, and that is why we are supporting the millionaires' tax so more resources to come to the classroom, but we are not ready to dance a limbo, because when the district proposes assume dr -- proposes to drive a stake into the heart of education of our children. this includes taking away the crown region -- the prep period force teachers across the district. this includes increasing class

size. this includes taking away precious sabbaticals a number of our teachers to take every seven years for the opportunity to refresh and reeducate themselves, so we hope the superintendent calls himself of out of limbo, and by spring we can get out of this difficult winter season together. thank you. >> the next item missing is 2011-2012 reopen of the proposals for administrators, and i have one speaker cards for this. do i have more than one speaker cards? perhaps we may be a small union, but we do stand together.

good evening. i will make this short period -- this short. we will work shoulder to shoulder with our friends across the table to see if we can come out with a positive-looking contract. as your 235 site administrators, we contributed $4,500 on average to the furlough day plan and the last two years. we have contributed. we want to make sure whatever plan is adopted this year is fair and equitable. in the last board meeting, it said we were out to look for raises and money and all kinds

of things. we are only $20,000 from our contemporaries. we are just looking for our fair share. thank you, and congratulations to our new president and vice- president. >> item m, discussion of other items. item n, a second reading. vote on the consent calendar. i believe there is a request from the staff. >> we would also like to withdraw k-26 on page 143. >> did everybody catch that?

roll call please. [calling votes] commissioner maendoza: yes except 1, 4, and 9. >> thank you. >> p, consent calendar for board discussion and immediate action. there are two items. were there more than two? then we have another one which was just removed, so we only have one item. commissioner wynns: this is a

contract to posut a solar generating facility on the roof of alvarado, and what we get out of it is we get to buy the energy for the same cost we would if it was not now up there, so this seems like not a great deal for us, and there are a number of school districts that are archly going into the business of becoming solar. we have -- that are going into the business of becoming solar. we have vabig roofs, but it seems to me that this is one area of generation of power

using our facilities we ought to discuss as a potential revenue raiser, and i do not know that this is the way to go about it, and since i only know about this now, i am not advocating we do not go into this contract, but we should be looking into this, and we should not be in the business -- the puc is planning to make money by generating electricity and putting it through the power grid and having it sold, so why are they on willing to share that with us, or have we even asked donth? >> good evening, commissioners. we have touched on solar before,

and it is the buzzword, and everyone wants to do it, and one reason san francisco unified is not doing what others have done, is that we pay the same amount as everyone in the city. everyone else is paying 13. we will stay in -- we will still pay nine or 10, and it makes no economic sense at all, so we have embarked on two parallel courses. one, we are starting to install solar panels on our own, and we want to install its, own it, learn how to maintain its, and see how it works. the puc has a grant program.

unlike pg&e, their numbers were different, and they propose to target some of our schools, and they would like to come in for free and news hour route to host solar power. what is different about this proposal from other proposals is the power we produce will actually be used by people in the building, whereas before, they wanted to give us the glory of having solar panels on their rules, but we got nothing in return -- on the roof, but we got nothing in return. they are going to do it in a clean, renewable way. they are going to own it and maintain its, and we are going to see if that works. alvarado is our first test case, and our legal counsel is working on trying to gather some mutual contract, which they have

some tough things to see if they can even work, so this is a test to dry it out. we will not generate money for this for 25 years. we will benefit from having a clean power on the roof of alvarado. from the standpoint of where we ought to be going in the world, it is good for us. until the day of arrives when it is profitable to put stuff on our rules -- on our roof and sell it at a different rate, that is not working for us, so to use our schools and not make energy green, they have to raise

the rates to a point when budgets and would explode. they are already talking about raising rates of not just a school district but everyone else, and they want to raise it to five or six, and that will have a significant budget hit on us, so our view this as a win- win opportunity. they are doing other things with us. they have a lot of money available to help us with, and i think we are in the infancy of trying out which model works for us, so i think it is important to start. i would ask if the board needs more information and does not feel comfortable voting on this tonight, i would like to withdraw its and provide more information because i do not

want to see isn't not voted down. >> i appreciate that information. i am a little concern. 25 years is a long way in the way we are going to generate and pay for energy. gooit is probably five or six o0 generations, so it seems like a lot to me. in addition, are they obligated to keep the rules and working and in good repair and? are they going -- to keep vanil the roof working and in gd repair and? putting a lot of heavy solar panels of their region -- solar

panels up there is a strain on our system. i would like to know more about this. it seems like we should have an outline of a plan, so do we expect this ruse to not generate more energy than used by the school? >> the puc is a complicated arrangement with pg&e. it is difficult to explain, of about the line is they did not want to sell back excess power. it costs them more money to do that, so they want to generate no more or less power than the school 10 years, and for them it is a marketing opportunity for them a money-making opportunity. for us, it is a share of -- 25 years is what they say. i think we know when you buy a

ruse for your house it last 18 years. -- a roof on your house, it lasts 18 years. they are responsible to maintain its. i think the district is responsible to maintain the water tightness of the rulesoofd we can kick them off, but there are arrangements to be made. they would like to do more, and we are saying, let's try it. >> when the new roof hold this system? >> yes, this system will have to go through the architect. they are going to have to substantiate these calculations. if they cannot do it, this will work. >> i appreciate you have been working on this and obviously

thought it through, but it seems to me -- i have seen us do these things before that are meant to be, let's try it, and what happens is we do it once, and it is a snowball, and i am concerned about that. part of the issue, i appreciate and understand because of the relationship, and we have an artificially low cost for our of electrical needs. however, we also have an issue in this state that in other states the ability of people to generate power through these passive systems and for them to be required to buy them back at

a competitive rate does not exist in this state, so it is not as simple as that. those are the kinds of things that are likely to change significantly in the next few years, not 25 years. that is why it seems a little difficult for me to support this. >> you need to have sites and areas to generate an of solar panels that you can generate more than 85% of the power for the school. it would be very rare for most urban schools to ever have the space to generate more than 60% of the power of the school, so the concept of selling power back is a moot point. it is where we want to go down

there road. one is to be energy efficient, and as the puc manages to raise their rates to a more market rate, we want to be prepared to have as sheet power as we can. -- aheas cheap hour of weekend. >> it is a moving target we know. we bring it back to facilities for discussion in terms of where we are at, so i would like to take a vote. did we make a motion yet? do we need to make a motion? roll call please. [calling votes]

commissioner wynns: no. >> we have six ayes. >> thank you, and thank you for sticking around. >> i am happy to continue the discussion. >> we will figure it out. >> they can bring it up as an informational item or get a report. this is part of the plan, so he has something set up. >> this is for the school year. we would refer those soon the

budget committee, -- these to the budget committee, because we have a deadline to get into the city by the first of february, we do not have any meetings until next month. >> it is january 31. >> what we are proposing to do, is there a motion? >> so moved. as far as we want to refer this to the committee as alcoho-- asa whole. we can have this discussion. >> item r,