from cde who reviewed these assumptions. they count on being able to take steps primarily in expenditures to lecture we close the gaps that are included in our baseline projection. they do not appear in the official forms. it is what we are committed to to doing to maintain our reserves. >> and then another question i had asked last week that still kind of is leftover. for the medicare -- metical billing unit -- medial billing -- medical billing unit. i want some more specificity. it does not seem specific enough. >> if i understand the issue in the process correctly, that is held in that area and i think there was a little bit of

discussion on tuesday as in some ways a place where that money has not been allocated yet. i believe the process by which the decisions are made to allocate those funds are made through a collaborative. a number of people -- i am looking at dr. blanco. it is a process that has been in place for several years by which people, a staff that are involved in the work that is done that is reimbursable by medical and the work to document reimbursable services are claimed and who have made decisions about what the highest priorities are for the use of those funds. that is done through a collaborative effort. it is literally called the lea

collaborative. that body has not at least completed its deliberations about how to allocate those funds. that is a process issue. that is the reason why it has not shown up in a different way through positions. >> i am trying to make a point which is that it is hard for the board to pass a budget when there is 900 tricky million dollars that we know will go to something and it is probably really good stuff. we do not know what it is. did i say million? that would be nice. sorry. my order of magnitude is off. you know what i am trying to say. that is the one that i found. there may be other ones in here. i guess what i am saying is, i do not like to vote on a budget that has that amount of money

sitting in a category that i know it is not going to be used for. if there is a way to be more transparent about that amount specifically. i talked to dr. blanco. it does not feel very transparent to me. >> thank you. so i want to thank everyone for the work and thank everyone for coming to the meeting we had last week which i thought was great. i measure success by how many people come to the budget meetings. i think not know if people pay attention to this, frankly. it is difficult to understand at best for everyone, including us. it is -- thankfully, we have staff who are able to explain things to us. we need the public to be more

involved in this discussion and thank you all for that. i will think the -- thank the coleman folks for being here. even though -- i am glad to see we have been able to reallocate some money but is not enough and not what we wanted. there is not enough there. given the budget situation, it is pretty good and i am pleasantly surprised we were able to find that much. also the other staff for doing that. we have -- i and my meeting, i said this. we need to get more data into the details so it is not just this amount of money for credit recovery. how are we targeting it effectively and those kinds of things. we should and must work on those things. but i am -- i think the public should know that in -- we had

information hear about the increase in the projected cuts per pupil cut if the tax initiatives do not pass. an additional $900,000 to us is devastating. it is already a horrifying. in the last several weeks when we have been doing the advocacy we needed to do for around the state budget, things have gotten worse every turn. our own representatives who have crucial leadership roles but who we met in the past few weeks have said, we understand how difficult that is and how bad it is. we will help you. here is what has happened since the may revise came out. the deal cut by legislative leadership, we have been advocating. the education committee -- community since january for better and different distribution for revenue that comes with the tax initiatives passed.

the governor's people were saying we want to put that into what they call repayment. we call it changing their arithmetics. in the beginning, the governor's people were saying the governor himself, this is money that districts could choose how to spend. we got it through to him that they cannot say that. it is no more money to school districts. it is about the arithmetic and the state budget. we spent that money years ago. it was in that year's budget. we have advocated for more of a split. not all that going to deferrals, and doing, even though that is important, and some of it coming to school districts so we might have some money. what has been the change, what was the deal made by the democratic leadership of the legislature? we will put less into deferral payment and we will use that money for non-k-12 services. we will use it for health services, child-care services.

that is not what that money is for. this is more cuts to k-12 and just this week, by the way, we found out that our calculation was wrong so we will propose more cuts in mid-year. we have said so many times we cannot absorb these cuts and they keep getting bigger and bigger and bigger. with leadership and concurrence of our friends in the legislature. are they in a difficult position? they have to choose between services for poor people and services for poor kids in school, yes. our job is to make them make the right choice. as hard as we try, we have not done a good enough job or we have to admit we failed and say to my kids are the lowest priority. the lowest priority of the state, not the highest. we need to change.

people need to engage in this and they need to know what is going on. this is so veiled and difficult. i am urging that we in our school district tried to make this as clear as possible which is tough. and find ways with our partners and others to get this message out and to say, this is not ok with us and not ok with us that this is being apparently championed by our friends and representatives. please, i want us to work on that and asked the staff to help us with that. i want to say something i said last week and i will try to make it short. i think we need an entirely different discussion about flexing money. i do not want to again and i will keep saying this. if the staff keeps saying, that is the only way we can do it and it is ok with the rest of the board, ok, and the public. every year, we do not look at

all the money we can select and save and say what we want to do with that? we look at the percentage cut to this program and that program. one of the things that is the target instructional improvement grant block money, he appropriately because we hardly ever do that, made reference to one of the things we're spending. in the book -- it does not say what schools get it and how much. we have to go back and look at the school budgets which are almost impossible to understand and see where it is without any read french trade you have to do that on your own. i would like us to look at some of those things and now when this book comes up but much earlier and say, is this -- there was a piece i just read in a blog about a study that was done about what school districts are doing with their new flexibility.

people were criticizing school districts for not taking money that was previously categorized for certain programs and spending it on innovative other programs. instead. this is what people were criticizing. school districts are spending it on keeping teachers in the classroom and paying their utility bills. people are criticizing the district. for prioritizing, keeping the lights on instead of looking for new and innovative things to do. when your budget has been cut 20% or 25%. let's please be clear that that is what we're doing. we have been doing it without having that discussion. we have been doing it because we know we are desperate to do it and i want to have a discussion. i do not want another budget that says pier 3. we're not talking about whether it is going to our priorities. all this is going to keep the

lights on and keep teachers in the classroom. that is the way we should have this discussion. do you want to spend it for that purpose and do you want to spend 6%. we do not know what we are doing but it would be nice if we did. that is my comment about how we continue to budget in a way that is the same old way. we have to do it differently. and i would -- i am sorry to have to repeat this. this is the hardest thing we do. this is heartbreaking. i am doing everything but it is not enough. please help us, everybody and let's figure out how we can do it better because we're feeling. -- failing. >> yes.

deputy superintendent lee, if you could explain to me, i know that we, the board, passed a resolution to have funds set aside for lgbtq work and we are increasing that number. the board in their wisdom originally voted to drop the down 2.5 fte and we have had discussions of looking at our survey. sort of a upping that to a full position. can you tell me, briefly update where that is in this budget as islet -- i am looking in that program. >> i am scanning the room to try

to find kevin truett. he may be hiding from me. we did have a fairly thorough discussion about this issue and he is in more direct contact. if he can join us, i will cleverly look to him to elaborate. when we were looking at the needs in school health programs which are many, we did talk about the lgbt resolution and the support of staff resources and non-staff resources as you are familiar with. pursuant to that resolution. we also discussed in a slightly broader context with the health curriculum, write?

which is related in some respects to the lgbt resolution. as the associate superintendent will explain, we did find in looking at these priorities, the lgbt resolution itself, the tsa support for health content specialist and another aspect which is an investment in case management tools for bullying and other social and emotional support that we could not fund all of the spread they're not all included. in this recommended budget but a good portion of the mark. it is not the other 0.5 of the lgbt specific staff person as such. but the health content special is and the additional tool for the case manager will definitely help. can you take the ball from

there? >> see how good you are? you are very good. >> i ran down as soon as i heard you. there was not enough funding for both so the lgbtq stayed at 0.5. because the resolution was passed to support that. we have to figure as it -- we know it is very inconsistently being implemented at schools and a identified that as an area of need. randel and to create tension. to support the revised resolution, that is where we had to choose and the department to keep the 0.5 with the lgbtq. we had to limit because everyone was cutting back and we chose to use that for the health. the data management system that deputy lee was referring to. it was brought to our attention that any of the new legislation

that is asking us to track incidents of -- i am hopin g commissioner wynns would tell me. we do not have a system that contracts are online pro- business system that is being used. we did not have the resources to expand that system. it is being used very effectively right now by many of the middle school counselors. although middle schools and high school counselors, if we can build in that feature to track incidents of harassment, bellying -- bullying not only of

lgbtq but everyone else. we do not have the system that tracks those electronically. i want to make this a memorable for carlos' -- this memorable for carlos's last term. >> there is the health requirements we have but also covers some of the issues around diversity. >> use the only -- she was the only health-certificate good teacher. >> this is a very good budget the past. we do not know if it is enough to keep it going. this is hard to pass knowing that it might not be enough. we will know in november what

happens but it might not be enough. this is -- as slim as this is, underfunded, it could be underfunded even more. it is frightening. it is our duty to pass this as a board. to ensure the fiscal stability of this district and we can make hard choices but i would like to say to my colleagues that this is a budget of choices, of priorities. we're getting down to the point now where we are -- we have to be very lean and mean about it. it is cutting away every sort of trill. -- frill. this is making these tough choices, knowing that we have an obligation first so students can

compete in the 21st century. that is their job here and we're obligated to do it for every single student in this district. it is a budget of priorities and i am pleased to see we can allocate more funds but as we mentioned on tuesday, 20% is on track not to graduate. 20% of the graduating class in 2015 is on track not to graduate. we add in the numbers, this is d or better. if we added c, that will be better. you will be facing hundreds of students that will be graduating if we do not make the right priority judgments right now and traces right now. it is a hard budget to pass. thank you for working so hard on this. everyone who has had input into

this, crazy thing to be doing during a crazy time thanks for all your help and your work during this. thanks. commissioner murase: i am still shocked by the announcement that the governor is considering cutting our school year by 20 days. i know families that have kids at home where counting the days when school gets back into session, that means school will be ending at the end of april. if you can imagine three and a half long more months of no school. we cannot tolerate this any more. having the least amount of

school days of any industrialized country, how do we expect to compete? suddenly i had a question about this budget. we passed this budget, what impact did it have on the layoffs that were difficult decision for us earlier this year? >> debbie superintendent -- deputy superintendent lee. >> this was a tricky one. this makes a number of assumptions about revenues, expenditures, about ways to reduce expenditures, expenditures that remained, and so on. we have identified school based

budgets and school based budgets are reflected in this overall budget for the district and i think that is the primary, not the only, but the primary part of the budget that is related to layoffs. there are layoffs that have been of limited and are moving forward to in central services departments as well. all those things -- the work in combination. we did have to reduce side budget allocations. we had a number of very consistent approaches to reducing expenditures in several centuries -- several departments as well. these are related to people as well for the most part. we also have layoffs that have not been recalled and some of our ascensions -- assumptions depend on the outcome of

bargaining. we are planning to the extent that all the other assumptions come through that are in this budget. we would be able to recall some additional positions. some additional infant -- individuals. some of our assumptions have the been resolved yet. they are still unresolved. in some cases, we have had to hold off on recalling some of our positions even though if the -- if that came through, we will look able to confine them. we need to be circumspect related to a confidentiality -- related to confidentiality issues. >> i want to echo my colleagues in expressing how difficult it is to create a budget when you do not know what the true amount

of money you have at the end of the day. for us -- for these assumptions to panel would be nice. but again, we have to account for that and be fiscally responsible. to be truthful for our close to $600 million budget, people have mentioned the items and we should question these things but when you look at it from the big picture as soon as i -- i want to give a lot of credit for the staff to put this budget together in a way that, not questioning the $600 million, questioning some of these fine details. i want to question one of the fine details. i just happened to be invited to participate in a webinar on

monday. it was around chronic absenteeism. one of the things we have done well since we focused on it from last year, was that we have been able to basically increase our ada. free much like 50,000 school days. and -- pretty much like 50,000 school days. what does that mean? i will translate. it means there are a lot of kids that were absent a lot. there were excused and so forth. they fell under the radar. -- and they were excused and so forth. they missed so much school that we wanted to focus on them. the 50,000 ada or school days to

translate into if you want to look at it, one extra day of learning per student in the school district. 56,000. it does not mean that at all. everything -- it means that there are many more of those kids that were missing a lot of school days that actually realised, the parents realized they needed to go back to school or be in school because you cannot learn you are in school. one of the questions that and the 50,000 ada days translates to $700,000. and of course you do not see it in the year that you increase your attendance. usually i hope you see it in the following year. the question i have is whether or not we had accounted for that in our budget.

>> in terms of the relationship between ada or prior year or current year. if the district were happy to say we're in this group, if the district is increasing -- in an increasing ada pattern, the school receives funding based on higher ada. not the prior year if it was in a lower level. it works the other way for a district that is moving in a decreasing ada pattern. if a district loses ada from one year to the next, it is based on the prior year's hire a -- higher ada. we have had steady, modest, but helpful increases in our ada in

that regard. we do get funded next year if we see increases in our eda. we will get funded on that level. for purposes of the budget assumptions, we have used 11-12 figures for our eda. >> that is correct. >> you have captured it. >> it is captured for a certain extent. if we do increase our ada in 12-13, we will see proportional increase in our revenues. we still very much want to keep trying our hardest both for programmatic, academic, and financial reasons to increase our ada and chronic absenteeism

and truancy. >> in a way we have accounted for. -- for it. commissioner mendoza: i enjoyed being president more than i enjoy being the chair of the budget committee. so just -- there is not a lot to be said about this. it is in circles and we try to do the best we can with what little we have. i would be remiss if we did not think the city or be thankful we are in san francisco -- thank the city or be thankful we are in san francisco. our residents and voters continue to support the school district in many ways. i also want to thank the board