is absolutely at the core of the billionaire boys club, and people whose purpose is to undermine democratic governance and public education, and to say that we should recognize that their philosophy is we should not have educators from in our school district -- what you want in education is not to leave it to the educators. i cannot do it, frankly. while i have said this before, the law says that given certain conditions, one of which is that it is not likely to succeed, and i think the democratic projections are long in that category in san francisco -- the board must group with a certain conditions met. the state law has no authority

to compel an individual board member to cast a vote in any way. the board obligation does not force me to vote against my conscience, to vote for something which will demonstrably her high schools that are publicly and democrats to the government and managed in san francisco. i do have some concerns besides the political and philosophical ones i mentioned. i appreciate the study that we got. i think still the the enrollment practices and retention, particularly of african american males, is something that should be honestly and candidly discussed. i know that one of the issues is that students who apply to kipp are not -- the school does not follow our practice of placing

our students in the grade they would be in if they were in a publicly-managed school. many students coming in, who would be fifth graders or sixth graders, are put in a lower grade. i think that is a question will practice, and one whose efficacy and effectiveness i would like us to discuss. these are the kinds of things we never discussed, because structure proposals are entirely political, in my view. i will not be supporting this this evening. i urge my colleagues to reconsider. there is one other thing i want to say. i appreciate that all of you are here. i know people do not have an obligation to have a broader point of view about the impact on the community. they support the charter school they like, without thinking for a moment about the implications for democracy, or any of those

things. however, i also -- excuse me. i also have an issue, because we received the letters of support for this proposal, some of which came from people whose stated support to me would seem entirely inappropriate. that is, they play roles related to the school district or the political environment and community in san francisco. their public support for privatizing in school, or opening yet another privately managed school, puts into question their ability to objectively play their roles that are supposedly in support of the school district. that is a specific concern that i just wanted to put on the record. thank you.

commissioner fewer: i met with the kipp folks. i know a lot of parents stayed the entire time. some of them have left. my own mentee, left kipp. i sort of pushed back with the folks that i met with, and talk a little bit about that, and about discipline policies at kipp. there are certain things about kipp i do not fully agree with. but there are things in our public schools i do not wholly agree with either. there are things we do in our own public schools that actually work against the students that kipp service, against them getting an equitable education.

i also spoke to some parents who, quite frankly, when their kids work at middle school -- it was that excels your middle school. -- excelsior middle school. he lost almost a whole year of construction. i think we will admit it was the very unorganized year. we opened it, i think, with excelsior middle school. the child was really far behind. i spoke to the mom.

we wanted to look at kipp. her son repeated a grade, but is on track to graduate. this was a single mom with four kids. she had seen older ones lost to violence and drugs. i have to say this way is my opinion, -- sways my opinion. this is the only charterer i can vote yes on during my term as a board member. i am waiting it with the fact that yes, we would be losing and high school population, but i also wait it against the fact

that we lose hundreds of african american students in high school. we lose a lot of them. we lose a lot of latino students. we lose a lot of pacific islander students. kipp has a track record of success with those students that we have not been able to capture. are they governed by different policies? absolutely. are they small? yes. all of those things. are they funded? quite frankly, they are doing it. i have said, to even many of my good friends, who are raising african-american children, why don't you look at kipp? there has to be a viable option for these young students. i believe it is aligned with

their strategic plan. i do not see charter schools as not public-school spirit i see them as serving the public. i am supporting the charter. i also feel that maybe we can learn a couple of things about what they are doing. as i said before, i think there are a lot of things we do not do right in this district. a lot of things are broken in this district. there has to be an option for these students to be successful and go to college. there has to be more options for them. i hope you can do it. kipp high school, i hope you can do it. [applause] commissioner maufas: i will be

really brief. i understand a lot of commissioner wynn's' concerns. i have them as well. i do not see this as a competition. we are struggling to get kids off our streets. i see you guys managing to do that. i do not see you competing for the same students. that is what i am banking on you doing. i know you are going to do that and follow up. i hope your school is full of kids that would normally not be in school. that is what i am hoping for. i know many folks that have been -- families that have gone through the kipp academies. they are not saying it is easy. they never said it was easy, but

they are in. believe me. we tussle over that quite a bit. why couldn't you be in one of our other schools? kipp is the place my school -- my kid is going to be successful. we need to learn better how to wraparound a family. but if you are going to do it, please look at those kids. president yee: thank you, commissioners. i also feel some of the things that commissioner wynns has said. i share some of those concerns and values. it would be nice if we could, in the public schools, be able to capture as much resources per child as some other entity.

indeed, it either way you looked at it, we will do some -- i do not want to say damage. but some impact, in terms of how many kids will have in the public schools we are running for high school. those are the things. people have already mentioned that that is the case. but also, we have seen kids' track record, in terms of being successful. when i way out the tension between them, i come down to the side of -- if i really want and care about our kids, this is not

the place, to provide public funding for kipp. you are supporting an entity. hopefully, some of the donors will hear this and say that these kids in san francisco are here, and all the kids deserve the help that any particular kids get from our charter. in the past, i have never been on the side of voting for a charter that has impact to our regular system. but in this case, there are positive step will outweigh that particular negative. i will be supporting the kipp charter.

roll call, please. >> just for clarification, that this resolution and 125-8sp2. >> it is sp1. >> no, it's sp2, as reported on the agenda. it is on page one. if it says sp1, that is incorrect. is s-- it is sp2. president yee: ok. let's make a correction. >> miss zhang?

joyce zhang: yes. commissioner fewer: yes. commissioner maufas: yes. commissioner wynns: no. >> six ayes. [applause] president yee: now that he successfully have gained a charter, we are going to have to continue the meeting. if you like, you can stay for the whole meeting. but if you would like to leave, please leave quietly, so we can proceed. this is still a long meeting. the next item will be 126-12 f p

one, adoption of the fiscal year 2012/2013 budget. >> give them a couple of minutes. president yee: no. nobody has to hear.

ok. i guess we can proceed, now that they are leaving so quietly and not having a discussion. thank you very much. this item has already been moved and seconded on june 12. the budget was discussed at length at the board, by the board, by last week's special meeting. it is now before us for action. before us is the superintendent's representative. it is the deputy superintendent. >> thank you, superintendent. this is the adoption of fiscal year 2012/2013 recommended budget. should i read this whole thing?

i will read selects choices. the recommended budget for the school district and the san francisco county office of education be submitted for first reading as the budget for fiscal year 2012-2013 and replaced in the official files for the secretary of the board of education. the superintendent is authorized to make any transfers necessary to correct erroneous account specifications or to affect the changes in accounts made necessary by the method of expenditures. i will leave it there. as president yee pointed out, this has been discussed. this will be the third time. it was introduced for first reading to weeks ago on june 12

and -- two weeks ago on june 12 and the board held a fairly detailed discussion about the recommended budget last tuesday evening, june 19. my comments tonight are going to be fairly brief but i do want to share some important information about our staff's work since that meeting last tuesday and one or two developments about the state budget. >> are the differences between the first reading and second reading you give us? >> they're not differences in the specific budgeted amount for the various resources. there are some differences in terms of informational

references, footnotes, clarification. some of those have been expanded upon. >> not now, can you send us a memo that tells us that so we do not have to -- [inaudible] the rest of the week? >> i do want to say on a substantive note, even though it is not immediately apparent from looking at that contents of the budget book itself, we have appreciated the feedback that the board provided last tuesday and in general as well as a number of our community partners that have testified at these meetings and given us their feedback in various ways. specifically around the area of credit recovery. we share a lot of the concerns that have been raised this spring and most recently over the last couple of weeks about the needs to provide additional

mechanisms to support students in the class of 2014 and 2015 who appear to be behind or who are behind in their crowded as ninth and 10th graders and those are the first two courts that will be held to those new a through g requirements. as pursuant to that discussion that took place last tuesday, we have taken a couple of steps. we have identified $300,000 in funds with our improvement block grant to report this to invest in those additional credit recovery strategies. in addition to that, we have had some very recent conversations with the leadership of the city department of children, youth, and families. we do happen to be seeing the possibility of increasing grants from the see if -- dcyf.

we have talked about increasing that -- taking that increase and investing it in credit recovery. there will be a complementary to hundred thousand dollars from the dcyf grant. it has been at $300,000. we will augment with our own resources with another 300,000. that is not to say that those are the only investments we're able to make in credit recovery, because we do have a lot of other complementary activities that are within our recommended budget. but those are some meaningful enhancements since last tuesday evening. that is $500,000, $300 to repurchase funds within the resources and 200,000 of dcyf

funds. the staff that is most responsible and have the greatest information about the strategies themselves have already begun working on defining what those plans would be. it is a cross functional department a team. they're very aware of this conversation and we have all taken very seriously that -- the discussion around credit recovery and we are encouraged by the fact that even though it is in some ways a quieter time, our leaders in those areas have hopped to it to get started in developing implementation. even though the budget has to be approved by the board. that is it regarding the priority by the district.

one thing i should mention about the state budget is a couple of things. since last tuesday, the legislature has continued to discuss and negotiate and it appears to have reached some agreement with the governor about some of the areas that they had not quite landed on in terms of agreements, in terms of education funding. most of those have been resolved. it is very likely that the legislature in the next couple of days perhaps, as early as tomorrow will sign the education budget trailer bills. so if you recall the legislature did pass a budget on june 15. that was understood and known by the time the board had its meeting last tuesday but the education budget trailer bills have not been completed at that point. they're still not all signed and they have not been signed by the governor.

it appears that they have reached substantive agreement on most of those items. there have not been a lot of surprises in the reports we have gotten and we did review some of those issues last week. i did notice and the board should be aware that one substantive change did come as a surprise to the education community which was that the assembly bill -- budget trailer bill had a provision and is likely to be reflected in the senate's deliberations as early as tomorrow. that if the november tax measure does not pass, there would be relaxation or whatever the euphemism is to allow districts to reduce instructional days by another 15 days each year.

if you're a member until recently, the governor's proposal has been too -- if you remember, until recently, the governor's proposal has been 175. the reduction of five from the longstanding 180. it has been reduced to five by five already to 175. he proposed that districts be allowed to reduce by another 15 over two years. with a combination of 1213 -- 12-13 and 13-14. that has been what we shared with the board over the last couple of weeks. this new proposal which is likely to be approved, as our understanding is that it would face -- be 15 days each year. a total of 20-day reduction from the 180. going all the way to 160 ion 12- 13 and 13-14. -- in 1212 -- in 12-13 and 13-

14. it would be up to each school district to determine if instructional -- its instructional calendar subject to collective bargaining with the teachers' unions in each respective district. >> the reason for that or some of the reason for that in san proposal is that they're estimating the per pupil cut will be increased to $457 per student. i would like at some time, i do not know if you have that calculation now, to know what we would anticipate that would increase deficit to our budget should that happen. that is why, they're going to cut more out of k-12. we will give you more ability to deny more opportunity for your students. >> that represents an additional reduction of close

to $900,000 for the district? that would bring our total cut if that were to be implemented to $24 million. >> any other good news? [laughter] >> we will leave it as that -- at that as far as the state is concerned unless the commissioners have questions. there are details of that specific provision. i do not think that anything aside from that aspect was particularly new or surprising. the last thing that i would like to say is we definitely noted all the comments that the board members made about the presentation of budget information in our budget materials. we will definitely give it a good faith look to explore what we need to do to incorporate some of that feedback.

i will repeat part of what i said last time. there was some discussion about the city and county's budget document. we looked at it closely and like a said last week, -- i said last week, if there is a way for us to introduce some aspects of that, i think that would be a great thing. i do not disagree with that at all. i do not think any of my colleagues see that as lacking merit. we do have staff capacity issues that we have to contend with. that is going to need to be considered pretty carefully. for starters, i would be interested in talking about their process with folks in the mayor's budget office and the comptroller's office and perhaps commissioner mendoza can help me set up a meeting in that regard. to find out a little bit about what it takes to produce a document like that, what are the

key conditions that have to be in place to get that done. with that, i will conclude and if you -- >> we just want to make one correction to the requested action. it should be submitted for second reading instead of first. >> thank you. president yee: there are several members of the public who want to make comments on this and i will give you one and a half minutes per speaker. i will call you up. president kelly. sara -- , nancy ayala. gonzalo lopez, jessica,