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

of supervisors and the mayor for releasing the rainy day funds which are pretty much depleted. the first year we got rainy day funds, we got $24 million in this year we got $6 million. next year will be even worse because the city budget is not looking that great. but having said that, we're in a much better place than most. i think carlos would agree that whenever we are outside of san francisco, people are envious on how we have been able to get the tremendous amount of support we do get from san francisco residents. just a very big public thank you and shut out for that. if it was not for you, we would not be able to continue to do the hard work we do with our students who are our highest priority. this was also a reminder to us that we have got some things coming up. we're doing it to your budget in two years and we're looking at a

prop h renewal and a children's fund renewal. i do not want us to sit idle on this and as my colleagues have clearly articulated, we have to be strong and continued to advocate for funding from the states so our city does not have to continue to augment what they cannot provide. and we have to make sure that we continue to keep our nose to the grindstone and do the hard work that we do. and continue to thank our voters who support us in the ways they do because we're going to -- we have got to -- two large funds that have helped us through many years and we would not able to get through these terrible budget times without it. just a heartfelt thank you to all of our san franciscans who

continued to support our school district and to the city for all their continued support as well. i am a little curious if we have the kind of list of what we would restore should any special money comes falling from the sky. i know there are multiple conversations that are happening not only on the city side but in other places. these are hard conversations to have and in years past we have asked for some way of thinking about how we restored if we do not have additional funding so there are not -- we're not fighting over crumbs. the days that our kids are out, is that going to be our first

priority? is it some other places that we want to start considering and when will we have some kind of sense of what's that this will look like after having heard many conversations from many of us, we want to continue to invest in. that is what this is for us is an investment. i want to get a sense from you what that looks like. how we restore 22 -- always an optimist, wanting to know how we can do some of that and wanting to have some planning so that we are not scrambling later to think about how we can ensure that our strategic plan continues to get implemented properly and that we fund the things that are important and valuable for our students. thank you.

president yee: i will offer some thoughts quickly and may be one of our superintendent's -- maybe one of our superintendents can chime in. i think the two things you articulated are at the top of the list. so try to preserve as many instructional days or restore instructional days to the greatest extent possible, that is definitely a high priority. and the other, apropos of the earlier discussion about credit recovery, we do have a fairly serious urgent issue with respect to the class of 2014 and the class of 2015. based on the statistics that commissioner fewer and others have mentioned tonight about the these are better, in those

classes. those are high priorities. i would say one other thing depending on the priority. we do have a seriouswe have a sh the prospect of these passes not passing in november. if neither of these does not come through, it is going to be extremely disruptive, to say the least, and chaotic. it will be very, very difficult for us to withstand that. if there are prospects for additional funds other than what we have planned for, that is another consideration, whether anything can be put on reserve to prepare for that possibility. it is multiple tracks. i think those three concepts together are what i would put out there for consideration.

>> i would agree, but on top of that, when you say if things happen to work out better -- if either of those initiatives passes, particularly the governor's initiative, we still have to make cuts. that is not going to be enough to be the magic thing that would fall from the sky to allow us to have additional resources to put back programs. realistically, the putting back programs, in the best case scenario, is probably a couple of years away. that is why we make these projections, three years out. even if the initiatives pass, i do not want anybody in the public to be under the assumption. of course, the board officers will support the initiatives. it is later in our agenda. of course we will support them. we have already cut all we can.

having some money is better than not having any. but even with the initiatives, we are still going to make big cuts. this budget is predicated, best case, the we will have to make quite a few cuts. the governor's initiative does not, contrary to popular belief, restore all the things we have. this is not like country music being played backwards, and you get back everything. it does not work that way. what he is going to give us back is what they have already taken away from us. i will remind everybody they took over $20 million. it was $2 billion this year, $2.20 billion. that is about $20 million for us. they took away that last summer. we are not even getting any of

this faq. when people say we are going to pass this and it is going to help us, it will help us better than none, but we have been basically in deficit, all the school districts. they are not making up the money they have already taken away from us. i wish i would share the optimism for the good things. having said that, we are still going to negotiate with our collective bargaining partners. we always have. we did in the last two years. obviously, the integration of having back those school days is paramount for all of us, because it is unfair to students and our employees. each day is about a half percent decrease in a much they earn. that is not fair. why should they be carrying the burden of this crisis alone? those are things that are critical to us.

if moneys come available, of course that is something we are going to try to get going as quickly as possible. but i would not get our hopes up that high right now, because what lies ahead, even if things pass, are really difficult times. commissioner maufas: we have been talking about this for some time, so i will be brief again. there are some things i think are pretty imperative. i think this conversation, even though we are voting -- voting on tonight's budget, is something the public should have an opportunity to participate in. i guess i am asking the budget share. will we have an opportunity, deputy superintendent lee and chair mendoza, to have further discussion on our budget situation? as we even move through the year.

i get that we really concentrate a lot of our effort on discussing the budget in these last few months, where we all come together and sit here. even in budget committee meetings, we are having augmented discussion, focusing on our budget. but at that meeting, it was not so packed with a full plethora of our constituents, who i think really need to be -- all of our interested parties need to be part of that conversation. i am so appreciative that coleman was able to participate. there are priorities. it is not like their priorities are not our priorities. they have worked closely with us. i guess my brief question is, will we be able to really craft a way to keep this discussion on going? i know that is staff time. i just think the public needs to

stay engage with us. i mean, if i go for the last month of my activities, senators called, plural. supervisors wanted to know numbers. furlough days, and all kinds of questions. i was asked for a couple of extra copies of our budget, so i could go through it with people. what are the things people here care about? i told them to bring five different color highlighters. not everybody has interests in the same areas, but let us start there. do not come to this meeting

without several highlighters, so you will be able to get to this large document and better understand our budget. there is a huge learning curve for myself, but also for others in the community. i am willing to have those discussions. but i think a lot of the rich confirmation happens right here, when we are all together. i am explaining stuff second- hand and third hand. the could get it here first him. that is number one. i want a way for us to continue this discussion about our budget, and not have its so concentrated toward the spring, but maybe matriculate it through the year. it is important that people stay engage. this is not going to change for a few years. we might as well get folks in a mode of understanding. i think they will do that or participate more if they are with us to read the year, having

an ongoing discussion about our budget. i am hoping that can happen. i know that this work, but i am looking for a way to start to craft that possibility and probability. that is what i discovered, over just these last two months, when the budget comes up. i have wondered every year, but i have never had an answer to alleviate that concern. now, i think i have it, which is an ongoing discussion. i think it is important that people stay with us. they drop off the radar, and go to other issues. but this is going to be with us, so i think it is ok to keep folks engage with us. i would rather have them engage throughout the year, understanding the need to -- instead of a surprise, it is an ongoing understanding, and there is a partnership with us.

i wrote down notes, but i want to better understand what you were saying about the 180 to 160. it is for 2012/2013. it is supposed to get reduced another 15 days in 2014. is that it? or do we do it any way we want? they have just given us 15 days. do we justify fat reduction? -- do we just make that reduction? >> it has changed significantly. if i can summarize that particular issue, just in chronology of what it used to be, what was considered normal, and the developments that have taken place? for many years, i am not sure

how many, but for a long time, california had a minimum school calendar of 180 days. that was the standard for a long time. i believe it was starting in 2010/2011, or thereabouts, that the state, through legislative action, as a means to get one more tool for school districts to survive this fiscal crisis, reduced that minimum of 180 days by five, to 175. it allows school districts -- it did not mandate, but allowed school districts to have a school calendar that was five days shorter period in our district, as you know, for the last two years, including the

air we just finished, we reduced our calendar by four days, down to 176. the state-required minimum was 170 high. the proposals for the next two years, in the january budget of the governor, and continued in the may budget proposal, was to -- i am sorry. i think the concept was in the january budget, but the actual specifics were introduced with the may revision. school districts would be allowed to reduce another 15 days over the two years, for a total of the next two years. whether it is seven days and eight days -- it was not

prescribed. that was a little bit different. it was between the following two years. school districts could reduce by a total of another 15 days. that was in the governor's may revision. that was basically endorsed through most of the legislature's deliver to of processes. what changed -- deliberative processes. in the last 20 or hours, the legislature, in their budget trailer bill, they specified that instead of another 15 days over the next two years, it could be 15 days each year, to go from a minimum school calendar of 175 days all the way to 160 in each year. there would be a minimum school