look forward to proceeding in like -- and like help me stay on track and others. (applause) and in closing, as we take our seats and as a former boy scout, if i know anything about scouting i remember our motto was be prepared. he did not know he was going to speak, did not know he was going to address and be on live television. so, i think that in itself -- [laughter] that in itself i believe is indicative of the potential our students have. they are our future leaders. i'd like to acknowledge mr. franklin, [speaker not understood] also accompanied us on our trip, mr. scott who is also a stellar stand out district employee. so i'm told. he also accompanied us and also a morehouse graduate. thank you so much for your time and, please, we look forward to

an exciting and excellent school year. thank you. (applause) >> thank you, gentlemen, for coming and talking about tonight. mr. superintendent, did you -- okay, sorry. okay. i have one more card, jean ishibashi. i'm setting aside our protocol tonight. we usually do not accept cards once we call public comment. i understand you have some information for our students so i'm going to set aside that rule for you. so, you may have two minutes at the mic.

hello, good evening. thank you. we have teacher workshops that we're offering and [speaker not understood] intelligence service has been in the news quite a bit. and who is a good american, who is a bad american, right? are questions, ethical questions that are being raised in the news media with manning and [speaker not understood], et cetera. there is a workshop on japanese americans who served in the military intelligence service, and secondary teachers will get $150 from 10 to 3:00 p.m. on saturday at the presidio. if you are interested or anyone you know are interested in participating in this workshop. so, i have fliers here for anyone who is interested. who is a good american, who is a bad american, what constitutes bias, what constructs good and bad, et cetera. so, i encourage you to attend this workshop.

the other is that we have concurrent enrollment for high school students, junior and high -- junior and senior high school students, and these are courses that are offered by ccsf. we're still open, accessible, affordable, accredited. don't let the mainstream media fool you, all right. we're one of the best bargains in town. and we have courses that transfer to u.c. and csu. so, if any of you have students or are a student interested, they're being offered. they are three units. you will have fulfilled the requirement at csu american cultures and ethic is studies. at berkeley and any of the other uc systems. i encourage you, you will have a leg up in transferring or graduating into a four-year college ~ by having these courses under your belt. so, i just wanted to encourage folks to know that these possibilities are there for the

students and they should take advantage of them. and city college is there to support both san francisco unified school district and the entire community. thank you very much. (applause) >> thank you. public comment is now closed. item k, advisory committee reports, appointments to the advisory committees. are there any appointments by board members? no. seeing none, we will move to item l, special order of business. so, first is the public hearing. i'm going to call to order the public hearing on the 2012-2013 initial proposal for a successor agreement from laborers international union of north america, liuna, local 261 to san francisco unified school district and the 2012-2013 initial proposal for a successor agreement from the san francisco unified school district to the laborers international union of north america, local 261. there are no speakers on this

item. so, i am going to move on to an action item under item l. may i hear a motion and a second on approval of qtea membership appointments? >> [speaker not understood] recommendation. >> i second. >> thank you. mr. ar men trout, may i hear a reading of the recommendation? >> yes, president norton. thank you. again commissioners, superintendent, my name is chris armentraut, director of policy and planning. [speaker not understood] appoints the following individuals for membership to the quality teacher and education act oversight committee.

also known as qtea. sam rodriguez, [speaker not understood], [speaker not understood], [speaker not understood] cornell, and dan cohen. >> we don, i believe, have resumes on these people. >> mr. ar men trout, way asking president norton if there is a brief resume of the people to be appointed. >> commissioner, sorry, can't find the page right now, excuse me. page 6? we don't have resumes for the individuals. the individuals were asked to submit applications and with questions regarding qualifications, regarding their involvement with the -- whether they had children in the school, their involvement with the school, they took a leadership role at the site,

and whether they had financial experience. those were considered the main criteria for involvement in the oversight committee. >> pardon me, mr. ar men trout. yes, dr. [speaker not understood]. >> thank you very much. i had a question of the co-chairs about gender balance because of the five who are being recommended tonight, only one is a woman. can you give me a sense of gender balance of the existing members? ~ murase >> yes, co-chairs are michelle parker and jenny lam. forgive me, i'm forgetting the other members of the committee. those are our two other female members, but they are the co-chairs currently. >> so, can you clarify for me how many current members are

there on the qtea and how many seats are there total? >> president norton, there are 11 seats total. we currently have six members. >> okay. so, you -- but if commissioners have concerns about parity of gender balance or whatever, they are not obligated to vote for the entire slate this evening; is that correct? >> that's correct, president norton, there is no obligation to accept any or all members. it's at the board's discretion. >> thank you. commissioner wynns. >> it is very interesting to me that all of these candidates are parents in the school district. and while i think that's great, it's very unusual or it seems to me and the two people that you mention. so, did somebody say they should all be parents? i gather -- i mean, i realize from reading this that most of these people are financial professionals.

i'm a little sensitive this program is, you know, about professional development and really is our reform project. i was interested -- what kind of criteria are we looking for? so we don't have teachers or educators, or people who have -- in other words, did we say we want this to be a committee of financial experts? because it seems like that's what we have. >> the short answer is, commissioner wynns, yes. in our application, the criteria that we asked for, and we asked folks to present themselves was to say, are you a parent? because we're looking for individuals who had taken some kind of leadership role within their school's community. we wanted individuals who were really stakeholders from the community, but also -- from the community, but stakeholders in our sites where this is having -- where this proposition was having such a huge impact.

and because the oversight committee is primarily about the fiscal solvency and the audit that we do each year for qtea, we wanted individual members who understood -- who had a background in that, in that context. that was the primary focus for this [speaker not understood]. >> i'm requesting that in the future we have some discussion, maybe at the rules committee, about how we constituted this committee. i don't remember somebody tell me if i'm wrong, that we at the board actually discussed what criteria we would want because it seems to me that in all of these kinds of advisory groups, one of the most important things is to have various experiences. i mean, i might say for each one of these people, i might individually read this description and say, oh, yeah, that would be a valuable, you know, set of experiences to be on this committee, but i don't really know if i want them with all the same experiences or if we ever really consider that or thought about what kind of a balance we'd like to have. i think we should probably -- my own opinion, we should go

ahead, but we should talk about this and think about what we'd like to have in the future. >> commissioner fewer and [speaker not understood]. >> mr. ar men trout, [speaker not understood] this all basically reads about the same. everyone says also has extensive financial experience and is currently a parent -- so, i would also like to know the diversity of the schools. which schools are they at? do they represent? sort of through their perspective? i think that's a really important thing because of this qtea is sort of directed at that. it's sort of an equity issue. [speaker not understood]. so, actually, this is so brief about people on this committee and i think i know jenny lam personally very well and also michelle parker so i don't have an issue at all with those two women. but they also bring a different

perspective to this committee, you know, one is a nonprofit -- both of them with nonprofit, stems. parent engagement also, but i -- so, i think that i don't have enough information on these individuals to actually approve this tonight. i feel like i would like to know what grades the children are in, but particularly what schools are their children from. and i think it's really important to have a diverse sort of gathering of people who have different school experiences and represent a diverse school environment. and, so, we're looking at this and it doesn't give me enough information. and i don't think that is -- i am in no way blaming you. i think that what commissioner wynns brings up is about the description and being more descriptive of what we're trying to achieve with this committee and a more well

rounded perspective of our district, too. so, i am a little dismayed that none of them have a very strong education background and i think also that because i don't know what schools they represent or where they're from, i think i don't have enough information to approve this today personally. i'm just speaking for myself, but thank you, mr. ar men trout. >> commissioner mendoza. >> thank you. when do we have to have this approved by? >> commissioner mendoza, there's no deadline. the committee has an active body that has the minimum number to operate. so, the numbers could be approved at any point. this brings it up to full capacity. so, we would like to have this approved. the oversight committee -- and we would like to get going with the school year and to have the members participate. one example is that the oversight committee will be

participating in the qtea impacting innovation awards which is happening -- that process is really starting in september. so, if we wanted to include these new members, give these members a chance to vote on who would be the chairs for the committee, we need to move forward. that would be the incentive to do so. but in terms of operating, we have the minimum number to continue to move forward. >> okay. so, i actually feel with the commissioner fewer, i don't think i'm ready to vote on this only because i don't know what the current makeup is and how these particular candidates fall into where the missing links are. and what actually the whole body would look like. i would be interested in who else applied and why we selected these particular candidates over others.

and i really think it's important to have someone who has -- who is a current or former teacher, retired teacher, even a current teacher. i think it's a lot for current teacher and perhaps a conflict. but -- a conflict, but we have lots of retired teachers and we have folks that have some kind of background in some of the pieces. i'd like to see something more than what we currently have and just see what the makeup could be on this. it just doesn't feel like -- i don't feel like i have a good perspective on who is currently on and how these other folks would be adding to the mix. >> commissioner maufas. >> i'm going to chime in with what my colleagues have let you

know, mr. ar men trout. are you the person -- i'm sorry. ~ i'm having a important conversation outside of the room, but i missed, are you the person that we would normally see [speaker not understood] for this body or are you suck for somebody? people may still be on vacation. i'm not dinging anybody. i just want to know. [laughter] >> [speaker not understood]. >> commissioner maufas, on this i am your man. >> all right. as my man, be prepared. [laughter] >> here it comes. so, you heard and i think you get it. just because of i think the timing and with monies coming in from the state because of bad selection cycles, it's important to see who is on this body. and i think just a refresher,

as commissioner mendoza has said, who exists now and then the makeup of these new people, as commissioner fewer said, and some comments were from commissioner wynns, i didn't hear them. but how this all comes together because i think it's really important -- not that it wasn't important before, but maybe now i'm paying attention. but the point is i care and i think, to their points, it's something i need to see before i approve as well. and i did hear you say we did some approval as quickly as possible [speaker not understood] that process. i don't know if they're so new, maybe they need to sit with this body awhile before voting on an award of what i think is pretty important. that's just my opinion. and, again, not to ding who they are, but i don't really know who they are. [speaker not understood] some of these names, i would certainly like to know a lot more about these individuals and again, the makeup of the

whole body of the commissioners have said. thank you. >> thank you. dr. murase. >> yes, i had one question and then i did get a response from michelle parker on the gender balance issues. my one question is are any of these five renewals, are they people who have been seated in this position before? >> dr. murase, no, none of these individuals have served on this committee before. >> okay. and then for the benefit of my colleagues, i want to list jenny [speaker not understood], co-chairs, [speaker not understood], and [speaker not understood] walton. so, that would leave the gender balance, if they were adopted, of three women to eight men. and if there is a compelling reason why a particular man should be appointed, i would really like to know that. but three women to eight men to me is not a 3satisfactory gende

balance on this kind of body. [laughter] >> yes, ours is appropriate. [laughter] >> yeah, right. i want to thank board members for their input. >> [speaker not understood]. >> all right, enough mumbling. so, what i count is i count a majority of board members that are either prepared to vote no on all of these nominees or are prepared to vote no or not to vote at all on this. so, we can either withdraw this or we can vote no on all the candidates. but i think in any event, i did express some frustration to mr. ar men trout and ms. richards about this early on there is very little direction in the

legislation about who should be on this committee. and we like to rely on staff to vet -- but there's no guidance for them to rely on. so, i do think that the board has to give more guidance through the rules committee for what the makeup of this committee should be. so, unless there are strong feelings to the contrary, my suggestion would be we withdraw this item, that we send the question of the qtea makeup to the rules committee, we develop some guidance that allows staff to actually put forward a stronger roster of candidates but that has the makeup that we think reflects the school district most accurately. yes, ma'am. >> commissioner maufas. >> thank you, president norton. i appreciate that clarification. and i want to in my own reflection, apologize about my flippancy around not caring about this. that's not the case. it's just when we put it on the shelf because of our economic

times, it definitely dropped off my radar, so, i'm glad it's back on my radar. >> i think commissioner haney, if you can put down on a future rules committee, we can develop some guidance and then staff can go out and recruit more candidates or send us a roster that is more balanced, whatever balance we want. >> thank you, president norton. and, mr. ar men trout, would you mind compiling that list of requests about more information, the gender bias, blah, blah, blah, to commissioner haney so those questions can be addressed and those issues can be addressed and added to the discussion at the rules committee? >> absolutely, commissioner. >> thank you, mr. ar men trout. >> may i ask one more wi sf are we in time to get this on the next rules committee agenda? >> yes, it will be on the 21st, wednesday, august 21st. ~ >> we have two weeks before that agenda. >> thanks, everybody. so, this is now withdrawn. there is no action item. we're not voting on the action

item. all right, we are now going to move on. item m, discussion of other educational issues. there are none tonight. item n, consent calendar resolutions removed at a previous meeting for second action. there are none tonight. item o, vote on the consent calendar. yes, roll call, please. >> thank you. mr. logan? >> here. >> aye. >> we're voting on the consent calendar. yes? >> yes. >> thank you so much. thank you. ms. fewer? >> yes. >> mr. haney? >> yes. >> ms. maufas? >> yes. >> ms. mendosa? >> yes. [speaker not understood]. >> item k4, 6, 7 and 35 because they're retroactive. >> thank you. those are all in the items.

director murase? >> aye. >> ms. wynns? >> aye. >> and ms. norton? >> yes. >> thank you. >> all right, thank you. we are now going to move on to item p, consent calendar resolution severed for board discussion and immediate action. commissioner maufas severed item 2q, and i see mr. golden here to address that. commissioner maufas. >> thank you, mr. golden. you talk, it was mentioned in this letter we received from some of the public comment on this the issues that we had last round. can you speak to that a little bit to give us some of your perspective and how we got to the selection of those same folks this cycle? thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm david golden, the chief facilities officer. most of you may remember, about

three years ago we put the security contract out to bid because it was up for its cyclical renewal. we received almost no bidders. and eventually the low bidder dropped out. there were concerns by the board about whether the bidder was union or nonunion and it was not a qualification in the bid language that the bidder be union or nonunion, but that was a very large concern of the board. particularly in terms of the labor practices, salaries, and wages. at that particular point in time -- and i forget the details -- we determined to renew the contract for securitas for another period of time.

in november of this year -- and the contract was based -- i'm slightly wrong. we accepted their bid and awarded them the contract. in november of this year, securitas informed us that they would like to raise their rates. we met with our legal counterpart in mr. davis' offices and under consultation the conclusion was you can't raise your rate when it's a bid. and the rates are fixed by the bid and by the terms of the bid. securitas canceled, sent us a letter, essentially canceling their contract with us. so, if they couldn't raise their rates, they chose -- they literally chose not to continue. we then sent them a letter saying, thank you, we are putting the contract out to bid and we will continue with you at your higher rate until such

time as the bid is awarded on a month-by-month basis because we have to have security. and that's the current arrangement with securitas. we then embarked on a new process with purchasing and ms. cassi coleman in the legal office to rewrite, represent the bid package for a new bid for the security contract. that took several months. that went out to bid. we received five bids. the lowest actual bidder was found to be nonresponsive. the lowest bidder was abc security. the most expensive or the highest bidder was the current bidder securitas by almost half a million dollars. we have done our due diligence and vetted the current low bidder to be responsible.

their paperwork is in order. their bond is in order. their bid is in order. their references check. they -- all of their documents say they are a union contractor. we fully expect them to abide by the terms and conditions of their contracts with their union partners just as they will abide by their contracts with us. and to this date we have absolutely no reason to find this bidder nonresponsive. should the board choose to not award the contract to abc and not award to the next responsible bidder, which would be d2 securitasllc, the only other option would be to cancel the bid ~ and rebid the entire

contract. those are -- the options are slim and few. it's either award to the most responsible bidder, or it's reject all bidders and rebid. but at this point staff has no reason to find the current low bidder nonresponsive and our due diligence deems that they can do the job. they're a minority hispanic woman owned company. we've had securitas [speaker not understood]. so, yes, we are changing systems. change is a little bit difficult for all, but we respect the words that we heard from the people that talked tonight, and abc will have to honor and respect the contract they sign with us or it's not going to be a very happy relationship. so far i have no reason to think otherwise.

>> and in your discussion with our counsel, ms. coleman, have you all sort of reasoned out what would happen in the event that during -- sometime during the contract thing didn't work out for the workers, as you said, you have no reason based on all the processes that have happened thus far to think anything would go wrong. but if something did go wrong, have you vetted with legal counsel what steps we would take, if any, at sfusd? >> i don't have the agreement in front of me, which was part of the bid proposal. and i do not know if there is language to that effect. i know that this vendor has stated that they are a union

contractor. there were several that bid that were -- i think this one is -- obviously we know securitas is. one or more of the other ones is and one or more is not. it is their obligation to fulfill their union agreements. i'm not sure whether our contract says what happens if they are in bargaining dispute with their union partners. >> i think our general counsel wants to weigh in. >> commissioners, i don't have the contract in front of me either, but i can give you some basic guidance here. if we award a contract to the lowest bidder, they begin to perform on the contract and then they incur some sort of labor strife in the course of performance on the contract which affects their ability