the board of education of the san francisco unified school district strongly supports the 2020 schools and local communities funding act and urges individuals, organizations and communities to also support this important measure to restory sources to california's public education and local services. >> thank you. so we had public comment already. any comments from the board? commissioner sanchez? >> commissioner sanchez: thank you. thank you, commissioners merase and cooke for authoring this resolution -- haney, sorry. my bad, yeah. i confuse them a lot. sadly. thank you both. [inaudible] >> that's what i was going to say next, if i could be a coauthor -- okay, and if maybe we could all put our names -- add our names to the resolution, that would be

great. i just want to say a couple things about prop 13. it sounds like this may be the first resolution that this board is passing on specifically prop 13, which is amazing that nothing has been authored before, specifically about this, but prop 13 has been tackled a couple of times in the past. i want to thank you all of california for the work that they've been doing on prop 13. they know as well as i do it's been tackled twice. one was in '99. when the deal was made, they had the petition signed, they had money to put it on the ballot. the polling showed that it would pass to do what essentially we're saying now, but there was a last-minute deal with the governor, and others to take it off the ballot in exchange for a one-time raise for teachers across the state. so unfortunately, it was taken off the ballot and it probably would have passed back in 1999. and then, several years later, there was another attempt. they had the same thing.

they had the ballot -- petitions, they had the balloting to show that it would pass, but there was a miss -- miscalculation of the wording measure, so the authors took it off the ballot. so this is our opportunity to do the right thing, so make sure we get this on -- to make sure we get this on the ballot the right way, and to make sure we can fund education somewhere near the national average which is really amazing to think when prop 13 passed in '78, within one year, one-third of all public education left the system in one year. all the things that we tried to bring back through prop h, like music, arts, libraries, and sports, all those things existed in our schools prior to prop 13, and we became at the lowest point, i think 48th in the nation in perpupil funding. and now i think we're, what, 47th? 44th? in the fifth largest economy in

the world, and so shame on us, but at least we have an attempt right now in 2020 to do the right thing, and i want to thank the authors and thank all the people that are working on this. >> thank you. others? no? okay. commissioner merase? >> i just want to say that it protects residential tax rates, but it brings commercial tax rates up to market value. so need for seniors, disabled residents to be concerned about the split role. the tax provisions will remain, and it's really focused on having our corporations pay their fair share and there was a couple references to disneyland, which was being assessed in the 1978 levels of a nickel persquare foot. and a corporation like disneyland has every interest to have an educated workforce.

there are estimated estimates that disneyland would pay close to $5 million more in taxes, given the market value of their property. so just want to speak that clarification. >> can you. commissioner haney? >> i actually just want to thank you, all of the parent leaders and folks in the community who have been organizing around this. this is -- as commissioner sanchez has said, has been a long slog to get to this point to have actually have something that is going to be on the ballot in 2020. and the work that has been done to lay the foundation for this to pass and to educate, you know, not just, you know, elected officials and school districts who know a lot about this issue, but regular people, knocking on doors, having resolutions like this pass all over the state i think is really what is going to allow us to be successful in 2020. so hopefully, we'll sign up and

others will sign up, and others will pass similar resolutions, and we'll get this done. and i also want to shout out our uesf and the unions around the state who have also been close partners in making this happen. we as we'll talk about with our budget. we'd very much like this to happen sooner rather than later, so we're all in and grateful for the leadership that many have demonstrated to get us here. >> thank you. so i'll be supporting this this evening, but i will make a just a brief comment -- make a -- just a brief comment about the timing of this. i appreciate that it takes time to get this on the ballot and what we're doing is supporting to get this moving quickly, and i appreciate that. and then, i just want to encourage the board, once this is actually on the ballot and we're moving on this 'cause we'll also have a new set of board members at that time. so i think it's going to be really important to have

current board members endorse this as it gets rolling. so with that, if there's no further comment, roll call, please. >> clerk: thank you. [roll call] >> clerk: six ayes. >> thank you. six ayes? who are we missing -- oh, she already left. our next item is item e, it's a special order of business, and we have eight items to handle tonight on this. so we're going back to the regular agenda. item number 1 is 186-12 so 4. i need a motion and a second, please. >> so moved. >> second. >> thank you. this is a tentative agreement between san francisco school district and united administrators of san francisco, uasf. mr. superintendent, do you

want to introduce your designee who's going to be reading the resolution. >> our chief of relations, carmelo scarlato. >> i'd like to read the attached tentative agreement between the san francisco unified school district and the uasf and the related public disclosure document. >> okay. thank you. i don't have any speakers signed up for this particular item. any comments from the board -- oh, sorry. i do. i see -- oh, i'm sorry. it's under -- you're right, my bad. i have cheryl lee from the united administrators. >> good evening, commissioners

and president mendoza-mcdonnell and all that are president here today. i have a long history with sfusd. i retired ten years ago after 37 years serving as a teacher, principal, and assistant superintendent. now i'm the coexecutive director of united administrators of san francisco. i -- i really encourage you to approve this tentative agreement for our wonderful administrators that we have. they work hard, they're resilient, and they really do what's best for their school communities and their teachers. thank you so much. >> thank you, mrs. lee. it's always greet to see you, and i apologize that i had you under somebody else's. great. any other comments from the board or the superintendent? sorry, commissioner sanchez? >> thank you. i just have -- mr. scarlato, can you just give us some of the highlights of this tentative agreement, the public?

>> sure. so for the school year 2018-19, all administrators will receive a 7% increase, and that will be followed by a 3% increase in 2019-2020, so that'll give them a 10% increase over the next two years. >> thank you. roll call vote, please. >> clerk: thank you. [roll call] >> clerk: five ayes. >> great. thank you. item 2 is a motion -- i need a motion and a second on the compensation for unrepresented management employees. superintendent? >> once again, our chief of labor relations, mr. carmelo scarlato. >> you want me to move it

first? >> yes, please. >> so moved. >> second. >> thank you. and i do not have any public speakers on this item. comments from the board -- i'm sorry. go ahead and do the recommendation. my bad. i'm moving too fast here. >> the recommended action is to approve the attached salary schedule for unrepresented management employees. >> great. thank you. any comments from the board or the superintendent? seeing none, roll call vote, please. >> clerk: thank you. [roll call] >> clerk: that's five ayes. >> great. thank you. thank you, mr. scarlato. item 3 is i need a motion and a second on the board of education meeting calendar for 2018-19. >> so moved. >> second. >> thank you. mr. superintendent, do you want to introduce your

designee? >> yes. reading this will be the general council, danielle houck. >> the item tonight is we're asking the board of education to adopt the meeting calendar for the school year 2018-2019. >> thank you. miss houck, i know that we had some conversations about this. was there anything unusual or different from last year's calendar that -- to this year's calendar that the public should be aware of? >> so we did incorporate all of the feedback that we received from board leadership. if you open the attachment to the item, you can see where we deviate from the typical rule of the second and fourth tuesdays of the month, and where we do that is usually due to a religious holiday or a spring break or winter holiday for the school district, and those are noted with an asterisk at the bottom. >> thank you. and then, this will be posted on our we knbsite, as well.

>> yes. >> once approved. thank you. i have no public speakers signed up for this item. any comments from the board or superintendent? seeing none, roll call vote, please. >> clerk: thank you. [roll call] . >> clerk: that's five ayes. >> thank you. item 4, i need a motion and a second on the standardized account code structure form for the fiscal year 2018-19 budgets for the san francisco unified school district and san francisco county office of education. >> so moved -- >> go ahead, sorry. >> thank you. i need a second, please. >> second. >> thank you. mr. superintendent? >> we will have our chief financial officer, reeta batavan. >> good evening, commissioners and superintendent matthews. the requested action here is

that the board of education approve the fiscal year 2018-2019 adopted budget fore the san francisco -- for the san francisco unified school district and the county office of education in the official state formed prescribed by the state superintendent of public instruction in accordance with california education code sections 33129 and 42127. >> thank you. i don't have any public speakers signed up for this particular item. comments from the board or superintendent? seeing none, roll call, please. >> clerk: thank you. [roll call] >> clerk: five ayes. >> great. thank you. item 5 is a motion -- i need a motion and a second on the

resolution to approve the expenditure of state revenues received from the education protection account for fiscal year 2018-19. >> so moved. >> second. >> thank you. mr. superintendent. >> once again, our chief financial officer, reeta batavan. >> good evening. once again, the recommended action is that the san francisco unified school district and san francisco board of education approve the anticipated revenues anticipated to be received in 2018-2019 from the education protection account in accordance with the spending plan incorporated here in. >> thank you. i do not have any public comment on this particular item. any comments from the board or superintendent? seeing none, roll call vote, please. >> clerk: thank you. [roll call]

>> clerk: five ayes. >> thank you. item six, i call the public hearing to approve the substantiation for the need to maintain public reserves for the fiscal year 2018 through -- 2018 through -- okay. i have 29 in mine. is that 2018-19. >> 2018-19. >> okay. so 2018-2019 budget year and the subsequent two years that are greater than the state required minimum reserve for economic uncertainty. mr. superintendent. >> reading this into the record will be our chief financial officer, reeta matavan. >> thank you, mr. superintendent. the requested action that the san francisco unified school district and the san francisco county office of education approved the attached substantiation for the need to maintain budget reserves for

the 2018-2019 and the two years that are greater than the state required for two years for economic uncertainty. >> thank you. i have one speaker on this item. miss solomon. >> thank you, president m mendoza-mcdonnell. susan solomon, uesf. this is a topic i'm looking forward to have the public forum on because when we as a union are in negotiation with the district, one of the things that becomes a difficult point at the bargaining table is why the reserves are typically higher than the mandated reserve because what we often see, unfortunately, is a crisis such as the affordability crisis and the housing crisis, and it makes us wonder when we're at the bargaining table what the money is being held in reserve for when it seems like

an emergency. it sounds like that -- this topic is in contemplation of seeing crises coming up, and so since we -- just feels like we just finished negotiations, and it feels like they're practically around the corner, i look forward to having a deep discussion about what additionally these means in terms of salaries, wages and benefits for employees of the district and members tof uesf. thank you. >> thank you. comments from the board or superintendent? seeing none, roll call vote, please. >> clerk: thank you. [roll call] >> clerk: six ayes. >> thank you. so the public hearing is now adjourned, and we resume our

regular session. we're still in our special order of business. this is item 7. i need a motion and a second on a resolution authorizing the dissolution of the san francisco unified school district financing corporation and authorizing an indemnification agreement for such corporation and authorizing the taking of related actions in connection there with. >> so moved. >> second. >> great. thank you. superintendent? >> staff presenting this will be our general counsel, danielle houck. >> so for the board's clarification, i'm going to be able to answer your process questions, but miss matavan, of course is going to be our financial expert if you have questions about the corporation specifically. so tonight, the recommended action is that you approve the resolution authorizing the dissolution of the san francisco unified school district financing corporation and authorizing an indemnification agreement for such corporation and authorizing the taking of related actions in connection

therewith. >> thank you. so i do have a question on this. so our next item is calling a public hearing to convene the finance corporation, so we're -- >> we're dissolving it, and then we're -- >> can you just clarify that for me? >> sure. so you are moving as the school board to dissolve the corporation, but the school board must make a motion to dissolve itself, so your motion will go first. you'll open a public hearing, you'll convene as the finance corporation, and then you'll make a motion to dissolve the finance corporation. this is a two-part action. the board of ed can't by itself dissolve the corporation. you must convene the corporation to take a vote to do that. >> okay. great. thank you. are there any -- we don't have any public comment on this. any comments from the board or superintendent? okay. seeing none, roll call, please.

>> clerk: thank you. [roll call] >> clerk: six ayes. >> thank you. item 8, now i call a public hearing to approve action items as noted on the financing corporation agenda. and now recess the regular session of the board of education. so now, we are going into a different hearing. so we commence with the formal roll call, miss casco. >> clerk: thank you. [roll call] >> clerk: thank you. >> thank you. mr. superintendent, is there a staff report on the status of projects? >> no staff report at this time. >> thank you. i need a motion and a second, please on the approval of prior

meeting minutes of february 14, 2017. >> so moved. >> second. >> thank you. roll call vote, please clerk dlerk thank you. on the minutes -- >> clerk: thank you. on the minutes -- [roll call] >> clerk: that's six ayes. >> thank you. i now need a motion and a second on the appointment or rotation of new officers. >> so moved. >> second. >> thank you. the new officers will be as follows: hydro-mendo hydro-mendoza-mcdonnell is president of the financing corporation, former financing corporation president shimon walton is secretary treasurer of the financing corporation. could i get a roll call vote, please. >> clerk: thank you.

[roll call] >> clerk: and that's six ayes. >> thank you. i now need a motion and a second on the approval of resolution authorizing the dissolution of the san francisco unified school district financing corporation and authorizing an indemnification agreement. mr. superintendent, i was speaking. sorry. thank you. >> so moved. >> i need a second, please. >> second. >> thank you. mr. superintendent? >> our general counsel, don yell houck? >> the -- danielle houck? >> the resolution this evening is seeking dissolution of the san francisco unified school district financing corporation and authorizing an indemnification agreement. >> thank you. i have no speakers on this item. any questions or comments by the board or superintendent? seeing none, roll call vote, please. >> clerk: thank you.

[roll call] . >> clerk: six ayes. >> thank you. no one has signed up for any of the public comment. we have no other business. i now adjourn the public hearing of the sfusd financing corporation and resume the regular board immediate -- meeting of the board of education. so section f, proposals for action. if i hear no objection, i'd like to take items 1 through 4 in one vote, and then, we'll do the other two items. so seeing no objection, item 1 is board policy 5111.1, district residency. i need a committee report please, from rules. mr. sanchez? >> commissioner sanchez: yez, thank you. so this policy has to do with students whose assignments are revoked due to residency fraud, and the committee had taken it up earlier and staff had asked

the committee to come back with more information. we had a longer discussion about it last week. director rosina tom came and addressed the committee requesting a period of time for students to stay out of school that they had found to be fraudulently enrolled in right now. so we had kind of a little disagreement in committee about the time. we landed on essentially a month, so after a student has been deemed to be in the school fraudulently, the student will have about a month to depart the school. and the discussion really focused around really -- essentially, it's punishing -- dr. merase, you might want to chime in, too, punishing students for the miss deeds of their parents. so we really struggled with that. but at the end of the day, we came to the conclusion that they'll have a 14-day appeal process and then a 15-daytime

to leave the school, so it's about a month. dr. merase? >> yes. so my concern -- i really appreciate the staff lengthening time period for families to produce evidence if they believe they should be entitled to a seat. my issue was when to remove the student from the school. and i personally would like to hold the student harmless because it's the activity of the parent that is creating the situation. i am willing to move forward with the staff recommendation, but i still -- perhaps at a future time, i want to revisit whether -- it doesn't make more sense to allow the student to stay during the end of the school term -- i'm sorry, the semester, the school semester just because it's so disruptive for the student to leave during

the sem enter, and then do we -- semester, and then, do we assign students to school during the semester? i really don't have the answer to that. >> commissioner haney? >> i agree with commissioner merase. i think we spoke about this in one of the committees or the full board. [please stand by]

>> that's essentially where we landed with this. i can see the argument for the semester. although if the kid ends my dear, that's dramatic as well. you are still leaving in the middle of the year. these kids have been in school for years, and they will graduate next year, it will be traumatic as well. i don't know if counsel wants to add any of the staff post desk position, but that's what i would recommend to.

>> they did look at the data and staff report around the demographic of the parents who are perpetrating fraud, and the overwhelming majority owned homes. part of what i think the committee considered is this isn't just disproportionately impacting our most vulnerable students. the other thing the committee looked at is this fraud is happening at our over enrolled schools. so, i think those were other pieces that the committee considered in supporting the staff post-s recommendation. >> i will also add that i will be honest with you, i had the same question. when talking with staff, the other part of the recommendation was around the fraud piece and as soon as a period is over, because it is oversubscribed schools, there is someone waiting to take that seat. that was the position from sta

staff. >> to that point, can i ask, when that becomes available, too we fill it right away? or do we -- we are usually not moving kids until the end of the semester. i will look at commissioner sanchez because he probably has a battle handle of this... i do. my recollection from the presentation is that when fraud is typically discovered, it is still within the window to put a student who resides within the district into that seat. that is not the case with every time, but most of the time, we are catching this on the front end and able to put in that districdistrictstudents in the . >> a lot of kids, -- can i ask what some of the staff initial recommendation was? >> it was actually shorter. >> so 14 days total of appeals, and removal? >> so this

>> my memory is they are removed. there is usually some discrepancy on the paperwork. it triggers the investigation. not always. the other thing that was shown at the committee, even students who are discovered to be there midway through the year, they are students who could otherwise transfer due to safety concerns or other reasons that they might not be able to transfer. so we do need some flexibility with being able to move students.

midsemester, so if we have out of district students taking those seats, it reduces our flexibility to meet the needs of students who live in the area. >> the other thing is there is one person looking into all year round for the district. for the tens of thousands of applications that come through. but there's only, you know, one person doing the investigations. because this issue is, you know, -- this issue is why people leave the city. they do not want to go through the process. they think that we are going to allow more time, folks that are trying to get in the system, and it was deeply concerning to me. i supported this effort and this recommendation. i do think that the majority of

cases where fraud is being committed was plenty enough reasons to make the application -- or to make a midsemester change for a family that is committing fraud. on top of that, we did extend a window for people to dispute the fraud allegations. there's 14 days where you have time to disputed. in the event that there was something that happened there, there is ample time to have your case heard. but, you know, doing anything in the way of supporting or extending time around something that is really egregious i thought was inappropriate. so, i thought staff got around it. >> yeah, and i just want you to know that we are also here if there are other questions.

>> to wipe your just so we know what the numbers look like, we are talking about, couple of years ago it was 34 cases and last year was 48. it has been on the uptake. there is very little staff to review these applications to make sure that they are legitimate. >> how many of those were from the school? >> just last year, there was only seven. thirteen last year of the 48. the highlights are, the high fire schools -- high flyer schools are west portal and washington high, among others. >> that's interesting. any other questions? >> this one is an interesting

one. because i mean i kind of agree with as many of you around this table. it does feel like its a very abrupt -- it was not the kid post asphalt. it went on longer than 20 days. so this would be for the policy going forward next school year. is that correct? >> yes. >> and with the exception of extending the time around the notice to appeal, it is consistent with the status quo? >> o. k. on the 53, this past year, how many of them -- was there a timeframe that those were discovered? >> no.

>> do you know when the 53 were discovered? are those ones from the very beginning? it just seems to me we've always had kind of ongoing investigations and sometimes is from reporting, and then sometimes just from catching them on the applications. >> yes, that's right. gets ongoing. in most cases is when families call in because they are concerned about the application and that's how we catch them. >> i forgot to add. 418 and 19 there are 17 cases. ten of them are one school. the ten of the 17 going into next year. >> going into next year? o. k. >> how many months is the semester?

>> how long? this is true of er. how many months are in a semester in our school district? >> this four. >> so it would be sought from months? if they got busted in the very beginning of the semester, where they would get to state four months versus six months, if we were to go to the semester idea -- >> yes, i think that's right. >> i guess my viewpoint is it is very hard when a student moves to a new school in a new semester. they have to explain why. that's a tough thing -- i just feel like the student is impacted by it. the best possible solution is to have no fraudulent cases, and maybe we can strengthen our messaging. i know we do have messaging on our enrolment applications, but

to really make it very, very clear what the consequences are. but i still feel like i don't want the students to suffer what the parents may have done. >> are you suggesting -- from your point of view, you rather they would get released, or they leave at the semester? right. >> which is kind of how i felt. o. k. i guess we will vote on this and see what happens. if we vote on this and it is voted down, what would happen to the policy? >> if you don't, if the board tonight does not accept either the recommendation or the amended version that you are discussing tonight than the existing policy will remain until you approve a different policy. the existing policy is ten days to appeal and 11 days to exit

after you receive final notice. >> so i guess the question is whether or not there is an amendment that somebody would like to put forward to change the recommendations from rules to the semester, instead of the one month. >> that is correct. >> before you do an amendment i would like to bring back -- just a few questions for the full board about the process of this round. how frauds are being caught and i have more discussions of how we can go forward with an informed vote. can you speak to what the messaging is on the application that says what are the consequences for committing fraud for the district? >> yes. thank you commissioner. as a reminder too, the reason we have this infrastructure and process is because the board

asked us to created in 2010. there was concern that because we were having a lot of priorities that are connected with where you live, with the board wanted to make sure that we had mechanisms to make sure we could do everything we could add as strongly as possible to prevent fraud because of the equity issues for the families who are living in the city and don't get access to the schools that they might choose, or want to attend. so there's a lot of really strong language. it's in the enrolment guide. it's also written on the application form. i don't have it in front of me, but the language makes it really clear what the consequences will be. so i think, to the point about wanting to send a strong clear message, that we want to discourage fraud, we should, you know, consider that as we are contemplating changing, and what is a very difficult situation. in order to prevent fraud and provide the greatest opportunity

to serve the kids who do live in the city of san francisco. >> for the case of the school. , in the coming year, of the 17 work causes of fraud, what is the waitlist currently for both high schools? >> so, with the high school, we actually don't have a waitlist process. it is a competitive process to get accepted into the school. and so the offers are made in around one and what we do is we significantly over and roll the school with the assumption, because not everybody accepts the school when they sign up. we use a yield process in the hope we get to the desired enrolment numbers by the time the school opens. >> can you speak to how the waitlist process is going to be affected with the fraud process? for the other schools where it

is in play? >> we have a number of schools that are high demand schools and families who do not get in go on the waitlist in the hope that they get in. every time we do a run, they go through that process in the hope that they will get assigned. the only way families can get assigned from a wait pool is if seats open up in the high demand schools. we keep doing the rounds until the beginning of the school year, at which point, a few days after school, we do the last run, and family start to sign up to get an opportunity to get enrolled in the school at the semester break because they want to be able to have -- if they don't get the opportunity at the beginning of school, they look to get an opportunity for the second semester. the only way there's an opportunity and a second semester if there is a certain amount of attrition or openings that occur. that is how the process works for the high demand. >> so a change in the policy, if

we extend the window of time, all of the issues around harm are still in play. if we are trying to protect against some type of issue around trauma, all of that still happens but you leave the semester instead of missing a full semester. if there are cases where someone -- a parent is called for fraud and it sounds like its pretty clear in the application they know they are committing fraud when they are applying, if they get caught in the springs -- spring semester, the student spends the entire year at the school? what are the -- can you explain a little bit about the process for how a parent is contacted, what they are told about being caught, and how that transition works? >> i could, at a very high level without going into a lot of

detail, there is a pretty small team that is involved in this work. it's a pretty rigourous process where there has to be a lot of clarity around evidence that there is in fact fraud. we find that it's a quite sophisticated approach for the most cases that people go to quite extensive means to demonstrate that they, you know, have another resident and in many cases people do have a resident outside of the city. and so, you know, there is internal review to make sure, add to this conversation and opportunity for appeal discussions around it. is a personal process, but it's also a rigorous process to make sure we have evidence that they are in fact intentionally deceiving the system in order to gain access to the school.

>> so to be clear, there's no waitlist at the school? if the student leaves in the middle of the semester, that spot will not be taken up in the middle of the semester? >> no, maybe not off the waitlist, but it may well be taken up by a student who needs a seat in the school. you may have a, for example, a special ed student or another student to we need to place, and we won't have that seat to do that. >> so there are places for students at the school who are outside of the competitive entry process? >> there are a lot of students with iep at the school. >> and you said we do not, we generally play students who are on a waitlist at other schools at the beginning of a semester, not in the middle of a semester? >> yes. a lot of this is messaging from

the board. what is the message we want to send about residency fraud? and two families who have a lot of resources and go to a lot of extreme in order to gain access to our wonderful school? >> not all the families have a lot of resources or the circumstance. that is a generality. we have had cases come to us that we talked about that have come to meet directly that are not in that circumstance. i understand some of our homeowners in other places and things, but also, you know, talking about the children and the impact. >> go-ahead commissioner. >> i want to underscore that. we have a situation in this district where only seats that are available for midyear safety transfers, and students with i.e.p. tend to be at under enrolled schools, right? the over enrolled schools are full. if we believe that we want to create a mor more diverse schood

have a student who, again, through no fault of their own but needed a different school in the middle of the year for note for any reason, it seems to be having seats open at this school is a good thing. we would want to have that situation. and so, you know, particularly, i don't have a tremendous amount of sympathy, myself for families that are lying. i think that we have -- we've made this a very clear that the school is not a school that is open to out of district transfers. we have two schools in this district that we don't allow students from outside the district to attend. you know, i think the testimony about the lines that parents have to go to make it look like they actually have established residence here, when they haven't, shows that they are buried knowing about it. they have some resources. while i am sorry that, you know, it is disruptive to the stated,

i feel like we have a real responsibility to san francisco families first and, you know, we need to follow our own policy. >> i think that's actually a very good point that's being made pork i get -- this has always been one of those things, right, where there was a time when we had over 100 fraudulent cases and once we started to crack down on them, people were a lot more mindful about what they were putting -- the situation they were putting the student in. and you kind of triggered something for me, which is that we do want to hold students harmless. students also know they don't live in san francisco. so it is based on double messaging that we do not only to those who are filling out the application but reminders to students that, you know, this could happen to you should we discover that you don't live in san francisco. there is, you know, -- we often

times find out that students just to discover that they will get kicked out. what they didn't know is they would get kicked out. what they did know is they live in burlingame and they are going to school in san francisco. so i came it does put us in a really funky spot because you never know what the situation is for the family. so, the idea of, you know, wanting that person, that student to stay and have a clean cut when it comes to going to -- transferring to another school, is really important but it's also important we take care of our students but are san francisco residents. i think that when we went to a much stronger policy around what we are going to do and we started to actually act on it, it did make families think twice about trying to apply to a san francisco school when they weren't living there. you know, i guess we are giving

them a little bit more time. they're giving them months instead of a shorter amount of time. i actually, you know, unless there is going to be a recommendation for an amendment on this, i would actually be a-ok with this policy for now to see how it is instituted, unless others want to, you know. >> i was trying to wrap it up for you but if you want to keep talking about it, go ahead. >> i did not read this either. fourteen of the 17 are homeowners in another district. these are families with means. >> go-ahead. >> i will be supporting the recommendation, but by being on the prevailing side, i reserve the right to reopen in a year.

>> good moves. all right. [laughter] ok. that was number 1. [laughter] we are doing these four. unless you would like this item to be voted on separately, you would. ok. let's go ahead with item number 1. rollcall, please. [roll call] that's five yes. >> thank you. item number 1212. board policy, physical education activity committee report. mr sanchez? >> nothing to say. >> oh, but i have lots to say.

>> it was moved to the full board with positive recommendation. >> the recommendation on this item is the board approved board policy. physical education and activity. >> just for the sake of the public, is this the biggest change on the screen. >> the only change on this is to remove the temporary nature of the provision and make permanent alternative means to earn physical education credits, and the purpose of that is to serve students who are in different pathways. >> thank you. the policy received a positive recommendation. >> ok. so did the last one. [laughter] >> ok. i don't have any public comment on this. we are going out -- going to go

onto item number 3. high school graduation requirements. >> also, a positive recommendation from the full board. >> any major changes? >> there was no discussion at all. >> no discussion, and no changes. >> we gave this a positive recommendation. it is simply as several groups of students, cultural groups that are eligible for reduced graduation requirements instead of of our -- >> think you. item four, board policy, continuing education. commissioner sanchez? >> likewise, scent to the full board for a positive recommendation. >> any change on that? >> the change on this is to increase at the district post-s flexibility in dealing with students who need to be involuntarily transferred into a continuation school. again, they are assured due

process, but this allows us to take a student who has been -- who would otherwise be recommended for expulsion on a nonmandatory a fence and recommend them for continuation school where it is appropriate for the student. >> thank you. on board policy, on what policy items -- two, three and four, i have no public comment on it. actually.actually, on any of th. and any other comments from the board or superintendent on items two, three, or four? seeing none, rollcall on item two, three, and four. [roll call] six yes. >> thank you. items five and six, we will take together as well unless there's any objection to that.

ok so this is board policy, questioning and upper dutch apprehension by law enforcement. committee report? >> those are forwarded to the full board for recommendation. we did have a discussion -- i think i can talk more about it, but basically we wanted to be able to have these past so the administrators can be apprised of the new rules going forward that are contained within the resolutions o and the board policies. there are questions the public had about the nature of them. we do want to commit to a public dialogue with nonprofits and with the student advisory council and with parent groups to make sure that questions are answered. essentially, for the first policy, which is questioning and apprehension by law enforcement, schools -- if eight police come to a school, the school has to

try every means to reach a guardian or parent. if they don't, and can't for whatever reason, the student can be interrogated and questioned by law enforcement. that is the crux of some of the questions that are coming forward that maybe part of the public comments later. the second one, we did amend it. one part of it talks about search and seizure but it talks about perhaps adding to the very minimal metal detectors that we use right now, and if we were to enhance our metal detector capacity for the future, it would have to come to the board for approval. >> thank you. i have one speaker for both items five and six. [please standby] brought these

policies to my attention.hese just looking forward to the opportunity to continue to have that discussion and make amendments as needed in the fall. thanks. >> great. thank you. so on board policy.

any other comments from the board or the superintendent? okay. so seeing none -- so we're voting on item 5 and item 6 miss casco. roll call, please. >> clerk: thank you. [roll call] >> clerk: six ayes. >> okay. thank you. so item 7 is the superintendent's proposal 186-12 fp 3, authorization for material revision to the san francisco sheriff's five keys charter school petition. it was moved and seconded for june 12 and referred for action to this meeting. superintendent matthews >> so we'll have the director of policy and planning charter

schools, michael davis read this into the record. >> thank you, dr. matthews. the proposed action is that san francisco unified school district board of education approve a material revision to the 2350i6b keys charter school charter and five keys indepentant charter school petitions to add some santa clara county sites that will be operated in conjunction and cooperation with the santa clara county sheriff's office. so according to charter school law, if a charter school is going to add additional sites, those sites must be listed in the petition, and to list those in the petition, you have to do what's called a material revision. so to do a material revision, we had to also review the current charter school petitions, which were renewed by this board in january of 2016, most recently, to make sure that everything is up to

date. so after doing that, we have asked that the five keys charter school make three basic changes to the charter petitions for five keys charter school and five keys independance high school charter, and those would be one, to amend element 10, student discipline, to make sure that the student discipline section meets all the requirements of the law that was adopted january 1, 2018. to add a miscellaneous charter provision section and insert a listing of all of the operational sites, including the new santa clara -- proposed santa clara sites. to insert a new operational budget for the period july 1, 2018 through june 30, 2021 to reflect the fiscal impact of the additional sites. and lastly to amend the required affirmations