thank god. thank you. that concludes our translation

services. we are good to go. yes okay. so. let's go back to have you try one more time, which it says the access is updated. and maybe. good evening everyone. i will now reconvene this regular meeting at 6:32 p.m. and i want to thank all of the members of the public who have prioritized the school board meeting over the debate, we are grateful. we

hope it won't be quite as there won't be as many sparks flying, but we hope that it will be a good meeting, i'd like to announce that childcare will be provided from 6 to 9 p.m. for children ages 3 to 10. the childcare is just across the hall in the enrollment center here on the first floor, i would also like to note that public comment on all items will be heard under section e, public comment, which includes public comment for both agenda items and non agenda items. if you would like to make public comment, you must turn in a speaker card, if you are a student, please write student on top of your speaker card and you may turn them in here, here, here. if you're online, if time permits, and we will make every effort to do this to get to online public comment as well, and you'll just be able to raise your hand at the time that we get there. there is information on public comment on our website. and just want to note also that there we have acknowledged that there is some

tension between providing as much time as possible for public comment, which we really want to do, and starting board business by more or less around 8 p.m. so that we can complete our business meeting by 10 p.m. so that we're not making decisions in the middle of the night. so we're trying to balance those tensions, to be able to provide public access to both the meetings and to public comment, and we're working to strike that right balance and are actually actively considering and seeking feedback. so if you have feedback about public comment, please let us know, and we're going to keep sort of iterating on that over the next couple of months. all right. i'm going to give now the report from closed session. oops. no i'm not. i am going to yes, i'll do the report on closed session and then vote on student expulsion matters. is that okay? all right. so the report on closed session is in the matter of student cr versus

sfusd. oh, case number (202) 406-0161. the board, by a vote of seven ayes, gives the authority of the district to pay up to the stipulated amount and in one matter of anticipated litigation, the board, by a vote of seven ayes, gives direction to the general counsel. so now we will vote on student expulsion matters. i move approval of the stipulated expulsion agreement of one high school student, matter number. (202) 420-2501 from the district for one calendar year, from the date of approval of the expulsion, student will be placed at a county program. during the expulsion period. can i have a second? second, roll call, please. miss lena, student delegate montgomery. oh, i'm sorry you're not closed session. okay. commissioner bogus. yes. commissioner fisher. commissioner. lamb. yes. commissioner kim. yes

commissioner sanchez. yes vice president ward. yes. and president alexander. yes. that's six ayes. thank you. now we will. i will read our land acknowledgment. we, the san francisco board of education, acknowledge that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the ramaytush ohlone, who are the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. as the indigenous stewards of this land, and in accordance with their traditions, the ramaytush ohlone have never ceded, lost nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. as guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the ramaytush community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. now, i'd like to move to the next agenda item, which is approval of board minutes for the regular meeting of august 13th, 2024 and the

special meeting of august 27th, 2024, may i have a motion and a second on those minutes? so moved. second. any corrections to the minutes? if not, we'll do a roll call. vote please. miss lina. commissioner. bogus student advocate. montgomery. yes. commissioner. bogus. yes. commissioner fisher. yes. commissioner lamb. yes. commissioner. kim yes. commissioner. sanchez. yes. vice president. wiseman. ward. yes. and president. alexander. yes. that's seven ayes. thank you. now i will move to the superintendent's report. doctor wayne. thank you. good evening everyone, we're in september already. and this is, next slid,

this is latinx heritage month, and so i want to recognize that, you know, this month, we'll join the nation in celebrating latinx heritage month from september 15th to october 15th to highlight the diversity, brilliance, and beauty of the latinx community. and this past saturday was an exciting day in sfusd. we held an event for families to launch our latinx community council. parent leaders worked with staff to host families at mission high to share more about the council, provide resources to families, play games, and enjoy a meal together, and it was really nice to see families that come together and our parent leaders step up. and this this council has been a long time coming, so we're glad that we were able to start it. i want to appreciate board president alexander and commissioners kim and bogus for attending. and you know, you see the sign for the kickoff. it said food resource fair music. i can attest there was music and

there was even a little dancing. with the superintendent, so it was a very nice saturday, next slide. already have exciting projects that our students are working on. we have two seniors at lincoln high school who have started this initiative. this is emma lee and anthony chung, with using grant money from the youth empowerment fund, they're expertly running operation stem. and so this stem stands for science, technology, engineering and math. and the stem provides services to underserved youth. are their packages provide services to underserved youth in elementary schools across san francisco. and the initiative hopes to ensure that all students of all backgrounds have the chance to explore new fields and subjects and enjoy the process of learning. so their goal is to distribute 250 stem packages. so these are ones that they created. you can see them holding them by the end of the school year. so love seeing our students take that leadership

initiative and supporting their younger classmates, a couple weeks ago, i was thrilled to attend the grand opening of a new free grocery store at doctor martin luther king junior middle school. the grocery store initiative came together with the help of the ymca of greater san francisco and gooder, a nonprofit addressing food waste in amazon. and so the store, stocked with fresh fruits and vegetables and other materials. and, you know, we talk about one of our guardrails is a serving the whole child. and this is an example of, you know, of leaders in our school being able to offer support for families. so that our students can focus on what they're learning in the classroom and not on where their next meal will come from, if you go to the next slide, i know we just started the school year, but the enrollment fair and enrollment season starts happening again for the next year, on october 19th, we have the fair at balboa high school, and we'll have a lot of information. if you go to the next slide about our, i don't know where the next slide went,

but about our resource alignment initiative. and, and that's where we're talking about. i always say it's not a euphemism, really. how we align our resources to stop, to support our goals and guardrails. and we've been, you know, going through this process to look at our staffing, our programs, our use of facilities. and we've been talking about also the number of schools we have and the need for school closures. and so, we'll be providing updates about that on september 18th and talking through the next steps of our plan, as well as how we're supporting staff and working with our families and making sure we're ready for the next steps. so there'll be a lot more information on that in the coming weeks. oh, there it is. and and i look forward to sharing. thank you. thank you, doctor wayne. our next agenda item. well, the next item listed is the fiscal advisors report. but i spoke with elliot ducharme, our advisor, and he's

going to give his report as part of agenda item. g one on guardrail for and resource allocation, because it's very much connected. so we're just going to fold that into that part of the meeting, but he is, i believe, here. and we're glad that he's here with us, so the next item is the ad hoc committee on fiscal and operational health, a really critical board initiative that is being led by commissioner lamb. thank you so much, president alexander. so i just wanted to note that the ad hoc committee on fiscal and operational health last met on august 7th, 2024. pretty straightforward as far as the agenda item was to review the dashboard, the fiscal and operational health dashboard. we had deep discussion and want to thank doctor huntoon for her leadership and being the staff lead on that and being able to

speak to the progress that is being made and really the intent there from the ad hoc committee is being able to support, to understand if there is to the root causes of where we may be at. either making progress or not, and understanding what is necessary, needed in order to continue making progress and moving forward to meeting our goals, i'm really excited to also note that the public dashboard on fiscal and operational health is live. it is on the school district's website under ad hoc committee on fiscal and operational healt. and there you will find in detail the due dates, the tasks, the owner which was also very important. which department owns, that task and the description of the deliverables. so we will continue meeting on a monthly basis. getting to the details of progress and wanted to appreciate that this

committee will be meeting consistently through the end of this fiscal year. thank you so much, commissioner lamb, did you want to add something? i just want to clarify, i think we met earlier this month. i think you said we met. our last meeting was august, but we met september 3rd. yes thank you, vice president wiseman ward. you're keeping me on straight. thanks yeah. thank you. and i was going to say thank you to commissioner lamb for your leadership. and again, just underscoring what she said, in terms of the dashboard, i mean, this is really, unique work. i think there aren't a lot of school districts that you've seen this level of transparency and accountability. around fiscal progress. and we need it because there's been, as we've acknowledged, a decade or more of fiscal and operational challenges in sfusd that we're we're in the process of cleaning

up, essentially. and so that is the purpose of this committee. and this dashboard is really so that we can all the board and the public can monitor progress. so we really encourage folks to look at it and ask questions. reach out to us if you have questions about it or suggestions as well, all right. so the next agenda item is our student delegates report. student delegate langston, good evening. good evening everyone. thank you, president alexander, unfortunately, my fellow student, delegate lee, could not be here today. but this report is coming on behalf of not only her, but also our sac president, jasmine zen, because we've all been working super hard with, we worked and collaborated with assistant superintendent goldwasser and we all three of us were mobilizing and organizing, to create a strong sac to hit the ground running. once we have our first meeting

that will happen on september 16th. this coming monday. and we are happy to report that even before the first meeting, we have one of the most represented student advisory councils in the last couple of years, we are only missing two schools, and we're still working really hard to get those two schools represented, and we really think we can fill those seats. and i'm excited to lead sac into the new chapter this year and passed this representation and, a strong sac on to future generations. happy to be a junior as well, because i get to help facilitate that process, even more, this year and next year, so we're we're super excited. we got that meeting on the 16th. we're going to be welcoming everybody in, get sac on the ground running, and we hope to see a lot of you at future sac meetings, because we really want to have a strong collaboration with everybody this year, to have a really strong representative student body this year. thank you. thank you and really appreciate that

work. sfusd for a long time has been a leader in terms of student leadership on the board of education and the student advisory council. but there are, of course, ebbs and flows in kind of the energy and involvement and just really grateful for your kind of it's like a, again, a resparking of the, of this work and taking leadership. so thank you so much for ensuring that everyone is truly is at the table and represented and that there's the it is it is what it's intended to do. so thank you for your leadership, all right. we're going to move to public comment. so, to only two cards. oh, okay. so, wonderful. last call. i see a card floating out there. since we only have two cards, we'll be flexible and allow you to get your last card in here, so. and we'll definitely have time for online public comment, too. so. all right, do you, do you want to begin? we'll call these three names. so brandy, galen and supriya. and again, our, our we

do one minute per speaker, and, then we'll after these speakers will move to online public comment. deborah okay. hi. my name is randy markman. i'm a public school parent. let's turn this on. okay. thank you. hi. my name is brandy markman. i'm a public school parent. i want to comment specifically on the guardrail of staffing and retention. we know what a problem that has been at sfusd. may i suggest that hiring, having a contract with teach for america, which is a pro-charter school organization, was not the way to solve our teacher shortage problem. the way to have solved this is to have gotten to have listened to our union and gotten rid of our horrible payroll service. a year before it was actually done. i just want to reflect again and remind people that we are a

school district that experienced a recall that was funded by charter school billionaires to the tune of a $2 million campaign. and you can see that throughout this, a lot of the, the, the guardrails are focused on standardized tests. and that is and it's not a co-governance model. and this is not something healthy for our district. thank you. hello. my name is galen. i'm a parent at san francisco community school, we are curious how we are going to solve staffing issues when there's no affordable way to become a teacher in san francisco with with the pathways on hold, like, it's really difficult to become a teacher and get all the certifications and you have to have money and backing and support to, you know, do internships and all the things that lead to a position. right?

and if pathways is closed or paused and there doesn't seem to be any other way to bring people in, how is combining schools and just basically moving a classroom going to conjure a teacher very curious how the staffing problem is going to be solved by just putting more children in the classroom, we are asking the commissioners to, tell sf usd to pump the brakes on this. we do not need to announce potential closures right before admissions like you're doing it like the day before enrollment, and it's just going to wreak havoc. thank you. good evening everyone. i'm supriya ray, and i'm coming tonight to speak to make public comment about the cboc. i wanted to thank the board for bringing the cboc in and the cboc for coming in and giving us a repor. it's really important for the public to know what the citizens

bond oversight committee is doing. and to you know, recognize what their role is in overseeing our bond funding, especially as we come up to asking the public to pass another bond this november. so i just really want to appreciate their work and also ask this board to make sure that it continues to conduct oversight and accountability and hold folks accountable in the bond department. so that we ensure we have proper oversight of the that the spending of that funding here as well, not just via the cboc and encourage cooperation between the staff and the members of the cboc so they get the information they need to fulfill their responsibility. thank you. that concludes in-person public comment. we'll move on to our virtual public comment. if you care to give public comment at this time, please raise your hand. each speaker will have one minute. can we please have that repeated in spanish and chinese? buenas noches. aqui es personas quieren hacer su comentario

publico, por favor. levanten la mano y este comentario publico tiene una diblasio de un minuto. por parte, gracias. a. jessica, come, let us find out how you guys, and we can get going. thank you. thank you vanessa. hi. good evening. can you hear me? yes, we can hear you. okay. thank you. alicia. hi. my name is vanessa. i'm the executive director for parents of public schools of san francisco. and i see that we have, numerous parents online as well as in the room. one of the things i wanted to mention was that i reached out to the chair of the ad hoc fiscal and accountability operational committee and have not heard back. so i am politely requesting that chair lam,

please respond to my email. the second is relating to the guardrails. i'm super concerned about chronic absenteeism. i looked at our dashboard last night, and though there has been slight very slight progress, we are still in the yellow orange and red, especially for latino and black students with ieps and foster youth, so i think that that needs to be a priority for the district. and the last is related to the guardrail, about resource allocation, and maybe all the guardrails. i don't see any data to support any improvements or any of these areas of deficit. so please add the data that supports that. thank you. thank you. anna or anna? hi, i'm anna gracia. i am a parent of kids at a public

school, and i also used to be a teacher within the district, so i just want to make two points. number one, when i was teaching within the district, which admittedly was a number of years ago, i had a problem with the overcrowding of classes where there weren't enough desks, there weren't enough textbooks. you know, trying to wrangle classes with that many kids. and people don't even have anywhere to sit. it's a nightmare. as a teacher and consolidating schools will simply push class sizes up, which i think any teacher can tell you. the best way to manage a classroom is to have less kids in it, not more, and second of all, i think the issue of salaries like we can't retain teachers because we don't pay them enough. i literally had to leave my job because i couldn't afford child care, on a teaching salary in the city. and this was years ago, and it just keeps going up. and so i think that if we're going to get serious about resource allocation or whatnot, you know,

their money is somewhere we have to find it for the teachers, and we're not gonna be able to hire anyone. thank you. i think ccac. my apologies. this is kelly. i'm the cac chair calling for two reasons. one, for the interim goals. once again, i'm almost begging you to please include students with ieps, homeless foster care youth, low income families, as well as far as staffing, this is for mr. ducharme. a while back, you said that special education is off the table because it's legally mandated. i am asking you, when it comes to what's going on with the staffing shortages, to please prioritize special education, staffing, the impact on families and educators is

profound. please work with the cac and special education partners as things unfold. thank you so much for everything that you do. thank you. renee. yes. hi. can you hear me? yes, we can hear you. okay. i'm a school, i work at jordan for the past 12 years. it's the smallest public high school in san francisco, and we serve the largest population of black. poor and disabled students. if this plan moves forward without a focus on equity, our students will be the ones suffering and quite frankly, it's a pattern that we've seen before. we had school closures ten years ago, and we're in the same position, and it's going to affect disproportionate minority and vulnerable populations. if this list comes out on the 18th and

it is impacting our schools, impacting small schools, impacting small schools by design, which have lower class sizes in order to serve our disabled, black and poor students, then it's really going to give lie to the idea that the district cares at all about equity. so i urge you to reconsider putting out a list. the school closure list has not addressed the fiscal impact. where is the fiscal impact report and the school board itself has told us that these school closures are not going to save money. so what are we doing? thank you. charles hello, my name is charles, and i would like to commend the visibility of the fiscal and operational dashboard, i think that the there are rumors that there will be 10 to 15 schools that will be closed, and that will not be enough. so we need to start to be honest with the public about what percentage of school staff will be cut. will it be 10%?

will it be 20% or even 33%? so what will class size be at middle and high school? will it be 40 or 50 students in class, my fear is that rather than cut, the 400 million less students will be offered in-person education or perhaps a special tax will be put on the ballot for november of 2025 to cover the difference. but is the facility master plan even accurate now, with the school closures, why was $30 million spent on the empower payroll system that never worked properly? why were the pandemic relief funds spent on backfilling deficits instead of learning loss, were any of those pandemic funds used for huge cash bonuses? please be responsible financially. thank you. thank you. miss marshall. good evening everyone. on behalf of the naacp, san francisco

branch and all, all african american, black and brown children in the school district, we beg you, we implore you not to close schools that will affect negatively black and brown students in this district. i don't know, i keep saying keep reminding you as far as we know, you probably spent more. you wasted $44 million on a payroll system and the last board meeting parents, teachers still say they're not being paid properly. you spend another 10 million on a consultant, probably more than that. so you found money for that. and then you have to do this study. why would you have to spend money on a stanford study when you have a whole, whole enough staff here to have done that as part of their jobs, or cbos who have done that are all of these of these all of these businesses

who could have done that free for you so you won't save any money, you'll just harm children. so please do not close any schools. thank you. thank you. that concludes our virtual public comment. thank you, and thank you to all the members of the public who have commented. we appreciate and value your input. and, we you also are welcome to email us, and get in touch with us that way. so thank you very much. and again, really appreciate it, we will now move on to our first discussion item, which is our update on our goals and guardrails. and for members of the public who are not familiar with this process, we the board has adopted a new governance approach, which is aligned with our superintendent's evaluation because our our job as the school board is to really represent you all the community of sfusd and of san francisco,

in in holding the community's vision and the community's values. and we have one employee, which is our superintendent, doctor matt wayne, and then he directs the operations of the school district. and we hold him accountable using our goals and guardrails. the goals are academic goals that are in third grade literacy, eighth grade math and college and career access. so those are kind of the measuring the progress of our students, the learning of our students. obviously, there's a lot more to it than just those three areas, but those are sort of indicators that we've chosen, to, to focus on so that we can focus on our students and their learning. we also have what we call guardrails, which are sort of i would describe them as kind of values based boundaries for the superintendent, where representing, again, san francisco values the values of our sfusd community. we say to the superintendent, you can't go outside of these boundaries. so he's going to give us a review of the goals and guardrails and

of and of how they're being measured. so the board sort of sets these goals and guardrails. and then the superintendent says here, here's how i'm going to measure them on a detailed basis, which are called the interims. basically the interim goals and interim guardrails. so this is the board's opportunity to give him feedback on those interim goals and guardrails. and if we need to make any changes to the goals and guardrails, we can discuss that here tonight. this is not an action item. so we won't be taking action on them, but we can discuss any changes. we might might like to propose. so, with that i will turn it over to superintendent wayne. thank you for that introduction. president alexander. and, yes, i'm pleased to be having this discussion about our interim goals and guardrails. as you mentioned, this is part of my evaluation. but also we do progress monitoring at our workshops. and last year when we were doing the progress monitoring, it was very helpful to talk about and to be pushed on like, what's our strategic thinking about how we're meeting, meeting our goals

and our interim goals and what have been successful, what were bright spots and what do we need to do differently? one challenge that came up, particularly with the guardrails, was the guardrails are in the interim, guardrails. those measures are an interpretation of the guardrail. so whereas for a goal like third grade literacy, it makes sense to say, okay, we're going to look at literacy achievement. then in kindergarten or first grade or, third grade or with different student groups like we focus on our african american and pacific islander kindergartners with the guardrails. it's been more challenging to identify what are the appropriate measures to reflect what we're trying to accomplish. and we and for some of them, i think we did well for others, there was a lot of discussion as we presented the progress monitoring report. so as we do progress monitoring this year, we want it to be clear and have this be the opportunity to have a discussion on what those interims are. as

president alexander said, through the process, we've agreed to go through. we don't need board action on it. i'm supposed to present the interims, but we want to make sure there is a shared understanding. so when presenting the progress monitoring on an interim on a guardrail in a few months, we're not questioning or wondering like, why is this the measure? so with that being said, i'll actually share my screen. i wanted to show we attached two documents. one was a presentation that when we get to talking about them, might be better. easier just to work off the presentation. but i just wanted to show what was added, because this document. do we see it? yeah. this document, i'll make it a little bigger to shares the goals and also just shows our progress for 2324. a lot of this you've seen in our progress monitoring reports, but we thought it might be helpful to have in one place to recognize where we did make progress as well as where we didn't. and so first, at the top. so the way this is organized, you see the goal, what our target was for 2425 and

then our actual and then between the goals and interim guardrails, like did we meet two thirds of the interim interim guardrails. and then we show for school year 2425 what our new target is. and then, then we'll see where how we do on the actual you'll notice that for the for the overall goal, we don't have a new target because we didn't meet it. and this is going to be a critical year because we still have an opportunity to stay on path towards meeting our very ambitious five year goals we set two years ago. of having 70% of students at at grade level in third grade, we got some encouraging news because those students who will be third graders in 2027 were our kindergartners the last year. and they did show progress, and a progress to make us think that we have a chance for them to

meet that goal. we also have a new curriculum and we have instructional coaching. but if we're not seeing progress after this year, it's going to be a lot harder for us to actually get to that goal. so that will be something we'll need to consider as we present the monitoring reports on this. and then what we did is we updated the interim guardrail goals to keep kind of keep us on target, as well. so as i said, the goals are more straightforward. so i'm just scrolling through these here and you can see on this document we put in red what's different from the year before. just for easy comparison for guardrail. so let's talk about the guardrails. and i think the one that i think is going to be subject to most discussion tonight is guardrail one, this is one on effective decision making without, that will not make decisions without utilizing a process that includes meaningful consultation with parents, guardians, students and staff who will be impacted by those decisions at the inception. adoption and review.

so like when we have a major decision like school closures, we've been consulting with families. at the beginning, we said very transparently to families, we're not going out to ask you to tell us, you know, which schools should close. like we went out to say, here's why we need to take this action. but we wanted to understand what should we be considering when making that decision? like we heard from a community member, say, you should be considering the impact on historically underserved students. and then as we move forward with adoption and review, we're going to need to, also make sure we're consulting the community. so after september 18th and over the next few months, we'll be talking about this decision and consulting with the community as we adopt, as we adopt that decision. in the meantime, how do we measure this value? so i say this is going to be a lot of discussion. we had measures last year that more spoke to the quantity of the engagements, rather than like the quality or how the feedback was used. so didn't yet have a revised metric

for it. and we did have one to try to capture staff. but this will definitely be a subject of discussion tonight, i think for guardrail two, it was that one was we had more straightforward metrics around chronic absenteeism and sense of belonging. we also are under, state. oversight for oversight over, i guess a state watch for, the, the number of african american students who are suspended or expelled. and so targeting that area as a way to show that we're serving the whole child, for guardrail three, we really for this this year realized we had a lot of good talks last year about like, what are the strategies and how are they having an impact? well, the main strategy we're investing in is in in instructional coaches. tk to five. so that's where we're targeting the see the progress we're making around guardrail

three. guardrail four. we also changed and wanted to include and particularly in guardrail 4.3 like basically if we follow our dashboard so that we have that that detailed progress monitoring, we should be implementing these new processes for budget, procurement, payroll and financial workflows by the beginning of the school year. and then lastly, there's a collaboration with the city and will not impede collaboration with different partners like the city philanthropic organizations to advance the district's goals and values. so we tried to tie these to what we think is important and to show alignment. so we have working with the city, we have a guardrail. we still need are collecting the data about how we're aligned and then want to continue with the one around internships. i know that seems more related to college and career readiness, but we get those internships and we were able to increase them by increasing our partnerships with

the city and with with businesses and organizations. so we kept that one, so that's the overview. and with that, i think if we want to talk to one, maybe we can put back on the, the presentation, i will just leave this up and see where it goes. but, i look forward to the discussion. thank you. doctor wayne. so just a reminder to colleagues that this is our last opportunity to comment on the metrics for the interims, because last year we did have a number of conversations during the monitoring workshops saying we didn't think the metrics were sufficient. and so this is our last opportunity to complain about those no complaints after this about the metrics. so let me open it up. i know it's never stopped us before. she said, yes, it's true, but we really want to be disciplined about this because again, this is our time to talk about. are the metrics appropriate. and then once we do the monitoring reports we're going to talk about, did we meet them and did

the does staff have a strategy moving forward to do better and all that. so, so let me first just ask, i know there's i've heard there's one issue that we definitely want to talk about, but let me just open it up. what are the issues that people want to discuss? are there any particular goals or guardrails that that board members want to put on the table for discussion? no surprise. yeah, guardrail number five. okay. guardrail five. what else? let's just list them first, and then we'll go through them. president alexander guardrail one, guardrail one. i guess i have something in regards to the interims and the way that they're reported out in relation to the conversation, i guess i would just want to highlight as well for all the guardrails or goals or whatever. it's an overarching thing. okay any others? same. i just have an

overarching adjustment of the percentages down in in places where we didn't meet. just an overarching question. okay any other. commissioner kim no. okay. all right. great. so let's, why don't we start with those two comments. let's go to commissioner bogus and then commissioner fisher to make the overarching comments. then let's go to commissioner lamb to open up a conversation about guardrail five. and then we'll wrap up with guardrail one, because that may be a longer discussion. is that all right with everyone? great. thank you for letting me start. i think the thing that i have been struggling with through this process, with the way that the interims have worked out, is i don't feel like i understand what's driving the decision making behind the decisions. the district is making on the numbers that are chosen, except for the expectation that they can be met and how it kind of relates to a broader overall strategy about how we're

improving things for students and kind of better reaching our goals. and i think maybe that's something that we can talk about, and there's more clarity on that. but i think for some of these, i'm not sure why some of these numbers are here and how we're projecting the growth. it kind of feels like for some of these interim goals, we're essentially setting a number. and it's kind of like a guess. and we're going to just try to get to it. but it's not i think maybe grounded in, i guess, the reality of what's possible. and so i think for me, just a little bit of a struggle with that, and i think wondering how that relates to some of the inability we had to meet some of those goals during the first year and how we're planning to do a better job of overcoming, clearly known obstacles or challenges that we have in the district. and i mean, some of that relates to the item that's coming up later, but i just wanted to kind of share that of just not necessarily seeing a through line between the goals or the guardrails and the interims and how they connect to our broader strategy. and so just really want more clarity around that. yeah. so i think

there were there were two questions. one is how do we get the targets right? and then how are they connected to our strategy. so i see doctor ritu khanna, it came down, if you could doctor khanna share more about, you know like and i think particularly around the interim goals. right. how we got to those new targets for the interims. and then i'll share a little bit about the connection to the strategies. so, for example, like why we got, you know, last year for interim goal 1.1, our target was 48%. we achieved 50%. why is it 60% now? whereas interim goal 1.2, the target was 57%. we met that. now it went up to 62%. so the targets were based on definitely. number one thing was

looking at the 2027 goal, which was, at a total of 70%. and then backwards mapping it from there. and the way it was designed is that when it was a whole grade level, the target was set at 5%, especially if we did not meet it. however, if it was a small group, like if it was african american, pacific islanders in the interim goal, or if it was english language learners or latino students, or the early warning indicator students. any small group, the target was accelerated to 8%, so 5% for a full group, which is a grade level group, and for every targeted group within the grade level, it was put higher at 8%, i guess. could you just clarify where those percentages come

from and what they reflect as far as best practices or like they're relating to the strateg? yeah, it was definitely related to the fact that we have to reach by 2027, the 70%. so it's backwards mapping from that 70% target. okay. so i guess then my last follow up question on this and i can move forward is so then how do we know that these are realistic goals that we're going to meet? i guess that's what i'm struggling with. because if we're setting the goals based off what we as the board set like, i love that. like do it. but if you're not doing it, i guess it makes me wonder, are these realistic? are these real goals that we have real plans to accomplish? and i guess just more clarity. so thank you for the question. so at this point, i am going to reiterate what the superintendent has said, which is this is our year to really see how realistic these are, because this is the year we have adopted a new curriculum and put

coaches in some of our elementary schools, for which, you know, the targets have been set. so, you know, it is our year of testing this out. so thank you. i'm going to build on commissioner bogusz question a little bit as a special education advocate. goals to me are accountability mechanisms, right. they are like the way the iep process works by federal law is to simplify. it needs drive goals, goals, drive services. you figure out what a student's area of need is. you write a measurable goal and then you put the appropriate services in place to meet that goal. right. and that's what i was hoping this process would be. so when a student doesn't meet their iep goals, we get together as a team and we do a deeper dive into why not? what additional services do we need to put in place so that next year the student will meet

a similar goal? right. and so to me that's the piece that's missing here. what i don't see. and maybe we will talk about that in the next section. is when we are not meeting our goals. what resources are we putting in place to get us to the point of actually meeting the goals? what strategies are we applying? what where are we adjusting? so the this is where i think strategically, i'm not seeing i'm not seeing what we're doing other than adjusting numbers. right. and you are correct. you are not seeing that and you wouldn't hear. that's in the monitoring report. so like for the math one, you know, we did a report where we shared some of the strategies and kind of the board voted not to accept, but i think we saw like,

okay, it wasn't demonstrating how we would make that progress. so we're going to do another math progress monitoring report, actually in two weeks. and then we'll be talking about the strategies. and that's where we get to see like okay, do we accept it as that's where you then answer the question, do we accept it as there's evidence that this will actually move us towards a target or no. well, and to follow up so when we're not meeting our goals, one of our options as a board is to request more frequent monitoring reports. right. like potentially monthly updates, things like that. so we don't get to the point of reviewing these goals at the end of the year to be surprised that we're even further off track. so i think that that's really my bigger ask here is for any of the goals that we didn't meet or guardrails where our interims were not met. last year, president alexander, have we considered requesting additional monitoring reports on a more regular basis from the leadership team from the superintendent to make sure that

we actually do get back on track? this year, and if not, i respectfully request that we do. yeah. thank you, commissioner fisher. i think that's a really good point. and i think it's something that that some of us have, discussed. and i think, again, so the so the members of the public understand what, what we're all referring to here is that right now we're just talking about what the goals are, but we have what are called workshop sessions or monitoring sessions where we go in depth on one of the goals. so superintendent just referred to the eighth grade math goal. we had an in-depth conversation and the three questions we ask at those sessions are are we meeting the goal, yes or no? if we're not meeting it, are we making progress toward it? yes or no? if we're not making progress toward it, do we? is the board convinced that we have a plan that's sufficient to make progress toward it, which was kind of to your point, commissioner fisher? and so and actually, in that case, the as we just said, the board actually said, no, we weren't convinced. i mean, we saw some good things

in there for sure, but we weren't convinced that it was sufficient. and so the superintendent just said, okay, i'm going to come back to you in a couple of weeks with a better plan, you know? and so hopefully we will be convinced at that point. right. so i think that is how this process is, is intended to work. i think, again, to your point, 100%, i think it would make sense to if we feel like we need to as a board, do that more frequently when we're not, when we're not meeting the goal. so what i would recommend or suggest is that we do that for each goal or guardrail at the monitoring session. so if like so let's say we come to the math monitoring session, we say you know, either we are or we are not convinced or even if we are convinced, you know, we're not meeting the goal. so we want to monitor more frequently and then we just need to schedule it. i mean, that's the other thing i would say is that may mean more meetings. we would need to call some special board meetings to fit it in the calendar. because right now our our we filled the board calendar. but i but i agree, i actually it's something that i think would be really

helpful for us and for the public, particularly on these areas where we're not where we're not meeting the goal. so i guess i would just ask us maybe to at each monitoring session, let's bring that up as a question. if we want to say, let's monitor this more frequently, we can make that decision together at the at that session. thank you. sorry. yeah. now it's your turn commissioner lamb to talk about guardrail five. my favorite topic, just some feedback and you know, certainly we've had this conversation with the superintendent and the staff i think particularly for 5.1, the city collaboration, you know, at this time, the way that it's stated is about, you know, bringing departments together and being able to have, you know, one meeting and then increasing that to six city department meetings. i think what i'm still striving for in the essence and the spirit in putting together guardrail number five, was going back to, you know, thinking about, you

know, what are the kpis, what are the key performance indicators or operations or performance that would be able to get to, how are we approaching our partnerships differently? i feel like bringing departments together is one thing to meet, but what are we taking away from that, and the reality is our resources are shrinking, so we have to be even more strategic and more intentional about the resources from the city and how we work with the city. and so that's something that i just want to continue to stress into. that while that right now is named more as a quantity, how will we then that be shifted overall to measurable around, let's say, you know, kpis, you know, and i don't know if our coach, a.j. crabill, is listening. he'll say it better than i, but he did note, like, around guardrails, there's early outputs and later outputs, right? that when you're

first starting to measure a guardrail, figure it out. that might just be the quantity. but you're right. so as a as a concrete example of where maybe we can get to later outputs is so there are decisions in our eye that we want to make sure there's collaboration for example around early childhood. right. we know there is a need for greater early childhood services in in the city. and we do talk to the department of early childhood about that. but as we go through the resource alignment process, how is there a way to more, you know, formalize the partnership or to take advantage of some opportunities that come up? i think if we then establish those, that could be the baseline for future efforts to like further increase the, you know, the number of projects on which we collaborate or something like that. so i just want to recognize you are getting one of those since those earlier output measures. so president alexander, in a sense of process then it does sound like if we are acknowledging and recognizing that these are going

to be early, guardrail, interim, that then we would have to put into intention to ensure that there are monitoring towards mid level interims. so if the superintendent is saying that this is 5.1 right now is an early guardrail, then i would want to make sure that then the board recognizes that because as i've just mentioned, that's at this time, it's pretty baseline. and just intent. and i still would like to understand, moving forward what those intentions are around the mid mid timeline for interim goal. sorry, interim guardrail number 5.1. and i would have a similar, kind of approach for 5.2 for the spark sf as well. i just wanted to

clarify. so for interim guardrail 5.1 for example, as currently read like we are in it september, it's to september 24th. so commissioner lamb, are you suggesting that i mean, i just want to follow the suggestion in terms of being able to when we're going to monitor it, it will be it will be behind us and the idea is that it's an early indicator is that sorry, i wasn't quite. can you what i understood maybe i is that and it needs to be. yeah. the date needs to be updated. is that okay? we're monitoring this as an early output now. but then the next i mean, would be for the next year's updates that you would expect to see, you know, not just that level of counting meetings, but actually the more the outcomes of the meetings, similar to like what we're about to do, i think with guardrail one. right. so first year we said, let's just look at the number of responses and participation we got at

meetings. that was i mean, we did we the reason why we met it is we got more participation than we had in any recent memory. but is that actually capturing the spirit? okay. well it was a start. but now like i think what's going to come up and i put it in there is like, how are we incorporating what we hear at those meetings? or you know what interactions really are the most meaningful surveys versus versus conversation. right. and so i think that's like this would just be kind of a year behind that process is what i'm i guess the way i'm presenting it is that that would be the case. is that what you were? i'm a little confused, to be honest. i want to make sure. commissioner lamb, what you're requesting is going to be addressed. my preference is not to have a look back. to be really clear. is that what is it that we want to accomplish this year, september 2024 to august 2025? at this point, it's naming that it's a quantity of that. we're having a number of

meetings. i'm just naming that we can all come together as a city with our city agency partners. but what depth will come out of it? what is the strategy that we're working towards while the superintendent is naming like, this is going to be an early, indicator for guardrail 5.1, i still think it would be important to understand. so where are we trying to go? and if that's specifically around early education to after school and out of school time before school time after school programing to mayor's office of housing, community development, you know, in the real estate portfolio considerations like those are the types of things that i think it would be important to understand from the superintendent and the staff around kind of while we don't, we're early on. we should have some indication with our city partners already of opportunities for engagement and partnership. so what i'm hearing

maybe is, is a request that that these are not adequate measures of the of the guardrail or an opinion, which i would agree with. frankly, i also am a little confused about 5.2 because it doesn't have numbers in it. so i guess the yeah, so maybe that's a request from the board to do some more work around the interims for guardrail 5.5.1 and 5.2 and 5.3. yes. well so 5.2 we just started trying getting the report to put the figures in there. i mean, this is one of the i will say, one of the challenges is, you know, is following the process we're supposed to have smart goals, right? so what's the baseline we're working off of. so in our interactions with the city, i mean, open to ideas of what another baseline would be or, you know, just start with the i mean, again, i don't know if our if aj but aj might

response would this would be but you know we could start with just a target of some decisions that we say there is mutual not decision. but you know, the you know some areas where we collaborated and there was evidence of the collaboration or something. but then that would just be setting the baseline for this year. but i understand that is i mean, as i said, that is i mean, it's not about just meeting with, you know, the city folks. it's about okay, as we're figuring out how to use our facilities, we want to make sure that there's that collaboration there with them. but it would be kind of changing not having a smart goal or at least not having a baseline for it. well, the other thing i'm noting on our board governance calendar is that to the point that commissioner fisher raised earlier, our monitoring session for guardrail five is not scheduled until may 27th, 2025. so if i mean another question is whether so? i think there's two

ways that the board can increase kind of accountability or monitoring if we want. one is to request the superintendent to have different or more better aligned interims. another is to just to say, okay, well these are your interims and we're going to increase monitoring and do it more frequently. so the spirit of this guardrail for me is it's community based organizations particularly. that's where that's where my heart is, and our biggest city partner as a district in my mind is dcyf. right. and the huge area of focus for us, especially around community schools, dcyf and the partners that they fund, is a huge area of focus and has a huge potential to impact our student outcomes and so i was surprised to not see that as one

of the strategic ways that we are working to improve outcomes here. so that's, i mean, not to be overly directive here, but i was just surprised to not see anything about rec and park or dcf or any of the folks that are actually in our schools partnering with us to improve outcomes. so i'm going to since since we don't have a concrete proposal on how to change the guardrail here, i'm going to say that i think we've given the superintendent feedback, as a board, we have a couple of options. so we've given them feedback on the guardrail interim guardrails, which he can change if he wants to. we have two other options that we can take. we can rewrite the guardrail if we feel like it needs to be more precise in order to make our expectations clear, or we can increase monitoring. so those are kind of our options under this, under our system. and yeah, is the

fourth option. to look for adjusted interims and increased monitoring. can we do both of those. yeah. but it's up to the superintendent whether he wants to adjust the interims. right. but i guess the way it was described was we either we could rewrite the guardrail, we could leave it in the superintendent's hands to update the interims. should he choose to, and or we can increase monitoring like we can increase our monitoring sessions no matter what happens. yeah. sorry those were not. yes, yes, those were not exclusive options. we could do all of them. yeah. so. and we don't have to decide that right now. but let's come back to this because i think that's. and if commissioners have proposals, feel free to make them. does that work? i think it's been noted for now. so let's move to guardrail one. all right. would you please. so, first of all, i

wanted to thank commissioner bogas, vice president wiseman ward. i wanted to thank david phillips and a.j. crabill for being thought partners around this, and, and i appreciate the increased briefings around this to, to make sure that we're prepared, prepared for tonight's conversation. so thanks to the leadership team, there have been a few of us who, to the point of president alexander, we have a couple options to if we don't like what we see, then we need to put in the work to you know, if we're not getting the interims we want from the superintendent, then we need to be more prescriptive and so, move on to the next slide, please. you know, we've we've talked about the current guardrails. so next slide. let's move on to the next one. but, we got together to, to talk through with ourselves in some community engagement meetings with some of our liaisons who do the work in community, to talk through and

in a separate meeting with aj and david to talk through, you know, how could we rewrite this guardrail to better reflect the values of the community, and so the purpose of tonight's discussion is to gather feedback collectively from us as a, you know, because we brown act, we can't meet together outside of the meeting. so we've got to do it here, but how do we workshop this basically to better reflect the values of the community and best represent what we want to, and this wasn't agendized as a vote, so we're not voting tonight. this is us working together, transparently. so next slide please, and i think this we've talked through this quite a bit, actually, of, you know, who does what. so i think we can just move past that, we've talked through guardrail one as it exists. so can we move to the next slide, please. thank you. so why we're proposing these

revisions? well, as written, we feel that the guardrail isn't clear enough in its intent, the current decision making process leads with staff recommendations rather than community input, and this is a distillation of feedback that either we've come up with as commissioners or we've heard from community in recent conversations or liaisons who work with community, it feels like community input sometimes. and i don't think this is intentional. i want to recognize intent versus impact because we have some very, very hard working staff, but it doesn't feel like our meaningful community input is taken. what we hear a lot to your point, superintendent wayne, is, you know, quantity over quality or we hear that. wait a minute. you're asking me the same thing over and over again? you know, we've already had this conversation. i gave this feedback a year ago, you know, or wait, that's not what we said. where where is the time that we spent in that meeting?

reflected in this decision? we hear a lot of that right, and so and sometimes there's even, because we don't have an effective ongoing community engagement mechanism, staff sometimes feel like they've got to slow down their internal processes to go out and create a new engagement mechanism and go hold new new meetings and try and bring people in, instead of us actually having a process where we already have that information and we could just reflect it in the values that we put forward. so, those are the main reasons why we're proposing revisions. and by the way, commissioner bogas, vice president weissman ward, if i've missed anything, that you find, please jump in and correct me or get me back on track if i tangent too much, so next slide, please slide eight, just to reflect back, this was one of my favorite slides in our first community engagement. with, you know, we talked a lot about the need for care and transparency,

and that's what we're trying to reflect here. so next slide, slide nine. so what what are the main issues we see with the interim specifically? again quantity over quality. you know. so feedback for 1.1, the number of participants says nothing about the quality of those experiences, nor whether or how the community voice was used in decision making. it doesn't necessarily align with the intent of the guardrail and doesn't build trust, 1.1 also, the number of participants doesn't reflect the input of our most marginalized communities. we heard we've heard a lot about our surveys. we've heard a lot, 1.3 mere participation in a survey doesn't demonstrate satisfaction. we could the way this is written have 100% of our families respond saying this process didn't take my values into account. and we can still claim that we've met this guardrail, and that's very, very problematic. so next slide

please. so what community values do we want to see reflected in this guardrail. we had some really great affirmative proactive conversations, our community members, our labor partners, our families, cbo partners, staff, all want to be listened to, not just heard, it's an active process. we folks want to make sure that the information community members have previously shared and continue to reiterate, is actually incorporated. sometimes we've heard it feels like groundhog's day. wait, wait, didn't we just have this meeting? didn't we just give this feedback? wait what, thoughts and identities are respected and included, to go back to the october 20th before we actually implemented our first vgs, there's a great amount of information that was distilled down by our partners into some, overarching themes. and realistically, our community

members want to feel like they have real influence in our decision making process, they want to be consulted and included. they want to be centered. they want to see our historically marginalized communities elevated, parity, and equitable outcomes amongst marginalized and non marginalized communities. addressed that reflect community feedback in the decision making process and recognizing the fact an institution institutionalizing the fact that there's a lot of expertise out there in our communities that we are not valuing right now, because we're not taking the time to include it, so briefly, next slide please. if you look at the community engagement guide that sfusd has put together, i thought this quote was really this kind of hit me when one person. so this matrix that's here from the, it's from

the international association for public participation. i think that's what it stands for, this is the matrix that they've put together on improving community engagement. and, so one of the quotes that i just wanted to highlight was every district initiative or meeting where we discuss community engagement doesn't go past inform or consult. and that feels very disrespectful to the work we're doing in our communities, so based on that, we pulled some benchmarks from some other districts who are using the same governance framework, and, what we, what we did was share this out with some community partners and say what, you know, what resonates with you? what do you think, and then based on that, we came up with some potential phrases or ideas to revise guardrail one. so if you could go to the next slide, please. so here's some,

potential, let's see. sorry. next slide please. so some potential options for including things that we have heard in our recent community meetings, are here on slide 14. and i realized i probably should have printed this for folks to have so that, you know, we could work with this, and i will clean this up so that we can upload it to board docs as well. if that's appropriate. but these are and recognizing that we can't vote on any potential decisions tonight, just wanted to start a conversation with you all about, basically. what what here. best reflects the community's values. and, how can we revise this guardrail to be more inclusive of what our community wants? engagement and consultation and

inclusion to look like? vice president, wiseman award. so i want to say thank you so much. commissioner fisher, for really taking the lead on this. i know this is, a labor of love for you, and i really appreciate, the commitment and your encouraging of us as a body to remember that we, as the seven members up here are supposed to be valuing and reflecting the values of the community. and i think this guardrail is so critical to that. so thank you for elevating this conversation, i guess a couple just questions on sort of i wanted to do maybe, three things. one, provide some sort of hi. if i can summarize sort of those slides and try to get to the spirit of any proposed changes. obviously we're not voting on any changes today. i also don't know that it's going to that we're going to even be able to workshop

wordsmith today with it behind us. but maybe if we can talk more generally about the spirit of the changes and get some ideas about if we're on the same page of that, then perhaps, some number that doesn't violate the brown act can, can think about actually turning it into to something that we could present. but in terms of i think i would sort of categorize sort of three, give three different descriptions of the spirit and let me know if this is accurate, one, i think, it's adjusting the language of the guardrails so that it feels more robust and more meaningful, also ensuring that there's a specific focus on the heightened engagement with those members of the community who would be disproportionately impacted by any changes to decisions or initiatives or programs. and then what i've heard i heard from commissioner lamb in the context of guardrail five and what i heard from

commissioner fisher a few different times was really ensuring that the engagement is focused on being qualitative. instead of quantitative. and i've been really sort of thinking about what does that mean? like how do you operationalize that? and one of the things that that actually stuck with me from a really, really, very lovely conversation i had with some labor partners last week in a sort of different context, but it was about, there being many meetings and appreciating that there was space to engage. but then it wasn't clear what happened with that information. and in fact, some of that information was taken in and reflected in a decision, but that wasn't made known. so are there sort of these moments, these inflection points where you go back and you say, you said this, this, and this? thank you so much. i want to show you how we've incorporated that, or you said this and this. we're actually not going to incorporate that. and here's why. but that dialog i think allows for if you have

spent your precious time giving information and giving feedback, i think it allows those who have been gracious with their time and their wisdom and their expertise. it allows them to really have felt, heard and engaged in a way that is not superficial. so i and i think that the challenge is going to be, how do we craft a guardrail that centers that sort of cyclical, iterative conversation that allows folks that have spent time to know you spent time? and here's what we did with this information. so that that last point was very long, but it seems like a really important one. i also just want to say that, i don't i speaking for myself, we, i don't want this to feel like make work for, for superintendent wayne and for staff. this is not about how many more meetings can you get? i actually think if we do this right, we are going to be the beneficiaries of so much more

information and knowledge and wisdom that will sort of weaken bank as resources that we didn't have. so i'm wondering if we can think about it that way as opposed to one more thing to have to do. so i'll leave it there. but maybe in terms of facilitation, we can just sort of get folks pulse on, on the spirit of the changes that commissioner fisher slides demonstrated and that i summarized. yeah. and i'll just say for board members and for the public now, this presentation is now on board docs under item f one, which is the item we're on. so it was a lot of information and i was saying i couldn't read it over my shoulder very well. but now now we can look at it and kind of digest it. so but as vice president wisdom ward said, let's focus on the kind of the big picture reactions so that we basically i think what we're trying to do here is get direction for the sort of group that's been working on this, to go back and make a make a more concrete proposal. commissioner kim and then commissioner

sanchez, i have a couple questions and a couple, kind of comments. is the and maybe this was discussed prior to my joining of the board. so maybe this is more of a clarifying question. is the purpose here t, to rewrite the guardrail is that what we're doing. that's the end goal potentially if we all agree that something like that would be appropriate i see and do we have an established process by which we rewrite guardrails or goals generally? do you really want i can comment on that, it so it really depends on how significant the changes are. so we went through a very detailed process when we first established the goals and guardrails that included deep

sessions of community engagement, ourselves as a board that we did, to in order to establish what the academic goals and then what the guardrails respecting the values were, the guidance we've been given around this is if we're going to make substantive changes to what those guardrails or goals are, we should go back and really do that level of community engagement. i think what's being proposed here is something different, which is more around there's a sense what i'm hearing from my colleagues is that there's a sense that there may be a disconnect between the board's intention in writing guardrail one and the way that it's been interpreted by the superintendent. and staff. so this is sort of more of an attempt to clarify the board's intention by adding some kind of by adding something to it, i think. so i think that's what's happening here. i see or that's the proposal, because that that does make me wonder, like what, what is what is

needed to do that? and is it a revision of the guardrail itsel? is it like an appendix that we add that, like clarifies what the intention is? i'm not really sure, but i'm just trying to think through, like what? what is the purpose of having ongoing conversations? and what would be the difference between what we're doing with guardrail one and then a suggestion from another commissioner about another guardrail and feedback that we have around that. so i just setting some parameters around that i think would be helpful because i'm just trying to understand what what exactly is the end goal of that. did you want to respond to that? i want to say something and then superintendent wayne, but i was just going to say and just particularly on i think this is a really good question. and i think those the, around this guardrail, one, this conversation has been going on for a while because when we had a monitoring session, there was this sense, you know, the staff brought a monitoring report and there was a sense from the board of like, well, no, that wasn't exactly what we meant, right? when we wrote this guardrail, we

wanted something different. right. so part of this is really about clarity of expectations. and some of that could just be dialog like, like you were suggesting, and some of it could be rewriting the guardrail. right. so i think that's a i would i think you're raising the exact right question. and, and i will say part of i think my, my wondering, i actually think i was on staff when that report came to the board. and so there's a, there's a, there's a what i am trying to grapple with in my head is just, a recognition that i think there is a desire. and i heard this in some of the comments that were shared a desire to change the way in which sfusd internally was working. and my wondering is, is the guardrail in which the where is the guardrail? the way in which we're trying to do that. right? like if the culture and the systems and the way in which the district shows up, for like in our community, if that is what we're trying to change. i think it a related question then is, is the guardrail the

thing that we're trying to do to like fix to, to kind of change that working style or way of working or internal culture? i, i don't know, so it's, i have a question around that. and when i was, i do recall like back the last conversation around guardrail one, i think that the, the thing that i was trying to think through at that time when i was on staff, but now as a board member is like, you know, one thing that i don't think we've had an opportunity to discuss yet is what is considered adequate in terms of representation. right? because i think that was a huge challenge in understanding when we say that we want meaningful consultation and we see 11,000 on a piece of paper, right. like i it totally resonates with me moving from like a the language that i know just on goal setting was moving from a frequency metric to an improvement metric. right and i don't i'm not i'm

still trying to understand. right. like what what we as a board have are agreeing upon in terms of what is considered adequate representation. when we say that we want meaningful consultation with the public on something, because i think i would imagine that that guidance is probably helpful to know, or that clarity is helpful to know as the as the district and staff and the superintendent kind of engage with the community, especially at this time. so i just, so i'm wondering about that. and i'll say one last thing before i end here, i think the other thing i'm trying to think through is, is, i mean, a huge part of this is like, i think, commissioner fisher, you named this at the very end of one of the slides, the public really wanted to just have clarity, right? what is actually happening with the information that we are giving the district and some of that, i think is a question of who is exactly making the decision here. right. is it that we are completely

letting the decision be made by however we define, you know, what is considered adequate representation, or is that decision being held by someone or a small group of people, and so i think there's a, there's language to that. i'm interested in looking at around like timeline and process as opposed to decision making or outcome per se, if that is really what we're wanting to see more of in terms of, in terms of clarity for the public so that they know where, where, where does this lead to, right? is this going to lead to an actual like, can i expect that what i just put in, i'm going to see come out, or am i expecting that i'm going to be circled back to at the end of that decision with some clarity on on whether you took my feedback into account. right. so two different outcomes there that i think are just worth kind of thinking through in all of that. thank you. commissioner kim, doctor wayne, and then, in

fact, i think commissioner fisher had a response. no. or we can go right to commissioner sanchez. no, no, no, i wasn't asking you to respond. i thought you wanted to respond. well, i do actually. so thank you. i appreciate a lot of your comments. that's great clarification. so thank you, and i also part of my struggle with this process, frankly, is that we have to be careful not to veer out of board work and into superintendent work. right? that has always been one of my challenges with, with the guardrails. right i have some very clear ideas about what we need to do from community engagement, and that is above my pay grade, you know, that is the superintendent's work. so, but what we in our coaching and through this process, if we are not happy with the way the superintendent is interpreting the interims and the interims that he is giving us, what that

means is we have not done a good enough job as a board to define the goal or the guardrail, so that that's leading him to develop or her in some cases, but leading the superintendent to develop the interims that where we want to see that real data. and so, yes, i think there's a lot that needs to be defined. you know, like you said, meaningful consultation there. there were a lot of things that the community reflected back to us are way too vague and absolutely do need to be better defined. but but i think also to what vice president weissman ward said earlier is there's no place where families see and staff and labor partners and teachers and parents and where our community doesn't often see their precious time and energy reflected back in our decisions. and that's part of why we have the public

trust issues that we have right now, and so i will i have a lot more to say, but can we stop there, commissioner sanchez? go. yeah so, yeah, having not seen this until tonight, i don't have a lot to comment on except for in general. i i initially my response initially is that i'm for having this discussion to move on, but more my next question is more to the superintendent. if we were to adopt the proposed revised guardrail for guardrail one, how would that affect the interim guardrails for you? so i don't know if you've seen this before. tonight but, basically, it could mean that you would just revise all of your, your interims, or you could leave them the same, i guess. but what are your initial thoughts? so. well, yeah, there is a revised guardrail. i would

revise the interim. so that's the and then, wait, what slide number are you looking at? the i'm just looking at the proposed the actual proposed revised on 15 or 16. oh, there is a proposal for 15. sorry. the slide 15 is the actual there is a it's no, it's the it's slide 15 is actually hidden. that was one potential. but the thought process was to. so what's on slide 14 and what i ended up printing out for all of you along with the benchmarks has, has some more specific the problem, we could be very prescriptive and write a whole one page guardrail, and that wouldn't meet the spirit either. that would be overly prescriptive. so there's some potential phrasing to include on on but 14 and as it stands now, this is not hidden. it's posted. right. so this is what the public can see okay. so and then just my next question i guess to president alexander is what process you would want if the

heat check you're seeking is like positive go forward. what kind of process would you like to adopt to see this through? well, i mean i sorry, i don't know if that's concrete feedback. personally i have i don't know if this is what commissioner kim was saying, but i, i the question on is this guardrail is changing the guardrail. the way to change the culture of sfusd is a is a question i have. i'm not convinced that wordsmithing a guardrail is actually going to change the culture we're trying to change. so i have i am i'll just say i'm a little skeptical about this, spending a lot of time on this. but if colleagues want to propose a revision of the guardrail, then what i would suggest is that those of you who think this is a high leverage thing, i'm totally open and i think you should take the feedback you've gotten tonight and go back and come back with a proposal because i thought, i thought we were going to get to i actually thought maybe there

was going to be a proposal tonight, which is fine, that there's not. but i guess i just feel like we need a concrete proposal for a revised guardrail to consider. i think just having, you know what i'm saying, like, i think having just an open ended discussion isn't going to get us very far. right? but this is a discussion item. so we couldn't vote on it. no, no, i know, but but i mean, i think even for consideration, i think we need a we need a proposal. right. and then we can put it forward to the proper, proper action item channels at a future board meeting. so has anybody, i guess my question would be hearing this. and the folks who have interested in this, or is any board member interested in developing a proposal to bring back to the board, which is like, here's my proposed revised guardrail that i'd like you all to vote on. yeah, definitely think that we're interested. i definitely think that there is some draft language that is shareable for tonight to be like a starting place for folks that can maybe go back and incorporate the feedback that folks had. one thing i just wanted to add, especially around guardrail one, but i also think around some of the other goals and guardrails. there's a little disconnect between, i think what the

overall goal was and where we ended up. so like looking at guardrail one, it's really about effective decision making. but when you look at the interims, they don't necessarily reflect anything that tells you about effective decision making. they're really centered around engagement, and so i think there's a little bit of a disconnect between what we were trying to accomplish and kind of what ended up on the page. and so i think this is a time for us to be a lot more specific without micromanaging. make sure that we have clear definitions that we all can rely on. i know going through this process, like i learned things about the way the district measures, who they're they're tracking for some of the test stuff. right. it's not all students. the students who take the test. and that affects the percentages in the way we get there. and so that stuff that i think is just helpful for us to have a shared understanding for the board to set the standard that we want to have. so it's clear for the superintendent what he needs to accomplish and reach. and so that's why i'm hopeful that we can kind of modify this and this be a framework for how we adjust and move forward. i would also

say when we created these, we're in a very different place now as a district than we were then. and so i think this gives us a little bit of ability to make sure that we're reflecting kind of what's going on now in the best thinking, i just want to speak to i appreciate what you're you brought up around president alexander about the relationship between the guardrails representing our values and the kind of culture we want as an organization. right. and i mean, i and i, you know, the these particularly with the guardrails, these interim measures are an attempt to demonstrate how we're doing what how we're making progress in the areas that we think are important around our values. and i just want to distinguish between like so if you look at guardrail five, right. we still haven't settled on measures that you want. but i'll say i very clearly understood the value we're trying to have, which is that we collaborate with, you know, our partners. right. and so i will say like, like what

we're doing with rye, you know, is not how we engage with the city around when the district was going through covid, right. it was like, you know, the kind of meetings that we are now in are not are representative of what i think we value as a community. and we're not what is a change in the culture from from before now? can we measure that that that's that's part of the debate. i will agree with what commissioner. i don't know if you said it like this, but what you said is that with guardrail one, not only are we struggling with the measure, but like, what is the what is the value around community engagement? is there value around making decisions? is it about listening or how do we reflect feedback. so i guess i just put that out there for the commissioners to consider as revising. i'll say what what what the culture that i know i', i have been interested in changing and we have made steps to change is this notion that when we ask for feedback that

people don't know, did we even, you know, take in the feedback or not? so you may recall, like when we did the mattila presentation last year and other advisory presentations, we now are starting to say, here's how we took or did not take the recommendations. right? so we're going to hear recommendations from the feedback tonight. and they're going to get a formal response to our our recommendations. so like so then i don't know if that maybe is a better. but that's not really an interim around decision making. that's not a measure about decision making. that's a measure about how we respond to feedback. but it is what people i think what we want as part of the culture. so i guess i just i don't know that that helps in deciding how to proceed. but it just i say that to say like however we decide to engardio one, we do want more clarity on what we're what we're after. whereas like i contrasted with five, to say it's pretty clear what we're after with that, even if we didn't find the exact right measure. i appreciate that. and i guess the thing that i would ask for you and your staff to do, which would be helpful for us, is if the

guardrails or goals that we put forward aren't things that we are accurately able to measure or like, those things aren't in place. to do that, you let us know that versus creating, i guess, like substitute measures that don't do as good a job because i think for us, if what we've done is not possible to kind of be shown through our process because of what we measure, how frequently measure letting us know that so we can adjust and correct would be really helpful. and i think it also would ensure that we're not setting you up for failure, because if you can't properly measure what we want, then we should adjust what we're asking for or develop a new system to do that versus creating a goal that's not accurately measured. and so i would just lift that up for us to think about as we move forward. so i want to i just, i want to be mindful of time. i also want to be mindful of sort of process and the focus. and i maybe if we can just the idea here was to, to get a sense from

colleagues about whether this there was an appetite to engage in a revision process, and so if there is then a small number of us that is not in violation of the brown act will get together and workshop amongst ourselves as a group of 2 or 3, and then we'll bring it back to the full board. if there is not a sufficient appetite to have 2 or 3 of us workshop this, then i think the conversation is over. as to guardrail one, i do think what the what would be helpful and please tell me, commissioner fisher, if i'm right about this, is to get some. maybe we can do one quick round robin, a minute max on slide 14, which is potential phrases and ideas for guardrail one. how do these lan? is there something missing? is there something that you think is specifically important. and then we can be taking these notes and continue to work on it. if there's an appetite. does

that sound like something that will help us continue the conversation in a productive way? okay great. so let's do that, who? well, you you don't want to start because you already wrote this. so, like, from the rest of us, who wants to start? okay. i'll start, i'll get us going. so i love, number one, the superintendent will not allow an organizational culture and supporting processes that ignore or dismiss the experience. the expertise of students, families, and staff because i think it sends learners the experiences of the people who do the work every day in our schools. so, you know, our staff do the work, our students do the work, their families do the work. and i think there's a sense among, you know, a lot of folks in sfusd that too often they feel ignored or dismissed. not that i know that's not the intention of the organizational of people leading the organization, but there is an organizational culture that

makes people feel that way. and so i think that one, to me, actually may get at something really important in a way that the decision making one doesn't get at, if we're going to go more with like a decision making type one, i like number five, which is, talks about meaningful ongoing collaboration with students, families and staff, especially historically marginalized populations. and those who are disproportionately impacted by those initiatives. but like i said, i actually really like number one, because i think number one gets at that question that, around organizational culture directly. and again, it doesn't say how. right. and so i think that's important to say, like, we're not we would as a board, it would be inappropriate for us to dictate how the superintendent doesn't allow an organizational culture that does that. but it would be making a very clear statement that that's what we expect, and then he'd have to figure out how to measure it. who wants to go next? yes, commissioner kim, i'm going to

set it to one minute. 30. yes, please. i'm struggling with going through each and every single one to, like, give my take on it all. so i'm just going to say more globally. i think one thing that i do on the side of is something a little more concrete that we can say happened or did not happen, or like a more substantive shift that we can we can demonstrate, like, and so i don't know, i'm still trying to process how to imagine saying that in language, but that's kind of something i would love to see. i and an example of this is i absolutely agree with with three of engagement not being performative, tokenistic. i'm trying to imagine what the language would be that would be demonstrable in that. right, instead of, kind of, based on, on feedback of any one person. right the i agree with you on

number one, the superintendent would not allow organizational culture and support, supporting processes that ignore or dismiss expertise of students, families and staff. my assumption here is that staff includes educators both at site central. all that stuff. okay, so yeah, i think that's my global reflection is just i would love to see something that's demonstrable, and language that points to like how something has changed over time, as opposed to like an instance of something, i can go very quick since i took part in some of the process. i think for me, the number five, i think represents kind of a refocusing, a more specific version of what we kind of already have. and i think maybe that is the highlight of that. and it also feels very measurable in ways that i feel like the superintendent can create in rooms that are relevant from it in a way where i feel like some of them, i'm not sure what the

interims would be and how you would measure the authenticity of it, but i definitely feel like there may be some additional measures the board needs to take to, to take the temperature of community and how well we're engaging them and how they feel about the process that they're going through. kind of separate from the district. so i think that's also something for us to figure out of how something like that could be useful for us in evaluating our efforts and our ability to really connect with communities as a district. i think i will add on to everything that was said so far. i agree, i really like number three. because it sort of adds on to that idea that we're not just like adding this or collecting it for a number, and that we actually want to like, hear feedback and then like, incorporate it, but i think that's what's missing a little bit is like ensuring that the, that those that are responding are not only getting their voices heard, but like they're, they're ensured that what they were saying was

incorporated in some way or why it wasn't. and the reasons why, because that sort of like ties it back to like engaging with the community that way, same thing with five. i think the issue though, with that one is i like the meaningful aspect of it. how is that sort of measured of whether feedback is meaningful or not, and then with seven, it feels very, connected to three in that way. and then like that explanation of like initiatives will not move forward without showing input. but then again, like, why like explanation from and like voice to why or why not? things were included and how still it's valued. but then a reason why it's not like, oh, we just heard you and then we're not really going to go much further than that. it's why this is the way that we decided to move, and then how your impact your feedback impacted that. yes. so

on slide 14, there's the eight different potential phrases. i think when you do look at the formerly hidden slide that includes at least i think three of those options, i would add to it. the last one about quantity. you know, qualitatively looking at responses as opposed to just looking at the quantity of responses. yeah, i'll leave it at that. just some overall reflections. i think it's interesting that most of our colleagues, around the country of urban districts, mostly focused on engagement. and i'm also intrigued by atlanta's about implementing a stakeholder engagement strategy. and oftentimes, our conversation at the dais here with board members is trying to kind of cut into what's the strategy, and so

given that, you know, my just initial reflections is that number one and five, i think we could get towards that with some maybe more discussion, if we were to take this on, i also would name for number five, you know, not only historically, but we know marginalized populations today, with the students that are of our outcomes for our students. right now that we are far from, meeting. and i think that includes, you know, english learners and, so many of our local populations. so that's just something i want to be, i just wanted to name as well. commissioner fisher, do you have any final wrap up comments? well, first of all, i appreciate the opportunity to workshop that. thank you all for your

feedback and your comments. it's helpful, i think one of the what led to this initially was seeing the way the original guardrail was worded as major decisions, and having that be interpreted as well, decisions is plural. so that means we can monitor at two spaces and that's it. i think, for me, ongoing and iterative and not performative are the, the what i'm hearing reflected back from all of you and making sure that we're doing this in a, in a really meaningful way. and so, if you will all humor me, i would very much like to take this back and come back with something. actionable for our next meeting, take this feedback and, council, i don't know, i don't want to violate brown act,

but, i guess you know, like, are folks allowed to email me if they come up with additional if they have additional feedback? since this process has happened so fast and like this, started at a briefing last week and came together very, very quickly, so if folks, after seeing this for the first time tonight, have additional reflections, are they allowed to email me or does that violate brown act or that would violate the brown act? to the extent possible, the comments that have not been shared here can come back and be shared as part of the ongoing work that you will present, or the version, and it can be amended in real time at the next board. yeah, i think i think you've got you all can come. you can come back in a minority of the board. can can present a proposal at the next meeting and then we can discuss it and, and amend it as if needed. so. okay. all right. do you have any more comments?

no, just i want to echo commissioner fisher's thanks on on this feedback and sort of, thoughts on, on at least this initial list of sort of just eight starting points. and, i've been taking notes, and so we will work and, my sense is that we're not taking any votes, but there i'm hearing a direction to take this feedback and, we'll see at another meeting. great. thank you so much. and yeah, thanks. i know that that discussion at the beginning was maybe a little bit, messy or confusing, but again, it's, you know, we're working through, in real time thanks to the brown act in california, we actually do this all in public session. this is the only time we can meet and discuss as a board. it's actually illegal for a majority of us to meet outside of this space. so, so these are our these are our real decision making meetings. we're seeing in real time. so thank you very much to the colleagues who brought this forward. and as commissioner fisher said, it was relatively quick. so we had the

discussion and really appreciate it and we'll see it again, so now we will move on to the next agenda item, which is an action item, which is a monitoring item on guardrail for, and specifically guardrail 4.1 on resource allocation. so this is a voting item. the board will actually either, approve the monitoring report or not approve the monitoring report, oh, can i have a motion in a second, please? since it's a voting item. so moved. second. wonderful and just a reminder to my colleagues before i turn it over to the superintendent, that we will be, asking three questions, as we normally do in goal monitoring. question number one is, does the reality match the vision? in other words, did we meet the goal, question number two, if that's not the case, is there growth toward the

vision? in other words, are we making progress toward the goal in question number three is if that's not the case, if that's not true, is there a strategy and plan sufficient to cause growth toward the vision and that again, if we answer yes to any of those three, then we should. then we should vote yes to approve the report, i will also say and i'm grateful to the superintendent for this, that i, that i made a request to we had the monitoring report that was coming out and, we learned of significant hiring delays that have occurred, in terms of district teachers, counselors, social workers, nurses, others that have had a severe impact on a lot of kids, frankly, in the school district. and so i asked the superintendent to include in this item a public after action review of those hiring delays, which is very much related because, as you'll see, the

presentation itself was on, classroom staffing in terms of how are we doing in terms of meeting our goals to have our classrooms fully staffed at the beginning of the school year. so we just expanded that a little bit to include these other positions, such as social workers, nurses, counselors, etc, because we knew that was something that the public and the board was really interested in, in hearing from staff on kind of, you know, what happene, what were what did we expect to happen, what actually happened, what are our learnings from that, and what are what are our plans moving forward to ensure this kind of thing doesn't happen again? and i really looking forward to that because i think there's been some thoughtful work done by staff on that. so i'll turn it over to doctor wayne, thank you. and i'll just actually turn it over to associate superintendent of human resources amy bear and her team. thank you, doctor wayne, and good evening, commissioners, the hr team is pleased to be here to talk about our progress towards guardrail 4.1 and the improvements that we're trying

to implement in the hr department, as doctor wayne said, i am amy bear, and i am the associate superintendent of human resources. with me is our my senior leadership team. swen ervin is our senior executive director. deandre ball is our executive director of talent acquisition. and staffing. and krystal del rosario is our executive director of hr operations. also part of the hr team is our assistant superintendent of labor. conrad tanasijtshuk, who's not presenting tonight but part of the team. so i'm completing my first year in san francisco unified school district. and as a veteran school administrator who has worked in hr for a long time, i've been really struck by how dysfunctional many of the district systems and processes are, but while the systems are dysfunctional, i feel very fortunate to work with the team. i have the people here are not dysfunctional, and we have a great team that is committed to improving our hr practices so that we can better serve the students of san francisco. what?

oh i'm sorry. could someone advance the slide? thank you. and one more. i'm sorry. okay. so tonight i'm here to report on interim guardrail 4.1, which is to increase the percentage of classrooms which are fully staffed and spoiler alert, we did not make our goal, so we are going to look at some of the factors that led to that result and what we will be doing more differently in the future. so last year we opened school with 79% of classrooms fully staffed. this year our goal was 90%. on the first day of school, we opened with 82% of classrooms fully staffed and by day seven, that had increased to 85%. so some progress, but shy of our goal of 90%. and for the next

slide, i'm going to turn it over to deandre. well good evening commissioners. the slide that you are looking at represents vacant positions by credential area. please note that this data does change frequently as we are actively recruiting, actively recruiting and hiring for these classroom positions, so we had 28 single subject openings, 27 multiple subject, 39 special education openings, it's also worth noting that 13 of these positions require bilingual certification or world language certification. this is an area that is increasingly difficult to source as a number of educators with a b clad or a world language credential struggles to meet the demand for bilingual educators across the state. you can go to the next slide. we recognize the impact classroom vacancies have on school communities. however, we have seen positive trends with our substitute fill rates at this time last year. our subs. our sub coverage rate was 58%. this year our sub coverage rate for teaching positions reached

9,595%. during the third week of school. while working to recruit staff by working to recruit and staff vacant positions, we are assuring that all classes are covered by qualified substitute teacher. you can see that our sub coverage that our substitute teacher coverage rate has increased significantly, and we will talk about that later in the presentation. so we're going to move into the after action review portion of the presentation. and i'm sure for the public or for some of our school sites, they're thinking, you know, air you had one job and that's to staff classrooms and you didn't meet your goal. so what happened? next slide please, so some of the guiding questions i think, president alexander, you went over some of these, but these are some of the guiding questions we used in looking at what went on this year. what did we expect? what actually occurred, how why did it happen that way? and what will we do for a better outcome in the future? so why didn't we

meet the goal? the board and the public are likely very aware that there's a nationwide teacher shortage that impacts all districts. but in addition, san francisco unified has some unique challenges that negatively impact our hiring processes, especially this summer. so we're going to focus on four main areas. the inefficient district systems, silos among departments and sites, and the negative certification that led to increased state oversight and a hiring freeze. and then finally, problems with special education budgeting that were unique to this summer. so the board and the public are. oh, excuse me. next. the problems with the empower san francisco system, the erp system are very well documented, but much of the discussion has focused on the accuracy of payroll. and i just want to point out that that's a symptom of a greater problem with position control in the district. without an effective

human capital or erp system that works for a school district, hr and business staff need to consult multiple data sources to establish position control. position control is essential for ensuring that the district stays within its budget and align staffing with the educational and operational needs of the schools. so this is a visual that just highlights one of the inefficiencies of our current erp system. this is a visual of, days that payroll was locked in the month of july for. so just over the summer. so on the days that payroll is locked, hr is unable to do any data entry to process new hires or transfers. this is something unique to the empower sf system. this is not a standard practice. so when you hear that an employee has not been data entered, you think, well, what is hr doing? like what is the problem? why have you not data entered this person? they can't access the district email system, they can't get paid. this is just a visual that i

found really helpful in understanding some of the limitations that we're stuck with, with our systems. another barrier is the silos across the district. lack of coordination between different departments, the siloed nature has resulted in poor communication, misalignment of goals and duplicative efforts, and in particular, the lack of coordination between hr enrollment and the business office, has led to errors in position control, incorrect budgeting for positions, and errors in employee pay. so in addition to those challenges, what was unique about this summer? hr was moving forward with the assumption that we were hiring to the staffing allocations that we had presented to sites earlier in the spring, site leaders worked really hard to identify candidates, and we offered positions to many candidates and by june, we had filled 76% of

our classroom positions and felt like we were really on track to meet our staffing goal, as we begin to operationalize the hiring freeze with cde and our advisors, we determined that all positions needed to be reviewed. and this resulted in an expanded hiring freeze. we had positions on the june 10th board agenda that needed that. we ended up pulling, and we weren't able to bring those candidates back to the board for approval until mid-july, cde asked us some really important questions that needed to be addressed before we could move forward with hiring staff. and swan will now talk a little bit more about that process. good evening, commissioners. in may of 2024, the district received a negative certification from the california department of education, and as a result, they escalated oversight to give our cde advisors stay and rescind authority over any financially related board action, which includes staffing in response to

the negative certification, the district implemented a hiring freeze. hr immediately paused any offers of employment to candidates and paused moving candidates who had already begun the onboarding process through. as part of this freeze, the district needed to establish the need for each position, including those in the staffing model. did determine if any internal employees could be reassigned to fill the position. ensure that the budget was in place, and being used appropriately, and respond to any questions from our cde advisors. it took several weeks working with the cde advisors to get this process moving again, and during this time the district did lose candidates for teaching positions. but we came out of this with a new way of working with our cde advisors, and we continue to meet several times a week to gain pre-approval for proposed vacancies and ensure that funding is in place before we

move forward with hiring. next slide please. this is, this timeline is a visual demonstration of a piece of what was discussed in the previous slide at the beginning of june, 76% of our vacant teacher positions were filled. as amy said, and we were on track to meet our august goal. the pause on hiring and onboarding began to release in early july. as we work to demonstrate the need for the positions and gain clearance from the cde to proceed due to the pause in hiring and onboarding and the work needed to clear the backlog, find replacements for the candidates we lost, conduct orientations for new teachers, and complete data entry during the limited number of days available to us. we were only able to move the staff percentage from 76% to 82% by the first day of school, and

today, we stand at 85%. next slide please. during the spring budget development process, the special education team submitted a budget proposal that exceeded their allocated funding. this overage was flagged and it was determined that the special education team needed to operate within the same budget as the previous year, which already included. additional funding. as an example of our internal silos and dysfunctions. this critical information was not communicated clearly to the special education team. as a result, the special education department and site leaders were attempting to hire for positions that were not budgeted and that hr was not aware of. this led to a significant issue. the special education department felt the staffing they had planned and had communicated to sites was warranted based on student need, but because the additional staff had not been budgeted, there

were no position numbers available for hr to hire against. this has left critical special education vacancies unfilled. it is worth noting that there were leadership transitions in both the special education and business services departments this summer that likely exacerbated this situation. the business team has worked hard to create positions that have now been added to the budget, but to this present moment, hr is still working with the budget department to resolve this issue, which has caused significant delays in hiring and onboarding and stress for families, students and sites. i will now turn back to deondre to talk about some bright spots, despite all these issues, there were some bright spots in hr while guard while guardrail 4.1 is focused on classroom staffing, we did have positive outcomes for school support staff, substitute staffing and that site administrator staffing, for the substitute office, we implemented a new

substitute management system. the feedback that we have gotten thus far is that it is much more user friendly. there's actually an app that people can use on their phones. we have resource materials available on the district website for school site clerks, administrators and substitutes, again, we've also seen a high number of applicants interested in joining our substitute pool. we've conducted more than 500 substitute interviews over the last year, and we've hired more than 300 day to day substitutes. in regards to like custodial staffing, we feel 94% of our custodial positions by the first day of school clerk staffing, we conducted exams for clerk candidates to make them permanent employees and or fill vacancies. snf staff. we were able to administer exams for our school lunchroom helpers for the first time in five years to make them permanent civil service employees, in regards to site administrator vacancies, we were able to fulfill all of our principal vacancies and we started the school year with one assistant principal opening. good evening, commissioners. i'm

here to share what actions we are taking to ensure that we meet our goal in the next hiring season, as well as continue to meet the needs this year. we are continuing to increase our capacity in hr. we're participating in the implementation of new systems, improving our coordination with other district departments, and conducting targeted recruitment for hard to staff positions within hr. increasing capacity means filling our own vacancies for critical positions like staffing analysts, benefit technicians and data entry clerks. these are positions that focus on the critical work of getting staff into our district and supporting them while they're employed with us. we're also engaging in more professional development for our staff that is focused on hr for k to 12 districts. finally, our efforts to improve our systems and customer service model are under way to improve responsiveness. we've directed our resources to expand our

front office team under the guidance of our director of employee support and communications, and we've increased our overall presence online in partnership with the district communications office. the district is also in the process of moving from empower sf to an hr and erp system designed for california school districts. the district has selected frontline as the erp system and red rover as the human capital. hr system. the transition to these systems is currently underway, and we hope to significantly streamline our budgeting and hiring processes driven by more effective position control. so looking ahead towards recruiting for the 2526 academic year, we want to dig deeper into engaging our student teachers. last year, we had events like a student teacher mixer to allow administrators to connect with prospective candidates in an informal setting. some strategies that we plan to deploy this this year are

application workshops for our student teachers and early contact referrals from their cooperating teachers. we continue to make it a priority to attend local and state career fairs, as well as making classroom visits, our education services department coordinates our employee to teacher program. this program is designed to support district staff who are interested in becoming teachers. they receive 1 to 1 counseling on navigating the teacher credential requirements and the credential program application process, last year we did the district did reestablish a partnership with teach for america. we were able to hire five educators this school year. and the plan is to hire another group of core members for the next school year, this year, we also piloted providing visa sponsorship for new employees. however, next academic year, we plan to work with an agency that actually recruits candidates for the district. that's it. so in summary, hr went into this hiring season expecting to fill vacancies that were aligned with the staffing allocations. we had

also hoped that the work we had done early to engage candidates in the spring recruiting season would ensure that we successfully met 90% of our goal. instead, because of the district's negative certification, we implemented a hiring freeze during the peak of hiring season and pivoted to collaborate with our cde partners to review each position before filling it. this really is our new normal. for now, we've established a meeting cadence and protocols for a much more expedited approval. we will continue to work with our cde partners and our partners across the district to ensure this is the last time that we fail to meet this goal. the district is facing unprecedented challenges and the hr department is committed to working to overcome the long standing structural and cultural barriers that exist in san francisco unified, and we remain optimistic that we will achieve our staffing goal in 2526. and i'd like to look at that hr efficiency. now. i just

want to end and, you know, we talk about these progress monitoring reports as an opportunity for, transparency and accountability. and i want to appreciate the team for being sharing transparently, our challenges. and no, let's say the personal accountability. i feel we talked and explained, you know, what happened. but i don't want to minimize in any way, you know, the real impact this has had on, most importantly, our students. you know, i visited schools, i visited schools all the time. but at the beginning of the year i was visiting schools. and i really appreciate our school leaders and our school staff who worked together. i went to a, a school where two special education classes were working together because they were short some paras. and, you know, the kids were having a wonderful learning experience, but it's not, you know, it's that extra effort that our schools are making right now to make sure our kids get what they need. and so, but we can't solve the problem without laying out what it is. and again, you hear a team, they would work 24 hours,

but the system blocks them out. sometimes but a team that's working hard and the same is true of our special ed and business services team. but we have work to do, you know, not just on the on the systems front of getting in the right system, but making sure that the processes in our communication are are there. and i will just want to end with saying, i think you said we're going to hear from our cdd advisors. i mean, you know, we are putting in place the best practices that have been lacking for a long time. we've had the resources, to, you know, cover that. so, for example, with special education, we increased our budget a significant amount last year, and we've had one time finds that can do that, but that in part has contributed to us needing to figure out where on an ongoing basis we can afford to continue to provide the services that that we need to and so the kind of questions that we've been needing to answer are important, because in the past, it was, well, even if the budget came in over what was

allocated, we'll we'll figure it out and we'll move forward with hiring and reconcile afterwards. and that's not the way to go, you know, to really manage a district in a fiscally responsible manner. and so, yeah. so we'll hear i think we'll hear from them. we'll hear from you. but i do appreciate the team and just recognize what it's meant for our schools that we didn't meet this goal. thank you. and thank you all for the presentation. so i think i'd want to i want to suggest that we start with, questions for the hr team. and then maybe we can come to the superintendent. why don't we do hr team? and then if we want to bring in, if there's any questions for the fiscal advisor, i think elliott dushan is available. and then we can go to the superintendent if that's okay. just to kind of keep some order around things is that all right. so let's i think that's right. i just don't know how the

question will be separated. but i definitely will do my best. well, i guess what i would start is are there things that, based on the report you've heard from hr, are there things we want to follow up with first there. so let's start with commissioner fisher. thank you very much for bringing this forward. thank you for this analysis. i appreciate it, the questions that i have for hr are, on slide five and then i think i might have some additional questions for special ed and potentially the superintendent based on that. and before you start, i just want to encourage us to ask strategic questions as much as possible right around linking to the to the guardrail that we're talking about, because remember, our goal here is to decide if you know, it really is there a plan that's sufficient moving forward? because we saw that we didn't meet it. thank you for that clarification. and that reminder, so i have made data requests around vacancies in the past. and so thank you for this. i would love to see some additional clarifications. like

i don't see paraeducators on here. i don't see school psychologists, occupational therapists. i don't see social workers. i don't see nurses, any of the other positions that i know have been made in data asks. and i think for transparency and accountability, our, community would like to see that as well, as far as the special education teachers, the subject area is mild to moderat, moderate to severe. e.d. that's a subject area, but that doesn't to me tell me whether we're talking about a special day classroom or an rsp position. so i'd love some clarifications there. and specifically, i also would like to know through all of these, no matter the type of prudential, the vacant position to tie it back to the vision values, goals and guardrails. how many students are actually impacted by these vacancies? how many students right now are without these people who they need in order to get their

education? so to answer the first question, the guardrail is specific to certificated classroom positions. and so that's the data we presented. we can certainly bring data about the other groups. but that's that wasn't included in the guardrail, and the subject areas are, these are credential areas for, for hiring purposes. so we could we could bring more data about where whether their rsp, sdc location, number of students in those classes. but we don't have that tonight. so those are the questions i'm getting from community. and i would love to be able to share that information. please send a data request follow up. yeah okay. great. great. no let's send a follow up. yeah. well and let's board staff if we could help follow up on commissioner's data questions because i asked some of the same questions. so that's why i'm saying it because i want to make sure they get followed up. and we should figure out how to make those available to the

public. commissioner lamb. okay. who else wants to talk about to hr commissioner? bogus. thank you, i guess i'm a little bit curious in the, the process that's going into setting the target and how we are analyzing the strategies involved to meet that goal. like, i'm curious, like how we what impact we feel, the different strategies we're going to engage in this year that are different from before will lead to what percentage of increase towards reaching the goal. i guess i would say that my concern is like we kept the 90% goal because it was the goal that we had from the year before that we didn't reach. so we're still going to try to work towards it, but i guess i don't have clarity if that's realistic or not. and so i guess that's the first part and the second part, and then i'll wrap it up, is kind of, at least from my perspective, being a commissioner, i felt that all the things you lifted up as obstacles were things that we knew going into last year. and

so i'm curious why we didn't adjust our target, our goal, to be more reflective of what we were going to do, and just kind of, i guess the thinking in regards to that of like, were these things surprises for staff who were engaging in this work? were they known things that we could have been aware of and kind of had adjusted our goal to kind of reflect the realities that folks are going through. and so i guess those are kind of the two questions kind of, how are we targeting and how are we kind of using the information we have to kind of understand our possibilities of accomplishing the goals and the successfulness of the strategies that we're planning, and what percentage increase we kind of feel to see through them. so i'll, i'll start that, so i do think that we did know about these obstacles going into the hiring season, and we especially knew that we were going to have to work with empower for another year. and so that is a major obstacle. and that is why we're in the middle of implementing the frontline system, but we knew we couldn't do that in time

for this recruiting season, i don't know why the goal wasn't lowered, except that it's still a really important metric to have classrooms covered, you know? and so i think we wanted to keep we wanted to keep the goal at 90 because we wanted to reach that goal, and i understand for next year it's 92, not 90. the and then i just want to add, we, we talked about it more in depth in the report and kind of to the point that commissioner president alexander made at the beginning, i wanted to speak like to what happened most recently. but, i mean, one of the strategies that appreciate was to try something different was having a more centralized hiring process. right? so the theory of action behind that was staff. a prospective candidates had to apply to. there was a pool, but had to apply to individual positions. and it was it was on schools to post the positions.

and the idea was that by centralizing hiring, we could get more more candidates in a prospective pool more quickly, get them matched to a school that was that would be a good fit for them, or that they were interested in, and then move forward with the hiring. and that's where, like i, i mean, sometimes in these processes, we're going to try something and it's not going to work out. and that's one where there was a very clear different strategy. and then to what the team is talking about, i think between some of the silos, the ability to deliver on some of the on making this process, you know, meet everybody's needs on all the change management that happened that needed to happen. it didn't fully pan out. and we got mixed reports. i mean, some principals did, you know, recognize that? oh, this is you know, this is good. i don't need to worry about posting every individual position. but other principals rightfully were frustrated that they're like, wait, i'm not seeing anybody in my pool, but i'm hearing other principals are seeing, you know, candidates in their pool. so i share all that to say,

commissioner bogus like that. that's something that we did differently that didn't work out. but there there is a need in the hiring to be more streamlined. and so now the lessons learned from this, and particularly on, you know, getting the different teams to work together, i think will will give us a you know, we'll have a chance to meet this for next year. o follow up. yeah, i guess so. then i guess, is that what we feel like the change in strategy is that will allow us to make the gains that we didn't make before, because i didn't hear clarity around that. and i guess just to lift up what my concern is and hearing that it's not a concern on staff's side, is that i see the fact that we're not adjusting targets to be realistic to what we can meet is being us, not being aware of what we're capable of, and not being fully on top of how we're handling this as well as other measures. and so i guess hearing from staff that it's more representative of where we're trying to go, and it's more

important to keep that high standard even if we're not getting there. and so i would just love i think as we move forward to see if that is what's going to continue, because i think i'm concerned it sends a message to the public that we aren't as serious about these things because we're not meeting our goal, and we're not communicating in advance that we're going to fall short, or that there's obstacles that will prevent it. and so, yeah, so any other information you can find about how we're going to hit that 92. thank you for that correction. yeah i can add a little bit to that. so one of the things is that, you know, we'll have we'll be recruiting with the red rover system, it'll go live in january. and so we will be able to recruit for next year with that system. and we think that will be a significant improvement, i think the market is also changing a little bit for, for teacher. hiring and you know, with other districts facing financial issues, there is less hiring across the state. and so that will benefit the district, in that there will be more people looking for positions than there have been in the past. just a quick follow

up on that. i know that the board of education authorized a negotiated with our union partners, historic raises that took place this year. did you see impacts of the raises in this process at all, especially for paraeducators, yes, president alexander i, we have seen a significant increase in the number of people applying to be paras with the district, and honestly, i can only i maybe we can attribute that to a couple of things. one, the job market is not amazing right now locally. but i think the raises absolutely play a huge part in the number of people who are applying to be paris. and i think, yeah, i agree and anecdotally have definitely heard that as i've talked with some people, but that's also was

one of the issues when they were describing the challenge with the budgeting. remember, we used to budget and budget for a bunch of vacancies that we never filled. and so when we said to the when, when special ed and working on the budget, look at the, you know, you is what we did last year as a model last year we so i think we got more applications than positions we actually had open which then resulted in that delay, which is a good thing that we got the applications. but then again, we need to make sure when we're budgeting for special education this year that, all those, those gaps are closed. but we did see more pair and we will have more para educators on staff than we did. we did last year. are there other questions for hr specifically? because i also want to move to some of the systemic questions, maybe with the fiscal advisors and the superintendent. but go ahead, commissioner lima, if you have things for hr, you know, i just want to say thank you. thank you to staff. i know it has been a,

very difficult, tumultuous time. and i just want to recognize the staff. i know that and appreciate the transparency and reflection. because certainly on the ad hoc committee, we've been really honing in on that position control. and we know that it starts with hr. so that if we don't have kind of our house in order, so to speak, it's going to be a domino effect. so i just really want to thank the staff. and certainly when we're as board members, continuing to push and ask questions is not, you know, a dismissive of the work and progress that has happening. i think it's just the stakes, as we all know, each and every one of us as professionals know that the stakes are really high. but again, thank you so much to the hr team. and i do have questions related to cross-functional teams and breaking down the silos. so, president alexander, i can hold my question. yeah, i want to talk about that too. but let's let's wrap up with hr because i want to thank you.

yeah. do you want to say something else about hr? it's not a question. it's sort of a continuing. thanks, so i'll continue. commissioner lambs as sort of a did i feel reading this. it was also so refreshing. so thank you for the real talk, we are so used to hearing, oh, it's not so bad or. oh we got this. i do think actually you all do get got this this is the first time i felt this way in a while, but i really appreciate the real talk in terms of this is what is going on. this is real. these are the problems. but you're you're naming them and you're aware of them. and i think that puts us so much further ahead than we've been in the past. so i really, really i just want to express my gratitude to you all for that. and i feel confident that we are moving in the direction we need to and that we're in really good hands. so thank you. yeah. okay. i want to echo that too, because also because i was the one who asked for the after action

review and i was like, what? what happened? why did this happen? i just really, really am grateful for the honesty, clarity, and i felt the same way. like it. it gave me confidence in in you all as a team that you're really reflecting on these issues and have a plan moving forward, that's that's very clear. and so i just just really grateful for, for that work, but i do want to shift to talking more about the systemic issues. so this so you all can feel free to, i might need help. you all can feel free. actually, i would ask that you please move out of the spotlight because we're going to move the spotlight over here a little bit because honestly, i think this hr is one department and you all spoke to it, right? there's issues around coordination among departments. and in some ways it's actually a little ironic that you all prepared the report when two other departments were mentioned that weren't even here. so i think thank you. i think you should take your seats and let's discuss what's up with that. so why was it i don't know, commissioner land, if you want to kick us off around the

siloing. but. but yeah, i'm really curious. what what are some reflections there? because we heard a clear statement around the siloing. but but it's actually not his responsibility to. and i think just kind of getting into the core strategy, you know, moving forward for the cross functioning teams, you know what are, what's going to be different, knowing that we are embarking on an enterprise or new adoption, that that's also a learning where we know that things really fell, apart or, or a gap. so just wanting to give an opportunity to the superintendent around, you know, how, are we working towards those cross-functional teams and, and some key deliverables that you all have identified of being able to demonstrate, you know, as a team that cross-functional team that we're going to be able to look back and say, you know, we made progress. and these are how we're going to measure ourselves against that progress, yeah. i think you know, and to

commissioner bogas point, i mean, we know for a while, i mean, we know there's been silos in this organization, right? and in, in, as i'm in my third year, have made efforts to, to break those down, you know, in all areas. right. we've talked about educational services and schools and, and i think, though, what we've seen now and the pattern we need to change is those silos get broken down when there's an emergency. so we saw it when we had the payroll state of emergency. right. we've come together when we needed to get, you know, the reduction plan and budget. budget approved. but we need to not wait for an emergency for these things to happen. and so it's really then looking more closely as what are the processes and communication that's happening in between and the protocols we are on a daily basis and the protocols we have to move forward and that so that's i mean, frankly, i think you know, that that's what's

captured in our fiscal and operational dashboard through some of the tasks that we need to complete that haven't there hasn't been that system ownership of you need individual owners, but then you need the system to recognize we all have to get this right. so two examples of that our position control. it's really it's a it's a both a product and a process. and the process has to mean on an ongoing basis, not just when we need a budget number. there's meetings about positions. the second one i'll speak to, we've talked a lot about the ad hoc is the, seniority list. right. and to make sure we're prepared for layoffs, yes, hr needs to do compile it. but it actually involves working with our school and our staff at schools to validate that they're a seniority list is correct. and those are practices that hadn't i mean, a lot of these we've learned have happened in the past but just hadn't been. you know, with with all the transitions or for whatever

reason, have been routinized. so, like the dashboard does provide the roadmap, but then it is the structures we have in place as we have change, we meet now every two weeks. business services and hr, and educational services which represent special ed to go over these issues. yeah. and i just want to add hr does have a role in these silos. and we have finger pointed at other departments too. and so i want to be clear that we have some ownership in this as well, and you know the superintendent has made this a priority, my colleagues on executive cabinet are committed to working together. and, you know, doctor huntoon, who's recently joined the district, as our associate superintendent of business, has made it clear that hr and business are going to be partners and we're going to work together. so it's one part acknowledgment and gratitude. another part of a push. i and so i just want to begin by saying,

you know, as someone who was there watching you all go into the superintendents conference room and spend literally the entire day, with, leaders across the divisions trying to figure out what was doing in genuine partnership with cde, just a huge amount of gratitude. and that shouldn't be happening when we have major significant challenges like this. and, and, you know, there was a few weeks ago when star king had some reached out with some, some challenges as well. and, and i just want to say what i, i said at that meeting to affirm, affirm and confirm my understanding of the situation. and you all please push on. if this is not the accurate understanding of where we are, but the exercise of identifying a position number, understanding the funding that's going to be matched to that position before offering and hiring an

individual is a practice that is good and should be continuing, even if right now it's a muscle that we're trying to build. i just want to. is that right? that that is the essence of the challenge. i can start and before sorry, before you answer. student delegate langston, please feel free to go at any time. i don't want to trap you here, so thank you for your service. and if you have questions, i don't know if you had anything. okay. you're good. great. thank you. sorry so, commissioner kim, to answer your question, i mean, part of the, silos that the action that's happened in the past has been hr and business pointing fingers like i can't hire because i don't have a position number. the position number means it's budgeted, right. so it all goes back to position control. and if we can't, if we don't have a budget number, it means the position is not in the budget.

we don't have a budget to pay for the position. so it's not just a bureaucratic process to, you know, annoy sites with. it really does have a it's rooted in whether or not we've budgeted the position and we have the funds to pay for it. great. i think the headline i'm trying to, feel is accurate is we're moving in the right direction, and it's a matter of building our muscle to continue to do that practice better and more efficiently. is that is that the headline, or is there something that we're missing in terms of a system process or anything like that, in terms of the ways in which we are getting someone into a position and hired and onboarded that were missing here? no, i, commissioner kim, i don't think you are off at all. i think you're absolutely right that that is the normal way of doing business, right? we've been talking a lot about chairs, and i want to reference something that commissioner lamb said a few minutes ago about. it

starts with hr and in a way, from a hiring standpoint, it actually ends with hr, right? so his job is to put bodies in chairs. but we don't build the chair. we determine the number of chairs. we need based off of enrollment and then budget. actually like creates the chair, which is the position number. and then we put bodies on the chair right. and so if we are still asking ourselves after we've already grabbed a body to put in the chair, does the chair exist right then we're not like there's something wrong there, right. and so what we're trying to do is have everybody on the same page, like, here are the number of chairs we need. the chairs do exist and now we can put bodies on them. yeah. thank you. and i guess then the question of systems and teamwor, collaboration among divisions moving forward as, as the kind

of urgent day long meetings kind of subside as we fill more seats or chairs with people. what are those lasting systems that are moving forward that are allowing the divisions to continue engaging without there being a day long meeting in a room? i guess that's that's the systems wondering in terms of like breaking down silos that i'm curious about. yeah i think, you know, we've produced now a more clear calendar of like what to expect through the budgeting process. and then, you know, i, i think a key thing is we're going to need to do training on the new system. i mean, i, i, i know we've said this before. i don't mean to. it's just you know, we budget we did our budget of a 1.3 billion organization ultimately on google sheets. right. so when you get all these position numbers and everything, that's where some of it got lost in figuring out where they, where they were, you know, but we'll

be repeating the same, same mistakes of the past if we think just moving to a new system is going to solve everything, especially if we don't do the right training and the right setup of that, that system. but so i think we have now like we have the cadence of what needs to happen for at to swann's point for when we set up the budget. we need everybody to know their their roles in that. so ultimately when hr is moving forward with hiring, there's not any questions about where the position number is coming or, or the budget or anything like that. so i want to follow up, follow up on that. is that okay, around using the special education case study here as an example. so i appreciate the description of what happened. but so it sounds like, you know, there was a decision by budget to say, you know, we can't spend that much in special education. special education department said, well, we actually need these positions. so they sort of assumed that those positions were still there, even though budget hadn't budgeted for them.

and there was clearly a miscommunication. so i guess i would ask from the superintendency, what was your expectation of your department heads in that situation? what, you know, like what had what is clearly there was something there was a disconnect. so what did you expect of them? what actually happened? and what are you thinking about doing differently? moving forward to ensure that that kind of a thing doesn't happen again, yeah. so first, i mean, first there needs needs to be more, just from the beginning of the process, i think there needs to be more guidance and support with special education. and our business services office. so we just went through a centralized staffing process for our school. and overall, i mean, that helped us get a much better handle on like what we're, you know, what staff we can expect to have at our schools while also starting to manage staffing to contract

and managing our resources. we haven't done that really with with special education, and they were developing their their budget on, on their own. and i think there needs to be more practice. and then secondly, i mean, frankly, there needs to be a little bit more like kind of almost forensic analysis of what happened in that. so what i expect it to happen, i knew is that the, you know, budget they submitted there was too much. what i had understood happened was that that happens because special ed needs to submit all the positions they think they're going to have and to try to fill that. historically, we haven't filled. then they submit all the nonpublic agency requests to provide services, including services. if we're not able to fill a position that's over budget and that's what we reconcile. that reconciliation is what seemed to have happened without special education, because and why i say forensic analysis. i've now i asked business services to provide me with the budget. the budget actually did lower the npa

costs, but it didn't result in enough staff. but, you know, enough of the budget for staff to be able to move forward with those positions. so we need to understand how that happened. and i guess what's still not clear to me is how that connects to the silos. i mean, what i don't understand was it that the business services chief wasn't talking to the special ed chief was like, you know what i mean? like, i don't that's what i don't get. where was the breakdown? well, can i get an answer? and then. yeah, you can reframe it. okay. well, no, i think it was from when the budget, the adjustments that the budget, the adjustments that were made to submit a budget that would be approved, there wasn't the circling back with special education to say, okay, here's how we change things. now. let's make sure we're moving forward with hiring as we should. i think that was the missing piece. so there was the talk that you submitted a budget to buy. we got to put it in line. budget took some actions to put it in line. thinking it meant still met what would be needed and then there wasn't the

circle back. and is that like at the level of the head of the department? is it mid-level people? i guess i'm trying to, because again, and we don't have to figure this all out right now. but i guess what i'm saying is from a strategic lens, is it these people aren't talking. these people aren't talking like, what's creating the silos? because if we don't have an analysis of what the problem is, i don't understand how we're going to because these aren't physical silos, right? they're not made of concrete. they're actually because there's all these humans and they all work. a lot of them work in this building or in just right down the street. so there's something that's stopping them from communicating. and i'm trying to understand what that is. and yeah, and we kind of mentioned this a little bit in the presentation. but i think, it's the least funny comedy of errors. but like in those two departments that you're talking about, who was leading the department in june is different than who was leading the department in july. right. both special ed leadership transition transition and business services leadership leadership transition. so something

happened where there was not a reconnection about what this plan was. and when we changed to frontline, we won't be allowed to have a separate budget. and position like this will force these systems to be integrated. can i follow up? go ahead. go ahead. no, i was just gonna say i mean, i think there is an element of like, we didn't know what we didn't know until we started doing it all, all to. so i appreciate you saying like not yeah. not everything. that's why i say there's still more work to do to. well, and to be clear, i want to repeat what, assistant superintendent beyer said at the beginning. this is a systems dysfunction, not a people dysfunction. i mean, the people are not the problem, but there is a systems organizational systems cultural problem. and frankly, i would say a leadership management problem because somebody it needs to be it must be somebody's job to make sure that that kind of

miscommunication doesn't happen. and i guess i don't know, is that what you were going to speak to? yes. i have a lot to say here. and frankly, i've been saying a lot of this over the past couple of years. we'll try to keep it focused on a strategic question, though, because we want to hear from our no. but so my strategic question is, is our district aligning our accountability structures in the way that we need to be to honor special education? and one of the points i will make is we are a single district selpa we've had this conversation, nothing new about that, right? and our director of special education is also our selpa director, when in many other districts, the selpa is actually a county level function, we are very enmeshed here in sfusd. we don't have that county oversight, technical assistance. and so when our selpa director actually is two levels below the superintendent on the org chart, that raises accountability questions. i've said that in the past. and also when we talked earlier this year, we had when we when we renewed our contracts, when our

new head of special education contract was brought forward and head of ed services, one of the comments was, hey, and look, we eliminated our director of finance from the special education department. look, we're saving a position. and at the time i asked and it wasn't a strategic question, so i was shut down at the time about having this conversation. but at the time i asked, how is this going to impact our oversight and accountability from a budget standpoint for sped? and here we are, so can i rephrase that into a strategic question? well, i have a couple more that you might want to, but i want you to get a response from him, is what i'm saying, because i think the important there's a couple more that lead into this too. okay. but because we also brought forward as we have to do every year, the selpa plan in may and it had the ftes listed. we as a board are on the hook for approving all of those ftes in that local plan. and so why at that point when our previous head of special education in july, in june, may was still on the books and our last business

and budget services person was still, it's not fair to blame all this on a transition in leadership. this is huge systems problem. it's not because two people left the district, it's because we don't have the right oversight and accountability. we bury special education three levels down on the org chart. we don't have the checks and balances that we need to. and now we have legal obligations to students that we're failing to meet. so, i so to bring it back to a strategic i will, so on slide 16, when we say we exceeded our allocated funding, that's what got me hot. that's why i'm so like we didn't exceed our allocated funding. we failed in our obligations to our students with ieps by not tying all the dots together, so what are we doing to bring ourselves back into compliance to meet our legal mandates strategically? what are we doing to review our

leadership structure, and frankly, what are we going to do to are we proactively reaching out to families whose kids don't have the services right now? what are we doing? let's keep the students entered. we are failing kids right now. what are we doing for them right now while they don't have the staff in place to give them an education, i'll stop there. a lot. and yeah, as i said, it's a, you know, most importantly, we need to be focused on what this means for our for the students. but with respect to and kind of going back to the systems issue, i mean, i still i actually still believe not having a separate executive director in special education from business services, like those were the kind of things that happened that i feel like created the silos because you had people who, you know, were

were not connected across the departments. right? so business services needs to needs to know what's happening in special education. and special education needs to be able to work with business services for that, you know, for, for that piece to, to work and i i'll just go back to say, i think just as we did a much better job of our school site budgets and having a much greater handle on what's coming forward, that's what we need to do with with special education. so you're right that it doesn't come forward. that one hand saying, here's the plan. we're submitting with this a number of staff. and then the other hand is saying, okay, but where's the funding for that? because that staff represents our obligation to students as you said. so i guess what i'm not hearing to commissioner fisher's question is like, what's our analysis of, again, the systemic barriers? i heard you suggest that maybe eliminating that business service, that special ed business position, was supposed to help. so did it help? did it not help? what's like what's your analysis of the issues that

commissioner fisher was talking about? i mean, do you think what's causing those and what's the plan moving forward, i just wanted to add on behalf of my colleagues in special education that they have engaged in with fcmat to come in and do an audit and a study on the department. so that might help answer some of these questions. yeah we don't have anything to say until the fcmat audit. no, i mean, you know, i feel like i, i've, i don't know that i have anything new to add. right at this moment. i want to fair enough. and i think maybe what you're hearing is a, i think what i would like to see from the, from the board, i don't know if my colleagues can weigh in on this is, you know, the monitoring report says in on page six that we need to improve communication

among district departments. that's one of the parts of the plan. and it says there's a paragraph that says recognizing the detrimental effects of departmental silos. sfusd is working to foster better communication and collaboration across departments. this includes the establishment of cross-functional teams that will meet regularly to align staffing needs with district goals, share information, and address any emerging emerging challenges in real time. i think i would like to see more detail on that and frankly, an assessment of whether it's working or not, because i think what you're hearing from us is that these were we had these failures, had serious impacts on kids and as commissioner fisher was just talking about on kids with ieps who are our kids who who deserv, you know, the most attention in many respects. and so i think that's what i think we want to see is a plan moving forward. and it's and if it doesn't exist, we can't expect it to be produced out of thin air. so i think we've heard from the hr

department a really i think, exemplary reflective exercise. i would personally love to see that at an executive level in the district of regarding the silos, like what's actually wha, why is this happening? and then what's our plan? proactively to move forward. and so maybe we can talk later about what that might look like. but i think it would also help to build confidence for the public, for the sfusd community, that these issues are actually being addressed. because, again, i think the real talk is where we need to start. and again, i'm really excited. the new erp system is going to help a lot. you know, if there's a plan around the siloing, the cultural and organizational aspects of the siloing, it would be great to share it so that we all could say, hey, this is the plan and this is what we're going to do, and this is what we might expect to see. and if it doesn't work, we adjust. right. again, i don't think anyone's expecting there to be instant results, but when there are failures, we got to make sure that we're taking responsibility and accountability and then having a plan moving forward. in my

opinion. so i don't know if other colleagues have wrap up questions before we vote. questions or comments or the superintendent. all right. so we're voting again on the monitoring report. and you know it does. obviously we didn't meet the target. so it could be argued that we made progress depending on how we interpret that. because we went we did go from 79 to 82%. so and then the other question is did we did we, do we have a plan to meet the, the target. so is there any other discussion people want to have before we vote? if not, we can do a roll call vote please. commissioner bogas well, can i before we do that, can i ask a clarifying question? i think voting on this particular like the monitoring report, the one data point we're looking at here, going from to 82%, is

different than the overarching yes information that we're asking for. so that's right. you're voting on the monitoring report that was primarily focused on air. so i would although this discussion did broaden i would focus your vote on that because that's what we're voting on. that's where i'm struggling. well, because i the questions that i think needed i, i'm struggling with limiting this to air because to me love you all. thank you for the work. as we discussed, it's a much bigger issue. we're voting on the monitoring report, which is the document. we're not voting on air. we're voting on the monitoring report, which is the document they produced. do we approve it or not based on the criteria? so then i guess my clarifying question is what are the next steps for the follow ups to the strategic questions that you have asked that are bigger than air? we don't. we'll have to figure that out. yeah. but i mean, i do think that like the broader strategic questions,

that does get captured a lot in the work. well now you're on it too, in the work of the ad hoc committee. right. because again, things like position control, staffing, how we're developing our budgeting, how we're defining core and not, you know, and special ed is going to be a big part of that, that that conversation. so i do think that's the forum where a lot of this follow up, not only will have it needs to happen because that's what that's really the ongoing accountability mechanism the board created. knowing this needed extra attention because we can't be back in this situation again, both for what it means for our kids, but also back where we have another interim report that's that's negatively certified. yeah. so why don't we consult and figure that out? i mean, maybe, maybe you all could do ask for a report on on the, on a strategic analysis or an after action review and on the siloing, i don't know, we can i think we can figure that out collectively moving forward as a board. is that right? if we vote no just

to clarify, was there a motion in a second for this item before we vote? and right now we're voting on whether or not to accept whether to accept the monitoring report on, on, on guardrail for 4.1. commissioner bogus. no commissioner. fisher. no commissioner. lamb. yes commissioner. kim. yes commissioner. sanchez. yes vice president. wiseman ward. yes. and president alexander. yes. that's five eyes passes, thanks, everyone, for your patience. i know that was a lengthy discussion, i think it was worthwhile because these are very serious issues. and, and again, deep appreciation for staff for your effectiveness and ability. and again, as someone said, real talk and willingness to really take them on so that

we can address them together, that's, that's what's it's going to take. i think we're all committed to it. so let's move on to g two. the designation of authorized district representatives for the state school facility program, superintendent wayne. yes. so we. i'm sorry, just opening, but this was an item we needed to bring forward, and it's. wait, let me see. sorry. can we get a motion in a second? first, i apologize, i should have asked second. oh, yeah, i know. okay. yeah. so this one, was, we participate in the school facility program to get matching funds, and we need to have a resolution naming district representatives to act on behal. and so, the template we did i

think there was a question, why is this not just on consent, but the template asked for it to be an action item. so that's why it's here. any questions or comments from the board? just a clarifying question. is it the designees are not named here. will they be named at some point. it's positions are named, not people. how the position. yeah i think that's done serve in those positions. exactly. okay this this allows i believe then this allows us to not if a new person comes in not to have to redo the form makes sense. yeah roll call vote, please. mr. bogas. yes, commissioner fisher. yes, commissioner. lamb. yes, commissioner. kim yes. commissioner. sanchez. yes. vice president. wiseman ward. yes. and president. alexander. yes.

seven eyes. all right. now, item. three action item three, which is declaration of need for fully qualified educators. may i have a motion and a second, please? so moved. second, superintendent wayne, yeah. so this is an annual declaration that that needs to occur in order for us to know where we have some staffing needs and then to be able to assign people into the positions appropriately, recognizing there will be work with the credentialing, with on credentials to make sure that it's compliant or that we're compliant. any questions or comments from the board? all right. roll call. vote, please. commissioner bogas. yes, commissioner fisher. yes commissioner. lamb. yes. commissioner. kim. yes. mr. sanchez. yes. vice president. wiseman. ward. yes president.

alexander. yes. that's seven eyes. thank you. action item four is a resolution supporting the statewide proposition two. the kindergarten through grade 12 schools and local community college public education facilities modernization, repair and safety bond act of 2024. can i have a motion in a second, please? so moved. second. so we just thought it was important to be on record supporting this state proposition, the, you kno, we our district that is able to take advantage of this when there's matching funds. and you see, we have designated some staff to sign off on that because of our bond program. and so it's critical that these state, bonds get approved. and so they can support our, our projects as well, because even what we raised from our bonds, you know, our need far exceeds that, that amount. so this is an opportunity for the board of education and representing san francisco unified to be on record as supporting this proposition. any questions or

comments from the board? seeing none. roll call. vote please. commissioner bogas. yes. commissioner. fisher. yes commissioner. lamb. yes. commissioner. kim. yes commissioner. sanchez. yes. vice president. wise. yes president. alexander. yes. seven eyes. thank you. all right. now we're going to move on to item h, the general obligation bond program. are we going to take these two together? superintendent so you do. yeah. why don't i speak to both and you can decide how you want to, proceed. so because these are both under the bond items, right? yeah. i think because they're both discussion items. so we can take them both. actually, we do need you to. i know you just accept the audit. right? so you're you're i don't yeah, i don't these aren't action items. right. so we just the audit just needs to be presented at a at a regular board meeting. so, the audit is attached. there were no

significant findings, correct. and this is listening to our, our bond program manager. and so but we do also have with our audit, our cboc report. and so i would encourage maybe let the cboc share. these are volunteer members of the committee who've stayed late to, to present to us. so if it's okay we can go straight to their presentation. then if there's questions about the presentation or the audit, we can take them all together. that sounds great. so welcome to the citizens bond oversight committee representatives and thank you for your patience, and for coming tonight to present to us. so we have our chair, quincy, you and our co chair, our vice chair. what did we say? vice chair patrick wolf. thank you. members of the board of

education, thank you for having us tonight. i believe all of you have received the slides that we presented. in addition, i believe you all should have received our annual report that was approved by cboc in the las, cboc meeting. i have copies here. if you'd like hard copies and let me just start off the reason we are presenting is that this is a critical issue, not only for the taxpayers, but for the board of education, and also for the staff who oversees the bond and one of the things that the public has said to us over and over again is we don't understand what you do. so we're being very simple tonight. what is sybok? sybok is the citizens

bond oversight committee. it was created because of prop 2039 that passed in 2000. and it is a mandatory oversight committee. whenever a school district has an active bond program under prop 39. now, why do we exist? prop 39 provided an exception to the limitation on the ad valorem property taxes, and two thirds required vote to pass any taxes in return for making it much easier to pass taxes to fund school district capital needs. there were three accountability requirements included one. there was requirement that specific project lists indicating how money will be spent be part of the resolution. second, funds

must only be used for capital expenditures, not for operating expenses. and third, a citizens bond oversight committee must be established to oversee spending and report to the public. so i'm going to turn it over to vice chair for the next part of this. hi. thanks so there are really two key points i want to make on this slide. you can read the section about who serves and the way in which we try to get representatives to represent the district. that's being taxed. but the two key points i want to make on this slide of this, first of all, the cboc serves the taxpayers there. i would say probably everybody i can't speak for everybody, but i know many people on the cboc have been involved with and cared deeply about the district. we have two people on the cboc who are

running for the school board. for example, several of us have been involved in many levels, have had children in the district. but it's very important to understand that when we serve in this seat, on this board, on this committee, we are not representing the district, we're not representing the interests of students, we're not representing the interests of families, we're representing the interests of the taxpayers. so that's the first point. and the second point i want to make on this slide is we have an oversight responsibility, but we're a strange animal because we have no authority. we can't make any decisions. we don't even have any special ability to get information beyond asking politely and issuing public records requests. and so our one power is our voice. we represent the taxpayers. we have to speak to you and speak to the public.

and so tonight we are going to talk about some of the things we think are important to understand. and we are going to use our voice. next slide pleas. so i want to talk about where we were, where we are and where we're going and when in terms of where we're going. i'm going to drill down on a specific item that we surfaced last week that i think is very important to understand. first, where we were, i want to be very clear, several years ago, this bond program was in a completely unacceptable place. it had not published audited financials for years. the cboc, which is legally mandated to be formed, had not been formed. it was members of the public in 2021 who noticed this and brought this to the attention of the board of education. it was not the board of education who remedied this without the public's notice. fortunately. oh

and by the way, not surprisingly, public. transparency. the public was nonexistent, very poor. now, fortunately, a lot of progress has been made, and it's very important for the public to understand that we have gone we have come a long way. we are now in legal compliance. we are getting much better information. the cboc has a very good working relationship with the bond program staff and the bond program staff has been beefed up over the last couple of years. there's been a lot of really good work being done by the bond program management staff, and the relationship has been fruitful with cboc. however we are not where we need to be. although we've made a lot of progress, there's still more information that needs to be presented. and one of the themes that we're going to come back to

is the board of education has not been, in our opinion, fulfilling its oversight role. and that's especially notable given where the bond program has come from. so where are we going? we believe that we will continue to have improved, bond and facilities reporting. we have now published a second annual report from the citizens bond oversight committee, which in a couple of minutes, chair, you will will take you through the key points. there is definitely much better transparency on bond project activity. and a critical component of this is we've now published the first quarterly report, which is available to the public, which we will be publishing in on an ongoing basis. we modeled this report after hayward unified, partly because we think hayward did a very good job, and partly because we figure if the boss came from hayward, that might spur some interest and, there's

a very important conversation that we had last week at that first, in the discussion of that quarterly report, which i'd like to take a couple of minutes to describe to you, because it surfaces a very, very important issue. and it's both in itself very important. and i think it exemplifies the kind of work, the kind of progress that we're making and that we continue that we intend to continue to make. so for members of the public, not only are these reports available online, but the meetings themselves are recorded. you can watch the cboc meetings if you want to watch this conversation, go to the 30 minute mark, which is when we start to discuss the quarterly report and the issue i'm going to describe now, the conversation really began at the minute 42. and so when we went through the comparison of the quarterly report, that the bond staff prepared in comparison to

hayward, and i really want to emphasize the terrific work that the bond program staff did in presenting this report. we noticed a discrepancy, and the discrepancy is that the hayward report, when it goes through all the different projects, actually gives an actual a budget versus actual and variance analysis. but that was not presented for the projects for sf, usd. and so we asked why not? and the specific answer that we got is the 2016 bond program does not track projects using this budget to actual methodology. initial allocation estimates for projects within the 2016 bond program lacked details or complexity in part because the district did not have robust facility data. looking to those original allocation assumptions

has not been carried by the board. the bond programs management, as a useful indicator, either in prior or current program leadership. a robust discussion followed, and i think we in the on the citizens bond oversight committee believe very strongly that there is a lot of value to this, but i would like to highlight something which is a hard truth, but i think is a very important one for you to think about, which is that the current bond program is regularly referred to as being on time and on budget. i think we and the citizens bond oversight committee would very much like to know what is the data and what is the analysis that underlie that claim, because it's not clear to us. in fact, it's not clear to us that that that that information could be provided. this is an executive level issue, and it's

a board level issue, and it is in itself both very important to address and an example of what we are surfacing to understand more deeply how the bond program is being managed and how it can be managed more effectively. and i'll hand it over to chair you to take it from there. as vice chair, wolff indicated, the 2024 annual report is the second report that has been developed. next slide. next slide and published for the bond program. the prior report was in september of 2023. the reports are not about the fiscal year. the reports are about what happened in the prior fiscal year. on the bond program. this

is because there has been a disconnect receiving financial information that is consistent with each fiscal year. however, sebok decided that we would no longer hold off on issuing an annual report due to lack of information, but we would report what did happen, what was missing, and what we are requesting. the prior sebok was unable to issue an annual report because all they were doing was trying to catch up on three fiscal year audits so that that could be accepted and presented to the board in the fiscal year 2023 recommendation list, of which there were seven, two which were not accepted, which we understood, five were accepted. unfortunately, of the

five, only four and a half were actually delivered in this fiscal year 2024 annual report. we also have recommendations not only for the bond staff, but for the board of education and for senior management of sf, usd. because sebok is only oversight in arrears. we look back, we don't look forward, and we have no voice in planning. however, the board of education and sf usd does have a voice in planning and oversight, not in hindsight, but in future sight. so one of the major recommendations is we are asking

the board of education to provide oversight, especially given the bond which is being proposed in november for $790 million. the four bonds that have been approved with prop 30, prop a bonds have been $2 billion. we are asking or the district is asking for 790 additional dollars in bonds. it behooves the board of education to ask the questions when and if that bond is approved. what is going to be used for that bond? how is it budgeted in order for you to do oversight as well as the district to review and determine what allocation should be done for those bond dollars and hold it accountable. so two of the major recommendations that we have made is for the

board of education to actively do oversight, not just on an annualized basis. second, that there is a coordinated effort at sfusd senior executive level to do oversight. we at cboc can only report what has been done timely audit reporting is also critical and such. and until recently it has not been done on a timely basis for many different reasons. hopefully we are on a new cycle and that reporting will be timely, transparent, quarterly reporting. we have been told often this has not been done. we do not have the data. we cannot report. that is unacceptable. there are standard financial reports. thank you very much, do

you want to wrap up or i'll wrap up you all have the annual report. you have all the recommendations. these are the highlights of those recommendations. and again, just i want to appreciate this as a volunteer committee. and as i said earlier in the evening. so we'll hear if there's any discussion, but know that we'll be following up with a formal response to the recommendations. they took the time to write them. we want to make sure we're saying where how we'll address them. and again, it may be here's what we can address. here's what we can address, but that will be documented from district leadership on behalf of the district. and that will be given to the board for good. wonderful. yeah and we are very grateful for your service and for, basically, as you pointed out, restarting this committee, which was, you know, i when i got on the board of education, there had not been one for as commissioner members for years.

so, so really appreciate your volunteer service and doing that. do you have our board members want to make comments or ask questions? commissioner lamb and then fisher or fisher then land, first i want to thank so much to the boc leadership and the members for this work and the recommendations. i think it is, really not only timely, but concise to what is the role of independent cboc, and that i really do appreciate certainly the leadership over the years, the push for transparency. and again, the theme is infrastructure, capacity, so that we can deliver on the promises to san francisco residents and san francisco taxpayers and voters. so, i also want to recognize that, you kno, as the fiscal and health oversight committee, it's ad hoc

now, i think that given not to forecast to into the future, but certainly this will be an ongoing, reality importance for the board of education to step continue to increase its oversight on the fiscal, operation health, including, our bond dollars, because, it is. absolutely. we've also seen the results, the impact that we have had with our bond dollars. so i do have some follow up questions, but i just wanted to first at least, i want to at, you know, at minimum to acknowledge the work that has been done by the we appreciate it. thank you. do you want to ask those questions now or. have you you can. either way i think a question that i have for the, superintendent and perhaps this is going to be part of the report, the formal response, is around, structurally in the in

the district around, the quarterly reporting. it sounds like the systems are going to have to be built. and the considerations there, around oversight and executive management, yeah. i mean, so, as kind of, i think in the history of, sfusd oversight, you know, there's been various structures. and so i'm not sure why. i mean, it is a required committee. so i'm not sure why in the previous structure, it wasn't it took so long to establish, in this structure. and now with the changes we did have an associate superintendent of operations, but now this traditionally falls under the associate superintendent of business and business services. so the focus has been doctor hutton's focus has been coming in on the fiscal stabilization plan. but she'll be overseeing and, you know, the

bond and facilities and those operations specifically. she's been working with, licinia and talking through, i think the response that the cboc shared was that, you know, in terms of looking back, we don't have all the data to do the actuals versus budgets on the 2016 projects. right. but for current projects and definitely moving forward, we've talked to doctor hunton about being able to provide that data because they are helpful reports to see, yeah. well, to see what's happening in the in the bond program. so moving forward, we should be able to provide those that will be included in the response. i think, it would be very helpful to provide any data or analysis to back up the claims that the bond program is, in fact, on time and on budget, that's simply not something that we're we can verify at this point. commissioner fisher. yes,

i will echo commissioner lam's feedback, and i think that that particular section around the original budget versus actuals in the variance report, in your recommendation, number two, the transparently transparent quarterly reporting is outlined very, very clearly. and so again, looking to the superintendent, i hope, you know, will you know, i won't rehash that since, commissioner lam's question answered that. so i think to you, president alexander, my, my question for you is the current recommendations include for us as the sfusd board of education to engage in oversight and i like the, you know, to invite at least one member of the boe, to attend at least a minimum of one cboc meeting per year. i would take that a step further. i think in the spirit of community engagement, the district, obviously we want to see the

district do work around community engagement, but that's also part of our responsibility as a board, i think each of us should be a liaison to one of our advisory committees and, and be attending regularly and be able to reflect that back here, so just something to consider, i mean, as we look at what community engagement looks like for us as a board, i think this is a great first start here. and i might take it even a little further. yeah. no, that sounds great. and i think it's definitely there's no reason we can't do that, you know, and i mean, i guess what i'm saying is it doesn't take my as president, i don't have to do anything to allow commissioners to do that. and we could just coordinate that amongst ourselves. certainly. and i also think i want to appreciate commissioner lam's point around the fiscal and operational health committee. also doing, i think, a lot we've increased our fiscal and operational health oversight because, i mean, there is and i appreciate the point being made by the seatback representatives

around the role of the board of education. and there is also an important role, you know, for staff to play in terms of being able to provide us with that information. and so just we want to be mindful not to sort of micromanage, but we do need to hold hold staff accountable as, as they're suggesting. and so i think the part of the reason behind setting up the fiscal and operational health committee was to establish those processes. so the dashboard is an example of that. and maybe there's some other process that we could that we could create to ensure that timely information is getting, you know, to the board that the board is then doing the oversight proactively, as you say, because you all are looking backward. how are we ensuring that looking forward, those that that accountability is happening with respect to the bond program as well? commissioner lamb, did you want to i just had a comment, a closing comment. great, you know how important we know that this bond is and has

been to our district and moving forward? is absolutely if you just even look at the long list of modernization, right. our, our schools are counting on, at this level of funding that we wouldn't otherwise get in our annual general funds. and so if it means, you know, fulfilling like the sea box requests around that transparency piece around, you know, the budgets and the spend and the remaining balances or more consistent of that and the and upping the oversight of the board of education. that's how we're going to continue building that trust. that's how we're going to be able to deliver on what we hope will be the next round of investments from san francisco taxpayers. yeah, i really like that. and maybe that's that, maybe that we set up those processes moving forward to, you know, because w, like you said, we desperately need that bond and we need to make sure the money is being spent. well, and again, i'll just reflect personally again, gratitude. when i arrived on the board of education, i mean, i

remember one of the first things that happened in 2021 was there was all this bond money from the 2016 bond, and nobody knew how it had been spent. and people couldn't explain how schools had been chosen and not chosen. and we didn't even have the oversight committee. so i think we've come a long way and we need to do better and prove to the public that we can be accountable for those funds. so any other closing comments from commissioners? thank you so much for your. oh, did you want to say a final thing? i just wanted to add a quick just to follow up on the point that you were making, president alexander, which is that, the best way to convince the public to trust you with the next bond is to show the public that they can trust you with the current bond. you know, and i think in really deeply internalizing that attitude is not only the right thing to do, it's also a very productive thing to do. thank you. thank you all. i really appreciate it. and so we will move now to, advisory committee

reports and appointments, approval of appointments to the child care planning and advisory council. superintendent. oh, did you want to. oh sorry, superintendent wayne. yes, it i, president, do we need to move this action item, yeah. yes. so this is just appointments. so if we can get a motion, i'll move it. second. any questions or comments from board members? seeing none. roll call. i will just say thank you to the appointees for being willing to step up and serve. thank you. roll call. vote, please. commissioner bogas. yes, commissioner. fisher. yes,

commissioner. lamb yes, mr. kim. yes. commissioner. sanchez. yes vice president. wiseman. ward. yes. and president. alexander. yes. seven eyes. all right. and now we're going to move to the consent calendar. i know there's a couple of things we need to talk about here, so first of all, are you saying that or am i saying that? i'm saying that on that one. okay, sorry. we're coordinating here. so, commissioner kim, i know needs to recuse himself from two items on the consent calendar, specifically, he's requested to recuse himself from item j 80, which includes the two mou with the sf symphony. item j 8012 and item j 8013. superintendent wayne, do you have items withdrawn or corrected? that's that. items being withdrawn. which one? yeah, i number 80. oh we're also with. that's the one

that we're also withdrawing. okay, we're withdrawing that. yeah. so we're withdrawing that because we need a, update, there's a software. a it's a software. so there's a software agreement that needs to go with this too. so we'll just pull it anyways. okay. so that one's not on the consent calendar anyway. okay. well no it is now i'm pulling. i'm saying you're withdrawing it. yeah i'm withdrawing it. so yeah, i should have done mine first actually you're right. number 80. yeah. the symphony. yeah. mou sorry to make things confusing because you're right. the normal order is you would say something, i would say something. but i should have said something first because. so now if you ask me, superintendent, is there anything you'd like to withdraw? yes, we'd like to withdraw 80 because we need to include the software services agreement. and that wasn't on the original. can i make a can i ask for a clarification? when you look at 80, there are actually 17 items listed there. are you withdrawing all 17 or. okay, okay, okay. all of item 80 is being withdrawn. so no need for

the recusals and it's just being withdrawn. no. no worries. i'm glad we're getting it clear. okay. the other thing i was going to ask, and i'm sorry i didn't ask this sooner, but i just think members of the public might wonder, because at the last meeting we said we were going to include the tiebreaker resolution here, and i didn't see it, so i just wanted to check on that. yeah. no. so that was that was an oversight. so we will have it on the next one. and when we talk to families though, again, we already got the direction. so we'll we'll still assure them that this is a support in practice. it doesn't happen until march. so yeah great. fantastic sorry. yeah. so motion and second on the consent calendar. second. all right. so roll call please. no i'm not ready. no mr. bogus yes, commissioner. fisher. yes, commissioner. lamp yes, commissioner. kim. yes, mr. sanchez. yes vice president. wiseman. ward. yes and president alexander. yes seven eyes that passes. all right. we now have

item l board members reports. do we have any reports from board delegates to membership organizations? no. not yet. any other reports by board members or advisory committee appointments? seeing none this meeting is adjourned at 9:56 p.m.

sfgovtv san francisco government television.

>> i'm supervisor connie chan. over the last 4 years i worked to make district 1 stronger and safeer for all families. first generation chinese immigrant, i aserved the public over two deck ades to give back to it the city

that gave my family new opportunities. it was haneer to be elected in 2020 and day one i worked to be a voice for district 1 residents. i believe every san franciscan deserve clean and safe streets. and pushed city hall to admore patrol to richmond, retired police ambassadors to neighborhood commercial cordize and expand street crisis response team. worked graffiti removal and street cleaning and supported working families. i fought budget cuts to programs for seniors and families. advocated for traffic safety measures for pedestrian and cyclist. today coming alive with night live, [indiscernible] help people connect and support small business, but there is more to be done. i am running for reelection to continue to hold city hall accountable to make sure government is working for

you, not big money special interest. [indiscernible] have not advocates for governments i'm a supervisor for residents small business and [indiscernible] proud to be endorsed by teachers and nurses and respected leaders like speaker nancy pelosi, congressman adam shif and [indiscernible] assembly member phil tarng. you can learn more at connie chan sf.com and i hope to have your vote this november. thank you. >> hi, there i'm jen nossokoff running for district 1 supervisor because i believe passionate in the power of community and