cases that come before the board. and for that reason, i into he h had -- i need to take care not to prejudge the case. and if the joint employer issue comes before the board, i commit to looking at the facts of that case with an open mind. i understand the concerns that you have raised and i'll speak to the clarity aspect of this. there are whole industries that were built up based on certain laws and the structures of certain laws. and in the last year or so now, we've had a flip flop of those laws. and employers, unions, employees need to have some clarity, some predictability in the way they can conduct their business and conduct their lives. so i think it's very important for the integrity of the board to have some finality and clarity on the joint employer issue as soon as possible. >> mr. ring, the former nl rb general counsel issued a memorandum in october 2016 stating that scholarship football players at private colleges and universities should be considered employees under the national labor relations act. th

the spark board does support us. in terms of actually i don't know if i answered the rest of your questions. >> the process around the relationship between the spark board and spark in general and our board. it seems like this was called sort of maybe by the leadership of our board. i don't know if there is a regular process for oversight accountability, transparency or conversation between sparks' board and the sfusd board of education and the public. >> we are trying to understand each board member and what they want to do in their role. the idea was by having one board of education member on the spark board that would have been the representation and connection between the spark board and board of education. we will take that feedback in for a better way. one last thing. at the end of the year our goal is to put out an annual report. that comes from both the spark sfusd and the spark board to share to the board of education. we hope that would be another layer to building that connection together. those are kind of

of the board, the directors serving on too many boards. these are structural issues and are certainly things you vote against, the reelection of directors for. that said, where you tend to see failed elections or directors receiving high levels of against votes tend to be on accountability related issue, matter affecting risk oversight or poor response to a prior shareholder vote. when i talk about risk oversight, a good example is milan, this is the manufacturer of epipen. that resulted in federal hearings, congressional hearings and lawsuits. as a result of that, shareholders voted in high opposition to the members of the board, members of the governance committee charged with risk oversight of these matters. in fact, one director at milan failed to receive majority support and they voted against that direct area as well as others. that director failed to receive support, just barely failed to, so shows evidence where your voting is having impact calling out or asking directors to be held accountable for their actions on the board. moving

good evening, president honda and members of the board. on behalf sparc, as you may recall, and the requestor acknowledges, this is our 7th or 8th hearing before you on this property. there are no new issues or concerns raised by this appeal. the request is very specific. the request can be granted only where the board finds extraordinary cases where the board finds that the city intentionally or inadvertently caused the requestor to be late in filing the appeal. there the standard isn't met. typically, the city provides notification to neighborhoods of the issuance that notice is required by code. jurisdiction requests are property if an error was made in notification and neighbors didn't know about the appeal. and, therefore, didn't have an opportunity to file. here no such notification was required. neither the city or sparc had any such violation. nothing was done to prevent the requestor from filing the appeal. the reason for that goes to the nature of the permit. it's a temporary permit of the existing m.c.d. permit. it's valid for on

at the board of appeals i've been awed by the intelligence of the board members to volunteer. i work with a talented and carrying people. thank you very much. it's been a privilege to serve the city of san francisco, and i very much appreciate this recognition. thank you. [ applause ] >> and so we would like to invite you as well into the well to take a picture with the entire board. thank you. >> okay. colleagues, that concludes our commendations for today. madam clerk, let's go to the items for adoption without reference to committee. >> items 13 through 17 are on the a deposition without committee reference calendar, an item may be removed and considered separately. >> okay. seeing supervisor peskin. >> could we separate items 14 and 17, please? >> okay. seeing no other names on the roster, madam clerk, on the remaining items, please call the role. [ roll call ] >> there are 1 11ayes. >> item 14 is a resolution to urge san francisco's state legislative delegation to introduce state legislation to enable san francisco to impose infrastructure impact fees on transportation net

matters within the board's jurisdiction. we ask that you refrain from using employee and student names. if you have a complaint about a district employee, you may submit it to the employee's supervisor in accordance with district policy. as a reminder. board rules do not allow us to respond to comment or attempt to answer questions during the public comment time. if appropriate, the superintendent will ask that staff follow up with the speaker. so at this time, i have -- let's see -- actually, i have no public comment. i don't have any speakers for general public comment as of this time. wow. i think that's like a first. can i get applause, please? no public comment tonight. [ applause ] thank you. item g is special order of business. there is none tonight. section h is a discussion of other educational items. superintendent matthews we're going to be discussing the local landmark proposals for three district schools and a discussion of superintendent's proposal 182-27fp1 public expenditures. dr. matthews. >> yes. good evenin

i'm pleased to welcome our nominee john ring to the board. you're welcome to introduce your family if you'd like in your opening statement. he worked for the international board of team centers when he went to law school at night. and since then he's been leading the washington offices labor and management practice group. he's also a member of the american bar association where he's held multiple positions including on the practice and procedures committee and committee under development of the law under the national labor relations act. mr. ring, welcome. you may begin your testimony. >> thank you, mr. chairman. chairman alexander, ranking member murray, members of the committee i'm honored to appear before you today as a nominee for the national relations board. i'd like to start by thanking my family many of whom are with me today for their support and many sacrifices. i'd also like to acknowledge my parents who are no longer with us but to whom i owe so much. they instilled to me the value of hard work, fair play and the respect for others

i wanted to share that with the board. there are no questions. >> it will not be released until mid-april. >> that's correct. >> i would like to address the commission on the station manager report. >> having closed public comment. questions for the board? thank you. >> item 13, the next item. the consulting services request for approval. >> commissioner, the audit is prepared every five years in accordance with the reporting policy. the purpose and i am going to provide an independent review of the analysis -- analyses and preparing for actual evaluation. and the draft is before you. i would like to draw your attention to the selection criteria. on page 4 of the draft. there are five bullet points. and required by our service provider selection policy would be 10% for the first bullet. 15%, 40%, 25% and 10%. and it would help us evaluate. if the board has questions, i would like to answer at this time. >> are there questions? >> experience and qualifications to the proposal. >> we can only judge the companies by the propos

we'll discuss that at the full board. right now, it's at october 1, but we'll have the conversation on tuesday if it will go to january 1. can i entertain a motion? >> supervisor yee: make a motion to pass this out of committee with positive recommendation of the amendment. >> supervisor safai: so moved. seconded. item is ordered. mr. clerk, please call item number two. >> clerk: ordinance amending administrative code for mior to appear at the board of supervisors for question and answer period. >> supervisor safai: we're joined by honorable supervisor peskin. go ahead and proceed on your item. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, chair safai, and supervisors yee and stefani. this is not earth-shattering legislation, but it's the result of two votes, which in 2010, when 60% of san francisco voters passed prop c, which was an amendment requiring the mayor to appear on a monthly basis to engage in policy discussions with members of the board for everybody to see. at the time, it's intent was to provide political engagement betwe

working with the parole board to review the composition of panels so the parole board includes greater, particularly for there are multiple victims involved or dispute between witnesses as to the suitability for release. the judgment also found the blanket ban on the transparency of parole board proceedings as unlawful. i accept the finding of the court and will not be challenging this. it was my view from the beginning very good reasons we should continue with a law that doesn't allow any transparency. when i addressed the house in the january, i said it had commissioned a review into how victims were involved with parole board decisions, and on whether there should be a way of challenging pa role there should be a way of challenging parole board decisions, that work has been continuing for these past 2.5 months. given the very serious issues, i can announce i intend to conduct further work to examine the pa role conduct further work to examine the parole board conduct further work to examine the pa role boa rd rules conduct further work to examine the parole board rules in their enti

and i also serve on the family connections board of excelsior and the center for youth wellness board. so i'm actively engaged through my role as a resident of the city. at cpmc, i direct our medi-cal strategy. we serve 1 in 3 through the san francisco health plan. we have active participation in the plan and this role on the board is critical to maintaining that we are up to date and making sure that the plan is vibrant and we're responding to the needs of patients and beneficiaries. i also oversee the development agreement health care commitments and work with nonprofit leaders across the city in forging community partnerships. so i look forward to continuing in this role. i've also had the privilege of serving on the finance committee so i have a particular area of focus ensuring the financial viability and the strength of the plan, so that it is available now and in perpetuity to serve this very important and vulnerable population in our city. thank you for having me here today and considering my reappointment. >> supervisor safai: thank you. any members of the committee have any

if this passes today at the full board, and at the full board, san francisco will be leading the nation standing arm-in-arm with our immigrant community. i want to acknowledge that this budget supplemental is an expansion of funding for the incredible and critical work that is already happening on the ground. this funding will increase resources for our community organizations and public defender, not only in the current fiscal year but the mayor's office has also agreed to annualize this critical funding. i have deep gratitude for the community partners who run the rapid response network that responds to reports of i.c.e. activity and dispatches attorneys as needed and, of course, for the non-profit immigrant defense attorneys who work constantly to defend their clients from deportations and to provide a range of other legal services. these community-based organizations have immense respect and trust from the communities they serve and this funding will allow them to significantly expand their staffing and infrastructure to continue this critical work. i also want to give appreciation

on february 27th, the board of supervisors appointed the representative for the tjpa board and with theffice of community and investments and infrastructure. and she will assume her role -- at the april board meeting. and they appointed chang, with the san francisco transportation authority as an alternate and i would like to welcome both to the tjpa boards. and on february 13th, the tjpa and supervisors kim's office received a letter from the community district encouraging the tjpa and the city to develop a proactive plan for addressing potential quality of life issues in the transit center and adjacent neighborhood in preparation for the opening of the sales force transit center later this year. we have issued a response to the letter which you were copied on. and also supervisor kim has arranged for a community meeting on march 16th to address the community needs and concerns which we will participate in. the tjpa is committed to continuing to enhance its coordination with the community members, stakeholders, service providers and local agencies having jurisdiction in regard to plann

past few years, the skate board community has utilized an unused portion of the treasure islandennis courts located at avenue m and 8th street for its skate boarding activities. skate park is now requesting to improve and rhenowe vate a portion of this area by building a concrete skate park complete with bampgs, ramps, jumps, and ledges. under the proposed use permit, skate park is requesting a month to month term with no permit fees commencing on april 1, 2018 for approximately 13,000 square feet of land. in consideration for state park's use of the premises, skate park will maintain the premises as a skate board park facility open to the general public for skate board use only and assume all responsibility for development, maintenance and repairs to the premises as well as provide a public benefit to the community by reaching out to treasure island residents to introduce them to skate boarding and making the skate park available for general public use at no cost. authority staff believes the public and community benefits along with the improvements represents fair market value

we will present them to the board in tw two weeks. we will get those out so the public can weigh in on those. there is after in capacity in the subway. two to three car trains and adding more shuttle service. we may be close to capacity. we will work to add more. >> thank you for watching. have a good night. >> thank you. ♪ regular board meeting of the san francisco unified school district board of education. it's tuesday, march 6th. roll call, please. [ roll call ] >>> thank you. if you would, please join me for the pledge of allegiance. [ pledge of allegiance. ] >>> thank you. section a is accessibility information for the public. section b are opening items. item one is approval of board minutes. there are none tonight. as has been announced in the past few meetings. members of the public, if they wish to address the board of education, an individual can complete a speaker card which looks like this, and they're located in the foyer right there. prior to the item being called. and presented to ms. casco. it's important that speaker

i'm just curious about the school board's perspective. the comment about the report e not including the school board's perspective. what's exactly missing? >> we're not -- we're not clear about what exactly they meant by that. some of them had felt that they didn't have enough time to read the full reports that were, you know, three lengthy reports that we received a week in advance, but we will certainly follow up with them on that, and that will be one of the issues that we hopefully touch on when we meet with them again. >> all right. thank you. >> commissioner pearlman? >> yeah, i wanted to ask a question. so if it's only an honorary type of essentially a title, when they would go to do work, would it go through the same processes of -- >> the state issues its own -- is its own permitting agency. >> right. right. >> it did seem from the conversation that there is concern that, again, that there is sort of a public perception that as a local landmark, that the state should be held to a higher standard, and that was something that they w

with cases before the board. is cory tege assistant administrator and will be joined by joseph duffy representing the department of building inspection and the public works for mapping. the board requests you turn off electronic devices and carry on conversations in the hallway. there are seven minutes to present a case and three minutes for rebuttal. members of the public who are not affiliate with the parties have up to three minutes each to address the board with no rebuttal and ask you speak into the microphone. you are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or business card to board staff when you come up to speak. there's speaker cards on the left side of the podium for your use. the board welcomes your comments and suggestions and we have customer satisfaction survey forms on the podium for your convenience. if you have a question about the hearings please speak to board staff during a break or after the meeting or call or visit the board office at 1650 mission street room 304. this meeting is broa

the chair: thank you very much, mr. josena. welcome back. thank you, board members i too would like to ask you either to reduce or wave the medallion fee for all medallion holders. you know sub dividing groups is not a very good thing. and quite frankly, i have another problem. i want you to sell my medallion 2, 3, 4 years ago but unfortunately, there was a little jerry mandering in the list of how medallions were sold and all of a sudden it was a priority on people who because medallions that would never stated but was put into action, including different ratios of -- i think it was seven medallions or because medallions to three medallions of non-because medallions and there was never any public discussion about that. so it's up to you guys to give us faith on the honesty and straightforwardness of the mta. thank you. >> the chair: thank you. check check rachel hide enfollowed by conseka and mcmerdo. >> good afternoon, director. my name is rachel heidan from the director of san francisco transit riders you should have seen our items but i want to call out

the review board -- the process of the review board will do a lot of that and we're tying this to 96a which we're in the process of retooling senate bill 953. we believe it's already been done but at the review board process. >> commissioner: what i'm hearing there's some requirements one with the state and one with the board of supervisors but also part is what's going to be reported out and that's the part i don't see why we can't include some information of what type of summary should be reported out that includes -- tell me -- whoever put this in green need to reconsider this. this goes to decision making and de-escalation and use of force and supervision and an agreed upon template. irregardless of what statute is going to require to report i don't see what's wrong with providing that type of information in the summary. >> that's already in the draft policy. what we're suggesting here is we take that same information and apply that basically to the report which is being rec reconfigured. >> commissioner: what's wrong with that? i dont see what the hurdle is? you're already going

and i hope that the board will have an opportunity to do it. i'm glad that our president utilized question time, for the first time, as i said before, since september, 2016. and the answer can be -- obviously, any person or elected official or politician can say, i don't know the answer. i will go back and look at it and study it and we see people on tv every day that have become professionals at not being transparent. if it doesn't work, we can amend the ordinance again, but i think that everybody agrees it's not working as well as it should. let's give the experiment a shot, colleagues. >> supervisor safai: thank you, supervisor peskin. i would add before i call on supervisor yee. i, too, have been around for some time. [laughter] and i remember when this was created. and i think about -- i don't always think about when we're creating policy about when we're doing this in the best of times, but also some of the times when we're hitting some stumbling blocks. and admittedly, i don't know if it was you supervisor peskin or if it was supervisor d