San Francisco Government SmartTranscripts:

[Martin Trujillo (Board Office/Clerk and Zoom Moderator)]: Commissioner Ray? Here. Commissioner Alexander? Here. Vice President Huling?

[Jaime Huling (Vice President, SFUSD Board of Education)]: Here.

[Martin Trujillo (Board Office/Clerk and Zoom Moderator)]: President Kim? Here. Commissioner Weissman-Ward?

[Lisa Weissman-Ward (Commissioner)]: Here.

[Martin Trujillo (Board Office/Clerk and Zoom Moderator)]: Commissioner Gupta? Commissioner Fisher?

[Alida Fisher (Commissioner)]: Here.

[Martin Trujillo (Board Office/Clerk and Zoom Moderator)]: Six present.

[Phil Kim (President, SFUSD Board of Education)]: SFUC will provide child care for regular board meetings and monitoring meetings on the 1st Floor in the Enrollment Center at 555 Franklin St from 06:30 to 9PM or the close of the meeting whichever comes first. Child care is for families who will be attending the regular monitoring board meetings. Space is limited and will be provided on a first come first served basis for children ages three to 10. For questions, please contact the board office at (415) 241-6427 or boardofficesfuc dot edu. At this time, before the board goes into closed session, I call for any speakers through the closed session items listed in the agenda. There will be a total of five minutes for speakers. Are there any speakers for public comment? No. I now resist this meeting at 05:04PM.

[SFGovTV Announcer]: SFGov TV, San Francisco government television.

[SFGovTV Announcer]: SFGov TV, San Francisco government television,

[SFGovTV Announcer]: SFGov TV, San Francisco Government Television.

[SFGovTV Announcer]: SFGov TV. San Francisco government television.

[SFGovTV Announcer]: SFGov TV, San Francisco Government Television.

[SFGovTV Announcer]: SFGov TV, San Francisco government television,

[Phil Kim (President, SFUSD Board of Education)]: objection, I would like to reorder the agenda by moving section c after section d so we can hear from the public first. Any objections? Thank you, commissioners. Sorry for that oversight. Apologies for that miss. I will also just name, depending on the timing of this meeting, we may reconvene into closed session. I will make that determination at the end of our meeting just depending on the timing of it all. Okay. Item D, which is now C, public comment.

[Lisa Weissman-Ward (Commissioner)]: Hello and welcome to members of

[Phil Kim (President, SFUSD Board of Education)]: the public for the regular meeting of the Board of the San Francisco Unified School District. Our public comment period lasts for one hour. Please also note that these clocks are off. So today, right now, it's 06:41. We'll say until 07:45PM. We look forward to hearing from the public before we conduct board business. Our goal is to conduct board business in an efficient, effective, and accessible manner during reasonable hours. We aim to respect staff, family, and community time by ensuring we move to board business as soon as possible. Each participant may speak for up to one minute. Staff will thank the participant at the one minute mark. At one minute and five seconds, I've asked Mr. Trujillo to please turn off the mic and transition to the next speaker. I ask members of the public to please respect that one minute limit so we can hear from as many speakers as possible. I encourage speakers who are speaking on the same topic to collaborate and combine their comments so the board can hear all viewpoints during our limited time. Please also note that the board accepts written public comments via email to boardofficesfusd dot

[Martin Trujillo (Board Office/Clerk and Zoom Moderator)]: edu.

[Phil Kim (President, SFUSD Board of Education)]: We will hear first from students in person, then members of the general public in person, beginning with agenda items and moving to non agenda items. Regardless of whether in person public comment is complete, we will save fifteen minutes for remote public comment or seven thirty pm, taking commenters in the same order as in person. To members of the public, on your right, you'll see signs that outline expectations for public comment and meeting conduct. We ask that all members of the public model the kind of tone, language, and behavior that we hope to see from our young people, respecting different viewpoints and allowing for all members of the public to participate. As a reminder, board rules in California law do not allow us to respond to comments or attempt to answer questions during the public comment time. If appropriate, the superintendent will ask that staff follow-up with speakers. Mister Trujillo.

[Martin Trujillo (Board Office/Clerk and Zoom Moderator)]: Thank you, president Kim. We'll start with students. Students, please line up to the right as I call your name or, yeah, to the left. Valeria, Sequoia, Camila Martinez.

[Supryia Ray (Commissioner)]: I'm sorry?

[Lisa Weissman-Ward (Commissioner)]: Hello?

[Valeria (Student, Guadalupe Elementary)]: Oh, hi. Good evening, members of the do I start? Oh, sorry. Good eve I can't reach it. I'm so sorry. I'm very nervous to do this. Good evening members of the board of education. My name is Valeria. I'm a fifth grader student in Guadalupe Elementary School. I love my school and my community. Guadalupe is a place where many students learn, feel safe, and support each other. I am here today because some decisions being made will affect our school and our students. First, the Springboard Summer Program was not approved for Guadalupe, even though our school worked with facilities to find a way to run it in the bungalows during construction. This program helps many students continue learning and reading during the summer. Second, Spanish TK was not approved even though our school has a strong bilingual program that supports many families in our community. At the same time, the district continues to bus students from our neighborhood to schools on the West Side while our school is losing enrollment. I am asking you to please listen to our community and support Guadalupe students and families. Thank you for your time. My

[Sequoia (Student, Guadalupe Elementary)]: name is and I know how students learn with SpringBoard because I was one of those students. I am here today to respectfully ask you to stop providing SpringBoard to my to my schoolmates who truly need the support to succeed in their reading skills. Learning how to read by understanding phonics is irreplaceable. When students build strong foundations in reading, they gain confidence and the ability to succeed in every subject. I also want to ask the district to provide a Spanish speaking TK teacher. Our youngest Spanish speaking students need this support so they can be fully prepared from the very beginning of their education. And please stop bussing our community students away in the name of the language programs. Instead, bring those languages pro language programs to Guadalupe so students can learn in their own community close to their families and their school. Our children deserve to strong literacy instruction, language support, and the opportunity to learn where they belong in their own neighborhood school. Thank you.

[Roberto Guzman Garcia (Parent, Guadalupe Elementary)]: Hi. My name is Camila. And I want to know how it's possible that we don't have money to pay for SpringBoard, but we have $6,000,000 to pay for kids to go to West Portal. When the needs at our school are much greater, how many more times do we need to come here and speak so that you'll listen to us? My classmates and my school need this program.

[Martin Trujillo (Board Office/Clerk and Zoom Moderator)]: We'll move to adult members of the public now. Please line up as I call your name. Miss Curry? Geneva Curry? Raj Sharma? Jenny Garcia? Ismail Garcia? Renee Gomez.

[Unidentified Guadalupe community member (public commenter)]: Okay. This is my third time advocating before all of you, but not my third time meeting individually with many faces in this room. And I just want to express before you that this community at Guadalupe is close to my heart, but I'm also part of that community. I am feeling very dismayed by the lack of support to our community, But I'm here to reiterate the concerns that bring me back to the table with the hope to be here and be seen. For more than twenty five years, the yellow bus paid by the district with a cost of $6,000,000 has and I am a taxpayer has been busing an approximately 50 students from our neighborhood to the West Side. As if this wasn't enough, the same students that go to another school come and use our after school programs. That's it?

[Martin Trujillo (Board Office/Clerk and Zoom Moderator)]: Yeah, that's it.

[Unidentified Guadalupe community member (public commenter)]: Oh, okay. More dismay.

[Martin Trujillo (Board Office/Clerk and Zoom Moderator)]: President Kim, hold on. I grabbed the wrong pile. I called in non agenda item first. Let me go to agenda item first. Yeah. Okay. Very good. No, your time is up now. So we'll go to the next speaker.

[Ayes Sharma (Principal, Guadalupe Elementary)]: Good evening, BOE members. My name is Ayes Sharma, and I'm the proud principal of Gallipay Elementary. Every morning, I stand up at our school gate and see more than students. I see hope. Families who believe their children belong, teachers who work tirelessly, and a committee that refuses to that refuses to give up. When construction came, we found a solution so a springboard could continue in our bungalows. Our student need their summer breeze for literacy, but answer was no. We asked for Spanish tique so our youngest learner could begin their journey in two languages, but answer was no. At the same time, buses continued to take children from our neighborhood to schools across the city while our classroom grows quieter. Yet our community kept working. Even our families experienced ice raids, separation. They built belonging. Chronic absenteeism dropped. Early literacy improved, and our third graders showed the highest literacy growth in the district. Our teacher did the work, our family did the work, our student did the work. Tonight, I ask you, please see Guadalupe, hear our community, and support the future of the students.

[Jenny Garcia (Parent, Guadalupe Elementary)]: Hello. My name is Jenny. Hello. Good afternoon. And I have a daughter, Itzany. She is currently in PK and at Guadalupe Elementary. I'm here to advocate for a Spanish TK program because my daughter's classes in English, my daughter is struggling to meet her learning goals. It is a shame to cut a program that will only help students that have a disadvantage in learning because their language is in Spanish. It is unfair that there is an English only TK at Guadalupe, but not a Spanish bilingual TK. A large majority of the students at Guadalupe come from a home that speaks Spanish. The students in the English kindergarten are more prepared than the Spanish bilingual kindergarten because the English only speaking kindergarten were able to attend a TK in their native language. We have the population, as we have over 60 students in our preschool program in Spanish. We also have a Spanish bilingual teacher who has many years teaching TK and is willing to teach Spanish bilingual TK. Thank you for hearing me. Hello.

[Ismail Garcia (Parent, Guadalupe Elementary)]: Good afternoon. I'm Ismail Garcia. This is Isany. I'm here on behalf of Guadalupe Elementary School. I wanna say that it's very unfair for their for them to cut, you know, Spanish TK next year. My daughter is apparently struggling because of, you know, the language barrier. I believe we do have a Spanish speaking teacher at our school, and it would be nice if you guys would support us. Thank you very much.

[Rene Gomez (Parent, Guadalupe Elementary)]: Do I have to bring it? No. Okay. Good evening. My name is Rene Gomez. I'm a parent of a child from Guadalupe Elementary. We are here to support our school and our community with a education that our our children deserve and families. It's our right. It's our taxes. We keep asking for help as a multicultural community. We need Spanish ticket, SpringBoard. We need our teachers also. Please stop the bus. We don't want it. We don't need it. And bring back. Don't cut more programs. It's been very helpful for our kids. With the parents and teachers have seen big progress. California, one of the most powerful states. Why can we be a top 10 in education? Why not be ambitious for the future of our childrens? Thank you.

[Martin Trujillo (Board Office/Clerk and Zoom Moderator)]: Please line up as I call your name. Roberto Rivera, Corey Robinson, Denisha Coleman, Kell Woodward, Courtney Hite.

[Roberto Guzman Garcia (Parent, Guadalupe Elementary)]: My name is Roberto Guzman Garcia and I have three kids at Guadalupe Elementary School. This California school dashboard is very clear about where our students stand in English language arts. Latino students are 78.6% below standard. Socioeconomically disadvantaged students, 42.4 below standard. Students with disabilities, 110 below standards. African American students, 107 below standard. These are not just statistics. They are our children. And if we're honest, there is one reason for these numbers being so low because too often this district fails to support the communities that need it the most. Guadalupe Elementary is a clear example. For the past three years, our community has worked hard to advocate for our students, especially special ed services, literacy, and keeping our children in their own community to learn instead of bussing them in the name of language programs. And during these years, we have seen real progress. We have strengthened our students' sense of belonging, reduced chronic absenteeism, and increased literacy engagement among families and students. Our community has done the work, But every year, we find ourselves back again before the board asking for the same basic supports time and again. And if we're honest, it's starting to feel personal. This year, the district removed Guadalupe's bilingual speech therapist and replaced them with a monolingual provider, reducing the access for Spanish speaking students. This year, the district removed iReady, the learning platform that was helping students improve in literacy right before the winter break and without notifying the families beforehand. And now the district is denying our families access to spring the springboard program, which helps students with their learning gaps. So I ask, why does it feel like every time our community starts to make progress, something is taken away? Why does the district make it harder for low income Latino communities to access the very supports that have helped their children succeed? Our students deserve stability, our families deserve respect, and our community deserves the opportunity to keep improving. Thank you.

[Corey Robinson (Community Schools Coordinator, Guadalupe Elementary)]: Hello Doctor. Sue and members of the board. My name is Corey Robinson. I am the proud community schools coordinator of Guadalupe Elementary School. Many of us have met before many times within the context of listening sessions, family meetings, and here in the same room where our community members have pleaded for years that the needs of our building be met. Given that fact, I was extremely dismayed to learn that you have reneged on your decision to discontinue the busing route that transports many of our local students to Westside Schools. I'm disappointed and frustrated because this district preaches equity when in reality, with this decision, it is clearly willing to finance segregation amongst our schools, the divestment of resources from our most vulnerable populations. While school choice seems equitable on the surface and supposedly enriches the diversity of school communities, it ignores several truths. That not all families have the means to navigate the system, especially our historically disenfranchised. That the busing of students further drains the enrollment capabilities and resources of already struggling institutions. And that busing of choice actually, at least in its current implementation, separates the inherent diversity and cultural wellspring already present within our neighborhoods. Likes of which can surely flourish in our local schools. Commissioner Gupta, when we spoke last year, he how great it would be if students could flourish where they are. I believe expanding the bus can be a critical investment in this future. Please reconsider your decision.

[Rosa Parks Elementary parent (name not stated)]: Okay. Good evening, Board and Doctor. Maria Su. I am funding my daughter's online tutor through my healthcare funded pockets. And I just wanted to bring to you guys' attention that Rosa Parks Rafael Well is one of the most diverse schools with students engaged in four distinct academic programs. Early education, special day classes, Japanese bilingual bicultural program, and STEAM. The district mandates these programs but require schools to use discretionary funds to fund them. The structural lack of support means we do not have the discretionary funds to cover our essential assistant principal and RSP positions. Our programs deserve instructional and administrative support to match their mandates. The number of our students with learning disabilities and IEPs is growing. The district is legally mandated to provide additional paraeducator support. So, I say this to say that we need advocacy. My kid is scoring below level and she's actually reading very well. So, look into that.

[Courtney Hite (Parent, Rosa Parks Elementary)]: Hello. My name is Courtney Hite, and my son is in kindergarten at Rosa Parks, and I have another kiddo that will be there in TK next year. Rosa Parks is an example of what a public school should be. As mentioned, it's extremely diverse, one of the most diverse in the city. We also have one of the highest IEP rates in the city. Almost a third of our students have an IEP. It's very high. And so we need the support to actually be able to support those kids, for our staff, for our teachers, for the families. My kindergartner does not currently need those supports, but many kids in his class do. And he may one day need that. So we have come as a community, and we are requesting a full time assistant principal, because that's the person that does all the IEP meetings. We need two full time RSP teachers and three RSP paras. And that will help us make sure all of our kids can succeed and also meet our legal mandate. Thank you.

[Kyle Woodward (Parent, Rosa Parks Elementary)]: Good evening. I'm Kyle Woodward. I'm a parent of first and fourth graders at Rosa Parks. I'm not going say anything that Courtney and Danisha did already say. We need full funding for our assistant principal and RSP support staff. We've got one of the largest IEP populations in the district and full time support staff are essential to their success. We've seen in the past what happens when we lose our AP, when we lose our RSPs and the answer is truancy skyrockets, academic performance craters and our entire school community suffers. SFUSD expects our school to cover these positions with discretionary funds, but these funds are already dedicated to other programs that the district has installed but is not funding, including, for example, our Japanese and STEAM programs. We need dedicated funding for the support staff necessary for our students to succeed. So we're gonna ask that you please give us an AP. Thank you.

[Martin Trujillo (Board Office/Clerk and Zoom Moderator)]: Please line up as I call your name. Audrey Norton, Melanie Gilbert, Kathy O'Byrne, Michelle Jack, Kiyomi Takeda.

[Paraeducator, Francisco Middle School (name not stated)]: Okay, testing. Oh yeah, this thing's on. I am a paraeducator at Francisco Middle School and I understand that this is a very difficult time for the district in terms of their budgeting, but they're finding excuses. I am dealing with budget cuts in SFUSD, which adversely could affect my position as well as other positions. Educators and staffs and staff are adversely affected, as are families, and most importantly students. They are all essentially pawns in a very complex game of chess. Budget cuts always create more problems than they solve. When budgets are cut, students lose access to programs that help them meet their needs. They lose staff who build trust and bonds with students and their families. The remaining staff are stretched beyond capacity, and the schools can't operate the way that they're expected to. The district advocates for safe, stable and fully staffed schools but relies on damage control and financial rapacity. The cycle keeps on repeating itself and is long overdue to break.

[Rosa Parks Elementary parent (audiologist; name not stated)]: Good evening. This is my first board meeting, so I'm a little nervous. But I'm a parent of a kid at Rosa Parks Elementary. And I love the school. The community is amazing. It has the Rafael Wheel preschool as well. And I just don't understand. I just learned, and I don't understand why we have two schools on-site, but we just have one administrator to do all of the IEPs. And then our school is in the top 10 schools with number of IEPs, kids with IEPs. And as an audiologist, I've attended IEPs. It's really important to have an administrator there who can support the parents and the family. And I just don't understand that. And I was hoping that we could fund a full position assistant principal at Rosa Parks. Thank you.

[Kathy O’Byrne (Paraeducator, Balboa High School)]: Good evening. I'm Kathy O'Byrne, a paraeducator from Balboa High School. I'm here tonight to speak in opposition to the consolidation of a special day class, Room 141 at Balboa High School. We are very upset and disappointed with SFUSD's decision, and our SDC students will lose their teacher again for the fourth time and the paraeducators they that they have built a good relationship with over the last three years. This will cause more anxiety and instability for already extremely high needs students. I've been a parrot in Room 141 for the twenty plus years and now and have seen how the classroom has gone through many, many teachers since I began 2006. The first six years I was in Room 154, there was one teacher and the same four paraeducators. Over the next fourteen years, there have been many emergency teachers, inexperienced

[Valeria (Student, Guadalupe Elementary)]: is that time?

[Michelle Jacques (Community Schools Coordinator; SEIU 1021)]: Try again. There we go. I'm Michelle Jacques. I am a community school coordinator at Groton PK to five school, where I support special education students, families, staff. And I'm a proud member of SEIU. I'm here tonight to remind the district and the board that we are still in contract negotiations with the district and have been for the entire school year. Our union represents custodians, nutrition workers, clerks, and community school coordinators. And we have been working all year without a contract and we are getting impatient. And schools don't run very well without us. I'm here to urge the district to please prioritize our contract resolution. We deserve no less. Our members recently stood in solidarity with teachers and paraeducators on picket lines and in the streets. And I will repeat their refrain, we can't wait. I also urge you to fully fund and staff special education. This is you talk about being student centered and equity driven. There is no better place to focus on than special education right now, especially SDC classrooms. Thank you.

[Kiyomi Takeda (Parent, Rosa Parks Elementary)]: Good evening, Doctor. Sue and board members. Thank you so much for having us. My name is Kiyomita Keda, and I am a proud parent at Rosa Parks Elementary School. We are truly the most diverse elementary school here in SFUSD. And we are so proud and we embrace all of our students. We are home to four different pathways, including our special education, our STEAM, and our Japanese bilingual and bicultural program. Each of these programs make our school incredible. They instill culture, values, and help our students thrive and succeed. But we're at a crossroads at our school because we're needing to make difficult decisions about the sustainability of our programs because of the lack of fundamental support for our teachers and students and especially those who have IEPs. We are currently in desperate need of a full time assistant principal, two RSB teachers and RSB paraeducators to help all of our students be able to learn and thrive. It is impossible for our programs to continue when our staff and students don't have the fundamental support that they need. Helping all of our students, especially those with IEPs, helps all of our students thrive. Thank you.

[Martin Trujillo (Board Office/Clerk and Zoom Moderator)]: Please line up as I call your name. Spearman, Patricia Bolin, Rory Abernethy.

[Andre Spearman (SEIU 1021)]: Testing. Good evening board members. Name is Andre Spearman. I'm with SEIU ten to one. We know what thriving schools look like, safe campuses, manageable workloads, and staff who earn livable wages. Stability for workers is also stability for students. You cannot have thriving classrooms without classified professionals. Let me say it again. You cannot have thriving classrooms without thriving professionals. To be in contract negotiations for a year, that means that they could have a baby and be on the way for another pregnancy for those who choose to have a family. How long does it take for you to decide that you are gonna come to the table and really truly negotiate and provide workers with the stability so they continue to provide that high quality of service that allow you, as a district, to recruit and retract and deal with declining enrollment? Thriving students, thriving

[Chris Montbenitis (Deputy Superintendent of Business Services)]: workers.

[Patricia Bowen (Parent, Rosa Parks Elementary)]: Hello, my name is Patricia Bowen and I am a parent at Rosa Parks. I have a first grader and a future kindergarten coming in in a couple years. And I appreciate that the school district is demonstrating long term investment in the building infrastructure of Rosa Parks Elementary School. With the bond money, they will be modernizing the buildings at Rosa Parks. So it's concerning that there's not an equal investment in the long term support in the instructional administrative areas of Rosa Parks. In order for Rosa Parks buildings to be able to support a learning environment, we need the staff and administrative support through, as other folks have mentioned, a full time assistant principal, two RSP teachers, and three RSP paras due to the large number of kids with IEPs and to support all of our kids. Thank you.

[Rory Abernethy (Teacher, James Denman Middle School)]: Rory Abernathy, James Timmand Middle School, math teacher. I'm here to speak about the contract being ratified in support of that, and also to get rid of all preliminary layoffs. I taught in Oakland for thirteen years. And one of the things I saw I said Oakland can feel your heart or you can break it. Because when there were not enough people, you saw tragedy all the time. And SFUSD is moving in that direction by cutting more staff. There was a recent incident in SFUSD. Can't go into detail because of confidentiality, but I will say this. The child felt safe going to her school. And people at that school made it safe. It wasn't the building. It was the people at that school. And in the state of New York, they have reduced class sizes statewide, because they know that children need more time with adults and more time with people. So when you cut people, when you do preliminary layoffs and you cut people, you put children at risk. This is life or death. And so I just want to emphasize that when you're considering these cuts, considering the safety of all of our children at SFUSD. Thank you.

[Martin Trujillo (Board Office/Clerk and Zoom Moderator)]: Please line up as I call your name. Mason Waller. Oh my goodness. Sorry. Valerie Karp. Rory Abernethy. I thought you were already here. Josh Davidson.

[Unidentified public commenter (system stress test theme)]: So others have shared details already that I'll echo, but I'll just name newcomer programs and special education as two. What I do think needs saying tonight, though, is that you are stress testing this system, and it may break. Others have said it in lots of ways, but the call to do more with less is literally the most consistent message we all, students, teachers, families, staff, get in this district. Do more with less. But you seem to have some kind of bizarre expectation that this formula will actually work, that it will get you the results that you want. I have serious doubts about this, but maybe. Even if it does, though, it will be through the attention and imagination and care that students, families, teachers, and staff bring to the effort through their own resolve. And there's a dilemma in this kind of success, and that's in making it seem like getting some desirable results mean that what you are doing actually works or is somehow good. So the underlying truth of all this is that you seem to care far more about the results than you want that you want than about how miserable you make people along the way.

[Devavaktani Sri Krishna (Parent, Aptos Middle; Engineer)]: Hi. My name is Devavaktani Sri Krishna. I'm a parent of twins at Aptos Middle School and also an electrical engineer. I'm here to talk about those black boxes that are sitting on either corner of this room. They're the the board funded generously funded one of those boxes for every classroom in San Francisco. However, that was in 2021. And in twenty twenty three, twenty four, the state and federal governments upgraded our standards to much higher levels, and those are now outdated, completely outdated. So they provide about a 150 CFM capacity when what we really need is 750 CFM in every classroom. And there's a golden opportunity for the the the problem is getting funding for this has been the biggest problem for the last three years. There's a golden opportunity on April 15 to apply for a, EPA grant that might fund part or if not all of this. So I urge the, the board to, to make sure this that we put in a grant grant application.

[Valerie Karp (Parent; UCSF cardiology manager)]: Valerie Karp, parents and UCSF cardiology manager. Breathing in wildfire smoke is bad. Cedars Sinai researchers recently presented unpublished data at the UCSF that showed last year's LA fires released eight times the amount of small particulate matter than the Twin Towers disaster. They showed marked increase for respiratory failure, heart attack, and abnormal blood chemistry, which actually remained abnormal at the ninety day mark. Data shows that the CDC standard of six air changes per hour in classrooms will scrub the air of the wildfire smoke, but it will also scrub flu, COVID, RSV, whooping cough, TB, and more, which will decrease absences, increase test scores, and improve student outcomes. You can literally balance the budget with clean air. Thank you.

[Rory Abernethy (Teacher, James Denman Middle School)]: I'm back. Okay. I was gifted clean boxes by Valerie and it has been life changing. Students are more alert and awake, and I personally have so much more energy at the end of the day as an educator. Lincoln, Commodore Slote, APG and E, and myself at Denman all have testimonials about clean air. During the Biden administration, there was virtually unlimited money for clean air in classrooms. Most California public school districts applied and used this money. San Francisco did not apply. The entire state of Michigan used the money to purchase clean boxes for every single public school in the state to meet the federal standard of five air changes per hour. It is not too late for San Francisco. As the two previous speakers mentioned, the Environmental Protection Agency has a grant that's due 04/15/2026. Let's not miss out. This is free money because clean air is bright minds, and all students in San Francisco deserve clean air in the classrooms. Thank you.

[Josh Davidson (SEIU 1021; Chef, SF Public Schools)]: There. I'm Josh Davidson, SEIU ten to one. I'm also the chef for San Francisco Public Schools. I want to say that it's really necessary that we invest in our staff at this time. We've been in contract negotiations all year. Our contract expired June 30. It's time to get it done. Your team came to our last bargaining session with zero proposals. Nothing of any kind. It was disrespectful. It's time to get it closed. Meanwhile, my managers have asked me to increase my workload and my team's workload by 60% next year with no additional staff time. And not because they can't afford it, because it's cheaper for us to make the meals than it is for us to buy them from an outside vendor, But because we can't hire anybody to fill the need, because we don't have a contract, please get it fixed. Thank you.

[Martin Trujillo (Board Office/Clerk and Zoom Moderator)]: Please line up as I call your name. Rayco Ando, Ray Natalo, Tiana Tillery, Cassandra Curiel.

[Rayco Ando (Parent; former SFUSD teacher, Rosa Parks Elementary)]: Hi, my name is Rayco Ando. I'm the parent of a fourth grader at Rosa Parks Elementary School. I'm also a former SFUSD teacher who also has worked at Rosa Parks. And a lot of my my child's educators are my former colleagues who I trust dearly. Our school sites saw how catastrophic it was when we lost our assistant principal back during the 'twenty two-'twenty three school year. And as a lot of the other members of my community have already noted, we have a high number of students with IEPs who need support from our administrator as well as from RSPs. Need a full I mean, now we have a point five AP. We need her to be full time. We also need RRSP and para support at our school sites so that we can serve all of our students. Thank you.

[Unidentified public commenter (on layoffs/newcomer program)]: Good evening. Here. I'm here to ask you to please reverse those preliminary layoffs. We need as much staff support. I support everything that was said before me. Our students deserve the best education that they can get, and they can only get that if they have fully staffed programs. Cutting the newcomer program by half, I don't think you understand that that means it's really cut whole. You can't half half of a program and serve a student. And, what you're potentially doing, or what you actually are doing, is you're gonna move kids through the system that can't read. You're gonna move kids through the system that need mental health services. You're gonna move kids through the system and graduate them out into the public without the safety net being imposed in the city. And so basically, you're creating a problem that we don't have yet, Or a growing problem that could get bigger. So, I'm asking you, please, you need to reverse those layoffs, and you need to really intentionally go to the schools and understand what these positions actually do. Because they serve a whole lot more than what they look like on black and white. Thank you.

[Tiana Tillery (Union/Paraeducator advocate)]: Good evening, everyone. Good evening, President Kim, commissioners, superintendent Doctor. Sue, and to our community here. My name is Tiana Tillery, and I'm I'm angry, I'm frustrated, and I am disappointed. Tonight, you are going to be considering sending preliminary layoff notices to early education instructional aids, elementary instructional aids, community relations specialists, including elementary and student advisers, and our security, our t tens. But let's tell the truth about what's happening. We're continuing to attack the lowest paid workers of the district. The people who support our most vulnerable students, the people who break up fights, calm students down, help them read, help them write, and help them believe in themselves. The people who often live in the same communities as the children they serve. And yet, when it's time to make cuts, we're the first ones on the chopping block. I understand that schools are making decisions about what resources they think they need to support our students, But what is plainly clear is that many are overlooking the one most one of the most valuable resources standing right in front of them, paraeducators. I I recently visited school sites for paraeducator meetings and had the honor of sitting sitting in on a professional development session at doctor Charles Drew Academy. What I saw there was powerful. Paraeducators learning and demonstrating how to provide small group instruction and one on one support to students who are struggling. Students who desperately need more attention, more care, and more academic support. Paraeducators are often are even running their own small group learning centers. They have well developed lesson plans, sight words prepared for literacy development, and interactive boards that help students stay engaged and excited about learning. These are not people simply assisting in the classroom. These are educators doing intentional, meaningful instruction instructional work with our students. And yet the district oh, excuse me. Yet across the district, our paraeducators are not being utilized to their fullest potential. And far too often, they are treated as though their work is less than. And what I want to say oh, sorry. And I want to say something else tonight. I think the board needs to hear. This is now the fifth year in a row that I have stood at this podium saying the same thing. Each year we come here. Each year, preliminary layoffs go out. Each year, we fight to save the positions. And each year, many of those positions are restored, and we thank you for that. But we also have to acknowledge the damage this cycle is causing. The constant threat of layoffs is creating preliminary notice fatigue among our paraeducators. Highly qualified, deeply committed educators are leaving our district because they cannot continue to live with the uncertainty of whether they have a job every spring. These are people our students trust. These are relationships that take years to build. And every time we lose one of these educators, our students lose something too. During bargaining this year, the district finally agreed to correct a wrong that was done to our security aids more than a decade ago. One hour had been taken from each security aid to prevent two female security aids from being laid off with the promise that the hour would be returned. And more than ten years later, that hour has finally been restored. But at the very same time, we are correcting this wrong. Twenty one secondurity aids are now facing preliminary layoffs. You cannot celebrate correcting a wrong while creating a new one. Let me say this plainly, our schools cannot function without paraeducators. Balancing budgets by threatening the lowest paid workers in the district year after year is not leadership. It is not equity and it is not justice. So tonight, I challenge you, as I do every year, I challenge you to be brave. Be brave enough to vote no on these preliminary layoff notices for paraeducators. There has to be another way. Our students deserve stability. Our educators deserve dignity and job security. And we'll continue to say it loudly and clearly, not on the backs of our educators, not on the backs of our paraeducators, not anymore. Thank you.

[Cassondra Curiel (President, UESF)]: Folks. Cassandra Corio, president of UESF. I was planning to come today to make sure that we were really clear on the fact that we achieved an agreement through hard work over four days trying to get to that end result, and that that was going to go through. We're going to be able to make it through the budget season, which is later than normal, and go through our up and downs. Instead, I've got a whole list of problems to come forward that aren't even related to this, but nonetheless part of the same ecosystem. And the reason that I come to the Board is because you are in the, for better or worse, how you take it, position, to not be in customer service but public service, and be accountable and responsible for the outcomes of this issue. Many of the items on my list have been a problem in the past and looked like they were up on resolution side of things. We were able to point to a crisis level at Empower, that it was a systems issue, and able to implement a systems response. And at this point, I have a litany of issues that are impacting folks that aren't even related to the collective bargaining agreement that I wish I was up here talking about. Substitutes have been moved pay multiple times outside of the contract as a violation. And today, we got word that they weren't paid yesterday. We knew they didn't get paid yesterday. These are substitutes who have been covering in classes for the over close to 300, but let's just go with 100 classroom teacher vacancies, not including the classified, who've been covering students' classrooms, right, are in front of students. A substitute does not get called if we don't have work to do with students. Those are folks who have been in schools working and who haven't been paid for those days. Right? We have rent due on the first. Further, tickets. All of our payroll issues, we we, as educators and those of us workers in schools, we are public employees. And so the basic assumption here is that we're getting paid for the work that we're doing. And that in the off chance, which has occurred in the past let me put on a rational moment here errors can occur. There's sometimes a hiccup in the system. Or perhaps we put in for something. Or under. We put in a correction in a ticket form, and those aren't getting answered on a scale that is astronomical at this point considering that we resolved a systems issue. And when I've got a classroom educator, a classroom member of ours who is a monthly salaried employee getting a $30 check, thousands and thousands of dollars below, this is a bigger issue. And let's recall the last time that this occurred, thousands of people didn't receive a check. Right? We have moved to a box system that works in every other district. This cannot be the only one. It cannot. I refuse to believe that. It cannot occur. Deductions are being made for SFA and HSA accounts that aren't being deposited into our issues. Our CalSTRS discrepancies, which is our state retirement pension system. This cannot be happening. And there is a level of indecisiveness that I hope gets resolved as a result of this meeting so that we can balance out what needs to happen for the rest of the school year. I heard a decision was made loud and clear. We clarified that that decision was made so that families and students could plan. Every time that there is education occurring in a classroom, an educator is working to make sure that that happens. But in order for us to deal with that calendar issue, we need decisions, not what ifs. We have to manage this in such a way that we can make sure we're evening out. We're a partner to this issue, not in response. When problems are solved one at a time instead of taking a systems level approach without having an understanding that we're in an ecosystem. Teachers do not want to be working in classrooms where our janitorial fellow colleagues have not been working. Right? Everything is an ecosystem. We are all related. We need them to have a closed contract. We also need to make sure that we're all on board for the calendar. And whatever gets done, we have to know about it. Instead of solving this issue one at a time, there will be a domino effect. And when we aren't treated as partners, then we grow into the type of problem that we all just experienced. It should not take ten months to negotiate a contract. It should not take levels and levels of barriers. In order to be the solution, we have to take actions. And not taking an action is an action. We need answers. We need to be able to plan so that we can work with our students and families and get them ready and prepped up for next school year. And then we'll do it all again because that's what we're committed to doing. Please. Accountability requires responsibility. Take it.

[Dr. Hsu (Superintendent, SFUSD)]: We

[Martin Trujillo (Board Office/Clerk and Zoom Moderator)]: will now move on to Zoom. And we'll hear from students first. If you are a student, please raise your hand if you'd like to speak. If you are a student and would like to speak, please raise your hand. Okay. We'll start with Jared Boygen, if you're a student. Miss Marshall, not yet, if you're a student. Okay, I see no students. We'll go to members of the public. If you're a member of the public and would like to speak on Zoom, please raise your hand. We'll start with Anika Elrich. Go ahead, Anika. Can you hear us, Anika? Okay. We'll come back to you. We'll go to parents for public schools. Go ahead and unmute.

[Dr. Vanessa Moreau (Parents for Public Schools)]: Hi. Good evening. Can you hear me, Martin?

[Martin Trujillo (Board Office/Clerk and Zoom Moderator)]: I can hear you, doctor. Go ahead.

[Dr. Vanessa Moreau (Parents for Public Schools)]: Okay. Thank you. Hey, guys. This is doctor Vanessa Moreau calling in. Thank you, one, to the board for all the work you're doing. I know this is mostly volunteer work, and I'm going to just come to you with two questions. One is, have you all done an impact assessment to decipher which programs or positions to consolidate? And if you have not done that, if staff hasn't done that, I think that's a good next step. The second is, in San Francisco, the median income is $128,000 to 146,000 Low income is considered $104,000 Our paras don't make a fraction of that. So how can someone live on $30 That is not an error that is excusable. Okay? So those are the two things I have to leave you with. Have a good night.

[Martin Trujillo (Board Office/Clerk and Zoom Moderator)]: Thank you. We'll go back to Anika Ulrich. Anika, can you unmute? We can't hear you if you're trying to speak. We'll go to the next person, Go ahead and unmute.

[Chris Claus (SPED Dept. Head, Washington High; UESF bargaining team)]: I'm Chris Claus, the Sped Department Head at Washington High School. I was a member of the UESF bargaining team. For nearly a year, SFUSD failed to listen and respond to the needs of students and educators district wide. However, after a four day educators strike, we came to an agreement that will help so many educators to stay in the district, ease some of the overbearing workload on special educators, make our security guards whole, and help to enshrine real protections and supports for some of our most vulnerable students. I could go on and on with reasons to support this agreement, but my time is limited. I would like to thank Commissioner Alexander specifically for listening to and coming out during the demonstrations to support the educators and students of SFUSD. It is my sincere hope that SFUSD has learned to listen to students, families, and educators and that such drastic measures need never be taken again. I also hope that the district is listening to the comments about the need to decline the layoffs. We need the support in our schools. Pass the agreement and vote no on the layoffs because it is the right thing to do and be ready to listen and respond as real collaborators when negotiations begin again in about a year. Thank you.

[Martin Trujillo (Board Office/Clerk and Zoom Moderator)]: Thank you. We'll go now to Jared Boygon. Jared, go ahead and unmute.

[Jared Boygon (Public commenter)]: Hello, members of the board, superintendent, thank you for the time. I'm here talking about under consent agenda item G14. One of the contracts includes a contract with AROC, which is an organization that is under federal civil rights investigation for promoting violent and extremist rhetoric in our schools. I'm disappointed that this contract is buried deep in item G14. I would ask board members to pull it, but I don't know how many other contracts would be affected by pulling that item. It's unfortunate that I bet even some board members are not aware that this contract is included. Of course, we want to make sure that there are adequate services in our schools for Arabic speaking refugee and immigrant students. But this particular organization has a history of introducing violent rhetoric in our schools and creating an unhealthy and harmful environment for other students. And we would encourage the district to find other vendors who can provide this service without creating a harmful environment for other students. So if it's possible to pull item G14, I would request that. And otherwise, I would definitely

[Martin Trujillo (Board Office/Clerk and Zoom Moderator)]: Thank you for your comment. That concludes your time.

[Jared Boygon (Public commenter)]: With this organization. Thank you.

[Martin Trujillo (Board Office/Clerk and Zoom Moderator)]: Vivian, go ahead and unmute. Vivian? We can't hear you if you're talking. So we'll go to Ms. Marshall. Ms. Marshall, go ahead and unmute.

[Ms. Marshall (SF NAACP representative)]: Oh, thank you so much. I have two quick things with my one minute. One, I want to talk first about an amazing educator, Ruth Taylor, who's a full time but phenomenal educator in SFUSD. She passed away, and we'll talk more about her at the end of the meeting. But can you imagine having a full time job and getting on your computer at night and weekends to create amazing certificates for African American honor roll students and program booklets? So thank you, Sister Taylor.

[Tiana Tillery (Union/Paraeducator advocate)]: Then next, on behalf

[Ms. Marshall (SF NAACP representative)]: of the NAACP, we are so concerned, so concerned, superintendent and board members, that you will perhaps do the layoffs tonight. And when you do the layoffs, who will be affected most? Black and brown educators. The last one hired will be the ones who, if possible, will lose their jobs. And I'm concerned about Rosa Parks. It is not in my neighborhood near my church. Our church has adopted that school. So please help them as well. But please consider doing all you can do, Madam Superintendent, Board members, to keep these I've heard today, heard last week, heard two weeks ago, for all these new stellar educators who do work for SFUSD, Please don't let them lose their jobs tonight. Thank you.

[Martin Trujillo (Board Office/Clerk and Zoom Moderator)]: Thank you, Ms. Marshall. We'll go to Ivy. Ivy, go ahead and unmute. Ivy?

[Ivy (Parent speaker, requested Cantonese interpretation)]: Can I speak Cantonese and you Yes? Someone tell me translate?

[District Labor Relations/Negotiations Lead (name not stated)]: Okay.

[Ivy (Parent speaker, requested Cantonese interpretation)]: Thank you so much.

[Cantonese Interpreter (for Ivy)]: Good.

[Chris Claus (SPED Dept. Head, Washington High; UESF bargaining team)]: Oh, go ahead.

[Cantonese Interpreter (for Ivy)]: Thank you. Good evening. My name is Ivy. I am a Marina Middle School parent and a Lincoln high school ninth grade parent. I want to tell the board before you do think about doing layoffs, please don't lay off our bilingual staff. The bilingual staff is very important to our families and we need them to support our children. Having bilingual staff allows families to choose schools and when they choose our schools, then they will support the school district. Otherwise, these families, they will end up choosing charter schools and private schools. So by saving bilingual staff here, we can save our students to keep our students here in our school district. And for my child specifically, my child needs bilingual support and bilingual support to help them learn. So when you think about layoffs, please save our bilingual staff to make sure that they are here to support our students. Thank you.

[Martin Trujillo (Board Office/Clerk and Zoom Moderator)]: Thank you. We'll hear now from ACCRE Zoom two. Go ahead and unmute.

[Vivian Safran (Parent; founder of SFGs in School)]: Hi.

[Emily (Chinese for Affirmative Action)]: This is actually Emily from Chinese for Affirmative Action. I'm here tonight to applause layoffs bilingual. Bilingual educators are extremely important to our limited English families because they help, children access grade level content faster. And our bilingual educators also motivate English learner students to learn and grow, building the trust and continuity that students need to succeed. When bilingual teachers are cut, families leave for private or charter options. Keeping these programs helps to stabilize our enrollment and our district's budget. And furthermore, bilingual teachers are hard to replace, and without them, absenteeism is going to continue going up in our immigrant student population. I also wanna note that last week, we saw doctor Sue speak at Kabi proudly hailing our homegrown bilingual education programs in San Francisco, and it doesn't make any sense to turn around and roll back these programs or lay off our educators in private. So please publish any impact analysis that you've done to cuts to these programs and keep the district from cutting bilingual educators on March 15. Thank you so much.

[Martin Trujillo (Board Office/Clerk and Zoom Moderator)]: Thank you. We'll hear from CAA programs. Go ahead and unmute.

[Anthony (Chinese for Affirmative Action)]: Hello, commissioners. My name is Anthony. I'm here to speak on behalf of Chinese for Affirmative Action and the Cantonese speaking parents we support. We're asking the board to push SFUSD to keep layoffs away from bilingual educators on March 15. Bilingual educators are extremely important to our families because they translate school rules, explain enrollment and special education processes, and also reassure parents who are learning to navigate an unfamiliar system. When these teachers are in the classroom, families show up, students attend school, and children make academic progress. When they are cut, families withdraw or avoid school entirely out of fear. In our current political climate, we have to do everything we can to protect immigrant families. For our students' safety and success, please do not lay off bilingual teachers on March 15. Thank you very much.

[Martin Trujillo (Board Office/Clerk and Zoom Moderator)]: Thank you. We'll go to Vivian. Vivian, I see your cell phone. Go ahead and unmute. Vivian? You should be able to use your cell phone now. Hello? Yes, go ahead.

[Vivian Safran (Parent; founder of SFGs in School)]: Good evening. My name is Vivian Safron and I'm the founder of SFGs in School and a parent in SFUSD. We're deeply concerned that SFUSD is directing taxpayer dollars to AROC, an organization that promotes violent extremism and handing them a pipeline to our most vulnerable students. AAROC's executive director, the named contact on this contract, called the October of thousands of Israeli civilians, justified, stating that the only thing that can overcome massacre Israel is a flood. Israeli AAROC has repeatedly used its access to SFUSC campuses to recruit students into extremist political activism, recommending alphabet books, where I stands for Intifada for our kindergartners, and distributing protest tool kits, talking points and mobilization instructions, conduct that has led to a federal Office of Civil Rights investigation. It's extremely disappointing

[Martin Trujillo (Board Office/Clerk and Zoom Moderator)]: Thank you for your comment. That concludes your time.

[Vivian Safran (Parent; founder of SFGs in School)]: SFUSD made the decision to pay a rock talk.

[Phil Kim (President, SFUSD Board of Education)]: Thank you to members of the public. I do want to maybe not address the comments, but just to name that we do not have any items on today's agenda regarding any layoff notices for today. We also have not authorized or do not intend to either lay off any bilingual educators. So I don't know where the confusion is. And perhaps it would be helpful to hear from community on where the confusion may be coming from. But I did want to just name that before we wrap into our next portion of the agenda. Okay. Thank you to members of the public for coming out and voicing your concerns and sharing your experiences. We appreciate hearing from you. And with that, we will move on to our next item, which is a report from closed session. Session. In the matters of anticipated litigation concerning GW and WSF, the board by a vote of seven ayes gives direction to the general counsel. In the matter of anticipated litigation concerning a z, the board by a vote of six ayes and commissioner Fisher voting nay gives direction to the general counsel. Regarding two matters of existing litigation in the matter of LH and AD, claim number 23006202. The board by a vote of seven ayes gives direction to the general counsel. The board is committed to effective school board governance that centers student learning based on community input. The board has adopted our vision, values, goals, and guardrails. In order to increase the portion of board meeting time we spend on student outcomes, every other meeting is a monitoring workshop. Sorry. I'll slow down for interpretation. Our approach to governance also calls on the board to empower the superintendent to take full ownership of the strategies used to reach those goals within the guardrails set by the board. As we implement our governance framework, the board will continue to adopt new systems, routines, policies aimed at improving student outcomes. We encourage the public to follow this work on our website at sfusd.edu/governance. The superintendent and her team are tasked with providing a draft of each agenda twelve days in advance for board members to review. Once that draft is made public on our website, the board has made a commitment to submit clarifying and tactical questions and staff have committed to responding to those questions in advance. This document is linked into board docs item E2. We invite the public to review those questions and answers alongside our discussions today. Sorry. We've moved things around. Item E, opening items, landing acknowledgement. We, the San Francisco Board of Education, acknowledge that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramatushaloni who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. As the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramatushaloni have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as 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, and we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramachish community and by affirming their sovereign rights as First Peoples. I call on the student delegate Cruz and Mon to share a report, if you have one, for the student delegate report.

[Student Delegate Mon]: Hi. Thank you. Good evening, everyone. I'll start. Yesterday, we had an SAC meeting where we got into full planning mode for the youth summit on Friday, April 10, from ten a. M. To three p. M. At our meeting, we worked on like our merch design lunchtime activities. We're thinking an opportunity fair, starting a mural, and also creating some sort of, like, tree where we can add, like, our own personal, like, notes to it. And also speakers, we're looking for one student and three adults, and we've been, like, getting the ball rolling on the outreach. And then we also might have a photo booth. So fun. Yeah. Had one last year and it was really nice. They there's like physical copies, so it's a nice memorable thing to hold on to. All district high schools are invited, so if anyone is interested, please contact your principal or your leadership teacher or Judson, our coordinator, and your school sites will have the permission forms. And then we're always working on our workshops that we're going to have at the youth summit. Again, those workshops with student government, district budget, UCSF focusing on mental health, building bridges. I think they're actually building like a physical bridge, so that's exciting. And then a cultural art workshop. And that's

[Dr. Vanessa Moreau (Parents for Public Schools)]: it for me.

[Student Delegate Cruz]: We hope to see you there. Yeah. And if we all know about Youth Summit, we also have our student delegate debate. The student delegate application is open as of for now until March 20. Me and Shun did it, and look at us now. It's one of the best experiences. We both debated each other, and we're both here. So we encourage everybody to go. And you know what? Like, for me, it was my first debate, and honestly, it was really nerve wracking. But honestly, I don't regret anything I did. And yeah, it was really fun. I encourage all high school students to just jump for it and go for it. Applications are open. If there's any questions, you can always reach out to me, June, or our SAC's Instagram account. We are always open for any type of questions. And yeah, so we do have that open. So if there's any high schoolers or parents who want their kids to be a student delegate, please let them know. Thank you.

[Phil Kim (President, SFUSD Board of Education)]: Thank you. Superintendent Report.

[Dr. Hsu (Superintendent, SFUSD)]: Thank you, President Kim. And again, I encourage all young people who want to please go to the Youth Advocacy Day because it's fantastic. Okay, so starting off my remarks, I just March is a month full of meaningful celebrations and I like to begin by wishing everyone a happy Women's History Month. Yay. I'm grateful for the trailblazing women who came before me as leaders, who are among our districts right now, are colleagues on this table right now, who really are working really hard to lift up all of our young women and young leaders in our district across our schools. We are really fortunate to have incredible women and gender diverse leaders from principals to teachers to support staff who inspire and guide the next generation of leaders every single day. March is also Arts Education Month in California. This is a wonderful opportunity to recognize the role the arts play in our schools. It really helps round out the education for our students. Our SFUSD programs in visual arts, music, theater, dance, and media art gives our students meaningful ways to express themselves and to help them think creatively and connect all their learnings across all subjects. I want to thank our extremely dedicated arts educators and staff who inspire creativity in our classrooms every single day. And the families and community partners who come out and celebrate our students as they be vulnerable and show off their art. I know that that's really hard as well. Also, the March also marks National School Social Work Week and National School Breakfast Week. I want to extend my sincere thanks to our school social workers and our student nutrition service staff for the important work that they do to support our students and to ensure that we are serving the whole child. Next slide. This Saturday, very, very, very, very important, March 14 from 9AM to 3PM is the twenty fifth annual special education information and resource conference. It will take place at John O'Connell High School. I was there last year. There's so many opportunities to learn about all the things that the district is doing and meet all of our partners who are doing the work together with us. It was wonderful, to see all of our families and young people out connecting, learning from each other, building support systems and that, really, really precious support network that we know that all of our students need, particularly our students in special education. So please come and join us in learning, building relationships and building out that support network for our students. Lunch will be provided at no cost to families and there will be lots of community spaces for families to take breaks from each other and to be grounded in the work. We will have programs in language specific spaces. So we will have programs in English, in Spanish, and in Cantonese. There will also be sensory activity rooms so that all young people can participate and engage. And I just want to thank our special education team and staff for putting this on. I know it's a very, very heavy lift, but they do it every single year and they do it with so much grace and so much commitment to making sure that it meets the needs of our students and families. So thank you. This month from March 2 through March 19, we are asking our communities to fill out our annual social emotional learning culture climate survey. These surveys provide really important information on how our schools should be planning and evaluating our work and how we can support our students better. There are three SEL and culture climate surveys, one for students from grade four, one for students fourth to twelfth graders, one for staff and one for our PK-twelve families. So thank you to everyone who has already filled out the surveys. So please continue to fill it out. It's a great source of information for us as we plan and build out the work for the following school year. And then, it's that time of year where announcement. Thank you to everyone who submitted your application. Thank you Vice President Huling. Oh, and yes, yes, Commission. See this is why I don't start naming names. Commissioner Weissman-Ward as well. Thank you to everyone who submitted your application for next school year assignments for the twenty six-twenty seven school year will be shared with families on ParentVue and by mail on Monday, March 16. Families will also be able to see their position, see their positions for up to three wait listed sites on ParentVue. Students not currently enrolled in SFUSD will need to accept or decline their main round assignments by March 26. Current SFUSD students will automatically be enrolled in their assigned school and do not need to take any action. Any families who have not applied yet for the twenty six-twenty seven school year, You still have time, so please do it. Go to our website sfusd.edu/apply and you will learn about how you can apply for your student for next school year. And then I recently had the wonderful opportunity to go to both Sunset Elementary and Guadalupe Elementary for their read along days. It's one of those highlights of my week whenever I go and visit our schools to engage with our young people, talk to our educators and our site leaders because it really, really contextualizes the work that we are doing here in the boardroom but then our staff every single day. And it's just it's wonderful to be able to engage with our young people and see how we are doing this and how our young people are reacting to whether or not it's the new curriculum or in this case, I'm reading a story to our students and talking to them about what I do on a daily basis as a superintendent. But it's again building the strong foundation for literacy and engagement and social emotional and all the wonderful things. And then it's actually somebody, I think Emily from CAA mentioned this. I had the wonderful opportunity, well we SFUSD had the wonderful opportunity to host CABE which is the California Association for Bilingual Education this past week. We had several thousand educators and administrators and community advocates and community leaders here in San Francisco learning from what we are doing here in our schools and from each other. I had the opportunity to welcome the association to San Francisco And we had many, many site leaders as well as educators participate in either leading workshops. Here you actually see our administrators leading a workshop along with Jose Paula Antrim, our amazing principal at Jose Ortega. And I know that Commissioner Fisher was there. But it was a wonderful opportunity for site leaders to learn from each other, to meet with each other, and to engage. And our amazing human resource department was also there to, recruit bilingual teachers. And my understanding is that we had many, many people sign up, because it was a beautiful day and San Francisco is a beautiful place to work. So I really, really hope that, all of the people who signed up will eventually go through the process and become bilingual teachers here in the district. So it was amazing and wonderful, and was a great opportunity to show off our wonderful SFUSD. And then next, I just want to remind everyone, spring break is here. Spring break will happen on March 27 to April 3. All TK to 13 grades SFUSD schools will be closed that week. All early education department, out of school time and year round PK programs are open during spring break except for Tuesday, March 31, which is Cesar Chavez Day. We look forward to welcoming our students back on Monday, April 6. And then finally, I have an in memoriam to share. In partnership with our San Francisco Alliance of Black School Educators, we share in the sadness of the passing of our beloved stellar educator Ruth Taylor. Ms. Taylor was mentioned earlier when Mrs. Marshall made her comments. Ruth was born to teach. She had that unique gift and connection to all of her students and families, connecting to their mind, their heart, and spirit, letting each of her hundreds and thousands of students over the years know how much she cared for them and how much she sees them as individual scholars and potential lights. Ruth was an excellent educator, devoted sister, aunt, friend, and colleague who shows her student excellence in the classroom each day with her gift of preparing students for college, the world of work, and beyond. Therefore, it is my honor to close my report at tonight's board meeting in honor and memory of our beloved Ruth Taylor. That concludes my report.

[Phil Kim (President, SFUSD Board of Education)]: Thank you Doctor. Sue. Moving to item F, action items. Commissioners, we have three items for action today, all somewhat related to each other. We'll start with item f one, two six three dash one zero s p one, tentative agreements between San Francisco Unified School District and United Educators of San Francisco. Can I have a motion and a second?

[Alida Fisher (Commissioner)]: I move action item two sixty three-ten SP1.

[Supryia Ray (Commissioner)]: Seconded.

[Phil Kim (President, SFUSD Board of Education)]: It has been properly moved and seconded that the board approve this item, two sixty three -ten SP1. Doctor. Sue?

[Dr. Hsu (Superintendent, SFUSD)]: Thank you, President Kim. It is my honor to share both of these tentative agreements that we worked really hard to get to a place where we continue to honor our educators, in this case our educators, and as well as continue to maintain fiscal stability in the district. So with that, I'm going to hand it over to the team to walk you through it.

[District Labor Relations/Negotiations Lead (name not stated)]: Good evening, Kim, commissioners of the board, and Doctor. Sue. Tonight, we're bringing forward a tentative agreement between the district and the United Educators of San Francisco. A tentative agreement represents the terms negotiated by both bargaining teams and is subject to ratification by the union membership and approval by the board. The union membership has ratified the agreement, and it is now before the board for consideration. If approved, it will be incorporated into the collective bargaining agreement. And with that, the staff is happy to answer any questions you may have.

[Phil Kim (President, SFUSD Board of Education)]: I'll open it up for conversation or not conversation, questions and comments. Commissioner Ray.

[Supryia Ray (Commissioner)]: I'd just like to ask one question to start. May have more later on. My question relates to how if the parcel tax that is currently planned to be used to fund the fully funded health care for teachers, if that parcel tax is not re upped, what will the impact be on our school district? And will school district be bound to cover the ongoing cost of health care, even if the parcel tax is not re upped?

[Chris Montbenitis (Deputy Superintendent of Business Services)]: So the specific partial tax is QTEA for certificated and other educators, specifically members of UE and UA. So there is an accompanying MOU. And in the AB 1,200, it calls this out as the source for the funding which you're describing. There is trigger language that says that if it is not passed, that it will be subject to bargaining, meaning that there's trigger language that we need to go back to the table in the event that that does occur. What would happen as a result of that bargaining, of course, is determined at the table.

[Supryia Ray (Commissioner)]: Could you be more specific or clarify, is the district actually committed to paying for the health care costs if the voters do not pass the parcel tax? Or it's entirely up to negotiation from that point?

[Chris Montbenitis (Deputy Superintendent of Business Services)]: Yes. It's a conditional clause that if that funding source ceases, that we have to go back to the table and it's subject to bargaining.

[Phil Kim (President, SFUSD Board of Education)]: Commissioner Gupta?

[Parag Gupta (Commissioner)]: So first, I just want to express my gratitude. I know negotiations were long, and I appreciate the efforts of this team to get that done. Question I have is what is the annual cost of the health benefits benefits that we have offered full year or put another way is it about 14,000,000 if I'm if I understand correctly

[Niru Jayaraman (Chief Financial Officer)]: Commissioner, thank you. So the first year, twenty six-twenty seven, since the health care agreement only goes into effect January 1, and then we'd also pay partially beginning July 2026. The first year cost is $20000000.20700000.0 The second year, it goes up to 42,300,000.0 And that's because of the fact that we had phased in the coverage 5050% for the first six months of the twenty six-twenty seven school year, and then it eventually transitions to 100%. So that's why there is a large increase in the second year.

[Parag Gupta (Commissioner)]: Got it.

[Niru Jayaraman (Chief Financial Officer)]: Yes. And we also added in the 10% increase in cost and also 10% migration. So we included that also as a factor.

[Parag Gupta (Commissioner)]: Thank you. I appreciate that. And the health care costs now, is that floating, as in by whatever it's increased, we will cover 100% of that? Yes. Do we have an idea of how much health care costs increase per year? What's budgeted in?

[Chris Montbenitis (Deputy Superintendent of Business Services)]: It's been fluctuating pretty dramatically recently. So for the past three years, it's been up almost 10% per year, year over year. And that's actually been fairly typical throughout the state of California. Health care costs have been rising rapidly. An annual typical increase prior to the last three years was usually between 67%. So the costs have escalated. We don't know whether that's going to be short term or a longer term trend. So the escalation that CFO Jaya Oman just mentioned is inclusive of a 10% escalation for the two years we projected it.

[Parag Gupta (Commissioner)]: Got it. Thank you. And then with regard to then the QTA and the fact that right now we have that parcel tax cliff that ends at at the 2028, as I understand. Is the idea that whatever parcel tax we would then try to approve next would cover everything, including that floating part include the floating health care cost?

[Chris Montbenitis (Deputy Superintendent of Business Services)]: So the idea would be to get the renewal. Previously, renewals for parcel taxes in the district have been for a twenty year period of time, as well as get an additional amount added to that renewal to cover not just one year of escalation, because the partial tax itself only escalates at local CPI, which is pegged between 2.42.7% a year, fairly standard. And yes, our costs go up faster than that. So I know there could be an argument about what CPI is, but that's the way it's pegged. So initially, the the amount would have to go up significantly more to compensate for the fact that costs will go up faster than the built in escalation.

[Parag Gupta (Commissioner)]: Can you be a little more sorry. Just to double click on that a little. How is that done? Or how do I mean, if it's increasing, say, at 10% per year and typical CPI is 2.4% to 2.7%, how would we even do that? And would be the implication for the parcel tax that we'd see?

[Chris Montbenitis (Deputy Superintendent of Business Services)]: Great question. So they are two separate fiscal entities. So the parcel tax CPI goes up, let's just call it 2.5% a year. And if the base is a 108,000,000, that increases two and a half percent a year. But if the 10% increase assumed on a $40,000,000 is only 4,000,000, then actually we would we would have most of it covered by the CPI. So you wanna start out by asking for a bit more per parcel so that that 2.5% would keep up with the 10% escalation in costs year over year. Does that make sense?

[Parag Gupta (Commissioner)]: It does. I'm just if it's twenty years, I'm just trying to think through what that is for

[Chris Montbenitis (Deputy Superintendent of Business Services)]: temporary. It would have to be we do a lot of modeling in fiscal, and so we would actually model it out over twenty years. At that point, we would look at a five year average is typically a five to seven year average is for that long of a model is what we would look at. And we would model it out for the life of the parcel tax.

[Parag Gupta (Commissioner)]: Got it. Thank you for that. The last question I have is also as I understand, and I just want to follow-up on a Q and A question that was in there. As I understand, we have a six fifty four million dollars underfunded liability and other post employment benefits. And from the Q and A, and my understanding as well and that contributes about $38,000,000 a year to our costs or so. Am I understanding as well that there is 6% of the costs of this contract that are not funded? Or how am I to read the OPEB liability of this contract and whether that's funded or not?

[Chris Montbenitis (Deputy Superintendent of Business Services)]: Sure. Our OPEB liability is entirely unfunded in this district. There are options to pre fund an OPEB, just so everybody, other post employment benefits, which means benefits that you receive after you separate from the district. In our case, that means lifetime retiree health care for members that have served the district long enough per their contract. And so there are options in the state to prefund that for a district. A district can invest with CalPERS and prefund that up to the maximum liability. We have no funding as a prefunding. So that is a complete liability for us, which means that we are what we call pay as you go. Pay as you go districts literally get the bill handed to them every month for all of the folks that are on the lists that are receiving that benefit. And so currently, that's between 35,000,000 to $40,000,000 a year of our revenues that we pay for that retiree benefit.

[Parag Gupta (Commissioner)]: Thank you.

[Phil Kim (President, SFUSD Board of Education)]: Any other? Commissioner Alexander?

[Matt Alexander (Commissioner)]: Thank you. So I had, I think, two questions. One is around the cost of the agreement. I did ask this in the written question, but I thought it would be helpful to ask for the public. And I'm not sure I totally understood the response either. The question basically was that the announced cost of the agreement was $183,000,000 That's what we said publicly. But in the AB 1,200, the three year cost adds up to $156,000,000 over those three years with a final year total of about 76,000,000 So what's the discrepancy there?

[Niru Jayaraman (Chief Financial Officer)]: Thank you, Commissioner. So one variance is attributed to the fact that the AB 1,200 is only for the general fund. So we do have UE members that are paid out of other funds. They're paid out of, for example, mostly child development and counties. So we don't include those costs in the agreement. That's one variance. The other variance is the work around the special ed NPA contracts that we had mentioned last week. When we were costing the initial agreement, we factored in the cost of recruiting and onboarding those contractors into vacant positions and the cost of paying for health care for those newly onboarded employees. But because there are several steps that have to take place before we can record that as a cost, that portion was also not assumed at the time after checking with

[Rayco Ando (Parent; former SFUSD teacher, Rosa Parks Elementary)]: our CDE advisors, advisors, whether that

[Niru Jayaraman (Chief Financial Officer)]: was a valid assumption to include in the AB 1,200 agreement. Thank

[Student Delegate Cruz]: you.

[Matt Alexander (Commissioner)]: Thank you. The other question I had there was a lot of conversation kind of leading up to the strike and before, actually, around reserves and kind of the desired size of reserves. In fact, the board voted on this back in December. And one of the questions that I still am not clear on is there's been this claim that we've been making publicly that the state of California recommends a 17% reserve for local school districts. I'm curious what the source of that is. I haven't been able to find it.

[Chris Montbenitis (Deputy Superintendent of Business Services)]: So that's actually a part of your board resolution and bylaw that you passed. And it actually cites the CPE reference. And that's based on the concept that most schools and you can actually see this on your consent agenda because since I've been here, we've been compliant. We're posting all of our payroll and vendor warrants. And what that means is all money that's outgoing every month. If you were to add that up for the whole year and average it out for the twelve months, you would see that two months of expenses is about 17.5%. But the CDE language, we provided to you in the board item, says that the recommended guidance is for districts to keep reserves not in excess of 17.5%. Now remember, the 2% locally you can't spend. So roughly, that for emergencies or for unforeseen costs, which we do get, we just absorb them into the budget, that that's that that's a recommended not to exceed number. Now if you look at reserves in the state, they vary greatly, and they vary specifically by the type of school district. So unified school districts actually have the lowest reserves, but they sit at about 22% as an average throughout the state. Elementary school districts have the lowest. They sit between 1618% on average throughout the state. And union high school districts or high school districts, which are just high schools we have actually quite a few of them south of us in San Mateo. It's a rather unusual structure, but they do have quite a few of them there usually around 28% to 30%. And high school districts are actually the wealthiest districts in the state.

[Matt Alexander (Commissioner)]: So just to clarify, the 17% number is a recommended maximum. Is that what you just said?

[Chris Montbenitis (Deputy Superintendent of Business Services)]: Yeah. It's the recommended do not exceed. It does not say maximum. They're very careful with their language. But yes, that's what it says.

[Matt Alexander (Commissioner)]: Because the way we've put it out is kind of as a recommended or it seems to read as a recommended minimum. And so I just want to be really clear. If we're saying that the state recommendation is that it's a recommended maximum, think I we need to be very clear about that. Because there's also a state 10% cap some years, right? Is that correct?

[Chris Montbenitis (Deputy Superintendent of Business Services)]: Yes. And so what you do in those cases so we actually just got out of those test years. So years that we are in test one, which I don't want to go into various financial tests, but we have been in test one for a couple of years in the past five years, the state caps reserves at 10%. However, what it does not do is it does not limit the ability of the school district to then appropriately put aside money that we should be putting aside to pay for future liabilities, such as OPEB, deferred maintenance, or other costs that we typically just put off because we tend to put off a lot of different costs that are optional to get around to them someday. And as is true with San Francisco and many other districts, we just simply never get to them.

[Matt Alexander (Commissioner)]: Thank you.

[Phil Kim (President, SFUSD Board of Education)]: Any other commissioners, comments or questions? Student delegate.

[Student Delegate Mon]: Thank you so much for being here to answer our questions. And then thank you to Superintendent Hsu and UESF and everyone involved for this whole thing. It's definitely been an unexpected process for a lot of us, and I'm speaking from a student perspective. It's been, yeah, like unexpected. Like I never thought we would go through that. And thank you to everyone involved for collaborating and working to get students back into the classroom. My question, I'm reading the companion resolution, and it says that the SFUSG budget currently has a negative certification. Is that true? Because I remember having I'm also on the youth commission. It's like a more of a city type of thing. And we received an a presentation from the USF USG's budget office last week, and they said we were in qualified certification. And then, oh, yeah. Qualified certification moving to positive. So I just wanted to clarify on that, like which certification stage are we really in. And it also mentions about how the district's adopted budget and the unaudited actuals and such cannot sustain the agreed to increases without making significant reductions. And so I'm wondering, like, what are those reductions? And does it have anything to do with the layoffs that were mentioned earlier or cutting programs or closing schools, etcetera?

[Chris Montbenitis (Deputy Superintendent of Business Services)]: It's a lot of questions. I will try. So I want to decouple a couple of things. So one of your questions that you referenced is the PKS of last week. No, that's just from declining enrollment. And a district in declining enrollment, which we have been for quite some time, should be doing annual adjustments to their staffing, especially when we're losing what equates to, in this district, a full school or maybe a couple of full schools worth of students a year, which is the situation that we find ourselves in. You're asking a lot of the financial questions, which are gonna be in our financial presentation tonight. However, there's an interesting thing with certification. So what we did at first interim was we got back to a qualified certification, and we self certified as qualified. So we are supposed to recommend a certification for the board to pass at both the first and second interim, and we recommended qualified. And then because we are in oversight by CDE, we needed to wait to receive their review of our first interim and to either disagree or to provide their concurrence. CDE took a long time to get through, and we received that just last week. And we received it by it being posted on the website before we were notified. So it has now been concurred to. But we have spoken with CDE and FICMAT about faster and more responsive oversight, as well as faster communication in the future, because we should have that well before we're moving into second interim reporting, which is what we're doing this evening. So it was confusing for us as well. But they did concur that qualified is the current certification.

[Student Delegate Mon]: Thank you.

[Parag Gupta (Commissioner)]: Just that last part of student delegate Maan's question was, it also said under negative certification, we will have to, I believe, something to the effect of this is unsustainable and we have to make lots of cuts.

[Chris Montbenitis (Deputy Superintendent of Business Services)]: Yeah. So that'll be in the presentation tonight. So the requirement that you have in front of you tonight and I don't want to mix things because sometimes this happens at the board, and then they conflate two items. So this is specifically about the AB 1,200 and the TA. The requirement for the AB 1,200 and the TA is that we can pay for the agreement in front of the board for the current year and the next two years. So that means just for the next two years past this year. It begs the question for the board, this year is almost over. That's sort of a short year to be looking at and estimating it on, which is why in the fiscal presentation, we are going to share with you what we did at our budget study session. We'll be sharing with the public. And that is we've added on a fourth year because that will be our new third year in June. And that is when you'll see a significant portion of the bill coming due. And that is going to impact the budget that we adopt. So to your question, that means, yes, that the district will now to make sure that we're solvent for the current plus two years starting in June, so not this year plus two, but next year plus two. The district will have to have a reduction plan to make sure that we have enough cash to continue to operate.

[Lisa Weissman-Ward (Commissioner)]: Thank you. And thank you to student delegate Mon for her very close reading. Does that mean because she's right. It says one of the whereas clauses says that we currently have a negative certification. So in order for us to vote on this, would we need to amend it here to make sure it's accurate?

[Chris Montbenitis (Deputy Superintendent of Business Services)]: My my opinion is no. CDE is in the room tonight, and I won't put Tina on the spot. So here's my reading. We did not receive their concurrence in time to put that in this document. I don't believe it has to be amended because it is posted to their website and the board has received the communication from them that we are now in qualified. I recognize that came very late. CDE recognizes that came very late. Like I said, I talked to them, but I don't think that that impacts materially your ability to pass this as written because when we wrote it, we were still technically under negative.

[Lisa Weissman-Ward (Commissioner)]: That makes sense. But we're voting on it today, and we have new information. I mean, is there is there to, I guess, to general counsel, is there an issue with us doing an oral amendment? And just I would think that if we're voting on something and there's a warehouse clause that we know that's not technically accurate, we would want to correct it if we can.

[Danielle M. Houck (General Counsel)]: I I think that having it the way it is as it was submitted, as it was signed, as it was reviewed is probably more conservative. I don't like, I think, as to the earlier point as to, you know, whether or not the CDE is gonna have any problem with it, I don't think that there's any problems. That's the bigger issue, I think, as to whether or not that that's going to make a difference.

[Chris Montbenitis (Deputy Superintendent of Business Services)]: CBE is saying they will not have a problem from it. They're waving it off in the

[Lisa Weissman-Ward (Commissioner)]: I back of the guess, in terms of great that this is fine if we vote on it, but why would we not amend it so it's an accurate document as of the date that we're voting on it? It's swapping in one word.

[Danielle M. Houck (General Counsel)]: If you wish to make the amendment, you can. I'm just hypersensitive to the fact that this is being submitted. Sounds like the CDE doesn't have a problem. If the board wishes to make that amendment, you are free to do so.

[Lisa Weissman-Ward (Commissioner)]: Does CDE have a problem with us making that amendment either? So they don't care.

[Dr. Hsu (Superintendent, SFUSD)]: She's right there.

[Lisa Weissman-Ward (Commissioner)]: Hey. Okay, great. Tell me when it's time to make a motion.

[Phil Kim (President, SFUSD Board of Education)]: You are welcome to make a motion.

[Lisa Weissman-Ward (Commissioner)]: Okay, I would move. No.

[Supryia Ray (Commissioner)]: Would that stop questions? I wanted to go back and ask more questions.

[Phil Kim (President, SFUSD Board of Education)]: No, we haven't voted

[Alida Fisher (Commissioner)]: on What the whole will happen is it does interrupt. We can quickly vote on it and then move forward with

[Phil Kim (President, SFUSD Board of Education)]: But we can resume discussion because we would need to actually vote on the whole item itself.

[Lisa Weissman-Ward (Commissioner)]: Okay. So I would move to thank you. She do it formally or no? Because she's in delegate. What? Because that would

[Kathy O’Byrne (Paraeducator, Balboa High School)]: be cool

[Lisa Weissman-Ward (Commissioner)]: if she could make the motion. I mean, she's on it.

[Supryia Ray (Commissioner)]: Appreciate her presence.

[Lisa Weissman-Ward (Commissioner)]: Eagle eyes. I would then, move to amend the, companion resolution to AB 1,200 certification to, strike out to strike out the word negative in the second whereas clause and replace it with

[Alida Fisher (Commissioner)]: qualified. Seconded.

[Phil Kim (President, SFUSD Board of Education)]: We do a roll call vote, please.

[Martin Trujillo (Board Office/Clerk and Zoom Moderator)]: Okay. Who's who seconded? I'm sorry. Okay. Thank you. And it was moved by Weissman-Ward. Okay. Student delegate, Mon?

[Student Delegate Mon]: Yes.

[Martin Trujillo (Board Office/Clerk and Zoom Moderator)]: Student delegate Cruz?

[Dr. Vanessa Moreau (Parents for Public Schools)]: Yes.

[Martin Trujillo (Board Office/Clerk and Zoom Moderator)]: Commissioner Ray? Yes. Commissioner Alexander? Yes. Vice president Huling?

[Dr. Hsu (Superintendent, SFUSD)]: Yes.

[Martin Trujillo (Board Office/Clerk and Zoom Moderator)]: President Kim? Yes. Commissioner Weissman-Ward? Yes. Commissioner Gupta? Yes. Commissioner Fisher?

[Alida Fisher (Commissioner)]: Yes.

[Phil Kim (President, SFUSD Board of Education)]: Thank you. Commissioner well, did you was there anything else you wanted to add? Okay. Did you want to have

[Supryia Ray (Commissioner)]: do, thanks. I had left a fair amount of my time. But I actually have a similar question to what student delegate Mon was asking. So I'm going to ask it a little bit different way. She was asking about what the impact of the reductions were, essentially. Can you just explain in layman's terms how we're determining to the extent that you can? Sorry, I'm not expressing this well. Can you explain in layman's terms what the AB 1,200 is showing versus what the FSP, which we're taking up later, shows?

[Chris Montbenitis (Deputy Superintendent of Business Services)]: Yes. Again, totally different actions. The FSP is not up for discussion until we do our financial report. So the AB 1,200 simply is the legal requirement and the financial certification created by myself and staff that we can demonstrate that the agreement that we have the resources to pay for it for the current and the next two years. And of course, the current year is this year and the next two years.

[Supryia Ray (Commissioner)]: But that does not set out a plan for just that we actually have the money overall in our budget somehow. It may be committed to something else, but we technically have money to pay for it.

[Chris Montbenitis (Deputy Superintendent of Business Services)]: GREGORY Correct. Fiscal stabilization plan is a part of an interim document that's required by law if we are under negative or qualified certification to put forward a reduction plan in spending to reduce our spending so that we are moving towards a balanced budget. That, of course, helps to provide money to make sure we can pay for things. But the two aren't related directly. They're indirect.

[Phil Kim (President, SFUSD Board of Education)]: Are there any questions that will impact the outcome of your decision?

[Matt Alexander (Commissioner)]: Sorry. Not exactly, but I do have one more. Sorry, I have Maybe no. No, I do have one more question that I forgot to ask earlier. I apologize.

[Martin Trujillo (Board Office/Clerk and Zoom Moderator)]: I'll be quick.

[Matt Alexander (Commissioner)]: Please go for Go for I have one minute left. This is related to the TA, but it's actually it's looking back to the emergency resolution we passed on February 3. A concern was raised with me that that resolution says that the resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption and shall remain in effect until repealed by formal board action. Is that emergency resolution still in effect?

[Danielle M. Houck (General Counsel)]: It is is my opinion that the emergency resolution is not in effect nor is it being used, but we do we I think we've been asked, and I know that this is a little bit off topic, but just to make it quick. There is a full intent to kind of sum up the activities that were taken and report that to the board, and there has been substantial a substantial collection of that information. And that information is making its way absolutely to the board for all the things, to wrap that up and say, in summary, what was done.

[Matt Alexander (Commissioner)]: So it's not in effect because the strike is over and it was a one time?

[Danielle M. Houck (General Counsel)]: It it was entirely contingent upon the strike

[Matt Alexander (Commissioner)]: Upon the strike. Entirely based on the need Yeah.

[Danielle M. Houck (General Counsel)]: To respond to an emergency, which no longer exists.

[Matt Alexander (Commissioner)]: Great. Thank you for clarifying that. I really appreciate it.

[Phil Kim (President, SFUSD Board of Education)]: Okay. Seeing no other questions, roll call vote, please. Sorry. Just to name. Debate is now closed on the motion to approve this item. Roll call vote, please.

[Martin Trujillo (Board Office/Clerk and Zoom Moderator)]: Student delegate Mon?

[Student Delegate Mon]: Yes.

[Martin Trujillo (Board Office/Clerk and Zoom Moderator)]: Student delegate Cruz?

[Lisa Weissman-Ward (Commissioner)]: Yes.

[Martin Trujillo (Board Office/Clerk and Zoom Moderator)]: Commissioner Ray? Yes. Commissioner Alexander? Yes. Vice President Huling?

[Dr. Hsu (Superintendent, SFUSD)]: Yes.

[Martin Trujillo (Board Office/Clerk and Zoom Moderator)]: President Kim? Yes. Commissioner Weissman-Ward? Yes. Commissioner Gupta? Yes. Commissioner Fisher?

[Phil Kim (President, SFUSD Board of Education)]: Yes. Moving to item two, two sixty three-ten SP2 tentative agreement between San Francisco Unified School District and Common Crafts IBEW Local six. Can I have a motion and a second?

[Alida Fisher (Commissioner)]: I move to accept motion 263Dash10SP2.

[Phil Kim (President, SFUSD Board of Education)]: It has been properly moved and seconded.

[Lisa Weissman-Ward (Commissioner)]: Second. It had not been properly seconded. But now it is.

[Phil Kim (President, SFUSD Board of Education)]: Apologies. I was just reading too quickly. Thank you. It has now been properly moved and seconded. Thank you, Commissioner Weissman-Ward, for your diligence and attention to this matter. The board has to approve item two sixty three-ten SP2. Doctor. Sue and staff.

[Dr. Hsu (Superintendent, SFUSD)]: Again, I just want to thank our teams for working together to make sure that we continue to support and honor our amazing employees. I'm going to hand it over to the team.

[District Labor Relations/Negotiations Lead (name not stated)]: Okay. President Kim, commissioners of the board, and Doctor. Sue again. Also tonight, forward a tentative agreement between the district and our common crafts, representing 10 of our labor partners, and between the district and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local six. Their tentative agreement for these units represent the terms negotiated by the bargaining teams and are subject to ratification by union membership and approval by the board. The union membership for each unit have ratified their agreements, and they are now before the board for consideration. If approved, they will be incorporated into the collective bargaining agreement. And again, staff is happy to answer any questions you may have.

[Phil Kim (President, SFUSD Board of Education)]: Are there any comments or questions from the board? Questioner Ray.

[Supryia Ray (Commissioner)]: Hi. I have a question about Me Too clauses. If you could explain for the public what Me Too clauses are and whether sort of what the district's practice has been in the past and that would be helpful. Also, if you have recommendations or if they're best practices around the inclusion of Me Too clauses.

[District Labor Relations/Negotiations Lead (name not stated)]: Thank you for the question, Commissioner Ray. So the Me Too clause is a way in which the union asks for protection, so to speak, so in that the event during bargaining with any of our other labor partners, if they are able to negotiate something higher, that they too would then qualify for the difference. In this case, the Common Crafts and Local six, we closed their negotiations in late January. So they included a Me Too clause. And as you're aware, UESF secured a 4.5% and a 4% increase over two years I'm sorry, each year for those two years. Therefore, the common crafts and Local six received the difference. And so for their first year, they're receiving a 2.5% Me Too. And the second year, they're receiving the difference of the 2% for their second year. The history of Me Too clauses for the district, unfortunately, I cannot speak too much on that only because of my own tenure here. I have not had the opportunity to sit or discuss me too prior to these contracts. Maybe someone here at the table might be able to talk about that, but I do know that they do happen frequently. In terms of best practices moving forward, I know that's just completely up to the union to ask for it and then the bargaining team to negotiate whether we can make that possible or not. I hope that answers your question.

[Supryia Ray (Commissioner)]: Thank you very much. I'd just like to know if anyone else has any information on if there are best practices around Me Too clauses, what the general recommendations are, if there are any, regarding the use of those clauses.

[Cassondra Curiel (President, UESF)]: I think Me Too clauses are commonly used across the state in bargaining. And it's something that is different at each table and then requires board authority before we're reaching an agreement. Okay. Thank you.

[Phil Kim (President, SFUSD Board of Education)]: Any other comments or questions? Commissioner Gupta?

[Parag Gupta (Commissioner)]: Yeah, mean, just like to say just generally about these contracts. I mean, it's absolutely incumbent upon us, or it's really important for our educators and our staff to be able to afford to live in the city, to be able to have health care. I mean, health care costs are rising 10, I don't know how people are supposed to pay for that. I'd add housing in there as well. And I think the thing is, though, that we understand that our duty is to ensure that the promises we make today do not come on the backs of layoffs for tomorrow. And that's what's really concerning, that this comes at a cost. And so to me, I mean, if we have to go through this again in two years, this is not sustainable. This is not sustainable for us. This is not sustainable, I imagine, for our educators, for our staff. And so, you know, I really hope when we look at, you know, I mean, as I understand, and we'll get to this, but with a $49,000,000 shortfall in our unrestricted general fund this year alone, when we think about the $654,000,000 in net unfunded liability that we have to face, And I really hope that our educators, our various labor partners in our district can work together to really tackle this at the Sacramento level, whether that be the Proposition 98 maneuver and really being able to get that funding back, moving to enrollment based funding, or reforming property tax allocation, and even from our city, getting 28% of excess ERAP instead of the 18% we're at now. And so I'd welcome the opportunity with the district, as well as with our labor partners, Ms. Curiel over there and UE, to really, really come together and meet in Sacramento, meet at City Hall, and really do this where we unlock more funding rather than trying to make the Sophie's Choice between what we have at SFUSD currently. So again, I appreciate you all. I appreciate our labor partners. And I really hope over the next two years, can get to something more sustainable.

[Phil Kim (President, SFUSD Board of Education)]: Any comments or question, not comments, questions that may change the outcome of your decision? Seeing none, roll call vote, please.

[Martin Trujillo (Board Office/Clerk and Zoom Moderator)]: SENATOR DELAGUE MONTOR

[Valeria (Student, Guadalupe Elementary)]: Yes.

[Martin Trujillo (Board Office/Clerk and Zoom Moderator)]: SENATOR DELAGUEZ Yes. Commissioner Ray? Yes. Commissioner Alexander? Yes. Vice President Huling?

[Roberto Guzman Garcia (Parent, Guadalupe Elementary)]: Yes.

[Martin Trujillo (Board Office/Clerk and Zoom Moderator)]: President Kim? Yes. Commissioner Weissman-Ward?

[Lisa Weissman-Ward (Commissioner)]: Yes.

[Martin Trujillo (Board Office/Clerk and Zoom Moderator)]: Commissioner Gupta? Yes. Commissioner Fisher?

[Student Delegate Cruz]: Yes.

[Phil Kim (President, SFUSD Board of Education)]: Thank you. I do want to thank staff for your efforts and work during a long period of time and the ongoing support that you give to both our labor partners and our staff to get to an agreement. So thank you very much for your hard work. Item three, two sixty three-ten SP3 fiscal year twenty twenty -twenty six second interim report. Can I have a motion and a second?

[Alida Fisher (Commissioner)]: I move item two sixty three-ten SP3.

[Student Delegate Cruz]: Second.

[Phil Kim (President, SFUSD Board of Education)]: It has been properly moved and seconded that the board approve this item. I will pass it off to Doctor. Su. Before I do, I just want to acknowledge and appreciate the special meeting study session that we had last Wednesday where we were able to go deep into some questions that the board had around our budget and our budget conditions. Thank you for that presentation. There was a lot of information that was presented at that time. For the purposes of today and commission

[Alida Fisher (Commissioner)]: sorry.

[Phil Kim (President, SFUSD Board of Education)]: Who's laughing at me?

[Student Delegate Cruz]: Just laughing I at

[Phil Kim (President, SFUSD Board of Education)]: wanna thank commissioners for their questions in advance. Hopefully, we don't need to repeat some of the items that took place last Wednesday and that we're able to build on that conversation to end with the second interim report. So thank you very much, staff. And I'll pass it over to whoever's willing to take the time.

[Dr. Hsu (Superintendent, SFUSD)]: Thank you, President Kim. I also want to appreciate staff. I know that we are short staffed and that the budget team and the fiscal team and our entire senior leadership team have been working really hard to put this together, to meet deadlines in the middle of a lot of things going on. I just greatly appreciate all of our staff who stood up and really helped us. I also want to appreciate our fiscal advisors for helping us along the way. I know that Tina is in the back as well as Elliot who is online. Just thank you. Thank you for working with us. I know that we did a lot of work last year to make those really tough decisions and made those cuts and we are now where we are now because this board was able to do that. Our community can work together to do it and I'm just really proud of the work that the team has done. So I'm going to hand this over to our Deputy Superintendent of Business Services, Chris Montbenitis, as well as our CFO, Niru JR Raman. I'm going to keep getting it every single time I say it, want to get better and better at saying it.

[Chris Montbenitis (Deputy Superintendent of Business Services)]: Thank you, Superintendent Hsu and commissioners and community. Am going to it is the same presentation. There's been a couple of modifications. We are always working on refining things. But I'm going to go through it fairly quickly. I am going to pause and go into a couple slides more in-depth, particularly the multi year projections. But I want to acknowledge that it's been posted. I know commissioners have already asked questions and had some robust discussions. We're going be moving fairly quickly. And Marin has assisted me in the past at moving quickly. So we're going to go right through this. So if we can advance, please, to keep going. And keep going. All right. So this is the second interim report. And if you can go back one slide, please, Marin. Thank you. Interim reports, we are required to present a first and second interim. Because we are still under oversight, there also will be a third interim, which will be very brief, just giving additional information on revenues and expenditures in a couple of months. However, we're required to have a first and second interim, and this is when we pass a local certification. Certifications are one of three types of positive certification, means that we will meet all of our current and projected expenses for the current plus two years. Qualified means that we may or may not meet the obligation, and negative means that we will not be able to meet. So earlier this evening, we said that we are officially in the qualified status now, up from the negative. And I am and staff is recommending to the board that we continue and that tonight's certification will be qualified. So I just want to note because we passed the two a two TAs already, and that was intentional, the costs of those two TAs as far as the impact, the general fund, unrestricted, unrestricted general fund, are included in tonight's presentations and the multi year projections. Next slide, please. So we, of course, are at the second interim projection. And you see that next, will be coming back. We will be doing a third interim in May, as well as incorporating the governor's May revision budget numbers. And we'll be coming back to the board for the budget hearing and passing next year's budget in June. Next slide, please. The first interim report, we are recommending a qualified certification for the district and a positive certification for the county office of education. Next slide, please. Major updates since the last time that we were here giving a budget report in December. Reductions in revenues, we've incorporated changes from the governor's proposed budget. We've accounted for the decline in enrollment and attendance, both leading up to this year, which hadn't been fully adjusted, as well as in year. We'll talk about that briefly a little bit later. Increases in expenditures we've incorporated the tentative agreement costs for UESF, Common Crafts, Local six tonight. And we do have some budgeted assumptions for our open units, mostly Local twenty one and SEIU. Reductions in expenditures. We have captured savings from positions that have remained vacant. So if a position has been vacant up till this point this year, we have taken the salary and benefit costs that were budgeted, and we've removed them from the budget, which means lower expenditures, lower deficit. That will be happening in real time moving forward. It's a standard practice that we capture any savings that we can, so you'll see us continue to capture savings for the benefit of the district. We've moved eligible expenses to restricted funding for both 2627 and 2728. This is significant. I'm gonna pause here for a second. It's really important that the board and the public understand because you're going to see some slides, our multiyear projections that look like a significant improvement from first interim. It is a significant improvement. We've captured a lot of savings, but we have also moved a lot of eligible expenses to the restricted side of our ledgers. And there's a couple of reasons for this. Number one, the first dollar principle. First dollar principle is the first dollar you spend is the hardest one to spend. Right? Leave the dollars that can be spent more flexibly for later. And so the unrestricted general fund, we always try to relieve the pressure there by spending the restricted dollars first. We have a lot of restricted resources in San Francisco, probably the largest percentage and dollar amount of of any budget I've seen because of local support, such as our parcel taxes and PEEF, the biggest examples of those. And so we've moved eligible expenses over there because we don't wanna develop a carry forward on the harder to spend side or the restricted side. We want to carry forward as much as possible to be on the unrestricted side. That is also moving us towards a more positive certification because that unrestricted is what they look at for our certification. We've also accounted for central office reductions that we've begun and are underway, including a reduction in contracts and contractors. Next slide, please. So the governor's proposed budget. The governor proposed a budget which did lower COLA. The second bullet is really what I'd like you to pay attention to. So this 2627 COLA was lowered from 3.02 to 2.41, which means that next year we will receive $3,700,000 less in revenue. 'twenty seven-'twenty eight was also changed and lowered from 3.42 to 3.06. And in 'twenty seven, 'twenty eight, the revenue impact will be a lowering of revenue by a little over $6,000,000 Now these are important because year over year, these compounds we get, for example, that 'twenty six, 'twenty seven COLA, that's $3,700,000 every year less than we would have gotten. And the same as in the twenty seven-twenty eight, the revenue impact is $6,000,000 less every year moving forward, so significant. Next slide, please. This is just addressing the in year enrollments. We talk a lot about enrollment from year to year. And in the study session, we looked at enrollment trends as well as average daily attendance trends in the district. But it's important to point out that we've also lowered projected revenues because in year, although we aren't seeing a significant decline in enrollment, only 68 students in year in the district, what is really interesting and stood out to us and actually lowered our revenue slightly is that our unduplicated pupil percentage, which is the students who are unduplicated pupil include foster youth, homeless youth, English language learners, and low income students, that we are actually seeing a more rapid decline in those students. The reason that we're pointing that out in a financial report is those are the students which most significantly experience barriers to success in public education. And we're therefore given a little bit more money to address those needs in a school district. And we are losing those students faster than our other student groups. Next slide, please. And recommended certification qualified. Now we're going to get into the general fund. And we're doing something different this time. And it's quite intentional. We're doing the restricted side first because we mentioned that we moved a lot of expenses to the restricted side, and it's important to see the changes. So this is just the single year. This is this year's restricted, and we're showing you where we were at the first interim in December and where we are now, of course, and this is through the February. Notice that where we started at a $55,000,000 deficit at the beginning of the year, we will let it down whittled it down to about 51 in December, and we are now down to 44.5. That's as a result of identifying savings throughout the year and adjusting it so that we are projecting less of a deficit. So you can see the other thing we've put on here is the percent change. We've talked a lot about budget to actuals and how much things change. I just want to point out to the board and the community that we are not seeing those big swings. This has to do with making sure that expenses and revenues are constantly caught and cataloged. So the only significant number you see up here is that our deficit went down significantly at 12%. And now we're gonna look at and then we list here the components of the changes that you're seeing on the slide in revenue and expenditures. We've talked about this a little bit both publicly as well as a lot of us one on one. It's okay for revenues and expenditures to go up or down, but what a budget office should do is they should be giving the board and the public the components of why those revenues or expenditures are going up or down. And that's what's listed up there on that slide. Next slide, please. So this is the restricted side of the general fund, the multi year projection. And notice that this is four columns. We will be doing four columns more often in the future. And the reason that we put the fourth column up there, a 2829 projection, is that in June, this will be your new third year as school district. This is what we will all have on the books. Notice that this year, we've gotten the deficit down to about 44,500,000 projected. We will continue to improve on that for the third interim and for fiscal close, improve that performance. However, next year, the deficit is now up to about $67,000,000 twenty seven-twenty eight projected deficit is almost $96,000,000 And twenty eight-twenty nine, which will be our new third year at adoption, is now at $126,000,000 in deficit. And that's because we moved a lot of expenses over here, and we have a lot of additional costs that will be accruing each one of those years for the very agreements that we voted on this evening. The important number to pay attention to is line f, our ending fund balance. So this has been a topic of conversation. There's a lot of fund balance on the restricted and unrestricted side. So notice that that fund balance is going to take us through the rest of this year and next year. And at this point, it's pretty close to being zero in year 2728. Now that assumes that all of everybody's expenses are spent. And we know that doesn't happen because 100% is very unusual in the fiscal world. However, it is showing us that we're getting very close to having no reserve in about two years. The other number to pay attention to here is that negative 01/2025, almost 126,000,000 in 'twenty eight and 'twenty nine. And why am I pointing that out? Because there's no longer projected at that point. Now remember, we will always work to improve this. That's what a financial department does, to constantly improve your fiscal standing. But in 'twenty eight, 'twenty nine, that's more than we're going to get just on natural improvement and trimming around the edges. And so that's where we have a significant financial problem. If you run out of money, fund balance, to pay for expenses in the restricted side of the budget, those expenses come over to the unrestricted side. And you have to keep that in mind. And that's why I'm presenting the restricted side first. So we've provided a great deal of relief to the unrestricted side of the budget, all legitimately done so, very carefully done. It took us six months this year to get all that work done and more appropriately budgeted. But we have to solve for that deficit. So we will be solving for that year over the next two years because we cannot have that $126,000,000 of expenses projected going over to the unrestricted side because there will not be enough money there. So I want you to keep that in mind. That's why we started with restricted this evening. Next slide, please. So the unrestricted side of the ledger. And of course, this is showing continued improvement as well as we shift those costs and all of the costs that we're including here. So for the current year, you can see that we have not been able to whittle down the deficit as quickly. We still assume that we will overperform the budget. And when I say that, that means that we not spend all of the booked expenditures because people don't spend every penny that they ask for. We have lots of those that we collect back at the end of the year. But our projected ending fund balance for this year is now up to about $60,000,000 And of course, that keeps intact the eight percent board local reserve in fund 17. All of those components are listed up there. What the board wants to see is you need to follow that unassigned, unappropriated amount. That number always has to be zero or higher. Zero or higher. If it ever goes below zero, that means that we've gone bankrupt. And that's what you've got to look for is you've got to make sure that we always have that number above zero. Because bankruptcy, of course, is not allowed in California. It just means that a state receiver is appointed. Next slide, please. So this is the multi year projection. Again, four years because that fourth year will be your third year of budget adoption in just a couple of months here. And so you can see that the shortfall, because of anticipated increases in revenues, as well as, frankly, even if we have fewer students, we would have to have fewer staff. Like this year, we've lost about 500 students. And so you can see that as we try to naturally narrow that down over time, that we're doing a pretty good job of doing that on the unrestricted side. However, if I look at what's left in that 'twenty eight, 'twenty nine year, we're down to $14,000,000 $14,000,000 in a $1,400,000,000 budget is not much of a margin. And remember, there's over $100,000,000 on the restricted side that's coming over to be paid for. So the 'twenty eight, 'twenty nine year is a danger year for the district financially, and that's what needs to be solved for. However, notice that if we were just looking at the unrestricted side, we now are going to be able to pay our expenses for the current not just plus two, but plus three years. So we need to really whittle down those expenses on the restricted side of the ledger. And I'm going move on. But if you have any questions, I'm sure there will be some on that. But I just want to make sure that folks pause and absorb that if you need some more time. Next slide, please. Fiscal stabilization plan. A fiscal stabilization plan, or an FSP, is a part of an interim reporting, and it's required by law when a district is in a negative or qualified certification. It provides a plan to reduce spending to balance a district's budget on the unrestricted side of the general fund. We have updated the plan for the second interim to reflect reductions underway as a part of the 'twenty six, 'twenty seven budget development. We've been aligning staff with projected enrollment, which had not been done for a number of years. And that's been done with position control, which is now fully implemented. And we've done our first position control reconciliation, I think, ever in the district, which is great. We've released staff funded with expiring funding sources. We've been working on central office reductions, including contracts, as well as staff. We've reduced reliance on contracts, including in special education NPANPS that's non public agency, non public schools and transportation costs while developing a plan to provide these programs in district. Next slide, please. So we have two pages of fiscal stabilization plan. This first page is only two items, and it's already underway. And so these items have been included in those multi year projections, we've already gone over with you. Number one, aligning staff with projected enrollment, better budget controls, better staffing model, better budget development. And we moved 17,000,000 from the unrestricted side to the restricted side. That's the majority of that savings to the unrestricted general fund. So that's already underway, and it is already reflected in your multiyear projection. Central office reductions, reduced positions and contracted services in central office. So we'll see that savings starting in July. And that estimate at this point is for a savings of $15,264,000 So those are the two parts that are underway already. Next slide, please. These other two items are the minimally required. We call this the baby FSP to make sure that we can start whittling away at some of those deficits by the third interim and budget adoption. We do anticipate there will be additional FSP measures at budget adoption so that we can demonstrate that we're going to bring the budget into alignment at that time. But for tonight, two additional FSP items. Number one, align special education resources with IEPs. Reduce contract services by onboarding contractors to exist in vacant positions. That doesn't mean the contractors themselves, they might not be interested, but actually finding employees rather than contracting out services more aggressively. This cost savings should not impact service to students. It's just replacing contractors who are not technically employees with employees that do the work. We're looking for a fiscal year 'twenty seven, 'twenty eight savings in doing this of about $6,000,000 And then continued central office reductions. So this is in addition to page one, which was a combination of contracts and staff. This is reductions in more contracts, supplies, materials provided to central offices. Now, would say that that's a little bit misleading because a lot of the work that we do at central offices is actually contracting or provision for schools. But this would be asking folks to look at what they're doing and reduce those by another $8,000,000 So the total on slide two is about $14,000,000 in savings. Next slide, please. So what would our multi year projection look like after the implementation and we add in page two of the fiscal stabilization plan? You can see that now all four years would be in positive territory on the unrestricted general fund. Now please note, I'm still going to draw your attention to 'twenty eight, 'twenty nine because I keep focusing on that. I just want to point out that we still do not have enough fund balance to pay for the deficit on the restricted side. But the FSP certainly moves us in the right direction for that work. And I believe that concludes the presentation. Did I misremember something? Oh, and this just illustrates the deficit moving forward. And with that, any questions?

[Phil Kim (President, SFUSD Board of Education)]: Thank you. Any Commissioner Gupta? And then we'll go to Commissioner Student Delegate Mahn.

[Parag Gupta (Commissioner)]: Let's go to Student Delegate Mahn first.

[Phil Kim (President, SFUSD Board of Education)]: Oh. And it's also nine. So we'll have you wrap up.

[Student Delegate Mon]: Thank you so much for that update. And I'm sad I have to miss the questions because you all just ask very insightful questions all the time. My question I have to We talked about certifications earlier, and I'm seeing there's like a district one, a county one, a state one. And I'm not very in the world of all this, so I'm just wondering like what is the difference between all those certifications? Because I did notice that I think, earlier there's like, for the district, it's a qualified certification, whereas for the county, it's a positive one. So I'm wondering what is a certification, and how are they different based on the three?

[Chris Montbenitis (Deputy Superintendent of Business Services)]: They're actually the same, but they're different organizations. And so we have two. We have the district, and I just went through the district presentation. There's more slides that go over the county. And remember, these are just summary slides that reflect all the SACS forms that we attach, so we try to make sense out of them for you and just give you a summary. And the county ones we've gone over before, they're laid out in the same format. And the county is positive. So our county office of education, it's fund five. It has its own operating fund. It runs a lot of our special programs as well as special functions that exist in accounting office, something like certification assistance, class and compensation, a lot of our special education programs, etcetera. So they get their own certification because we do run our own county office as well. Much smaller budget, and that information is in there. So they're positive, which means that they are definitely meeting their current expenses for the current and two years. And qualified means that we may or may not meet ours for the current and next two years. It is an improvement from negative.

[Student Delegate Mon]: Thank you. And then my second question was on slide 19, the last slide we ended on. For each school year there is a number, like for example, 25,000,000 to 26,000,049 million shortfall and then $26 to $27,000,000 shortfall. And I'm wondering how accurate and likely are these numbers?

[Chris Montbenitis (Deputy Superintendent of Business Services)]: They're accurate. They're accurate. All we do, we've talked about this before. We just finished this. We get everybody's budget, and we just add it up. And that's the planned expenditures. Now let's play theoretical for a second. How likely is it that you spend 100%? It's pretty unlikely unless you have a large unexpected expense. So in other words, if you are running a department and your budget is $10,000 and you budget for 9,000 of it that you're going to spend over a twelve month period of time and then you only spend 7,000 you don't get to keep that money because we're not a bank. So we take it back and then we reallocate you $10,000 next year. And then you submit a budget for it again. And so do people spend all of their allocations? The answer is no. What is the total that we get back every year of unspent funds? It's been going down. Last year, we spent more than what we brought in in revenue. We still didn't budget everything people planned because that number would have been much bigger. But we still spent more than we brought in. So part of what we're trying to do is we're not allocating you more than we get in, not you as a person, but you as a department or a district. That's one of the ways we're trying to stay out of deficit spending. The bigger issue here because I think people focus too much on that. How much of our projected budget are we going to spend? Get out your crystal ball. We don't have a crystal ball. We look at trends. And last year, we broke the trend and we actually had a deficit. Because before, we were projecting them and we didn't have them. This year, it looks like we're going to have one again. The bigger piece that's important is that we have to account for the plan that you submit and have enough money for it. So for example, if you have $1,000 in your savings account and you over budget by $100 more than what you have, we have it in the savings account. But we have to have enough money in the savings account for everything that you plan on spending for the current plus two years. So if you now spend plan over three years on spending $1,500 more, you don't have enough money. And it's just a plan. It's just on paper. But that's actually what got us into negative certification. We were actually planning to spend more than we were getting in even though we didn't spend it all. So the negative certification was a what I call a paper negative certification is that our budget plans far exceeded the amount of money that we're bringing in or the money that we had left over even if people didn't spend it. So we went into negative certification based on a plan, not actual overspending, which is an interesting concept.

[Student Delegate Mon]: Yeah. Thank you so much. As I've mentioned before, always very insightful to learn about all of this. I think I dropped this in the fall semester. I wrote my college apps about some I wrote one of my essays about this, and March is the very excite well, no. I've talked to it was, like, a moment where, like, you liked learning, like, something about an an extracurricular, and I did talk about this. And March is the scary month where everything comes out, so I'll keep you all updated. Good night.

[Phil Kim (President, SFUSD Board of Education)]: Thank you very much, student delegates. Appreciate your thoughtful questions this evening. Commissioner Gupta?

[Parag Gupta (Commissioner)]: Thank you so much for this. And I just want to point out, on page 13 of this, we have changes from I think the most exciting column to me on page 13 is the percentage change from first to second interim. And it's all within 5%. Negative 4% to 4% is the range. And I just want to compare that to past years where we've had swings of 40% plus, which is it's really nice to see that we're not going through those changes. So kudos to you and the team. That is huge. Within the time that you've had to be able to do that, I just want to really appreciate that. One question on page 13 while we're on it. I I just wanna make sure I'm understanding this. So if I'm looking at this b plus c minus d on this page is equal to f. And then is it A plus E minus the board local reserve gets us to I mean it's it's I'm sorry I'm just trying to like understand this so is it total revenues looks like Total revenues plus total contributions minus the expenditures is equal to the surplus or shortfall.

[Chris Montbenitis (Deputy Superintendent of Business Services)]: Yes. So we literally line this up like a ledger sheet so that you could go down and do the math for yourself, which is what you just did. So beginning fund balance is what's left over from prior years. The revenue is what we're getting. So we add those two together. That's how much we have to potentially spend that year. The contribution comes off the top out of the general fund and moves to the restricted fund. That's our special education cost in our district. And to give you a concept, in the last ten years, that's gone up from a 140,000,000 to now 225,000,000 with far fewer students, something that should be catching your eye as board meeting as board members. And then your total expenditures. So the contribution just comes off the top and moves to the restricted side. And then there's the total expenditures. That's all of the planned expenses, the 570,000,000. And so, yes, it's just it's just straightforward math from there. Right? All of that money minus all of the contributions and expenditures is your projected ending fund balance, that 58,000,000. And then we tell you below line f, those are the different things that add up to that 58,000,000. Right? So from the then you so the components of that 58,000,000 are the stores inventory and prepaid, the reserve for economic uncertainty, etcetera. The only one that doesn't go into that math is we've called out separately your local reserve and fund 17 so that you can keep track of the balance of your 8% local reserve.

[Parag Gupta (Commissioner)]: Which is what kind of confused me when I first looked at it because it's actually then beginning fund balance plus the net surplus or shortfall minus the board local reserve is then equal to the ending fund balance, correct? And I think it would just be helpful to, I don't know, somehow call that out because I was trying to make that add. I was trying to make that add, and it wouldn't, so I had to kind of play with it. And then if the ending fund balance equals everything below that except for that board local reserve, which is what you just

[Chris Montbenitis (Deputy Superintendent of Business Services)]: Yeah. If you will, Maureen, could you go to the next slide, please? The reason we did that is so that you can track how we're keeping the school district insolvency. So we're using balances, but then we're actually showing down below now. Now we've moved fund 17 below the blue line. We're showing you that we're taking the deficits, the plan deficits out of fund 17 in order that you have a zero or better in that unassigned, unappropriated. So we're actually drawing down. We're balancing the budget on your reserve. Now, reserve policy says but we will not balance the budget on a reserve. So that's not a long term plan. That's supposed to be in case of an emergency. But there is no other source of funding in the budget at this time to pay for deficits.

[Parag Gupta (Commissioner)]: Got it. And so and if you can also clarify, so I see '20 eight, 29 projection for restricted on page 12. And ending fund balance is negative 125 basically, 126,000,000. And then I see on page 14 ending fund balance for 'twenty eight, 'twenty nine is 120 in the unrestricted. So is that basically I mean, are the different funds coming to a wash then? Or is there still sort of a negative $126,000,000 that is just not dealt with?

[Chris Montbenitis (Deputy Superintendent of Business Services)]: So you have to go down and still do the math. And so the ending fund balance, you then have to look at the components. And one of them is still an assignment of $89,000,000 This is for unknown expenses associated with bargaining that we're still engaged in and costs of health care benefits. That number we hope to resolve by the end of the year, so it's a placeholder. But currently, it reads actually that the fund balance in 'twenty eight, 'twenty nine after paying all expenses is $14,000,000 We're not good at that point.

[Parag Gupta (Commissioner)]: So is this just sort of like gaming the system so that we are ostensibly, it's all on the restricted side and that's not counting towards fiscal certification?

[Chris Montbenitis (Deputy Superintendent of Business Services)]: Yeah. It it's it's so so I would not I would not characterize it as gaming the system. I would suggest that you've hired two experienced financial profe professionals who are who are making sure that you are in the best financial situation that we can put the district in in a very tough fiscal situation. Right? So is our job to give you the most flexibility on your unrestricted side? It is, absolutely. And you'll continue to see us do that no matter what. But yes, that is what you're seeing.

[Parag Gupta (Commissioner)]: All right. My last nineteen seconds. The fiscal stabilization plan assumes $6,000,000 in savings by moving special education contractors into existing vacant permanent positions. Given that the district's own metrics show a significant challenge in filling hard to staff vacancies and that special education contracts cost recently, I believe, about $20000000.19400000.0 what is the strategy to fill these positions with staff rather than contractors to actually realize these savings?

[Chris Montbenitis (Deputy Superintendent of Business Services)]: Darn it. Amy's not here. It's all about HR. No. That's not fair. This is a very modest saving. So currently, the figure that we're spending on contractors is it's far larger than $6,000,000 So this is giving us a preliminary target of let's reduce that amount by $6,000,000 It is not the entire amount that we're paying for contractors. In fact, it's relatively small portion of it.

[Dr. Hsu (Superintendent, SFUSD)]: If I may, I would also want to just add that under Jenny Jimenez Payne's leadership, our head of special education, she is working really hard to review all contracts to try to find greater efficiencies in the contracts making sure that there's alignment regarding around student needs and allocation of staff and services. So through that process, this is where we're finding greater efficiencies.

[Phil Kim (President, SFUSD Board of Education)]: Commissioner Alexander.

[Matt Alexander (Commissioner)]: Thanks. I want to follow-up on the contracting question. It was one of my questions. So I've been so if you look at the five thousands series, which is kind of the services and other operating expenses, which includes contracts, for this fiscal year, our original budget was $219,000,000 roughly. The revised budget was about $275,000,000 The projection of actuals is now $298,000,000 although we've only spent about $90,000,000 And so the contracts, I mean, really, the contract costs oh, and then for the next in the multi year projections are about $300,000,000 a year. So the contract costs have really grown. And I think that in the response to the written question, it said that was because of this special ed contracting. So I guess that was following up on this question, I guess I was just curious, why are we only projecting $6,000,000 in savings when I mean, we're increasing it by, I don't know, from a budget to now projected actuals. That's like an $80,000,000 projected increase just for this year alone. And yet, we're only now saying we're going to reduce it by $6,000,000 when we said we're going to freely fill these Fed positions. I guess I'm trying to understand that discrepancy.

[Chris Montbenitis (Deputy Superintendent of Business Services)]: So there's a lot that goes into that. So I mentioned before that the contribution has been going up at relatively rapid pace for a district for the size of contribution. And that's very specifically tied to that line that you're calling out, which is why, as Doctor. Su mentioned, special education is working on that contract. So remember, contracts are a combination of special education of transportation, NPSs, NPAs, as well as a lot of other services that they provide. However, what we need to get a lot better doing and I think I've mentioned this to the board before, this is going to be the tough nut to crack is that we have to stop over budgeting. So we assume perhaps far more than we need. And even you're pointing out the one area of the budget that is continuing to go up double digits in between different interim reports. And it's based on asks for contracts, but yet the expenses don't materialize in a timely manner. So that should point to and I'm being as frankly as blunt as I can be that points to a lack of efficiency in accurately predicting what we need, when we need it for our students. But yet, we're providing the services. So something needs to be looked into far more carefully there. And this is where and I think our labor partners are aware of that as well because that's something that they called out in negotiations. There's contract monitoring. So the people that do contract monitoring are in my office, but it's been left on its own to be handled. And so we are pulling that function over and making sure that it's done well. So to your point, might there be more savings than $6,000,000 to be had there just by reconciling what's going on? I would hazard a guess to say yes, but without being able to get into the data and actually reconciling everything, which we're just starting literally next week, like as we've started to make this progress. I I I just don't feel comfortable guessing

[Phil Kim (President, SFUSD Board of Education)]: for you.

[Matt Alexander (Commissioner)]: I really appreciate everything you just said. And I just I mean, because I looked to me, I was I was shocked to see that we've only spent $94,000,000 in that $300,000,000 budget. Was like, are we really gonna spend by the end of the year $300,000,000 And that's money, again, that we've taken off the table for other uses by saying it's budgeted over there because we need it for these contracts. I really appreciate that work. I had a similar question around instructional supplies, and maybe the answer is the same because there's a similar pattern. The numbers are smaller for instructional supplies, but we've only spent $12,000,000 but our projected actuals is $66,000,000 Is that a similar dynamic? Or

[Chris Montbenitis (Deputy Superintendent of Business Services)]: Similar, slightly different in this case. So in this case, it's an aggregate of all the unspent money that actually is more at school sites. School sites tend to be pretty good. You were a principal. I was principal. We save our money. And then we try to spend it really frugally. And then at the end of the year, sometimes we get a little less frugal, maybe a little extravagantly so. So folks tend to make sure they have enough to last for the year. The big chunk of that, though, is that for adoptions, we've been over assuming how much we're going to get done or adopted. And that money doesn't carry forward. Right? So it needs to be reallocated every year. And so we've been working with curriculum and instruction. Devin's a great partner to say, I want a ten year textbook adoption because I'm really good at estimating what textbooks cost. And instead of allocating you $40,000,000 and you're only going to spend 12 of it, we're only going to allocate 12 because on the schedule, that's what it's going to be. So that's about better budget practices because we will always allocate the money to buy the textbooks or that type of supply that we need district wide. But we shouldn't be over allocating it into your apt description like you just had with other contracts, then leaving that money on the side.

[Matt Alexander (Commissioner)]: Yeah. And just for I really, really appreciate that. And and this is why I'm glad I'm so grateful for the progress you all are making around these sort of technical, improvements around our budgeting and processes because, again, that's we heard people complaining in public comment about staff cuts. We're making staff cuts because, you know, once if we fix these things, we'll have more money available to hire staff at schools, for example. It's like a we or All balance the those things, right? So I guess my last question is around ADA projections. We talked about this last week at the study session. And the question I asked last week, we didn't have the enrollment folks there, but was our enrollment has actually been pretty steady for the last three years. There was a decline after COVID. Then it was pretty steady. This year, we lost about three ninety students. And yet for the next few years, we're projecting a 500 student decline per year. So my two questions are why? Like, why do we think that's not a blip? Like, why do we think it's gonna keep going down? And secondly, is that reduction, the 2,800,000 decline that's on slide 13, is that the 500 students, more or less? Maybe that's the easy part of the question.

[Chris Montbenitis (Deputy Superintendent of Business Services)]: That's the easy part. The answer is To answer the other part, we don't do our own demographic information. And so I believe at the study session, we sent a request that the demographer share their projections with you. And that goes through the enrollment center. So we'll make sure that you get it. We'll keep asking, in other words.

[Dr. Hsu (Superintendent, SFUSD)]: But unfortunately, we are seeing a consistent decline.

[Matt Alexander (Commissioner)]: In the projecting, because this is the first year I mean, last three years were almost steady. One year went up a little, down a little, and then this year, we lost about 400 kids. But this is the first year that's happened. So I guess I just wanna I wanna see those projections and understand why we think that's just not like a one year blip. Why do we think it's going to keep going? I think that's my question.

[Chris Montbenitis (Deputy Superintendent of Business Services)]: So I will give you an interesting dynamic here. We're really good at data in the enrollment. We have some good data talent. I think I've mentioned him by name a few times before. So the benefit that our demographer has is we have not just a single year worth of really interesting enrollment data. We have decades. It's one of the areas that we've actually kept really good data in. And so the demographer has access to that and is very, very good at projecting where we're going up and down. We're also good at getting it done early. So enrollment placement letters, I know people are talking about that. They're going out soon. That means we have a good idea already of what next year's enrollment is, better than most districts. That's actually really interesting. So when that comes out, we should all be looking carefully.

[Matt Alexander (Commissioner)]: Yeah. And especially as we're going to look forward at potentially changing the student assignment system, other things. Think that just having all that maybe we can do a study session on that or something.

[Phil Kim (President, SFUSD Board of Education)]: Thank you. Just trying to move on.

[Supryia Ray (Commissioner)]: Okay. That's Commissioner Fisher.

[Alida Fisher (Commissioner)]: This has been a great conversation. Thank you. And I appreciated the math. By the way, Commissioner Gupta, that was a fun exercise. Last week's budget study session I guess it was a buddy session, too was really informative. And to follow-up on what Commissioner Alexander was just saying about ADA trends, one of the moments that you pointed out to us, Mr. Bonitas, was the fact that it's not the enrollment drop that's so impactful. It's the fact that our actual attendance compared like, we only have about 92% attendance, which is very, very low compared to the state. So this isn't a question for now, but this is a question I would like to see answered. So what are we doing? I think this is an area where a little bit of investment could actually bring big returns. So what are we doing to actually increase our attendance? So that's question one. Also, we've talked about impact assessments. We heard that mentioned in public comment a few times. Like, are we actually doing impact assessments to make sure that when we're making cuts, we're not cutting off our nose to spite our face, for lack of a better term, right? And I also appreciate on slide 17 how you clarified compared to last week's slides that the way that the SPED reductions are listed here that it's really appreciate the clarification of the fact that we're reducing our reliance on contracting and, you know, we're filling existing vacant positions. But that also is going to mean more focus in HR. So I'd like to see what we're doing. At the same time as we're cutting central office, how are we making sure that our HR department is appropriately staffed and we have the resources there to actually bring folks in? And also, Ms. Jayaraman, I also really appreciate what you said last week about maximizing SPED funds. Like We're not taking advantage of the state's child development fund for students with disabilities. And so we do have opportunities to bring additional revenues in. And so while I don't expect all these, that was a lot. But I'd love to see more of a detailed plan of what we're doing to maximize potential incoming revenues, how we're specifically. But I also, when it comes to special education, really, really, really want to appreciate everything we're doing in position control and budgeting. We talk about the state's Prop 98 budget maneuver, but there's been a huge lack of clarity in our own budget internally and how that's impacted SPED, you know, in order to balance the budget over the past couple of years. And so there's a lot of folks who are really nervous about what contractor versus employee means. And when we talk about huge differences in SPED, we haven't had a lot of budget accountability in special education over the past couple of years. This budget transparency and everything that's happening now is going to be critically important to make sure, one, we're appropriately staffed and not getting ourselves into compliance issues. But two, really rebuilding trust with families, and most importantly, actually serving our students. Done.

[Phil Kim (President, SFUSD Board of Education)]: Great. Did you have a question?

[Alida Fisher (Commissioner)]: I asked like 10 questions Did in

[Phil Kim (President, SFUSD Board of Education)]: you want to lift up one or a handful to prioritize? Well,

[Alida Fisher (Commissioner)]: I I would I would pivot to the superintendent if I you will let you do you need me to restate any of them? Because that was quite the monologue. But if you need me to restate, I'm happy to.

[Dr. Hsu (Superintendent, SFUSD)]: Thank you, Commissioner Fisher. What I heard is maybe perhaps creating another I mean, now that we're getting used to study sessions, we could do a study session that's specifically focused on enrollment because that is a very complicated, needlessly complicated process.

[Jaime Huling (Vice President, SFUSD Board of Education)]: I just don't want to overpromise the public because we actually have an over full governance calendar including additional extra meetings we expect to come up. We're looking forward to our briefings on enrollment.

[Dr. Hsu (Superintendent, SFUSD)]: Or we could do board briefings on enrollment. And then we could also share with the board and members of the public our attendance campaign. So our Be Here campaign, which was funded through our philanthropic arm in terms of trying to support our young people to come to school, the importance of coming to school, the impact of losing hundreds of thousands of minutes of instruction per year and then of course translating out to the district losing tens of millions of dollars as well. But we could do more of that. In terms of special education, I think that as you already alluded, our head of special education, Jenny Jimenez Payne, is doing a really great job in terms of trying to align service to students, working really closely with HR to identify the types of service a young person needs, the individual, the staff that the young person would need, and working very closely with HR to see how quickly we can hire a person to provide the service. And when we can't and have exhausted that avenue, then we would go to a contractor. And I know that HR through Amy's shop is working really hard to try to recruit more special education educators and that's really, really hard to bring on. However, now with this new TA we might be able to bring more special education teachers to the district because we are offering benefits our educators. I think that we are really fortunate now to have better recruiting mechanisms to bring people on.

[Alida Fisher (Commissioner)]: I appreciate that follow-up. That's super helpful. And I think one of the things we heard a lot last year was the fact that it took so long to onboard people that we just and I think that might have been partly a reflection on our systems. But are we getting better acceptance rates with so these are when we talk about a study session. And I appreciate that we as a board might get briefings, but that doesn't help bring the public along. So we want to make sure that we also, whatever information we're getting, the public has access to as well. So what is it exactly that's going to help us do that, I think, would be a follow-up question, not necessarily to answer here. I know we've got to move on. But last year through April, we spent $6,700,000 with outside psychologists. Some of that was IEEs, some of that was contractors. We spent $15,800,000 with nonpublic agencies. So when we talk about $6,000,000 I think there's a lot more than that to be. So I appreciate the conservative effort and hope we actually Thank

[Phil Kim (President, SFUSD Board of Education)]: you, Commissioner Fisher. I'm just trying to

[Alida Fisher (Commissioner)]: Okay. So yeah, I would love to see more detail. How about that?

[Vivian Safran (Parent; founder of SFGs in School)]: You.

[Phil Kim (President, SFUSD Board of Education)]: Any other comments or questions? Commissioner Ray?

[Supryia Ray (Commissioner)]: Hi. I just want to ask a very fundamental level question, which is this is listed as an action item, the fiscal year twenty five-twenty six second interim report, so we need to take action on it. Can you just explain, in very layman's terms, layperson's terms, what we're voting on here?

[Chris Montbenitis (Deputy Superintendent of Business Services)]: I'll try that again. Feedback started. I think it's gone. You're actually voting the presentation is the overview. It includes your summary fiscal statements as well as your required fiscal stabilization plan. So you're voting on that, and you're voting on all of the hundreds of pages of accounting documents that we've attached, are the backup that actually aggregate up to the summary reports literally line by line. And so and that's required. So every time we do a report, those are called the the SACS forms, the standard accounting forms that we use and are required by the state. So you're approving all of that.

[Supryia Ray (Commissioner)]: Okay. Is all of that contained within this document and this document?

[Phil Kim (President, SFUSD Board of Education)]: Yes. Okay.

[Supryia Ray (Commissioner)]: Yes. So the entirety of these

[Chris Montbenitis (Deputy Superintendent of Business Services)]: is what we're voting on? Yes. I actually I didn't know. So it's actually Carter in our office that used to print those. I didn't realize we were printing them anymore. So good to see they're still being printed.

[Lisa Weissman-Ward (Commissioner)]: Okay. Thank you.

[Phil Kim (President, SFUSD Board of Education)]: Any other questions or comments? Okay. Seeing none, roll call vote. Nope. Nope. It's already been made. Yes. Just need to say debate is now closed on the motion to approve this item. Roll call vote,

[Parag Gupta (Commissioner)]: please.

[Martin Trujillo (Board Office/Clerk and Zoom Moderator)]: Commissioner Ray?

[Supryia Ray (Commissioner)]: Yes.

[Martin Trujillo (Board Office/Clerk and Zoom Moderator)]: Commissioner Alexander? Yes. Vice President Huling?

[Jaime Huling (Vice President, SFUSD Board of Education)]: Yes.

[Martin Trujillo (Board Office/Clerk and Zoom Moderator)]: President Kim? Yes. Commissioner Weissman-Ward?

[Lisa Weissman-Ward (Commissioner)]: Yes.

[Martin Trujillo (Board Office/Clerk and Zoom Moderator)]: Commissioner Gupta? Yes. Commissioner Fisher?

[Alida Fisher (Commissioner)]: Yes.

[Martin Trujillo (Board Office/Clerk and Zoom Moderator)]: Seven yes. Thank you.

[Jaime Huling (Vice President, SFUSD Board of Education)]: President Kim has a standing recusal from the consent calendar due to his employment with the city and county of San Francisco, is a frequent contractor with SFUSD in order to avoid any appearance of a conflict. In his absence, I'll ask the superintendent, do you have any changes to the consent calendar?

[Dr. Hsu (Superintendent, SFUSD)]: I have none.

[Jaime Huling (Vice President, SFUSD Board of Education)]: Is there a motion to approve the consent calendar?

[Alida Fisher (Commissioner)]: I move to approve the consent calendar.

[Parag Gupta (Commissioner)]: Second.

[Unidentified public commenter (on layoffs/newcomer program)]: Could we have a roll call vote, please?

[Supryia Ray (Commissioner)]: I'm sorry. May I ask a question? Is it possible to make a brief point first or not?

[Jaime Huling (Vice President, SFUSD Board of Education)]: No, it's not a discussion item.

[Student Delegate Mon]: Okay. Thank you.

[Martin Trujillo (Board Office/Clerk and Zoom Moderator)]: Commissioner Ray?

[Supryia Ray (Commissioner)]: Yes.

[Martin Trujillo (Board Office/Clerk and Zoom Moderator)]: Commissioner Alexander? Yes. Vice President Huling?

[Chris Claus (SPED Dept. Head, Washington High; UESF bargaining team)]: Yes.

[Martin Trujillo (Board Office/Clerk and Zoom Moderator)]: Commissioner Weissman-Ward?

[Lisa Weissman-Ward (Commissioner)]: Yes.

[Martin Trujillo (Board Office/Clerk and Zoom Moderator)]: Commissioner Gupta? Yes. Commissioner Fisher?

[Alida Fisher (Commissioner)]: Yes.

[Phil Kim (President, SFUSD Board of Education)]: Okay. Really quickly on board member reports, are there any reports from board members on any of the following three items under Section K board member reports? Please use your hand. Mr. Gupta?

[Parag Gupta (Commissioner)]: Just saying, there's a meeting this Thursday for the best ad hoc committee there is, ad hoc committee on public engagement happening at Leola Havard. Please come. We would love to engage you all. We'd love to hear your perspectives as we engage in figuring out how do we, as a board, take action on major decisions as well as routine engagement. So that's Leola Havard, 6PM. Look forward to seeing you all there either in person or online. All information is on our website. Thank you.

[Matt Alexander (Commissioner)]: And the second best ad hoc committee has rescheduled We haven't been recognized I'm quite aware. I'm quite aware. The second ad hoc committee on progress monitoring has rescheduled its meeting to Tuesday, April 21. And so if you want to come and join the other two audience members for that one, you're welcome to. But we're going to continue with our work.

[Phil Kim (President, SFUSD Board of Education)]: Thank you so much for your leadership, Commissioner Alexander. I know that I mentioned at the top of this meeting that we may break into closed session. My commitment here is that we will keep it short, ten, fifteen minutes. If that is and if that is amenable to the board, I would love to reconvene into closed session briefly.

[Alida Fisher (Commissioner)]: You control the agenda

[Phil Kim (President, SFUSD Board of Education)]: Thank you. I mean we are forced to because we have to come back and vote to extend if we were to anyway. So we would have to come back regardless at ten. Amazing. Thank you so much. We will resume into closed session.

[SFGovTV Announcer]: SFGov TV, San Francisco government television.

[SFGovTV Announcer]: SFGov TV, San Francisco government television.

[SFGovTV Announcer]: SFGov TV, San Francisco Government Television,