Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    August 23, 2011 8:30pm-9:00pm PDT

8:30 pm
building a very strong committee, maybe they have the component as well. they have something the committee needs, but they are also involved in a school on the east side of town. i think this is the way it fell into the mix. i think it is great, but do these folks give vetted through the rules committee and eventually it? how do we get to the final? >> i can answer that question. what happens is there is an application process, and there was targeted out rates to different organizations, organizations and not -- out reach to different
8:31 pm
organizations, so they had to reach different criteria to submit an application, and some of those included financial background, so i have to say that 95%, maybe 100% of members have a strong financial background, and it might even be a professional capacity, and we did have -- it was two months. i started in august, and we really hit the pavement at certain points to try to get that. there was nothing that precludes a board member also supporting the type of thing, and we do in our regulations for the committee, the total capacity we can have as many as 11. the terms are helpful at the beginning, to cover so we have
8:32 pm
already had allayed admission -- of late admission, so it is an application process. staff reviews it based on criteria, and a ultimately, the resolution is presented with those names for final improvement -- final approval by the board. >> is there a possibility that board members could get the application again, but also you know there are gaps, so if we know there are organizations that have access to those folks, we could possibly fill the gaps that are specific to the needs of the committee. i think that would be very helpful. we want to remain strong and eager to do the work, and it takes work, and we want to fill every possible space.
8:33 pm
>> thanks again. i guess in hearing a lot of comments, i want to make sure the oversight committee is there to really look at finances and make sure we spend it according to what we have dictated in the proposition itself when we passed it, so i think in regards to the issue of the effectiveness of certain programs and funding, you can expand that as a committee to look at that, a five that is not the main thing. -- but that does not the main thing, and i am expecting staff to carry the ball on that and come up with the evaluation peace. that is my short comments on vests -- comment on this.
8:34 pm
i hope to see you in two months. let's move on. we are almost there. special order of business. that is item l. motion and a second for the approval of the target benefit plan and the approval of the determination of the system. the superintendent for both of the following items. each should be read separately. we have two items. does anyone want to read it?
8:35 pm
>> thank you. the special orders before you are parallel orders that implement cmo you that was previously adopted by the board and the transitional work force of retirement centers to one based on social security, so we have been working through various implementation issues, and these are required steps to the board needs to take to effectuate this transition. the parallel resolutions and requested actions. the first requested action of
8:36 pm
the board approved the termination of the benefit plan and the resolution attached and said the superintendent is authorized to execute any and all documents as may be necessary to effectuate the intent and purpose of the resolution. the parallel resolution to the second alternative plan as similarly that the board take action to approve the amendment of the alternative system in the form of the resolution attached and that the superintendent is authorized and directed to execute any and all documents as may be necessary for the intent of this resolution, and my understanding is each one must be voted separately.
8:37 pm
>> i want to call up our speaker. there is one speaker -- to win the plaque. -- linda plaque. >> good evening, commissioners, ladies and gentlemen. you have before you an amendment to terminate the plan. it stands for a private corporation. a membership urge the board of education to vote in favor of the resolution to terminate those targets benefit plans. the target benefit plan has been the only option available to professionals for employee and employer contributions towards retirement since 1993.
8:38 pm
we agreed the plan does not meet the needs of our members. let me give you an example of the way it functions. i have the payroll records of an employee and employer contributions of a professional. she is 41 years old, and she has worked for san francisco unified for 17 years. her contribution is slightly over $36,000. the employer's contribution to her account is $2,600. gooif she had been in social security she would have been qualified to retire, and she would have received a check for life. she would now receives disability benefits.
8:39 pm
but none of those things apply. with the benefit plan, when she uses, when they are exhausted, there is nothing left. under social security she would get a check for a live, so we are glad that we have agreed that employees will be given the option to go into social security, but we are very concerned that those working fewer than four hours have not been offered the choice of social security or another savings plan. we fear this is going to expose the district to liability, so we hope we can work that out. we will now look forward to working with our professionals
8:40 pm
so they can look forward to retirement with dignity. the professionals who will possibly not have time left in their careers, a group who are 55 years or older, will have the choice of social security or establishing an account in arizona and name. -- in their own name. district staff have been spectacular in helping this group make their choice. i wanted you to know that. if we urge the commissioners to vote in favor of this resolution. >> any comments from school board members? roll call for the approval of the termination of the target benefit plans, the first one.
8:41 pm
[calling votes] >> for the second one, approval of the termination of the alternative retirement system. comments? >> i just have a comment. after this step, what are the next steps we would be engaging in waste our potential retirees -- engaging in with the potential retirees airmanshi? >> functionally, the next step is these are submitted to the irs. we have to get permission from them, but on october 11, this
8:42 pm
plan ends, so that is the functional step, and on october 12, social security ends. >> do we have further negotiations with union partners, or is that an ongoing discussions hammond -- ongoing discussion? do you have a plan and then we move forward as a district? >> the board has already approved in mo euau. we meet on a regular basis to discuss how the implementation and has reflected, and step-by- step, we will complete this transition on a timeline. on october 11, the actual transition to social security will begin to take place, and
8:43 pm
the termination will take place, and we will begin the transition for eligible members. those who are over 55 will have the choice to stay or go into social security or form a separate plan. >> roll call please chairman? [calling votes] >> 6 ayes. >> i think we have worked on this is how many years? [applause] >> let's move on. discussion of other educational
8:44 pm
issues. none tonight. calendar resolutions, moved at a previous meeting. a vote on consent calendar. moved and seconded under section f. then roll call please. [calling votes] >commissioner wynns: i am going to vote yes, but i want to make a message that i am not sure what was removed. i do not think we can do that anyway. later i will ask a question about something you have already voted on.
8:45 pm
i am going to vote aye on the consent calendar. the items are removed apparently did not include anything -- everything i wanted to make a comment on or ask a question. even though it will not change my vote, i want to ask that question when we get to discussion. >> mrs. wilson is nodding her head. >> that is 6 ayes. >> we are on consent calendar resolution for discussion and immediate action. the you want to comment right now? the first ones i see ouare k-28.
8:46 pm
2-e, page 25. go ahead. >> my question was about 2-c. i just needed to clarify for myself. they are about our relationship with cbos. however, any actual contracts such as those you saw, they have to come back. this does not authorize the staff to pay money to the cbo's without authorization by the board, so i thank you for the question. i wanted to clarify for myself, which is as i thought it was. for me that was resolved spirit of my question about -- that was resolved. my question about 2-e was about
8:47 pm
transportation services, the medical transportation services for special aided, and there waa question raised to me about the bidding process. as i understand it, we got a letter. during the bidding process, one bidder had been given notice they had won the bid, and the process was reopened again, apparently because of a complaint by another bidder, and after the same organization and also submitted the lowest dibid it was given to someone else, so there was some question about the issue, and i see the bitter
8:48 pm
in question has been judged to be non-compliant, and i just have questions about the process, whether it has been carried out appropriately and whether we should vote on this to find out the details. >> we have a speaker on this. johnny. >> he was not able to be here. >> it seems like we are having a discussion right now, so i am not clear. is it ok? i think it would be ok. you want to come up and say something before mr. gardner and answers? >> commissioners.
8:49 pm
>> you have two minutes to make a comment. >> my name is johnny carter. part of the question that was raised was roughly a year-ago they were the lowest responsible bidder for this particular contract. they were sent notice they were rewarded a particular grade, and the district decided to scrap all bids because of questions around one was issued. i believe they found there were certain items that were not cleared, a responsible bidder awarded the contract, but it went out to bid, so a year later, it comes back out. they end oup with the lawyers ad bitter and to find out they have been in non-compliance, and the
8:50 pm
fact that evidently one of their references did not return a call back to the district, and if was felt that based on the information provided, they did not meet the minimum number of trips on the bid, which were 140 to 280, which is the flow the district is currently having. it was a little shocking to find out if they were found on compliance, because even if you use the trips as a milestone, it still comes out with the two references given, number of trips to times of week, they still would have a minimum of 160 trips a week, which is over the 140, which was the minimum in the bid and my understanding,
8:51 pm
so they are small they are a minority business located here in san francisco. express medical is a franchise, out of town entity at a third more and price, so that is why i am here, and they were here earlier but had to leave. >> commissioners, i am the director of transportation. it is true that a year ago of did was put out. a number of issues were brought to our attention. after a thorough evaluation, it was decided it would be better to reject all the bids, redraft in a tiger format -- tighter
8:52 pm
format. in so doing, and number of criteria were called for for the contractor. several of them included five years of service, three years of providing rather large volume, equivalent to what we have, which is 120 students being transported twice a week. nonthe responses we did get, suf the bidders we did not get responses from their -- two of the bidders we did not get responses from their references. at least one reference did not respond for each. the volume loughner service was not met in terms of the references we did receive responses from.
8:53 pm
there was a total of 25 passengers being transported to the services. now after a thorough evaluation, it was decided the most responsive theater was -- bidder was emt, so it was restructured in conjunction with the legal audience to make sure we were putting the operation to gathered -- together. >> when this issue was raised, i went first to the special ed department and they said they did not know anything about this, but these are the kinds of services that we hope to provide much more of without transporting kids all over town,
8:54 pm
so i am interested debthat we cn change it and hopefully reduce it significantly in the future, so the five-year period might be nice. in the past we would have liked that to lock in the price, but part of our design is to significantly reduce these kinds of services. >> the contract was developed on of per trip basis, so there is no guarantee we will have 280 trips a year or a year. it is only the number of trips we call for. commissioner norton: i just want to ask what the record is. have we received no complaints? we are currently contracted with them now?
8:55 pm
we are not. who are we contrasting with now? flags in the interim, we were using our -- >> in the interim, we were using our primary contract. commissioner maufas: do you recall why the other metro was non compliant bowman -- other trans metro was non compliant? >> we did not have five years overall experience, no references. one reference with a maximum of eight passengers. the type of services they provided did not fall into what we have. one reference they gave us, which had a large number of students to a large number of passengers, was transporting students to the university of california to the bart station
8:56 pm
in hayward. that is providing the type of service we are doing. >> any other comments or questions? seeing non -- >> i have one question. i understood it used to say -- i understand you to say it is asian owned. is that accurate? >> they are asian owned. i do not know. i saw that my cell. -- myself. >> should we have roll call for this particular item? [calling votes] commissioner maufas: no.
8:57 pm
commissioner wynns: no. >> that is four ayes. >> the next item, k-28, 49 and k-2. >> you want me to get her? >> yes. are we going to take all three of them together? >> yes. they are all the same thing, and i had thought we were going to hear a report from you earlier on this program, and is here for us to vote on, and i do not know
8:58 pm
anything about it, so i would like to hear what it is, all the details are was going to get in some report or presentation to the board before today. >> i am sorry. i did not know i was expected to give a report on this. >> we have a closed session where we were talking about personnel matters, and this program came up, and it was going to one of these schools. >> yes, i have of report for you and your your -- report for you. >> i would like to tell you a little bit about it. last year paul revere look at
8:59 pm
its maps, and they were all red, so the leadership team and the principal did some research, and they found that in long beach california, there had been a classroom of fifth graders, and because of their mathematical achievement, the district went up 24 points because of the fifth grade class, so the district has used the data- driven inquiry to indicate this change, so long beach, through the research and her leadership team, they found long beach had adopted this program and it was expanded districtwide, and then it went to fresno, compton, and oakland. w