>> i have a question the city didn't pass any regulations state law about apply didn't has nothing to do with the city didn't pass regulatory scombrooen i what is look like please clarify hue how do you do that? let's say this is a a city and county so san francisco. >> yeah. san francisco. >> give us san francisco how how do you do that? what are the time elements and like we should be expecting what is the city explain to us where we are in the process in the city and county of san francisco and to what extent you said. >> yeah. >> equip the home cultivation. >> not what the city will do i mean first of all, to clarify i don't think the state is just a default law the state regulates throughout the state and have to have a state license you have a local license or even a local city of san francisco license businesses has to have a state of california license and comply with the state reservation my understanding and you might know san francisco will come up with a license to license the businesses and will device their scheme in - when the state listening is in effect they'll have a license for medical businesses. >> who is that. >> the board of sups will adopt. >> but the board of supervisors who in our city government. >> the recommendations were made by the san francisco legalization task force that is part of city they're making the recommendations before the board of sups next month. >> are you members of that task force. >> someone from my organization is. >> and do small business have a representative on the task force and we have two representatives on the task force not from our office by members of the business communities but just also to maybe provides a little bit more clarification so the task force will make recommendations and the board of supervisors will work with that department whether work with the departments may have clear opinions about what may we they may want to create the regulatory structure for both the work that minica and i are doing trying to understand the landscape of the small business opportunities and can we provide some of that information as well we're creating help inform communicate that as the regulatory structures are being developed so there will be quickly working with those timelines once the legislation has been introduced so part of this is to help you kind of understand sort of the scope so when the time we're not has to do with quickly bring you up to speed on the considerations of the complexity that are going to be given because listening to all the legal the ownership structure and highway that may affect in addition to all the different business opportunities - this will effect dpw if dpw that will probably be the primary entity that has the permit to operate and also the control so, so i think once those things are beginning to be figured out it will happen very quickly. >> okay. it is sufficient for us to know there's complexity but we don't need quite as much detail that's for about the task force not what we're here for . >> yes. >> and then the elephant in the room financial you know can't assess capital well credit things this is the one thing that i did bank overall medical marijuana at any bank and had to close out their accounts or close down any business i've been watching carefully what is going on in colorado and washington and this is an all cash business in colorado they go to the city and county of denver and pay their taxed in cash you laugh but that's starting to be a problem they start their own bank and they were shut down and in washington i'm hearing horror stories about people keeping money in their car and getting stolen and stuff this is something we need to address. i know the state board of equalization i've talked about with fiona moss they'll have to come and handle all that cash how do you do that where is it going to that is something and not up for discussion now but something that the task force needs to think about so i'm watching that is going on in colonel i voted yes on this i'm a all for this and as being a banker if anyone is watching - i mean, i had to close out the accounts they know who they were that bummed me out as a banker they remember good customers had this is something he hear about the schools i know about that because from the medical marijuana communities how to bank those people because without that urge to have a lot of issues and right now, i'm seeing a lot of issues even in the medical so >> you're not going to get argument unfortunately an issue that needs congressional issue and the federal regulators are federal officials without a concerted effort in washington not getting that kind of changes and open up to the rest of the industry in my opinion whatever you do at the state level have to address that impact. >> kwhief solution. >> it's all cash. >> i'm watching colorado it is an all cash business no way around it. >> there are so the deputy of treasurer issued in 2013 or 67 that along with the what is then network put out networks hey we recognize banks that point to bank the business if you want to bank the business here's the guidelines to bank this business it gives us a safe harbor under the a ma laws no, not enough to have the banks take on that was not good enough we need to have the department of treasurer and have safe harbors carved out for status of women businesses simple as that and no others solution. >> i just wanted to quickly add to what commissioner president dwight say why not care about this now the presentation was very sdmraltd but i think underlying their discussions certainly with the commission that many dictate what size and teaches businesses allowed for businesses to thrive in the business the enclosure of what loopholes categories allows the small businesses to exist is important you know and if there's a voice for that within the city i assume part of this commission to get in there and say when you're looking at this is in the city of san francisco we want small arcs and businesses to play a role and needs to look like this and the rules for them to practical do that. >> and the reason he drove under sacramento i no longer live in 70 in san francisco was base feel you guys are the only small business commission in the country so you have a voice you're able to speak to states laughter's and say if you device those rules where the money comes from and how many businesses that effects our citizens and existing businesses already here that gone through a lot of heart attacks and cannot go in and say we'll devest you of this portion of the business that's unjust 0 my hope to hope you'll take up the issues not only with the board of sups but also with your state legislators this is not okay. >> good that's the thing we needed to hear so thank you. >> commissioners. >> hi, thank you for your presentation i have two questions and defer to staff if they can answer one you've preserve this effecting i have a lot of constituents that are smoke shop retail uses and their scattered this might effect them could this effect the tobacco listeners and for constituents that are you know in that industry but want to move you know into the medical marijuana and adult use industry or just constituents in general what part in the process is interest the best part informative public comment regarding people around in their listening process. >> on the first question the question answer is no is shouldn't have impact and on the second question they should be engaged with one what the rules will look like for san francisco if their opening a business in san francisco they're in the employment place and the rules and gave me in the state law process as well as the draft to make sure they fits the qualification and be able to comply this is a pirate initial lvns that goes to existing acts that are compliance within the city of san francisco and then when like after that the initial listening up, up. >> regina he assume the task force are pubically noticed. >> their pubically noticed and i think - but, but should be engaged and . >> took to provide us with information as well because as we start to look at the different business categories so any current businesses selling tobacco or alcohol can't be adult cannabis from the business wants to make that transition those are the things we fled to know about but again, if you have representatives it would be gay for them commissioner president dwight said to go to the task force meeting if their recent to do so. >> that is where that will be dealt with a lot of stuff that needs tobacco sort of out there question will be involved in here not that we don't want to know about that that's why we have representatives because we have other things to attend to so - >> any other comments. >> i do. >> commissioner tour-sarkissian. >> i'll be interested in getting our thoughts at least put them down and send them for the commission as to what that commission should be looking at that would be i appreciate the fact you came from sacramento and want to benefit from our thoughts and see what you think we should be looking at in terms of the regulations that are shaped so. >> happy to provide that in writing. >> yeah. i agree with sdmen. >> that was a lot of information and cannot remember all of them if you can send us to the director we can take into account that. >> absolutely. >> thank you. >> okay commissioners any other questions. >> okay. >> open up for public comment anyone wish to comment on item number item. >> make our way up any speaker cards for item 3. >> yes. speaker cards (calling names) and if anyone else wishes to speak fill out a speaker card and one second let me get this - >> okay. go ahead. >> public comment is 3 minutes and just a reminder you'll hear a gong two and a half minutes and appreciate it. >> thank you for your time so this is two reasons this commission should be interested in cannabis i'm sorry i'm recovering from a colds is tax revenue and jobs i had up to 45 people headache in san francisco investing in a new company and spent a lot of time in the cannabis industry co-founder the cannabis manufacturing you motivator not know what that means in that a manufactured cannabis product that start as a plant and now a oil this oil helps people crone disease amongst other things we want to stay in san francisco and need the city of san francisco to act to allow us to get a permit we can illegal be here in not we'll have to move we can be one plus people because interested and demand from patrons for the products we're one of many types of cannabis manufacturing businesses eatables and during the course manufacturers and oil creams basins their owl manufacturers products to make the passage i showed you requires if we employ the scientists and people with pack boxes and make deliveries? wide range of jacobs that can be in san francisco we employ people and want to stay here there are other people that have companies in similar positions it is just difficult to get things through city hall we need every advocate that is interested in creating jobs. >> are you attending the task force meeting. >> yes. my co-founder the scientists we're involved in the task force and we're also members of the manufacturing committee for the california cannabis industry working with the state of health working with the manufacturers. >> you're the expert we need thank you very much. >> being and thank you for your time i understand that is getting late try to keep this brief want to irate what my colleague said i'm aaron flynn a fouvend member the california growers we're a nine hundred member organization statewide and run the chapter of the california growers association i'm hoping that i can give you you guys sight one and 10 members in san francisco prominently into the non-restricted retail side of cannabis bus so you're hearing a little bit the fact you don't need the local organization under the adult act why think anyone is there any understanding that san francisco is not going to pass local regulation san francisco already has regulations for the retail side of the cannabis industry and there are - it is absolutely moving forward with passing regulations for the non-retail side that the calculator varieties and manufacturers and trornts if we don't have that regulatory structure by 2018 those businesses that equivocate in san francisco will fall behind that in the listening process for the state the state is going to be looking at blaze that are regulating and essentially wait until they begin to you know if we come with an application as a business to the state and those local regulations are not created we'll likely fall behind this process we anticipate even on the cultivation through 9 pulling there is probably one and 15 to one and thirty different consular sites in the city of san francisco employing 3 to 10 people those are low blue-collar and manufacturing jobs that are often limited leaving the city so rapid starting wage for month is $20 an hour and as those businesses ton to grow and continue to expanded if this local regulation if combo play by summertime or maybe a little bit later they'll have to move to other communities and cities that have the local structure again, you guys really come into play advocating for a speedy rapid you know movement towards structure so the businesses don't have to shut down and the businesses are not lofty. >> thank you. >> i run a family owned clarifying services in san francisco. >> before i make my point i want to give you a little bit of background on myself i was born at san francisco children and went to elementary school and my father owns a dental office that serves the community for thirty years now i'm contributed to the legacy being a reliable employer i'm born in a different generation so my dream is to have a successful cannabis business in right city i was born and raised in right now, i'm educating their needs to be education on this planets and substance; right? >> i also provide other educational opportunities through another organization that i co-founder and a women of color organization for women in claims that want to start small businesses we educate how to start a small business in cannabis and because self-sufficient shareholders in this industry the issues we're facing not that many informational spaces for us the clustering along the eastern part of city makes it difficult to be able to find a one space that can put my car into; right? and also like driving out to the western part of city kind of cuts into delivery time this industry is unique so also let me say that by staying saying i worked in the neighborhood for 6 years doing case management with the youth that are incarcerated and public safety work mostly around policing so i've seen how people of color especially my communities have been criminalized by this plant so establishing a clear and supportive communities so for cannabis and for our support is a act of restored justice in the city to make sure that people like myself that had a brother that was incarcerate for cannabis we'll find a place in a legal industry and be able to earn money in a very legitimate way so thank you for your time >> thank you. >> next. >> hi my name is camille thank you guys for begging being here and starting this organization i'm a small business owner myself and small business changes lives for the better i represent the betty project we're a new operation looking for a brick-and-mortar currently hoping to follow all the laws and i'm just here representing them i want to tell you about how it effected any life having being an employee of theirs i was able to quit any york bernie sanders and getting into this industry full-time. >> saved money and start my own small business on the side i do ceramics and it is unbelievable how much the cannabis industry is changing lots of lives here in san francisco and i pretty much wanted to representative the betty project we're a great local grow company looking to be a retail and i'm really, really confident that our company will grow bigger with you guys help so thank you so much for staying late to hear us. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good evening my name is dominique and although i don't own a cannabis business i do consulting for people once you're in the business or part of industry i have taken regina on a local san francisco cannabis tour where they were able to saying see local industries within the city many of them are speaking in front of you don't tonight and like to extend to anyone on the commission if you're interested please reach out to us and like to have you or all of you to come on the tour to see the local cannabis industry it's jobs and facilities and the tax that are all there that the city really is not appreciating or validating thank you. >> thank you next. >> my name is kevin a local affirm maker he travel the communities to bayview hunters point and similar communities that are doing war on drugs in constant conversations about the opportunities that presentism with this new industry amongst us and like to get more information and direction to sort of take back to the community as it relates to get in this industry to help deal with the things that have been represent rationed as it relates to the criminalization of those communities so if there is any further information i can get to take back as i sort of we sort of navigate through this new industry that has been legalized and was lay out the rules and regulations be mindful those communities that are high in employment and criminalization can this can have a positive impact on community that are desperate needs of jobs and opportunities i want to put that out there and hopefully, we'll continue this conversation and elect and good afternoon and to the communities. >> great. thank you very much. >> evening i'm jesse on the san francisco legalization task force thank you for the commissioners to hearing this and for participating in the task force and appreciate our input. >> thank you very much. >> anyone wish to comment to comment on this item seeing none, public comment is closed. let me say the commission acknowledges the business opportunities in this area and we're excited to participate the rule of law is important and many any endear the faster to resolution on the rule of law ♪ new area the better so all businesses can get on what their business in an environment of certainty rather than uncertainty that's - we have no quarterly whatsoever with that the commission will follow the lead presenting of the task force so the working group is the task force not the commission so we appreciate the education as it relates to the business issues that we deal with here the jobs, tax revenues obviously ambassador more than opportunities for entrepreneurs is and small business owners so we are very mindful and engaged in the task force activities so we appreciate all of you coming out this evening to voice our support for in emerging industrial we'll do the best we can to make sure that you get the firmer sounds like appreciateable foundation on which to build our business going forward >> commissioners. >> for any of you, you filed out the speaker cards please take mini cans business card if you doesn't fill out a speaker cards and we'll continue this conversation as the task force does its work to do was it needs to do to inform our supervisors and the other legislative players that be ultimately be making the laws that the city and county will enact on its part with the state and federal government are establishing themselves and i believe that. >> i want to say i want to say thank you to the presenters and to all of you entrepreneurs out there obviously a huge learning process for all of us we need to work together to make sure it is fair for everyone so let's just keep all of us working on this to make it a great industry that employees a lot of people in the city and we'll just keep moving forward. >> i heard a number of speakers that touched on issues that face all the city not only the city but the availability to put a place for the business and wage and tax issues are unique to our city and county and some are for generally just the state of affairs in the state of california and the united states so we're all in as small business owners no matter what industry we're in dealing with many of those issues those are just the issues of being a small business owner so we have kin rids spirit whether we're in the specific industry or not i'm in the garment manufacturing business that's a tough one. >> i'd like to say this process is very helpful with the commission and i appreciate the fact that the director is involved in the process we will eventually have to deal with the laws that come before us so it is a good thing that we're educated exposed to the issue and this is a good forum for people to express themselves i think that is a good thing also, because we're seeing the shaping of the new industry we taught to be involved in every step of the way and be able to voice our opinion and allow others to express themselves before us. >> of course. >> all right. any other conversions comments. >> no action required on this item. >> no. >> great actual all for coming out, i appreciate it. >> next item, please. >> item number 8. >> approve the minutes action item the minutes that are for consideration november 28th, draft minutes november 14th draft minutes and february 22, 2016, and april 2015 and draft minutes and then the december 18, 2015, draft special meeting minutes. >> as i understand the last of the minutes that so we'll be all caught up to date as this approval. >> we'll be completely caught up to date. >> congratulations a hurricane task. >> thank you minica for making sure that happens so a motion. >> i motion we approve the november 28th, november 14th be february 22, 2016, minutes and the april 27th march 23 and the other minutes and i second. >> okay. all in favor, say i. >> i. >> opposed? okay that item passes 6 to store one absent okay. >> item 9. >> item 9 director's report update on the office of the small business commission and the assistance center the department policy and legislative matters and announcements in the mayor and announcements for the san francisco small business activities. >> commissioners, i will try to be high on a hill it calls to me i'll hit on the key essential things i want you to know about under my report and the remainder you have to take with you to read with the legacy business the rrules and regulat in any items have come up with the rules and regulations so until we have a really good solid product i think that will not have additional questions which i hope to have all of that solved by the january meeting that's why we have not heard them the business assistants grant is thus, the 15 to that's the deadline currently we have about 15 applications in we've done communications with the 64 businesses now legacy businesses as of tonight with e-mails and phone calls and written complungz that is rimdz them of the filing deadline and then rick and i are about to final list the selection to issue the contexts for those not registering with the business assistance grant or the rental stabilization grant with the business owners to issue them the checks 1650 mission street the small site we'll be working with with the san francisco small business development center it houses the program the legacy business program and will have a satellite assistance center position the department of real estate has informed us they have to push out their timeline with the construction weeks ago looking late april possible early may for the completion 100 mission street which is the old goodwill site which is where a they'll be ground floor retail and residential on the corner at 11 and mission we're going to be building a new building which will house dbi and dpw, planning, and some other smaller entities all in one location on the second floor is a large permit center and i've put in our packets not the final version but a copy of its not the final version we've made changes i want you to know that the office of the small business commission is going to have space in the permit center we're there to help to vice the businesses especially with additional questions non-related to dbi and planning. >> so is that - and satellite and having that will be a good opportunity to figure out how to have an offsite needs. >> will you continue to have your main office here. >> yes. so just to let you know that is exciting we hard working to insure a presence there i'm pleased we do. >> we'll see i mean, maybe that do we have the staffing we definitely have the staffing. >> by having a satellite office eliminates the ability to tag things here because the body is away so they can't fill if you know here so the question can we reliably staff that remote location given the demands of the general office retirements. >> we'll need to figured out there will be businesses we don't want to send to the permit center to get advice but the value will be that we will be able to have dpw planning right now there to have discussions and, of course, the aspect position will definitely be located that will be their permanent site we'll definitely be able to manage having the - right now they're giving us 3 spaces that includes the aspect position and the mayor has issued his budget direction the city is still projecting status for the next couple of years even in the economic boom because of the pension obligation 0 or so the agency 2k3w59d departments with oewd is a 3 percent general plan decrease a similar instruction that that in the past last year so i've worked with the financial advisors to figure out what we need to do to have minimum impact but there will be for at least the next few years no new positions not a hiring freeze but no new positions then i've priority you a list of legislation that has been referred to the commission supervisor yee has introduced legislation eliminating some business tax fees so that was introduced last week and we got it on friday so i'll be take a look at that. >> there's been intern controls introduced around an intern moratorium around greg cannabis in pdr space because there's is some concern about the amount of pdr space that is held off the market in anticipation for this industry and that is now not moving forward fast because of the concerns of the cannabis growers that is being discussed we are also seeing that some department of human services making sure the medical marijuana is conditional use those are those right now, we're having individuals coming into the assistance center asking questions how to navigate the fact that proposition 64 has passed can be they do currently the only thing is the legal structure open a medical cannabis dispensaries that's the only licensed structure we have in place right now so but we will be you know minica and i are working closely with the task force and with the business communities to figure out what we need to do moving forward. >> incidentally a lot of talk ultimately growing activities inside the city's expensive like ourselves not if you running an urban winery you don't grow your grapes in downtown san francisco more likely that the raw product will be brought into the city and processed as for beer and wine and others types of things this is - there's a bunch of people studying the economics the other thing i live near what i'll say a 5 thousand square feet debris operation and the impact on the neighborhood is non-trivial it is intense the sovereign is a very good operator hesitate installed state of the art suppression equipment for the aroma did work when our down winds from that place one one thoughtless feet. >> i know what you're talking about. >> you feel your consuming and a tremendous amount of resistance we need to get prepared a lot of neighbors and this is not speculative you go on the tour with this fellow and go to the grow operations you'll smell that it is intense. >> right and both minica and i did the tour if if you're interested. >> it is not like a brewery that is a grow operation it is in operation 24/7 so. >> so know i think there are broader policy questions to be looking at in terms of the best sectors what is more akin to san francisco and i think on the retail side there is a lot of nuances and things to be given consideration to and i think via it, of course, whatever we do, we need to be sensitive to this business with the pdrs and the demands for pdr space not only on the cultivation been on the manufacturing side you know we don't want to have this sorts of overtake what we've spent what almost 10 years with sfmade and building up our local manufacturing so. >> to the extent it is manufacturing sfmade we don't discriminate one 1915 medicaid waivers type over another the issue with the cannabis industry that will be venture free is like tech we also use the words tech or tech it is not tech venture capital enterprises that derive the cost of labor and reality they're willing to extend more for whatever industry a tax or cannabis a new industry that many of the venture firms they see this greenfield opportunities no pun intentional but that is what the cannabis industry is facing the same issues that any industry is facing. >> yep. >> so and then eave i'm not going into it in great detail equip about some of the major policy issues weeping we'll be working on for 2017 i didn't put this in your reports but forgot to put in the article the change for article 7 you received a very brief presentation a couple of months ago from the planning code taking outside the definition and putting them in article 1 so one section in the planning code that has all the definitions that is continues so i keep reporting out when the next hearing before the planning commission so to help you anticipate when that legislation will be coming back before you so that's continues to the beginning of january and oh, february excuse me - thank you. >> so that's it and that's it for my report. >> great i want to say and at the last meeting of this year that the use to use affordable terms a much greater quarter richard such done a fantastic job of petting the legacy business program on the map we were undually criticized for being slow in the uptake and we had to have staffing we hired you and you've done a lot of work thank you very much and minica it's been an absolute pleasure to have you on the team we went without it is fantastic so thank you for your efforts as well. >> and we're oath to a great fetish and great starts any public comment that want to comment on the director's report seeing none, public comment is closed. next item, please. >> item number ten commissioners report. >> i have nothing to reports anyone else. >> i wanted to report that. >> yes. at the telegraph hill differentials meeting they called me out with a great amount of thanks with the small business commission and how much they appreciate the legacy business so i wanted to communicate that we were that was called out as a very important. >> thank you thised positively. >> for 2016 and a quick announcement working with chinatown's community now how expanding an existing shuttle bus we'll be taking people that park for little money golden gateway for the chinatown sea we will now with collaboration do the same for mertle beach a weekend program and really be helpful to the businesses. >> any other commissioner reports. >> i have a comment. >> yes. >> i personally in the last quarter enjoyed immensely the legacy business especially the richard work like the fact that it is thorough, that is well presented and like the supporting documents i think we should - that's a tough work and a lot of files i personally thank him for the good reflection on the commission and also thank you for your good work you're doing if so very good for us such a good team and, of course, the directors (laughter). >> sustaining the quality and so thank you for your force any other director's report or comments any. >> i'm sorry to join you to saying all staff for good work and especially with richard and minica two things we got beat up earlier this year by - was legacy business and then the minutes now we're caught on the minutes. >> richard and the legacy business now we'll be going into the funding parting the prop j that is important and something on the legacy but thank you to everybody it was a team efforts everybody up here and the staff and everybody so. >> any anyone wish to comment that want to comment on the commissioners report public comment is closed. >> leveling new business. >> really quick under legacy business everywhere i go people think they need money and want to know how to apply to be a legacy business i tell them you, you can apply to be a legacy business we're working on some outreach i like to continue that and bring that sooner than later after today last week, i was approached by the a couple of businesses we don't need the money but how do we apply we don't want to apply we don't need the money he tell them apply we need to build that up and work outside of this with other businesses but in the new year really, really work on that. >> for the planning meeting discuss how we amplify your celebration of legacy businesses it is clear this session has been a forum people know we're having a celebration and show up i mean today, the number of people speaking son on behalf of the gym so i think that we should promote about the activity here but figure out how to have an annual birthday party for legacy businesses it will be great to have a reception everybody can come together to celebrate their legacy business we can talk about that later. >> i have new business. >> regina talked about it i've been working with the planning department for many months on their proposal to eliminate section 7 did neighborhood commercial code and replace that with section one hundred given the extensive and substantial changes that are being promoted now some of the new definitions and the new section one hundred are not necessarily the same as what in their replacing and added presents that is very confusing and hard to understand for those comparison is we as a commission and public can understand the ramification for the mcds so i'm requesting that our staff be provided with a document that clearly spells outs any thoughts changes that may have an impact on the mcds because there are actually quite a few of the this about have profound impacts think mcds so everyone needs to know more about this not just a minor little thing. >> when will this be affected. >> they'll hear it to the planning commission the first time in february it has a lot of problems. >> okay. >> they keep pushing the date further and further back i'm personally appreciative because i've been looking at hundreds and hundreds of pages for months and months and months the thing the planning code is you can change one section but made 2406r be referenced in yet another area we need to thinks that fact and make sure we're cool with what is proposed. >> okay. >> should we ask them to come and do a presentation. >> let's have staff do it first. >> if we can get some kind of a donate that shows what is before what it is now and another column that says what, if any changes that would be helpful for all of us. >> we modesty another new business item on that topic we meet want to think about if we have some subjected guidelines to present at the commission for the people so they're addressing us in areas that are perry amenity to your jurisdiction tonight was a presentation that was important but no slides no idea where it was going and whether that was going to end any time soon so i was compelled to say look i mean great but we need to stay on task here and so rather than and that's the job i'm going to make sure that we're the presentations are useful for us and that our commissions work okay so we're not waste of time with the presenters, the recipients or the audience all right. so i think that it is environmentally poor if someone makes a presentation that they have slides okay because i want to know what slides we're on and whether or not we're on slide number ten of one hundred or 10 of 15 and attendant i think we're on 10 of one hundred we had to stop so i think that should be tables for someone making a presentation. >> usually we have but krooks we don't and it causes a situation that is uncomfortable and not in my way meant to be rude it was interesting before the commentary end so they didn't hear what public comment had to say that was as important to hear public comment. anyway, i think that is important to acknowledge the task force itself is working on the flails details we will ultimately be engaged in the task force not that i i don't want to know about it we're engaged in a place the engagement is meaningful okay. so maybe if we can just have a some guidelines we give people before they presents likewise and people that do it all the time write down the notes they read they're not to the point it is nervous racking to stand up in front of folks any the new busy any members of the public that want to comment on new businesses business seeing none, public comment is closed. final item please. sfgovtv could you show the slides just a reminder in this last meeting of the calendar year the existing business. and it is the official forum to voice your concerns regarding policies and projects and issues that effect the economic vitality of the small businesses in the county of san francisco. so if you need assistance with small business matters start here. if you have questions about small business commission please vital the office of the small business commission by telephone or online >> thank you next item, please. >> final item the final item is adjournment i motion to adjourn. >> second >> opposed? in favor. >> i. >> the gavel. >> oh, the gavel california collaborative for educational excellence board meeting to order. let's start with the pledge. >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> thank you. i recognized that a quorum is present for the collaborative. i want to start by saying that we will begin our session in closed session. we will be adjourning the closed session pursuant to government code section 11126 subdivision a in order to consider approval of a public employee position. the position that will be considered in closed session is senior manager training. so at this time i would like to ask everyone who is not a member of the collaborative if they can please excuse themselves. i think it the board for your hosting us. just our general announcements, any letters from the public on matters before the collaborative aggregated ahead of the meeting and shared with us. i don't believe we got any correspondence. but we always have that in mind and folks that do want to communicate with us, we appreciate you providing the materials prior to the meeting. for members of the audience, there are sign up cards available outside the boardroom. any member of the public who wishes to speak should complete a sign up card and place it next to the dais. there is a 2-minute time limit for speakers. we'll keep track to make sure you are not going over 2 minutes. you are welcome to address the board on non-agenda item. >> if you wish to address the board on the collaborative, please give us 15 copies with the item on it so we can look at the material when the item is available. all of you who are interested in speaking please introduce yourself and identify who you represent and why you are speaking. also board members, we have a different set up, it's the same thing, push the red button and when the light comes on you can speak. moving to item 1. the report of action taken in closed session. we discussed the approval of a public employee position, but no action was taken during closed session. an action on that item will occur under item 11. moving to item 2. approval of the minutes. has the board had a chance to look at the minutes from the last meeting, and if so, i would entertain a motion to approve the minutes. >> it's been moved and seconded. all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >> any opposed? >> [inaudible] >> okay, thank you, michael. i appreciate that. we are so glad to have you back. >> item 3. election of ccee board leadership. i'm going to turn it over to our general counsel james baca. >> we are electing officers. i'm going to ask that you defer this matter to the executive director to accept nominations for the election of the president, and then after the president is elected. the president can then accept nominations for the position of the vice-president. >> it's the chair, right? >> correct. i'm sorry. the chair and the vice-chair. [ laughter ] >> the floor is open for nominations for chair of the ccee board. >> i would like to make a motion for the nomination. [inaudible] >> second. >> it's been moved and seconded. >> can i ask that be revised so she serves through the 2016-year and also the 2017-calendar year? >> [inaudible] [inaudible] >> i will make a motion. >> it's been moved and any further nominations? it's been moved and seconded. >> you are doing a great job. we don't want to change it. keep it up. it's great work. >> any public comment? all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >> any opposed? any abstentions? thank you. congratulations. >> thank you. i really appreciate the honor. i appreciate all the support of my fellow colleagues. so, therefore i am opening nominations for the vice-chair to serve through 2017. >> i will make a motion for michael watkins to serve as chair for 2017. >> okay, we have a motion and second. are there any further nominations? okay, all those in favor of michael watkins serving as vice-chair, all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >> any opposed? thank you. michael. >> we are moving to item 4. limited delegation of initial hiring and contracting authority. you are going to help us with that as well. >> you have received i think in your materials a document that delegates authority to both the fiscal agent and the executive director with respect to the contracts that need to occur during the 2-month period between meetings. one of the difficulties of the structure of the ccee is that you only meet every other month. as somebody has mentioned it is a dynamic organization and there are things that need to be done during that period. so carl asked if it would be possible to delegate some authority to carl to enter into contracts that would then be ratified by the board on an every other month basis. so any contract that we enter into will be ratified by the board and the contract that we enter will specifically indicate that it is subject to the ratification of the board. so, consequently if we enter into a contract and the board chooses not to ratify it, the person or organization who we contract with, recognizes that the contract will then be void. we've discussed what the limitations, the dollar limitations. i did recommend to carl that there be a dollar limitation. i think that protects both the staff and the board as well. we thought $100,000 would be a good limitation. there will be contracts that will be up to that. most of them will be far less than that. so, the resolution is before you, madam president. i don't know if you want to read the resolution in whole. what it does is it delegates both to the executive director the authority to enter into contract up to $100,000 and to the fiscal agent that they are able to execute what the executive director is requesting since it is the fiscal agent that has the authority to contract under the statute. >> carl, do you want to add anything? >> >>carl cohn, ed.d: no, i think that adequately covers it. >> any comments under item 4? >> i would move approval. it helps us work, helps us function and ultimate check with the board as tim just outlined. >> okay, a motion and second. any comments or questions on the motion. my only question is $100,000 enough? it seems low actually to me for the kind fd of work that we are doing. so i will just ask you that question? >> yes, i think it's going to be okay for now as we get into this. but if there is any change in that, obviously we'll come back. >> okay, we have a motion before us. all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >> any opposed? that passes unanimously. okay. we are moving onto item 5. this is the ccee organizational development proposal. you have a copy of it both were posted yesterday and we have a hard copy if you would like. before we start, i would like to make a couple of opening comments. first to express my appreciation to carl and socorro and sugi in response to a conversation we had in september and we are just sort of growing by leaps and bounds and taking on additional responsibilities. it seemed like we needed to take a minute to step back and reflect on what is it we are going to be when we grow up and what we expect this to look like. this is meant to be an initial starting conversation. so it was posted as for discussion and action. i don't expect that we'll take any action at all today on this. i think that the staff and carl especially would really benefit from our feedback about do we think they are on the right track, are these the kinds of things we should be looking at and maybe other things they hadn't thought of that we are interested in and the budget, and what will this look out when it's built out. i will get to other comments. i wanted to frame it because it was a lot of work and it came in a little bit late. i think in the future we would like to have more time so people can take a look at it. but just to have the understanding what the conversation is about and what the impetus was. carl, you want to start? >>carl cohn, ed.d: sure. this is an initial draft. so we are very interested in feedback from this board and from others. yesterday, i was in sacramento meeting with a whole host of people including department of finance, legislation, leadership and the administration. the overall conversation was, give us your vision for the future. don't necessarily be constrained by the fact that there isn't as much money this year as there have been in years past, but layout a vision for how this philosophy that really compliments this dynamic huge shift to local control. what should this look like, and down the road, there may be people coming back and saying it's too much and these should be paired down, but don't alter the initial vision for what this could look like. so that's the spirit in which we are presenting this proposal. we know there are other realities out there, fiscal constraints, that sort of thing. but if we are really going to deliver on our charge to get the right kind of help and assistance to districts, charters and county offices, this is what we would like to do. with that, socorro and suji? >> great, thank you and thank you for the set up in terms of this being a discussion item and really there are some key questions and points where we would love to hear your thinking. as you heard this, we understand the interesting tension where we are in terms of many things being determined as we speak. the accountability is still being determined at the board level and we understand there are lots of entities that play roles in this as well as the federal discussions about what to do and how they will evolve with some of the changes over all. it's the tension of being as prepared as we can in these changing times knowing that things are evolving as we speak. so really, thank you, sue, for the preparation and just having these initial discussions so we can think about what these will look like over time. we know what ed code says what the ta should look like, the technical assistant. we also know there are several entities that play roles in technical assistance in addition to us. so really having these conversations about how we all contribute to the local education agencies and their work and their progress. and again the state board education memo from august began to really outline what the different types of technical assistance would look like and really kind of where ccee and others would begin to fit in. again, this is of course kind of policy direction, so operationalizing that, and what that means when we enter those are all conversations forthcoming. i think the key question and i will pause here for discussion is we need to really think about how do we all layer together and gather together and service the district county offices, the charters in ways that make sense to them in terms of their improvement and the services they receive. this really is just an open conversation about how do we begin to define these differences, what do they look like, how do the conversations happen. of where do they happen, who is the lead in some of these conversations. i think a lot comes for our discussion comes from the state board and their vision of technical assistance and how do we move from that to our work on the ground. we would like to hear your thoughts. >> comments? >> just to reflect, again, looking out and appreciating the work that's gone into visioning, building the vision, defining the layers, i also call it a team. obviously it's a collaboration. how do we best help the districts that are identifying and struggling and identifying a need and how do we want to help with the collaborative. i think working on and shaping that vision sort of a collective team vision is really important. you know, what do we want to be down the road, where do we want to be down the road, and how best to get there. so, i agree this is a good opener to start. as sue just mentioned but then working over the next few months to circulate it and bring in other parties, the ccee of course and looking how to shape that common vision and where the gaps are and how you interface like you said the layer that help from different agencies and different perspectives. we even talked about the need to look at a chart and who is reporting to who and how to most effectively implement the projects we already have in hand and how to do that with an additional 20-21 staff members. >> michael? >> these are possible positions? >> these are job descriptions available? no. i have been very busy until today. what would be the process for board feedback? carl? >> >>carl cohn, ed.d: we see this coming back to the board over the next couple of meetings following this one for lots of discussion, if the board wanted a special workshop on this, we could also certainly do that. >> thank you. >> i see a critical part of this agenda to bring all the parties together. i think something to think about as i read through this. what will bring collaboration to a breaking point is when their assumption is there is going to be no conflict involved. there is going to be conflict and the defining moment is who has the decision for what because the question is going to be county office gives technical assistance in one and then they get it in another direction. the county office approves the plan. this brings them together in the hopes of eliminating some of the stumbling blocks for the lca and the l caps. i like the direction it's going and i think you have the potential for further conversations and get down to the nitty gritty about who is going to make the decision when they are asking ccee for advice and yet the county office may not be involved in that conversation. so avoiding that, this is a good step. >> yeah, and i see, again this is based on the statute. county office, when you talk about what is the key difference, they are going to be referring people to -- ccee and ultimately ccee goes back for the approval. i think that relationship is important. i think having some of these people in the field is going to deal directly and be different. i realize there are staff in the field, but as we are doing the nitty gritty work of providing technical assistance, there is only so much you can do remotely. but having people here engaged and providing context to i think is critical to the success overall. i like the direction we are headed in as well. >> carl has a good notion of having a workshop in the future and being preceded by a great workgroup here with ccee and the county and maybe some other entity should be worked in so some work at a staff level vetting the different ideas and looking at where pit falls might be and avoiding walls. it would be a workshop where we can get involved and getting feedback and what the party thinks is best to dedicate more dollars and more staff. >> to answer your question or try to, to me a great starting place and tim was going there is the statute. there are some very specific responsibilities that are given to the superintendent of public instruction that are given to the collaborative, that are given to the county superintendent. at least starting with that as a nucleus and working your way out i think would be very helpful. the one sort of practical suggestion i have in regard to kind of pull people in and helping them understand and get to collaboration. i appreciate your conflict. if we don't have conflict, then we are never going to get there. we need some kind of advisory group to include county superintendent, some number of district superintendents and with the department of education and collaborative to work with these roles. it maybe where there is conflicting advice and how do we work together on that. an advisory committee on that serves two purpose and collaborates and helps to understand what this different roles are and also helps to lower the anxiety level which exist a little bit among every organization. whenever you have an organization people have expected roles and they say, wait a minute, that's my job and you are infringing on my job. i feel that conversation happening out on the field and i would like to figure out a mechanism to alleviate that anxiety and work on that. that's just one suggestion. i always go back to ficma board. with the sprinkling of folks involved in that work. this is about local capacity building. i really like the way you captured it in this concept paper. so if that's what this is about, we have to get to those local people and help them understand and help them become part of what we are doing. i'm a little worried and we have people up here that have this expectation and see a lot of problems. there is a level of nervousness and this idea that i hope to tamper down and think regular about how to get advice with back and forth feedback would be helpful. >> i have a question and it maybe for carl. the question in terms of your interaction in the field, what are you hearing from them? we have done a number of different engagements, different county offices, the whole set of workshops. what is the feedback in terms of what they would like to see relative to this question and to the structure moving forward in terms of this long-term vision? >> sure. i think the expectation is, is there an entity that's actually going to deliver on continuous improvement and capacity building, and the suspicion has been you are probably going to end up looking like a new compliance shop. so we have mightily tried to disavow people of that notion. so that if there is one entity that isn't constrained by the federal department of ed, by other statutory responsibilities, that we are that entity. our mission is pretty simple and clear. there is a new philosophy that under gurds this shift to local control. so i think what i'm hearing is, are you going to be true to that? or at some point are you going to switch and look like all the other compliance driven agencies? >> i'm aware that the county office already had arranged templates. maybe a different path at ccee. what kind of collaboration have you had. i have been ill for a while and i haven't had a lot of connection but i do realize those have occurred. who gives the advice, is it connected, are we on the same page? who is insuring that we have that? >> we spent quite a bit of time with peter, efrain, sandra who is here today, talk about our training and that sort of thing. and they spent time with us on that. i think josh can probably speak in some detail. >> and he will be in item 6. >> okay. all right. great. >> the other thing, you know, i was looking at ficmat's website and they are also doing lcfs training. they are charging for these. the marketplace is clearly just us. >> we are here to be compliant, we are here to help. i like the idea of the advisory group in figuring out how to recruit, how to launch, you know, what our next steps, should there about school board members also involved just thinking of the composition as well as the function which again could get the word out that we have resources, we have the plan of getting item 5 back shaping it and that we have the ability to help and having an advisory group to get that word out and understand and help a wider understanding of the respective roles each of these agencies have that are in the game including fik matt. >> i think that is possible. i know csb has an entity that works with lcfs that works with board members if i can recall. i think that will help. i think this entity of compliance and capacity building is going to be present a lot. if you look at the statutory responsibilities are and county superintendents especially have a lot of statutory responsibility beyond what's even in the l cap. so you know trying to understand what that relationship is and responsibilities and authorities relative to the caa and helping alongside can be helpful and having a conversation about this is not a compliance mechanism. it's a tectonic shift that we no longer have the state telling you what to do. it's going to take a long time to wrap your head around that and believe it. we have a lot of trust building to do as we have been in this mode for many years. i will let you move on from this. >> i will just share that in the training and one thing that becomes clear as people are waiting for the data to become public is that there is likely to be a so what now. if there are certain colors that show up over time, so this question of technical assistance is becoming more critical and urgent as that's happening. i also think that when we get the data from the rubric, we would have a better opportunity to look at the numbers we predict to be serving because right now that really is our best guesstimate, but we don't have any specific data to inform whether it's 10 people we need or six. there is no way to engage the demand at this point, but we know it's exceeding our capacity right now even with pilot only. so the idea when there is a greater pool, how would we be prepared? >> i do think to your point about so much what happens here depends on what we do at the state board. we are at a point now where we are almost finished with the work. we have the evaluation rubric in place now. we have to still flush out a couple academic and state indicators and the college and career indicator. the so what question will start to come into play, but still a couple years down the road and we are trying to take the light touch. in the first year, if you go back to your slide that shows that fails to improve out by subgroups. it will be intended to be a light touch by the counties to say we know the data, we have identified where your challenges are and now let's make a plan to move forward. so all that is meshing with the accountability provision and relative with what the staffing needs would be, laying those side by side would be helpful. >> following what you just said and what carl has been reporting, it would be helpful to me to have an estimated timeline where we can engage where you think the work load might start to grow and the demand for help is laid out over the next 2 years and of course answering the question as that proposal, what after the 2 years? what after the expenditure of the dollars that are in vision to whether it's 16 positions or 18 or 20. what happens down the road is sort of a time line. that will be great when we look forward to some of that clarity from the state board. generally speaking there are three chunks, if you would, of the draft and as you know we are learning from lea's and pilots as you think about that and still operationally looking at exactly what that is as we model to being an organization and modeling for continuous improvement and that is a key component and one of the areas that the field is asking for. the second thing is this idea and i will let fuji talk about that as well. as we went around in the trainings and these are qualitative examples, but people want to know what is happening and what is going right as it exhaust what they know. so we are going to foster that information in meaningful ways. we have certain things happening in different areas. certainly county office and the department have mechanisms to recognize the work and we have statements of model practice in the rubric, but how do we keep the field abreast of that and in meaningful ways to celebrate the achievement and think about what's possible for them and just backbone support for the organization in making sure we have the hands-on deck to do the level of work we are talking about. i don't know if you want to add? so i think similar to and yet different from both wasc and fik matt and a team. we are learning more from a piloting process so it's not definitive by any means but envisioning that we would be sharing practitioner expertise and again with those principals that dr. cohn was speaking about on this local control and equity. and a little bit more about the innovation, incubation and again an area where we would find develop, explicate best practices in the field so others can hear more, and if they need to learn more on their own, but would have some ideas to help percolate change in meaningful ways. finally simply as an organization ourselves, we want to make sure that we are learning as we go that we are co-learners with people in the field that we work with our colleagues and that we are using the best of things that already happened. knowing in california we have a history of school improvement models and many of us participated in them, but on both sides both as viewers and receivers. so as what worked and what didn't work. those are questions we ask our colleagues in the field as mentioned what type of assistance is that part asking in the field and what they are responding to needs and making a difference as we go forward. >> is there any other discussion? sure. >> not just that one. i like the concept of practitioner teams a lot. i said this a couple times to some of the very first meetings. i'm not sure if carl was here when the staff was here. we used the fik matt analysis a lot. i come back to the wacs team. you look at what it does and before the teams arrive. the site has done work, the wasc team has done the work and they are totally immersed in the school. i see that as really a model for ccee. when we talk about these practitioner teams. yes, we are going to have consultants and different people in the field, but to really provide that assistance. i look at wasc because it scratches the service to give you accreditation, whatever they give. but imagine a ccee team that was completely focused on the l cap and analysis and the data and improvement and what continuous improvement looks like. that's something we should really strive for. >> we have an incredible opportunity with suzy right now joining wasc to talk about these opportunities and what the endeavor will look like in the future and we have this model of practitioners at the local level and driven by the experts and models like that where teams come in at almost invited in an area of expertise identified by a local level. those are really exciting opportunities and to have it all make sense for people because there are incredibly rich opportunities that people have experienced in wasc. it's very exciting. >> we had a meeting with president and george. susan, do you want to speak about that? >> sure. it's exactly the line of thinking we are taking on this. the wasc team is doing really exciting work now and incorporating the changes with new standards and thinking about how to support california districts in school with lcfs and l cap and what to look to provide that prospective support in our district schools in a long term and sustainable level. that has definitely been a kicking off point for discussions and for a kind of approach we want to take as we work with our schools. i think over the next several board meetings and hopefully through a deeper workshop, we would love to share some of the findings we are taking back from our work right now going on with the pilot districts. these are the conversations that we are now engaged in as we think about what does the right team look like, what does the pace of conversation looks like and who needs to be at the table to review these issues of real practice, governance, systemic support and they all look very different and the students are different across the state. in those conversations too, it's exciting to now start to really see tangibly the kind of relationships that we need at the table and we want to see the table between the county office, district folks, are the school boards and really moving away from just theoretically putting on paper and what we actually have in the room and at the table to start building up a statewide system of technical assistance for our districts. >> i just want to add a couple comments. carla and i were reminiscing the other day with the expectant model. it's sort of in between. i share tim's fakes for the practitioner teams with the cceu leads. i have a hope that wasc will come along besides us i'm not that helpful because i think wasc whatever it is is a compliance model and we technically see you every six or so years. we are talking about something different which is like a coaching model where you are teaching the district to fish or help them improve their fishing skills. not that we are going to come in and say, check, check and here is what you did and we'll see you later. i know it's required and for a variety of reasons kind of mystify me, but anyway, i would like to think a little bit also because england has had this model for a long time and other countries have had this model. as a public transparency and accountability system that welcomes everybody to be part of the conversation. i really appreciate the direction you are going in. >> i would concur with you regarding wasc which can be difficult with staff. and second, on the equity issue, what does that mean. can you give me your version of equity on that? >> i can tell you what i think, but as an organization what we are talking about is increased student achievement for every student in the district. i think part of what our work is really having deep and thoughtful discussions with districts themselves about what they mean when they say equity as well and how we have evidence that that's happening in the districts with the students and families we serve. so i think it is ultimately always about student achievement for every child and having evidence that that's taking place in all of our organizations and how we build conversation around that and then systemic muscle to deliver on that is really with a we see as a core part of our work. >> i agree with you. as you begin to hire personnel, you may want to hire a person who is an expert in equity. look at that separate piece over there because that is a big issue here in california. just a recommendation. >> yeah, thank you. >> i do want to go back to just that i agree with your comments going back to the wasc issue. it is an important distinction. i always thought about that more as a model. i understand that wasc is accreditation, that is compliance. going back to our previous conversation that we are doing something different, but the concept of the teams diving in team is more of what i'm looking at and know so much the compliance part of it. and the advantage, not wasc, with wasc the team comes in and you get your 6 years and they leave. to add to my comment before, we have those strike teams that go in and do that work and then you have the team of coaches that continue that level of engagement. so it's not all this work and then we'll see you in 6 years. they do a lot of this work but they follow up and check in and maybe some periodic day visits, that sort of thing as part of that. >> the community college model has several teams going in and out and training with critical inquiry and appreciative inquiry building on the strengths of every organization and fitting alongside confirming what they are seeing from their colleagues and their peers. i think kind of again learning from all of those models and taking the best of all of those models and listening to practitioner about what they feel the best assistance feels like and blending that altogether is really where these conversations will go in the next couple of months. >> will you go back to the three strands slide, please? >> i just wanted to see if anybody had any comments or questions about this. i will just kickoff and say, i really appreciate the way you articulated this especially the first one which i think it does model the learning organization. we are going to be working with have already begun working with 10 or 11 lea's, and to take that knowledge about what the work looks like, what is helpful, what is not helpful, what our teams look like and how often. i think that is very helpful and something we should think about as we build-out the organization. same with expansion area too. we talked a lot about can we be a repository and not just one and exclusive circumstances. i wanted to make sure people had a chance to think about these and if you have any comments or feedback to share with socorro or carl, that would be helpful. >> thank you. we look forward to bringing back the item. >> any other comments, carl? >> no. this is our best vision but certainly subject to input not only from this board, but from other key stakeholders. >> thank you. before i open it up for public comment, i think we have done this regularly but if we can post the agenda so people can see it as well. is there any public comment on item 5? okay, seeing none, we will move to item 6. this is on lc if;f professional development training implementation. >> i'm grateful to staff for all the hard work that went into this. i participated in sacramento and san jose and san diego. it was a huge undertaking, well executed. >> good morning, board. i'm excited to tell you how the pd plan was implemented on october 6th. the first one should be the document, the powerpoint itself, the second is the revised section for the workshop slides. we made some last minute changes after this went to print. in addition you have two one double sided version in english and spanish that will be discussed for workshop purposes. for those that are here at the table, there are black and white copies on the workshop section so you can follow along. we are going to cover all the pd plan of implementation and most of what will occur on the workshops in november. i want to start with reminding everyone with the context of where we are. for most of us, this will be repetitive, but it's good to set the stage for how we got to this piece of it. we were provided with $21 million with ccee to establish a statewide process to provide pd on the rubrics, are templates to support continuous improvement. part of this is for the training provided in each region of the state and available to all lea's. that report will come back particularly as we talk about the second component as it leads to the original leads and compliance library. these are the reference statutes that we must address in the training. we covered all of these but basically talks about the rubric primarily and the l cap and the continuous improvement and other key pieces of the lcff. october 6th, the governing board approved the plan and the department of finance notified us of the approval and state law provided that no expenditure can be made until they approved the plan. i'm going to turn it over to the assistant director for training and outreach, but before i do so, i want to express my appreciation to the number of people for the work that occurred over the last 2 months.. to erica and to sue lan for making miracles happen during the administration. the time we had was not a lot and the work they did was incredible. we had a consultant work with us, jason willis from west ed. he worked with us every step of the way with what the presentation is and how to implement it. and our colleague who opened workshops at many of these big locations with this inspirational talks about why we are all here. sujey and aida and socorro who was at all nine locations. [ laughter ] just to give you a sense, she woke up friday morning the 18 in redding, and she had to be 24 hours later in ontario to do another presentation. it was a hercule an efforts. i try to think of a cute phrase of how much work that -- he did. he took it boo -- by the horn. he made it happen. as you know i was out on family leave, and so i was not worried. i knew that esh would take care of it. thank you very much and i will turn it over to esh to walk you through what we did. >> good morning, everyone. can you hear me all right? esh, i look forward to the board and to sharing this with you. josh mentioned earlier that we are going to do some quick reminders. this slide is also a quick reminder. the purpose of the workshop at large is to establish say common baseline for looking for continuous improvements and the revising of the evaluation rubrics. we were looking at what they were going to look like and how they might use them. there were workshops from the 2-19. here are the numbers of actual attendees. the last time i came before you we had some rough estimate based on the registration we are seeing to date. this reflects the number of people who physically showed up which is slightly different from the number of registrants as some people didn't make it. overall, venue by venue, this is who showed up. a total of 1905 people. pretty exciting. with learned a lot of lessons, a lot of lessons through this process. one of the lessons is actually reflected in this slide. in the previous slide i showed the number of people who actually showed up, who were in attendance. but we didn't have a practice in place to be able to track the names of people who arrive with all of their information at the registration. so what you are seeing in this slide is a breakdown of those people who actually registered. we will account for this so that during the next set of workshops we can come back and show you the breakdown for the actual attendees, not by registration. these are the people who registered for the workshops. in the next slide you can see the title of the different people who were there. we really felt like it was important and i remember member sbranti talking about the importance of welcoming everyone in terms that everybody was present. this shows us the span of the people who were participating which is exciting from our end to see. so overall, we made note of a number of successes. i'm going to pass it shortly to socorro to describe these. before that, i want to thank you for the support and all from the department of education, melanie was a fabulous support and fabulous presenter and we want to say very specifically thank you for that. she did a really good job. and to josh sitting to my left, you are right. he was away, but he didn't sleep up to the weeks up to the time he was away. socorro, i will pass it to you for any comments you want to share. >> i want to echo the strength of the team and esha's leadership and the key and the role of this department. melanie was an incredible partner in the work and it was very menial full for participants to have us all on stage together and for them to see us as a unified delivery of service. it was logistically and practical and very valuable. we recognized as a team and understood what this presentation was for. so people that answered with a lot of expertise in the rubrics themselves just probably didn't add to their repertoire of information because they were already experts. but what we began doing early on in the presentation was asking people to identify themselves as a 5, 3, or 1 in terms of level of knowledge. people left feeling more confidence. it was clear as a presenter people left feeling more confident about the basics and feel they can begin the conversation when the data becomes live. teams that came in particular, it was most helpful for a varied group to learn together with parents, teachers, students that were even some of the best experiences and staff, all of them together working through the information and coming to an understanding about what this would mean and they go back and situate conversations in their l cap and district improvement conversations. so that was exciting. it was very exciting when students and families were there that made a great difference in terms of the energy in the room, and particularly for people outside of our everyday conversations about education. the layout in which it was done and the thoughtfulness of esh and jason and creating a step by step basic understanding of the tool itself to form conversations really paid off very well for people to feel this data enriched conversations when they go home and what to do in their districts and how to outline that in the l cap process. >> thank you, socorro. so just a few other quick thoughts on this particular slide and we'll continue on. you can see the first bullet specifically talks about feedback. after we are done with this section, sujey is going to talk about the results. we did get some positive feed backs on the rubrics and some of the school districts had positive feedback. we want to support local agencies on this part. you also have in front of you a copy of the spiral background primer. something that we were proud of is at the end of the many workshops there were request for additional copies. in some places we actually got calls from people who weren't in attendance. this is something we are going to think about as we look to additional workshops. i mentioned earlier that we do some lessons and i want to call that out. some of the lessons we learned happened before the workshops. i would like to thank all those that came to the training, county offices. a number of those agencies gave us great input. after that, we got feedback that informed our thinking as well. that first bullet came up over and over again. we keep thinking about how do we address the needs of audiences with really diverse backgrounds. socorro came to me with this outset that came with a level of experience of 1, 3, 5 by raising of their hands and we subjected messaging based on the group and really took that into account and adjust that accordingly. where some of the activities we went through faster. josh talked about logistics. we learned that temperature really does matter. in rooms where it was cold, we learned that was something we needed to address quickly. it's something we are going to try to tend to in the future and second, we had a number of people asking for materials. we are going to make this available so people can access all of our materials. >> we have some things that are in process. melanie and i went to the studio, it is going to be available and you can access the materials on the website. during the workshops we asked people to include social q and a which is an application where people can enter in a question and rank it or vote for it. the top vote getting questions rise to the top, and we are going to be putting together and faq for questions either through a tablet and working with the california department of ed and our target is to look to early 2017 to get something finalized and shared with everyone. >>, so everything i have talked about so far has been about the november workshops. there are also going to be spring workshops. we'll try to take lessons learned so far. we know that we have already know we need to start thinking about venues. that's under way. again, the most optimal way to engage audience and whether they may need the same information and where we make adjustments for new information. we will do like we did in the november workshop asking people for input and start the training workshops in 2017. i will turn back to you and ask you if you have any questions at all. >> when and if you are able to sort out the data, maybe i missed it. how many school districts were represented in one way or another in the workshops, and of those districts did they represent the majority of the state student population like get the big ones, l.a., san diego. just curious and would that help us if we knew more targeting invitation if they come and if they didn't attend, how do we prioritize and outreach for them to come. >> this you for the question. we are in the process of trying into that question because we are curious for the same reasons. the challenges as you might imagine, someone might enter in berkeley unified school district and berkeley usd and it comes up as two entities. we are having to go through all 2800 registrants and make sure it's the same. we are working on it and we'll get that information to you as soon as we have it. we weren't able to prepare it for today's meeting. thank you. >> other questions? i just want to say before you go on how proud i am of all the work you did. you took on a hercule an task and to pull it together with the cooperation of the department and the counties. i think we have talked about this before, but we have never tried to engage the entire spectrum. we have with board members and others but not with parents and people engaging. just kudos to all of your work. it's amazing to me. >> i couldn't agree more. i think it's great model in terms of what we are looking for in that collaboration. there are teachers, administrators and board members and bringing everyone together including the external stakeholders is certainly not unprecedented but not going to happen often and to be the convener in that on a regular basis sets us apart and to do that level of work is extraordinary. so great job. >> all right. thank you very much. i'm going to pass it over to suji. >> we are heading to the numbers section of the presentation which is the best part. [ laughter ] we wanted to go into this and make sure as we went into the workshop to provide immediate feedback in how we wanted to rule out the workshop, but also thinking about how this would impact our future development, future workshop trainings and future content development. you have copies of the survey in front of you. there is a brief survey of 17 questions which we wanted to capture around mandated questions about the evaluation rubric and all with continuous improvement and changing practice with lea's. these were offered in paper copy as well as online in english and spanish. the vast majority turns out that people love a hard copy survey. some of the delays have been inputting those in manually. we are happy to go back and look at some of the additional questions. with those surveys really had five sections of questions attached to them. the first really looked at it measuring increase in learning or the content knowledge that folks were walking away with. there were four questions around whether to what degree attendees felt the workshop was understanding around the local control funding formula, what makes up the lcff. and that again was measured on that continuum and not all, moderately and to a great deal. the next step further looking at the impact information as they were walking away from the workshops. so really having attendees reflect upon the degree of the information would help them with the lea's and using the evaluation rubric in their work, increase the effectiveness of their work and share information about lcff and l cap and that is in a scale to not at all to a great deal. the third set of questions got a little bit more closely into implementation. this was to lea's staff and what degree they felt that lea's were working with stakeholders and to the degree which they felt that lea's were implementing the l cap. and again that's a 4 points scale. the next question was around content format. these were questions about objectives and quality meeting objective and whether they strongly disagree to strongly agree that the formats of media, the questions answer session, the partner activities and generally the format of the workshops helped them learn this information. the question we want to focus on today is really around this third question which ultimately to what degree the attendees understand the evaluation rubric. we got to the heart of the purpose of the workshops. and so what we did was pull out this information over all across all of the workshops by date. so, as we were going through the workshops, we were collecting this information both hard copy and electronically engaging how attendees were feeling about the amount of learning that they were getting around the lcff evaluation rubric. this here breaks down the responses about the particular questions about understanding the evaluation rubric by workshop date. you can see sacramento took a first workshop on the second to the left moving to our right with a workshop in ontario on the 19th. for each workshop date is 4 bars that corresponds to the answers available to the question about increasing the understanding about the rubric. the purple bars indicates the response in raw numbers. the raw numbers of attendees who responded that not at all that they increased the understanding of their evaluation rubrics, the beige bar being somewhat and the light dark orange bar is what we wanted to see that they felt their understanding either moderately or great deal of understanding. you can see the great majority of the respondents felt they understood moderately or increased. and the majority responded with a great deal. you see the pattern and where we did see more than we wanted to of those attendees feeling that their learning was not as great as we would have wanted them to be. so, that promoted us to really take a deeper dive into some of those initial comments and survey responses after the first and second surveys. we did this after each of the workshops to really get a sense of what's going on and take a look at that feedback. you can see over time that feedback was implemented and josh and esh talked about little pieces of that feedback of incorporating some of the changes of the key pieces and even things as simple as in the first two workshops we received a lot of comments about even the ability to hear. so, something that we took away was that what we started in the last couple of workshops in a room that big so many attendees did not provide the audio clarity that we needed so we pulled away from the microphones in the workshops and all the comments about the audio and being able to hear the speakers completely disappeared from the workshop. and there were also some fundamental and substantive changes to the concept itself. in the first set we received few comments about pacing, some of the time that we allocated to specific activities and making sure we were being more attuned with the background knowledge that attendees were coming into the workshop with, and made some changes even in terms of the pacing of the workshop itself. you can see that i think we see that reflected in how workshop attendees felt about it as we went through the workshop dates. so, in addition to kind of taking a look at that, i think one of the key pieces as we started to take a look at some of the attendees was addressing the needs of the actual stakeholders being represented at these workshops. this next slide takes a look at that same question about understanding or increase in understanding of the lcff evaluation rubric but breaking it down by attendees stakeholders groups. this is a look at the workshop but the average response as you think about these four responses not being coded as a one, 3 is moderately and four is a great deal. as you see from left to right the order of the numbers in terms of stakeholders in each group. schools representing half of the survey respondents. we had about 860 respondents out of the 2,000 attendees providing full survey feedback. we have county offices, charter advocacy, statewide, and the last group we lumped the groups together because they were smaller and broken down, there were not any real great differentiations in the way they responded. this is really helpful for us to see. the dotted line indicates the average score of attendees. for the most part our attendees were walking away of a 3.0 or higher which is moderately they were walking away with a greater understanding of the work. and those who are partners in terms of developing materials and providing workshops and really deeply involved in a delivery of information to districts and schools around these evaluation rubric that their learning would not be on a steep curve because they are not new to this information. i think this is really helpful for us to think about as we think through our next steps with our workshop and materials and how we might want to focus in more specifically toward audiences because this was a key part of that conversation. the next slide i'm not going through them individually but you have them all in front of you. these are just breakdowns by the type of questions. again, the colored bars represent the attendees stakeholder groups. these are the four questions around content knowledge and understanding lcff and rubrics and the increase in knowledge and complexity. understanding loiflcff on the left -- and as you move to more complex concepts and increases in understanding is also going up and the amount that they are learning new from this workshop increased across all groups. in this set of questions was around the application of the information that they were learning from the workshops. so you see a bit of a par abolic curve where the u-shaped curve where the questions are a little bit more direct. will today's workshop help me and the evaluation of the rubric might work and share the information about lcff and l cap with others. as we go back to the right, the higher than two in the middle cover a little bit more abstractor indirectly about the implication or information in terms of their work and supporting student learning. you can see the differentiation by groups. this next set of questions, that third set around lea's staff and stakeholders and the lea's implementation of the l cap development process around stakeholders in the process and on the right effectively implementing the l cap, we wanted to start to capture some implementation in the field and think about how we were tracking changeover time as knowledge spread across the state and we started to measure it's use in the field. and then again the next two sets were really around the content and formats around objectives and again all over 3.0 from moderately to high range as well as the formats in media and feeling good if the structure that there was a lot of interactive session and a lot of comments about liking that time for teams that did come in teams being able to share and discuss and think about what this really meant for them as an lea or agency. i wanted to include some of the representative comments and all that came that we will be forwarded on to folks at partners at ccee and the state board. some comments about feeling great about the rubric and about the way the rubric looked, the design, the application of it. we had a lot of comments from parents, students, state board members who were really excited about the direction of the new rubric and the clarity and the idea about multiple measures and what they think about this when they go back to their teams and preparing for how to talk about this information together when the data goes live later this winter and being prepared and excited to be part of that conversation. it's exciting to see school members coming to the table, excited to take this back and being a deeper part of the conversation and anticipated, charter school folks about the opportunity to learn and share this information as well, district directors, community members, parents. then i guess some other piece we did want to take away for ourselves in thinking about what this would mean for us as we thought through deeper dive into the workshop coming forward. the key piece that josh mentioned differentiation was clearly for take away for us. this information was really helpful in setting the stage and bringing everybody together, the stakeholders together to hear the message for the first time. i think it was really great for our folks that were really knowledge about the content information and hear the questions bubbling up from parents, school folks that were hearing and seeing this for the first time. but now as we get deeper into the work and the data goes live, there is a lot of questions about how we might want to break this up so we can dive more deeply and take into account their perspectives and background knowledge as to the application of learning. again, thinking of some of our comments from our county office and school district folks coming in and asking us to consider whether or not that might be a place to really use prior knowledge as a way to differentiate learning in the future. with that, i think there are, i know esh and josh are presenting and now the next steps of this unless there are any questions. >> any questions or comments? thank you. very thorough. >> i think it's good to do that post analysis to see the results in terms of the surveys and that important process of being reflective and making modifications as you go is really important. >> i will reiterate what i said is that it reflects the diversity of the audience. so to tease out the folks that want to do advanced or intermediate versus who wants to do it versus someone who needed a baseline of understanding and how positive the charters felt because they kind of get left behind a lot of times which being outsiders which i do not agree with that position, but there is also a need for everybody to be on the same page as it related to this. i'm really gratified to see this from the charter community. >> that definitely was the best part. >> we are going to move on now to component 2 and discuss this now at a different board meetings. this is all focused on sort of aligned local trainings. the real motivation here is to support the aligned local trainings for continuous improvements and what we have talked a lot about the trendings in l cap and what's around the state. this is very much keyed in on that possibility with the rubrics in particular and how we want to avoid that as much as possible. regardless of whether you are a parent, board member, superintendent, that you are hearing not necessarily uniform message, but consistent message and aligned around how to understand these two tools. this component contains 2 pieces, first is the lcff content library and the cases which we will discuss a little bit more later. i'm going to start with the content library. it's repetitive, but this content is consistent and up to date and accurate. so that, again, regardless of who you are, regardless of what training you receive, if you receive training from this content from this library, you know it will be up to date, accurate and consistent. the scope, because of the timing of where we are at is likely to focus on the rubrics. we had a sense of what the rubrics are. it was approved by the board and a number of training by county offices and others. we are growing from that point. but with the newness of the template, there is a more accurate template. the library will expand it but right now likely to focus on the rubrics. we are focused on the lea's. that is the purpose in statute but it will be applicable and usable for all lea's users too. next week on november 6th and 7, we -- december 6th-7, we are holding a content developing meeting. we have a 200-piece of content, maybe 225. those items expand the gamete. some focus on the rubrics, priorities, the funding formula and basic aspects of lcff. we have been reviewing the content. we will bring forward some key items for discussion next week where there is not agreement, not perceived agreement across all stakeholders. the hope will not necessarily be to reach agreement, per say, but to get an understanding of what the concerns are of various stakeholders on these particular pieces of content. this approved content from discussions and consultation with the leaders in education. the content development meetings will not be the only way to submit and review content, but they will be our preferred way. if someone were to submit content in january or february, we would consult with a regional leads as to whether or not we want to put that content on hold until the next content development meeting or whether we felt like it made sense simply putting into library immediately and it would depend on the type of content and disagreement on the content itself. we don't want the only weight for the content of the meeting to be added to the library. in terms of the use of that content, ownership would stay with whoever created it and submitted it. if you then used the content in the training, you identify the content from the library. again, we want to be clear if you are saying say statement based on content from the library that it is known as such by the audience. so people can obviously have their opinion and their own perspective and what should be added, but if you want to use the statement that this is library content, it needs to be clear and consistent with what others are saying. and in order to, we really want to support this idea of getting trained on the library before somebody goes out and uses that content. again, an -- alignment piece for those training school board members and community members, that this alignment is what this key piece is all about. now touching on regional leads. they have two areas of responsibilities. one is training, the other is supporting the content library. we'll be in conjunction with each regional lead developing a training plan and the responsibility will be to ensure that all school districts in the region have access to an -- aligned local training based on the library and making this available to charter schools very well and the regional plan will develop that for all the regions. in terms of the regional leads library content, we are asking the offices to propose content and reviewing and sorting content and creating contents if there are gaps and sending our representatives to attend these content development meetings so they can be partners in this process as we develop the library. so that's in brief component two. there is a lot more to say after the meeting. questions on this component. >> who is in the content development meetings? >> it will be a variety. a lot of county office of education, but there will be state association, sba, aksa, non-profits. the brick isn't the same type of workshop but the same type of groups and entity of people. >> is it invitation only? >> no. it's open. if people are watching and they want to attend, they can e-mail us and we will register them for the meeting next week. >> thank you. >> josh, can you give me an example of something you foresee being deliberated that would go into the content? >> sure. so, i could envision there being some content submitted that covers how the rubrics are supposed to be used. and i use the word supposed to in intentionally because the rubrics are tools. they can be used many different ways and depending on the local content. it's not the wrong-way to use the rubric, but there isn't a required way per say with one exception with the relationship between the rubric and the l cap. so content of using from the library and a way of using the rubric about tools of continuous improvement that it is an opinion or a suggestion, but not necessarily phrased as a requirement. that is one substantive one that will need to be discussed. another example is a 50 page powerpoint that really has a content on 45 of the pages, but on five of the slides it is a little bit outdated. we may want to discuss as a group do we go back to the creator and asking do you mind revising these 5 pages and the expectations of what those revised slides might look like since they are not going to have the opportunity to review that powerpoint before being submitted to the library. >> this you for that. so lea's can provide clarity to the parents. is there a way to track it if the library content is being used. >> one of the areas we are still working out is this question. we've had a number of discussions about it and i certainly welcome the feelings of the board. the balance is we want to acknowledge the reality of how the field works. if i am a trainer from a school district to county office or really any entity, and the ccee doesn't have any sort of financial or formal authority over my actions, will that person always report back to the ccee on what they do, and we will certainly benefit from that. i don't think we can anticipate that happening from this situation. it maybe a disincentive to use that. we want the library to be user friendly and content rich as possible so it's an attractive place for superintendents to go, non-profits, county offices to go to see what's available and not have to create it on their own. >> thank you for the presentation. i just want to get a little bit more clarity about the regional leads. who are the regional leads and how are they chosen? >> we partner with ccesa and this is a model. >> josh, we are going to have a big discussion on this for item 7, especially those who are monitoring and waiting for item 7. >> that's true. thank you, madam chair. >> i can cover it in more depth then. >> okay. my next question is you mention this area of content disagreement and with stakeholders you are not going to have a unanimous thought. can you give us a couple examples of where this content disagreement is occurring? >> sure. i should be clear we don't anticipate there to be consensus at these development meetings. it is to get feedback, and as we all know sometimes you disagree with the feedback you get, but it's important to get it nonetheless. we may anticipate that there might be some content around how the rubrics are used as i mentioned to member navo that are phrased in the way that you must use the rubrics in this way, for example, you must focus on every single student group that gets a red for every student indicator. that might be something to practice or encourage, but it may not be required per the law or registration. we want to have discussions around how it's phrased in the proposed content. how it could be modified to more accurately reflect something that we, you know, would want and be comfortable and having in the library. >> just for me, looks likes a good housekeeping seal of approval. the idea and josh said this a number of time, in statute was that there be kind of a baseline that everybody agreed to and the consultation of the l cap and lcff would be across the state. i think this is your most challenging work for a couple of reasons not to the least that people will disagree with the feedback. for me, it's okay to say if you disagree with the feedback and the panel knows about the county office and the collaborative, we are going to say we are not going to put it in the library. so you go off and do, i hear feedback and people have very disparity opinions and many people have issues that don't pertain to the law and what is actually required. that's the challenge here. i wonder about whether or not this will become outdated very quickly because it strikes me that right now you have a lot of work to do which we just heard about in your development workshops for everybody to understand what this new l cap looks likes and the rubrics and what this continuation looks like. i know it's going to evolve. i don't know how you will keep that up. we are going to have conversation about the content of library and whether or not that is reasonable and once we get it calibrated and we think it's aligned and go for it and do things locally. that's the challenge for me in the content library. i did have a couple of questions and clarification. my understanding is that people who submit for this and train off the content library will not be allowed to charge. >> so that was in an earlier draft of the plan. the plan that was approved in october didn't answer that question directly for a couple of reasons. you know, as we are a public agency, we received one time funding to do this time of work, so it didn't seem appropriate to then allow others to use the content and charge for. regardless, those who will use it do need to be charged to recover some cost. what we are working on as we sort of implement this is to make sure to strike that right balance. we want to make this a meaningful acceptable and usable library and not allow people to sort of profit off the work that we are doing. so we are still in discussions as to how that would look. >> i want to hear more about that because as

Related Keywords

United States , Berkeley , California , Washington , Redding , Colorado , Sacramento , San Diego , Bayview , Spain , Denver , Telegraph Hill , San Francisco , America , Spanish , Michael Watkins , James Baca , Aaron Flynn , Carl Cohn , Fiona Moss , Bernie Sanders , Jason Willis ,