BOE’s Budget and Business Services Committee Meeting Minutes for 3/20/07 (edit this)
The Budget and Business Services Commmittee has one action item on the agenda-Resolution No. 72-27A-In Kind Services in the Public Education Enrichment Fund (Proposition H)-and they punted.
Myong Leigh, Director of Policy and Planning for the District, gave the District’s overview on the subject. In December 2006, the BOS’ City Services Committee (Peskin, Mirkarimi and Elsbernd) gave notice to the district that they were unhappy about SFUSD only asking for $250,000 inkind services from the City-with the remaining $4.8 million in cash.
Leigh stated that one supervisor stated that the District should ask for ten times $250,000 in their 07-08 request. The Controller then identified $13.75 million dollars of inkind services that it stated that the City has already providing to SFUSD, including free tours through the Asian Art and Fine Arts Museums, discounts on rentals of Davies Hall, reduction in electricity bills, services for children and youth for mental health services, Beacon Centers and Wellness Centers.
The Budget and Business Services had a resolution authored by President Sanchez that stated “the Board of Education includes not less than $2.5 million of its 2008-09 proposed Proposition H spending plan as in-kind services from the City.”
Eight members of the public testifed against the resolution. Kay Hones pointed out that the City identified non-education services as in-kind services that they already provided to the District. Sandra Fewer noted that school site councils have already created their budgets-and they need to know how much they receive in Proposition H funds to hire their 2007-08 staff prior to the end of this school year (in order for the new staff to begin at the beginning of the next school). Several others stated that the resolution should state “new” inkind services. Bruce Wolfe noted that the funds should be supplemental rather than suplanted funds to support existing programs. PPS Executive Director Lorraine Woodruff-Long said, “Our children are being sold out.”
Commissioner Yee made a motion to amend the resolution to state “the Board of Education includes not less than $1.25 million of its 2008-09 proposed Proposition H spending plan as in-kind new services.”
Commissioner Jane Kim objected, stating that the Board of Supervisors are stating that they don’t think that the Board of Education is working collaboratively with the BOS. She felt that reducing the amount of in-kind services would send a message that the BOE is not willing to work collaboratively with the BOS and it may make it difficult for the BOS to pass the 2007-08 Prop H budget.
Yee asked the audience how they felt about the amendment. The entire audience voiced their approval to keep the inkind services amount at $1.25 million. So Yee didn’t agree to Jane Kim’s suggested amendment.
Commissioner Kim then objected to the word “new”. She stated that again the Board of Supervisors feels that they are already offering inkind services to the District and the BOE is not working collaboratively to note all of the services provided by the City to the District. So Commissioner Yee took it out.
The Budget and Business Services then voted on the amendment to change the amount of inkind services from $2.5 million to $1.25 million. Maufas and Yee voted for it and Jane Kim voted against it.
Jane Kim then said that she was voting against the resolution, stating that the resolution should be brought to the “Select Committee” (Joint Committee of the BOE/BOS which includes Jane Kim, Jill Wynns and Hydra Mendoza, Supervisor Dufty, Supervisor Maxwell and Supervisor Mirkarimi.)
Myong Leigh suggested that the Budget and Business Services tabled the resolution till after the meeting of the Joint BOS/BOE Committee meets on April 12. Myong Leigh pointed out that the full Board meets on April 10 and then again April 24. So the Budget and Business Services would come back to the resolution at their meeting on April 17.
So ignoring the audience’s reminder that schools need to know their Prop H allotment at the end of March to able to hire with the funds, the committee agreed by consensus (in opposition to the audible displeasure of the audience) to table the resolution till their next meeting on April 17.
The Board then heard a presentation on the Budget Development for Fiscal Year 2007-08. District’s CFO Joe Grazzioli noted two changes in 2007-08 budget. He is projecting that approximately $2 million in mandated expenses may not be reimbursed next year. He also noted that the state has reduced the amount of indirect costs that the District gets for managing restricted funds from 6.8% to 4. 64% to cover overhead costs.
Nancy Waymack noted that in a case brought by several school districts, the Sacramento County Court ruled that schools districts were entitled for reimbursement on mandated state costs. But she also noted that SFUSD was sure that the state will be appealing that decision.
SFUSD’s Budget Schedule is:
Board of Education Regular Meeting-April 24 (Board will consider Paraprofessional Layoffs if necessary)
Community Budget Workshop-TBD
May Budget Revisions from the State-May 15th (Tentative)
Introduction of the Budget Resolution (June 12)
Board Committee of the Whole for First Reading and Adoption of the Budget (TBD)
Adoption of the Budget-June 26
March 21st, 2007 at 6:01 am e
Sandy Fewer misunderstood the situation regarding next year’s budgeting. The resolution covered the 08-09 year, not 07-08. So her reason for concern — which was that School Site Councils needed to have their budgets established for next year’s budgeting purposes — was actually moot, based on a misconception.
I’m cross-posting my account of the meeting and the situation as posted on the sfschools listserve, and also that of Novella Smith, Prop. H Committee member. But first, the big question that I’m posing to “Leftinsf” is: why are Sanchez and Kim eagerly supporting the Board of Supervisors’ efforts to f*** over our children and subvert the will of the voters? I avidly await the answer of the Leftinsf bloggers, on behalf of the Progressives of San Francisco.
Here’s my account:
The meat of the reso was in the section: “Therefore be it resolved:
That the Board of Educaiton includes not less than $2.5 million of its 2008-2009 proposed Prop. H spending plan as in-kind services from the
City…”
It is not clear why President Sanchez brought forward this resolution to begin with. There is a strong and wrongheaded sentiment among the Board of Supervisors that their role in dealing with Prop. H is to
**** the schools and kids out of as much as possible of the money that the voters elected to give them. Their chosen method of doing that (spurred on by the coldhearted bean-counters in the Controller’s
office) is to try to deem any item they can get away with an “in-kind service” — and especially to try to label services they were already “providing” (I put that in quotes for a reason, to be explained later)
as in-kind services under Prop. H, rather than providing new, additional, beneficial services as the voters clearly intended.
It’s just dead wrong for the city to treat this like labor or legal negotiations, where you just make your flat-out toughest effort to give the other side as little as possible. THESE ARE OUR COMMUNITY’S
KIDS. Don’t the supes worry about the future generation, or doing the right thing, or their karma, or not burning in hell, depending on their beliefs?
And then, given that that’s the erroneous attitude the supervisors are adopting, why would our BOE want to support it rather than fighting for our kids, ideally while diplomatically showing the supes why they need to revise their attitude and not fight to hurt kids?
So back to the meeting. About 10 or 12 members of the public spoke, all of us urging the committee to recommend inserting the word “new” before “in-kind services,” and also talking about how wrong it is to
stretch the definition of “in-kind services” so as to provide as little as possible to schools. These included speakers who do not normally agree with each other on most issues.
The one public speaker who was mildest and least opposed to the resolution as written apparently had the erroneous impression that it addressed the 07-08 budget and would thus foul up SSCs’ budgeting for
next school year. But actually it addressed 08-09.
The short version of the committee discussion: Norman Yee spoke firmly in favor of adding “new” and proposed cutting the amount in half, to $1.25 million. Jane Kim, who had disappeared into the BOE office (which perhaps coincidentally was occupied by Mark Sanchez) for most of the public comment, spoke inexplicably against cutting the amount and against inserting “new.” Kim-Shree Maufas supported cutting the amount and inserting “new,” but seemed to be saying “…but this is not the time nor the place.” At some point in here was discussion of cutting the dollar figure by a lesser amount. Then Yee decided to
change his mind and agree with J. Kim’s position. But then Yee actually asked the small audience if we thought the amount should be left at the original $250,000; everyone held thumbs down in the air,
and having been asked their opinions, also began calling out “New!” Then J. Kim said (paraphrasing): let’s not vote on this at all; let’s just put it onto another committee (the Select Committee for the
BOS/BOE). Everyone agreed, and that was that.
The audience was left going “Huh? What was that about.” I was there the whole time, and I still don’t get it.
Sanchez’ resolution seemed to be aimed at appeasing the BOS so they’re nice to us in the future, unless there are yet more points that I’m missing. What it felt like was labor saying “oh, let’s not ask for
more than management wants to give us, so they’re nice to us in the future.” Why he, or any BOE member, would take that position, and why Jane Kim would support it so firmly, is simply baffling.
So let me just restate my view, which appeared to be shared by members of the audience ranging from Kay Hones to Boots Whitmer. The Board of Supervisors is just wrong to treat this like the kind of negotiations where you win if you screw the other side as badly as you can. This is about our community’s kids, and it’s also about the will of the
voters. And it’s just surreal for any BOE members to support them in doing that.
And the reason I put the word “provide” in quotation marks is because as I’ve said, the city is wrong to label as “in-kind services to the schools” resources that are not education-related. Health, mental
health, nutrition, children’s well-being, social welfare, safety, policing — and transportation! — are NOT “in-kind services to the schools.” They are community services to the community’s children.
If anyone can clarify to me what that was all about, please explain!
###
And here’s Novella Smith’s account:
Tonight at the San Francisco School District
Budget Committee meeting it became apparent that
Mark Sanchez (Board President) made a back room
deal with Supervisors Ross Mirkarimi, Aaron
Peskin, and Sean Elsbernd to sell out school
kids (again). They agreed among themselves that
2.5 million dollars of Prop. H money (you know
the money that 72% of the voters decided should
go to increase funding for school children)
would be called in-kind donation of existing
services! These three Supervisors did not
support Prop. H so they are using legislative
tricks to undo the will of the voters.
Mark Sanchez introduced the resolution at a late
evening meeting of the School Board. The Prop H
Citizens Committee was not consulted nor were
they even aware of the resolution. They were not
even told that it would come before the Budget
Committee. This is another Schwarzenegger kind
of sell-out of our children.
When parents went to the budget meeting, some 15
speakers implored the BOE members to make this
NEW services in the resolution. Norman Yee made
a motion that the resolution have the word “new
services” and then proceeded, along with Jane
Kim, to vote against the “Yes” motion making
sure that services from the City did not have to
be new services. Jane Kim blathered on about
how important it is to work with the BOS. This
is true. It is important, but not by selling out
our kids for some Supervisors who do not have
kids, or whom did not support Prop H! Jane,
HELLO, kids ARE more important than politics!
Ultimately, since school board members could not
agree to make the resolution say “new services”,
and since they did not really know what to do,
they decided that another committee should take
up this issue. Which one? The joint committee
of the BOS and BOE! This committee meets during
the day, so now everyone will have to take the
day off from work and come back if they want to
register a complaint about this Back Room Deal!
The most amazing thing about this is, that these
guys are trying to horse trade Prop. H funds
against funds from the Department of Children
Youth and Family Services. DCYF Children’s Fund
money is extra money that the voters approved
for children TWICE! Because kids were getting
the stiffed.
What is it about kids, that our politicians are
so comfortable taking money away from them is
because they don’t have a lobby! Call or write
your supervisors and complain about this!!!
http://www.sfgov.org/site/bdsupvrs_index.asp
Novella Smith
Prop H supporter and person who actually has,
knows, and talks to kids of all ages!
March 21st, 2007 at 7:46 am e
I can’t believe Sanchez and Kim would cave in like this.
City voters approved Prop H to give money to our schools, not to let the BOS play politics and take much of it away. We (kids and their parents) are on solid ground here, so why don’t the people we elect stand up for us?
March 21st, 2007 at 7:56 am e
We should write a list of all the “in-kind” services the city provides to the Board of Supervisors (office space a city hall, free parking, etc.) and deduct it directly from their salaries.
For example, Peskin, Mirkarimi and Elsbernd all make approx. $110,000 per year in salaries. Deducting their office space at city hall should reduce this to about $80,000.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:03 am e
There are also projects underway to list “in-kind services” that SFUSD provides to the city — services to kids that are clearly the responsibility of the community, not of educators.
One list from the Controller’s office that was floating at the meeting included dental care to low-income kids as an “in-kind service” to the schools.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:40 am e
The BOE decided to apply half of the $2 million that Superintendent Chan had wanted for math and reading coaches at low-performing schools for anti-violence programs instead.
These “anti-violence programs” are clearly in-kind services for social worker programs and the Police Department.
Shouldn’t the school district be billing these city departments for “in-kind” services?
March 21st, 2007 at 11:50 am e
I totally agree, Nakayama! That goes for ALL policing/safety issues. As I recall, some of the money Chan wanted to go toward math/reading coaches also went toward translation services for immigrant adults. That too is a COMMUNITY responsibility, not a school responsibility. It is not an in-kind service; the city should be providing it.