SFUSD leaders warn July 1 go-live for payroll and HR systems remains ‘‘cautiously optimistic’’

San Francisco Unified School District officials told the Board of Education on Thursday that the district is ‘‘cautiously optimistic’’ about a planned July 1 go-live for its new finance and human-capital systems—Frontline (ERP) and Red Rover (HCM)—but that the next two weeks are critical to resolving payroll, retirement and configuration issues.

At a presentation led by Miranda Helio, chief of staff, and Meli Lau Smith, operations and budgets lead, staff described a mix of progress and remaining risks that include printing preformatted checks, integrating retirement and benefits interfaces, and completing roughly 9,000 payroll "pay compares" to reconcile Frontline calculations with the district's legacy payroll system (Empower).

The update matters because the ERP/HCM migration underpins payroll, hiring and the FY26 budget work the board must approve before July 1. ‘‘Every hour equals a day at this point,’’ Helio told the board, repeating a phrase staff used to convey urgency. Smith told commissioners central-office budget trainings are complete and that staff expect to return on June 17 for the first reading of the FY26 budget.

School leaders and board members used the session to press for specific contingencies. Commissioner Ray asked whether root causes for pay discrepancies are being addressed rather than only logging tickets; Helio replied staff are fixing configuration errors and tax calculations so differences are ‘‘different but not wrong’’ in many cases. Commissioners also sought clarity on the district’s contingency plans if payroll errors occur after go-live. Marin (presenter name used in the transcript) and Helio described a triage plan that would deploy a cross‑departmental team (payroll, budget, HR) and embedded case‑management teams available for walk‑ins, calls and tickets.

Key quantitative details disclosed to the board included: - A prior sample of 1,800 employees has expanded to pay compares covering the full payroll population; staff expect to complete the run of roughly 9,000 pay compares within a week or so. (Exact timeline: staff said they would ‘‘be done with the 9,000 by this week or next week.’’) - CFIRS interface testing was reported at about 75% complete. - Staff said they aim to reach operational thresholds that will allow the district to produce corrected checks within a day if errors occur, an improvement over previous rollouts.

Several commissioners pressed for transparency and public-facing instructions for employees and families. Commissioner Alexander asked that the district publicize office hours and the contingency triage process so board members and families know where to refer problems. Vice President Huling asked whether continuing to pay for legacy systems like Empower could be needed if the go/no‑go decision slips; staff said contract timing and licensing were already part of planning and that an extension would have a fiscal impact—an additional cost the presenter estimated in the low millions if needed.

On configuration and training, staff said approximately 400 HR action requests (HRAs) remained pending at the time of the briefing, that site clerks have been trained, and that accounts-payable clerk training is scheduled next. The district also plans ‘‘redos’’ and refresh training where early sessions require reinforcement.

Superintendent Matthew Hsu framed the work as part of a broader fiscal stabilization plan: staff argued the systems are integral to operational reset, not just software replacement.

Where the board directed follow-up - Commissioners requested a written set of tolerance criteria for pay-compare discrepancies (staff said they would provide criteria and variance thresholds in writing). - Staff agreed to return with updated pay-compare results and to publicize triage procedures and office hours for employees.

Why it matters: payroll failures in prior system migrations disrupted employees' pay and district operations. The board emphasized that while an imperfect rollout is possible, a failed go-live would be worse; the district must balance speed against accuracy.

Ending: Staff said June 6 (the following Friday) would be a critical date to reassess readiness for the July 1 go-live; if the board does not hear otherwise by then, that was the working expectation communicated in the meeting.