Board hearing examines alleged misuse of funds by San Francisco Parks Alliance; nonprofits report lost donations

Former and interim leaders of the San Francisco Parks Alliance told a July 17 hearing of the Board of Supervisors’ Government Audit and Oversight Committee that the nonprofit’s books were in disarray and that restricted funds intended for community projects were used for other purposes, leaving neighborhood groups without promised reimbursements.

Supervisor Ahsha Safaí-led hearings last month produced subpoenas after witnesses failed to appear; at the July 17 session, former treasurer Rick Hutchinson, former CEO Drew Becker and interim CEO Robert Ogilvy answered questions from Supervisors Dean Walton, Jackie Fielder and others. Ogilvy said the Alliance had about $1.1 million in the bank when the board voted to wind down operations — roughly $800,000 held in restricted accounts and about $300,000 unrestricted — and that the organization’s records show at least $5.4 million in obligations to partner groups. Multiple public commenters and witnesses said they have lost smaller sums ranging from thousands to tens of thousands of dollars.

Why it matters: The Parks Alliance served as fiscal sponsor for dozens of small “friends of” groups and for larger capital projects including Crane Cove Park. Local volunteers and small nonprofits say funds they raised or expected for specific park improvements, program reimbursements and payroll were not made available in time — and, in some cases, not at all. Several city agencies, including the Port of San Francisco and the Recreation and Park Department, are now reviewing agreements and payments that relied on the Alliance as a fiscal intermediary.

What witnesses said Rick Hutchinson, who served as Parks Alliance treasurer from 2020 until the organization wound down in 2025, told the committee he and the board had worked with outside accountants and consultants once cash-flow problems surfaced. Hutchinson said the board moved to “lock down” restricted funds once it learned they might have been used inappropriately and that the board then tried to preserve funds for partner projects and payroll while it pursued fundraising and restructuring.

Former CEO Drew Becker, who resigned in February 2025, said he was blindsided by the extent of the financial problems. Becker told supervisors that he relied on his finance staff and outside auditors and that he did not know restricted funds were being used for general operating expenses. He described a chaotic accounting environment, said audits and city contract payments had been slow at times, and noted the organization had been carrying out major capital projects whose spending cycles cause large swings in reported net assets.

Interim CEO Robert Ogilvy told the committee he joined in February 2025 to stabilize the nonprofit and to try to raise funds to “make partners whole.” Ogilvy said he quickly learned the shortfall was larger than he had been told in the interview process, and that, after assessing assets and liabilities, he concluded the organization could not sustain operations without dipping into restricted accounts. He said the board then voted to begin an orderly wind-down to protect restricted funds for partner organizations.

Scope of the shortfall and remaining assets Committee members and witnesses cited multiple, partly overlapping tallies of losses and outstanding obligations. Ogilvy testified that reconciliations he reviewed showed a liability figure in the ballpark of $5.4 million owed to partner groups and projects. Hutchinson and Becker described multiple years of declining net assets tied in part to large capital projects, fundraising timing and accounting complications.

Ogilvy said the Alliance had roughly $1.1 million in cash at the time the board voted to wind down, most of it restricted. He said the organization held director-and-officer insurance “in the low millions” but deferred to administrators and the third-party assignee for exact policy limits.

City partners and projects The Port of San Francisco director, Elaine Forbes, told the committee the Port had been unaware of the Alliance’s financial condition and learned about problems from news reports. Forbes told supervisors the Port is completing certain Crane Cove Park amenities and has identified roughly $1.54 million from its own funds to finish dog-run and playground elements originally expected to be paid through the Alliance, and said the Port would seek to recover costs where appropriate.

Public comment and nonprofit impact More than two dozen representatives from small park groups and community partner organizations described delayed or missing reimbursements, unpaid invoices and lost bequests. Speakers included representatives of the Buena Vista Park Association, Howard Langton Community Garden, Sutro Stewards, Friends of Jackson Park and others. Many testified that they had to cancel programming, lay off staff or pause planned work after requests for reimbursement were delayed or declined.

Committee action and next steps Committee Chair Jackie Fielder moved to continue the matter to the call of the chair so the committee can subpoena and hear from additional witnesses, gather more documents and coordinate with city attorneys and other investigators. The committee voted 3–0 to continue the item.

What’s next San Francisco City Attorney and District Attorney offices have opened investigations, committee members said. Supervisors asked for a clarification of the Alliance’s remaining assets, copies of insurance policies, and a plan from the third-party assignee (Jigsaw Advisors was named in public reporting) describing next steps for distributing any remaining assets and addressing creditor claims. Several supervisors said they intended follow-up hearings focused on specific agreements, including funds tied to Crane Cove Park and the Port of San Francisco.

Ending note Committee members repeatedly told audience members and partner groups that the purpose of continuing the hearing is to gather facts, preserve evidence and explore remedies — including whether insurance, recovery actions, or city assistance can restore funds to harmed neighborhood groups.