Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Charter Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors duplicate school-board pay charter amendment for further review after debate
Summary
The Board of Supervisors duplicated a proposed charter amendment to allow two versions — the original and one with Supervisor Jane Kim’s amendments — to go to a committee-of-the-whole for further review after discussion about funding and timing for placing the measure on the June ballot.
The Board of Supervisors took up a proposed charter amendment to change how compensation for San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) board members is set. Supervisor Jane Kim, sponsor of the measure, proposed three amendments: setting the compensation ceiling at no more than one-half of a first-year SFUSD teacher’s salary starting July 1, 2012; removing a CPI-based automatic cost-of-living adjustment; and striking a subsection that would have specified city funding for the pay increase so that the school district could fund board pay from its budget.
Supervisor Kim said the amendments respond to concerns about voter messaging and give the school district flexibility to set salaries up to the proposed ceiling. Supervisor John Campos — a former SFUSD general counsel — urged the board to support the change, saying modest compensation would broaden the pool of candidates who could serve on the board. Other supervisors requested more time to review the amendments.
To allow broader review, Supervisor Ellsburn moved (and colleagues seconded) to duplicate the file: Version A would be the original charter amendment and Version B would include Supervisor Kim’s proposed amendments. The board adopted the procedural motion to duplicate the file and directed both versions to a committee of the whole for a hearing two weeks hence so members and stakeholders could review details. The chair noted that Rules Committee had previously considered the matter and that timing was constrained by the June ballot calendar.
Outcome: The board did not adopt the substantive charter amendment at this meeting. Instead it duplicated the file, moved Supervisor Kim’s amendments into a Version B, and set both versions for committee-of-the-whole consideration at the next board meeting so the measure can be finalized in time for the June ballot if the board decides to proceed.
Ending: The duplicative-file approach preserves both options — a plain-text charter amendment and a version with Kim’s refinements — while allowing more time for analysis and stakeholder input before a final decision on whether to place the amendment on the June ballot.
