Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SFUSD board approves multiple executive contracts after closed session; chief academic officer vote fails
Summary
After closed session the board read and voted on numerous employment contract approvals: several chief-level contracts passed (most by 6 ayes), and one motion to approve a chief academic officer failed in roll call (recorded as 4 nays). The board also reported direction to general counsel on anticipated litigation.
After returning from closed session the San Francisco Unified School District board read a list of personnel actions and recorded roll-call votes on Feb. 26.
President Cook read motions to approve a series of executive employment contracts. The first motion — to approve the deputy superintendent for strategic partnerships and communications (salary grade M28 step 9, two‑year term) — was seconded and approved by roll call (6 ayes). Multiple other executive positions were moved and approved by recorded votes, typically with six ayes and one no on some items; specific positions and roll‑call outcomes included chief of student family and community support (approved 5 ayes), chief of research, planning and assessments (6 ayes), chief of staff (6 ayes), chief of human resources (6 ayes), chief of special education (6 ayes), chief of early education (6 ayes), chief technology officer (6 ayes), chief of labor relations (6 ayes), chief of facilities (6 ayes), and chief of policy and operations (6 ayes). Several motions recorded Miss Lopez voting "No" on particular appointments; roll‑call tallies are recorded in the minutes read aloud by the president.
One motion failed: the motion to approve the chief academic officer (salary set to grade MG6 step 5 for a one‑year term) did not pass — the president reported "That fails. It's 4 nays." The transcript indicates mixed votes on that item, and the motion was not approved in open session.
The board also announced it had given direction to general counsel on two matters of anticipated litigation.
What this means: The approved appointments set terms and salary grades for several senior staff positions and will guide contract renewals and staffing plans. The failed vote on the chief academic officer signals continued disagreement among board members on that particular appointment.
Next steps: Staff and board governance committees will move forward with implementation of approved contracts and any next steps related to the failed CAO motion will be handled through board procedure and personnel committees.
