Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Layoffs And Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SFUSD board adopts substitute layoff resolution after tense public comment and budget briefing
Summary
After a detailed budget presentation showing multi‑year deficits, the San Francisco Unified School District Board adopted an amendment by substitution to its proposed certificated layoff resolution. The move, adopted 6–0 on the amendment, came amid strong union opposition and extensive public testimony, including parents and teachers urging alternatives.
The San Francisco Unified School District Board of Education on May 8 adopted an amended resolution to issue final certificated layoff notices after a contentious public-comment period and a district budget update that projected steep multi‑year shortfalls.
Deputy Superintendent Myong Lee told the board the district faces a structural deficit even if proposed state tax measures pass: reserves that began the year near $55.8 million are projected to fall to about $35.3 million by June 30, 2012, and the district could face an $83 million gap through fiscal year 2013–14 under current assumptions. Lee said the district expects limited mitigation from the city’s rainy‑day fund (up to about $6.3 million in 2012–13 and $4.7 million in 2013–14), possible restoration of categorical transportation funds (~$7.2 million annually) and proceeds from a pending surplus-property sale, but warned that those measures would not close the full gap.
Against that fiscal backdrop, staff presented a proposed decision responding to an administrative‑law‑judge (ALJ) report and recommended issuing final non‑reemployment notices tied to a reduction of up to 333 full‑time equivalents (no more than 210 instructional and 123 administrative FTEs). Staff said, based on the ALJ process and district needs, it recommended sending a total of 218 final notices (210 teachers and eight administrators) unless subsequent vacancies allow recalls.
Union leaders and dozens of public speakers urged the board to accept the ALJ’s proposed decision in full and to rescind layoffs. Dennis Kelly, president of United Educators of San Francisco, warned that rejecting the ALJ would expose the district to litigation and substantial financial liability and urged the board to ‘‘consider the Administrative Law Judge’s decision in its entirety.’’ Susan Solomon, UESF secretary, told the board the district had failed to meet the standards required by Education Code section 44955 and asked commissioners to refrain from upholding a skip‑seniority approach.
Board members debated legal findings, district investments in the superintendent zone and equity concerns. General counsel produced amendment language that the board took up as an amendment by substitution to replace the staff motion. On a roll call the amendment by substitution was adopted with six ayes; the board then proceeded to associated procedural votes to implement the action (roll‑call details recorded in the minutes). Several board members said they voted reluctantly, citing the prospect of a state takeover if the district’s fiscal condition were not addressed.
The substitute resolution cites Education Code sections 44949 and 44955, references the ALJ’s proposed decision dated May 7, 2012, and identifies exhibits attached to the resolution. Staff said final notices would be mailed by mid‑May and that a recall process would begin as vacancies occur.
The board took the action after an hours‑long meeting that included dozens of public speakers—teachers, parents and union representatives—who pressed the district to explore alternatives, preserve high‑performing programs and protect staff at superintendent‑zone schools. Board members also discussed continuing negotiations with labor partners and exploring additional local funding avenues.
The substitute resolution is effective immediately; staff said they will begin mailing notices and pursue recall processes as required by statute.
