SFUSD board adopts proposed layoff decision after intense public pleas to spare classrooms

The San Francisco Unified School District Board of Education voted to adopt an administrative law judge's proposed decision and to send final certificated layoff notices for the 2011'12 school year, a move district officials said was forced by an unfolding state budget crisis.

Superintendent Carlos Garcia told the board that the district had already cut $113,000,000 over the past two years and faces another $84,000,000 in reductions over two years, and presented a resolution to issue final certificated layoff notices. "None of us like what we're gonna have to do this evening," Garcia said as he summarized the district's budget projections and the legal steps required by state law.

The vote followed extensive public comment. Dozens of students, parents and teachers testified that program cuts to music, visual and performing arts, and world languages will harm students's college prospects and reduce equity across schools. "Please stop our budget cuts and find the money in your budget, please, somewhere else," said Velvet Conley, a freshman at George Washington High School, describing how reduced course offerings threaten her ability to meet University of California admissions expectations.

Union and community advocates urged the board to rescind notices by using reserves and federal job funds. "We have $8,000,000 of rainy day fund, $10,000,000 of federal funds for jobs' educational jobs. It's time to spend that money now," Ken Trey, executive board member of the United Educators of San Francisco, told trustees. District staff and Garcia responded that even using those funds would not close a multi-year gap. Garcia said that applying rainy-day and jobs-bill money still left the district facing an $84,000,000 shortfall over two years and that the law limits the district's options.

Board members asked for clarifications on the record. Commissioner Winns asked whether the budget numbers presented to the administrative law judge included use of the district's available funds; Garcia confirmed they did. Trustees also discussed whether the resolution language should stress that the action reflected "lack of funding" rather than lack of services; the board requested that clarification be added.

The formal resolution incorporated the administrative law judge's findings and directed the superintendent or his designee to send final notices to affected certificated employees. The roll-call vote on the adoption of the proposed decision and issuance of final notices was recorded as 6 ayes.

The board indicated the possibility of recalling some notices later if the state budget improves. Garcia said staff would continue to pursue options in Sacramento and elsewhere to mitigate the long-term cuts. The meeting record shows no immediate rescission; the adopted resolution takes effect immediately and directs staff to proceed with issuing notices.