Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Project Labor Agreement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board adopts project labor agreement for remaining Measure A projects
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Education adopted a project labor agreement (Resolution 68-22 SP1) authorizing a PLA with the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council to cover specified remaining Measure A bond projects; the vote passed with six ayes and one abstention (conflict disclosed).
Get email alerts on the Project Labor Agreement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Board of Education on Sept. 12 approved Resolution 68-22 SP1, adopting a project labor agreement (PLA) between the San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council that will cover named projects funded by the district’s Measure A bond program.
District staff said the PLA is limited to projects expressly named in the agreement and is structured to run for the remainder of the 2003 bond program; two of the fourteen remaining projects will continue to be bid as in the past rather than under the PLA. David Golden, the district’s chief facilities officer, told the board staff negotiated core-employee provisions and a termination clause that would allow the district to end the PLA for cause.
During public comment, community representatives raised concerns about portability of benefits, the ability of community-based organizations to provide input and protections for nonunion contractors. Karen Wu of Asian Inc. told the board she had expected community-based organizations to be consulted more fully and asked the board to ensure portability and protections for core employees. Union and trades leaders, including Michael Theriault of the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council, urged approval, saying the PLA would support apprenticeships and stable employment.
Several commissioners asked staff to clarify the scope and duration of the agreement, how termination would work and which projects it would cover. Staff said the PLA applies only to projects specifically listed in the document, covers 12 of the 14 remaining projects under the 2003 bond framework, and was drafted so the agreement could be terminated by the governing body for cause. Commissioner Williams disclosed a conflict of interest and abstained from participation in discussion and the vote; the resolution passed by roll call with six ayes and one abstention.
The board directed staff to continue outreach and to ensure the board is provided a single, definitive “board approval” version of the PLA rather than multiple drafts. The PLA’s adoption does not itself rename projects or change bond authorization; any change in the list of covered projects or future bond programs must return to the board for approval.
The board’s action is effective immediately for the projects named in the adopted PLA; staff will implement the agreement and report back to the board on matters of compliance and project selection.
