Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grand Jury Reports topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board committee hears six civil grand jury reports, presses SFUSD for data and coordination
Summary
The Government Audit & Oversight Committee received six civil grand jury reports covering continuity of prior recommendations, surplus school real property, truancy, and SFUSD ballot measures; the grand jury urged better data and transparency, the school district outlined plans and the committee requested further SFUSD follow-up on truancy and surplus-property coordination.
The Government Audit & Oversight Committee devoted a large portion of its meeting to six civil grand jury reports, including a continuity review, a report on surplus San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) real property titled Use It or Lose It, a truancy report, and an analysis of school-district ballot measures.
Leonard Culley, foreperson of the 2008–2009 civil grand jury, and members of the jury described findings that city departments and the school district had mixed responses to prior recommendations. The continuity report found several agencies had made progress on prior jury recommendations but flagged lingering issues with SFUSD’s kindergarten assignment process.
On surplus real property, the grand jury argued SFUSD holds a significant portfolio of underutilized property and urged clearer long-range planning and action. Abraham Simmons and other jurors said the district’s responses were sometimes defensive and noted that professional appraisals estimated substantial potential value for a subset of parcels. The grand jury urged the committee to use its influence where possible and to make some funding or other city support contingent on clear real-estate planning. The grand jury recommended greater transparency and called for the board’s involvement via joint committee discussions.
SFUSD representatives—Orlo O’Keefe (special assistant to the superintendent), David Golden (chief facility officer), and others—said the district has hired project staff, demographers and consultants; established public engagement and advisory groups; and is redesigning student assignment. Golden explained that state education code constrains disposal of property and that enrollment patterns can change quickly, affecting decisions about whether property is surplus. He said the district has identified sites not currently used for educational purposes and hired consultants to evaluate values, but cautioned that market conditions and statutory constraints slow disposition.
On truancy, the grand jury urged earlier and more targeted intervention, better cross-agency data sharing and that the board exercise leverage over city-funded positions by requiring performance data. The committee pressed SFUSD for a fuller, data-driven response and asked the district to return prepared to answer specific findings; school-district staff said some content specialists were unavailable at this hearing and agreed to return.
The committee accepted some procedural responses (for example, accepting that surplus-property decisions fall under SFUSD’s statutory purview) while adding that the school district should discuss disposition plans at a joint session of the committee and the school board and that the committee expects to continue hearings, especially on truancy.
