Rules Committee tables charter amendment tying city funds to SFUSD governance and data‑sharing

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors’ Rules Committee on Jan. 31 voted to table a charter amendment that would have changed how discretionary money in the Public Education Enrichment Fund is appropriated to the San Francisco Unified School District and required the district to enter a data‑sharing agreement and submit a certificate of governance compliance before receiving city funds.

Supervisor Connie Chan moved to table the proposal, saying the charter’s prescriptive governance language represented an overreach into an independently elected school board and urging more time for collaboration with stakeholders. The motion carried on a roll‑call vote after public comment and committee debate.

The measure’s primary sponsor, Supervisor Melgar, described urgent funding and staffing problems at the district — citing reports from parents at Lake Shore Elementary about a roughly 20% staff cut — and said she supported stronger city oversight of city‑controlled funds and basic data‑sharing agreements. Melgar also said she did not author the original draft and that committee amendments earlier this week had set aside a separate children’s‑agency proposal pending broader input.

Supervisor Ronan, who supported tabling, said she had heard almost unanimous opposition from speakers during previous hearings and had begun outreach to a broad coalition of parent advisory councils, labor and service providers to rewrite the measure collaboratively.

Public comment was heavily critical of the amendment as drafted. Parents, early‑care educators, tenant and neighborhood groups and former school‑board members said the proposed charter language was rushed, risked legal challenges, and could reduce community accountability or concentrate power in the mayor’s office. Several commenters urged delaying the measure to avoid a low‑turnout primary ballot and to allow more inclusive engagement, citing Lunar New Year and outreach gaps in District communities.

A smaller set of speakers — including a union political director and a few housing and student advocates — urged adoption or said the city should use every available tool to shore up the district. Legal concerns about potential litigation were raised by speakers who said they had consulted attorneys.

The committee’s clerk and members noted the controller’s earlier fiscal estimate: creating a new oversight commission would cost roughly $350,000 a year. The committee did not adopt the charter language at this meeting and will revisit the issue only after proponents pursue wider consultation and redrafting.