By Cassi Feldman

SUP. LELAND Yee prides himself on being frugal. A flyer for his state assembly campaign claims that Yee "blew the whistle on waste" while on the San Francisco Board of Education. As a city supervisor, he sponsored two laws aimed at tightening oversight on bond spending. When you sit down to talk about his accomplishments, he mentions accountability again and again.

It's a smart move. Not only does it distance him from a school board that's been mired in financial troubles, but it also shifts the blame onto the current board leadership, which happens to include his Democratic primary opponent, Dan Kelly.

In the midst of a recession, it makes sense that anyone running for office in San Francisco's relatively conservative District 12 would emphasize financial prudence. Whoever wins will be pitted against Republican candidate Howard Epstein, who is also touting himself as a cautious spender, to replace Kevin Shelley.

But critics say there is something disingenuous about Yee taking on the watchdog role now rather than during his eight years on the school board.

"It's completely hypocritical because he was there too," Caroline Grannan, a public school advocate and Kelly supporter, said. "He's trying to dissociate himself from something he was clearly up to his ears in."

When a series of audits and news stories found that millions of dollars had been mishandled by the San Francisco Unified School District, fingers started flying. Most of them were pointed at former superintendent Bill Rojas, who resigned in 1999 shortly after state officials started raising questions about his budgeting decisions. In December 2000 the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the district had spent $14.3 million in bond money it didn't have.

If Rojas left the school board a public relations nightmare, Yee seems determined to make it worse. By casting suspicion on the current board, critics say, he could jeopardize much-needed funding (see "Not So Handy Man," 11/21/01).

Current board members told the Bay Guardian they have no problem with oversight, but they question Yee's timing. Although the district's financial woes became glaringly obvious in the late '90s, when Yee was already a supervisor, some of the more questionable practices started years earlier, while Yee was still on the school board.

But that's not how he describes it. "The problems were never as egregious as of late," he said. "Part of the reason they were never as egregious was that there was sufficient oversight and accountability."

In an earlier interview, he even suggested that Kelly entered the assembly race only because Yee challenged the school board's authority. "Their criticism is because I would dare stand up and ask for some sunshine," he said. "It's all because I asked for information."

Yee told us he was always wary of Rojas, and was the single vote against him being hired. "I just didn't think he was qualified," he said. He also called for the first audit on school bond spending back in 1995. Coopers and Lybrand Consulting found that the district didn't have a good system for prioritizing school repairs.

But Jill Wynns, who was on the school board at the time, said that Yee did little with that criticism. "A financial audit doesn't tell you about policy practices," she explained. And although Yee chaired the Building and Grounds Committee that oversaw facilities from 1993-96, she said, he never suggested significant changes.

Both Wynns and Kelly insist that the district's finances are already on the mend. "We [school board members] all ran in the last two elections as reformers calling for accountability," Kelly said. "As soon as we got Arlene hired, we were then able to do full audits and get the books back in order. We were already doing that when Leland took an interest."

If Yee's camp is trying to use the school board scandal to its advantage, then so is Kelly's. And neither has done much to elevate the debate above rumors and intrigue.

Members of Kelly's campaign, for instance, are quick to link Yee to Timothy Tronson, a $1,000-a-day consultant who oversaw school facilities until Superintendent Arlene Ackerman opted not to renew his contract last spring.

In 1998, at Tronson's urging and over the objections of Wynns and Kelly, the district bought an empty building at 333 Grant using $7.8 million from its general fund, only to learn the state wouldn't reimburse the purchase. Tronson's contracting on behalf of the district has also been the subject of scrutiny, according to the Chronicle.

Though Yee was already a supervisor by that time, he still seems to have benefited from his school board ties. In a review of campaign contributions last year, we found that seven companies that have or have had contracts with SFUSD made contributions to Yee's supervisorial campaign. "In business you support the folks that are doing right for the community," said Ed Caillouette, vice president of 3D/International, which donated $200 to Yee's campaign.

But Kelly supporters speculate that the contributions could have had something to do with a perceived relationship between Tronson and Yee. Wynns remembers Yee introducing Tronson as "my guy" at a meeting in the Sunset, the district Yee represents on the Board of Supervisors. In what she saw as one of several attacks on the current board, Yee had organized a town hall meeting to oppose relocating at-risk students from Phoenix High School to the old Sunset elementary. He also opposed plans for a 43-unit subsidized apartment building for teachers in the neighborhood.

Yee told us there weren't enough "support services" in the Sunset to bring in troubled kids. And while he supports the concept of teacher housing, he said, the school board failed to involve the community in their planning process.

As for his relationship with Tronson, Yee maintains that it was purely professional. "Tim Tronson was a staff member, and I had a number of concerns as to how the dollars were being used," he said. "I needed to get answers from the school district."

That may be easier said than done. Yee's campaign manager, Jim Stearns, told us it's hard to accurately compare the candidates without looking at their school board voting records. On Feb. 11, Yee's campaign sent a press release with the headline, "School Board Refuses to Release Dan Kelly Voting Records."

While the press release conveniently fits into Yee's accountability platform, even Helen Chaney, who was employed by Yee's campaign and submitted the original records request, told us it was somewhat exaggerated. The district spokesperson never refused to hand over documents; they just took their time.

"The school district works very diligently to fulfill all public records requests in a timely manner," spokesperson Jackie Wright said. "The district is not trying to keep records from anyone. We had no idea that ... [the] request for all of the minutes and voting records focused on Dr. Kelly and were necessary for Leland Yee's campaign."

Without the records, both sides are relying on memory, and memory can be shaky. Several school board observers we contacted told us they didn't remember who was on which side of specific debates. One source who declined to be named told us she regularly attended school board meetings during Yee's tenure and that both he and Kelly generally supported Rojas; it was Wynns who first started asking questions.