On City College ...

The San Francisco Community College District has been a mess for years, driven by a culture of secrecy and backroom deals that's damaged its reputation and its ability to provide quality education to a growing number of students. Now, with three college board members up for reelection, the district is up to its old tricks: the board has quietly shifted $25 million in bond money that was supposed to go for a performing arts center over to the athletic department, where it will go for a fancy new gym. And now there's a proposal to cut a deal with the private Lick-Wilmerding High School to allow it to use the facilities in exchange for payments the district estimates will yield $14 million over 25 years. That money won't even go to the cash-starved district: it would wind up in a private foundation controlled by the athletic department.

The whole thing stinks, and the board should reject it. It's also a good indication of why the board so desperately needs to put the district under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance.

The bond money is part of a $195 million bond act voters passed in 2001. The language on the ballot clearly outlined what the money would go for. Now, three years later, the board has decided to shift the money around – and if that's even legal, it's terrible policy.

It's worse still when you look at how the whole deal is going down. Lick-Wilmerding, a private school that charges $23,600 a year in tuition, would wind up with access to athletic facilities that were built with public tax dollars. So public school students, neighborhood residents, and the rest of the San Francisco community that'll be paying off the bonds for the next 30 years may well have to wait in line while private school students use the Olympic-size pool and all-weather practice fields near the Phelan Avenue campus.

The estimated $14 million Lick-Wilmerding would cough up to the district wouldn't go to pay off the bonds. It wouldn't go to create more English-as-a-second-language classes. It wouldn't go to pay part-time teachers a decent wage or to hire more desperately needed counselors. It would go into a facilities enhancement fund for the gym, essentially a slush fund the athletic department could spend however it chooses, with no oversight from the elected college board.

Back in 2001 we told the board and the chancellor we wouldn't support a bond act for the college unless the board would put itself under the sunshine law. Slowly, grudgingly, board members have been working with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force to come up with an acceptable arrangement. But what the district seems to be willing to accept is limited. And this sort of sleazy deal-making was exactly what we were worried about when we reluctantly endorsed the bond act. If the board wants another dime of local taxpayer money, it must immediately adopt a measure legally binding the college district to abide by all relevant provisions of the sunshine law – and that legislation must specifically apply to the new foundation, the Lick-Wilmerding deal, and any other auxiliary money pots or public-private partnerships the district gets involved in.

Trustee Julio Ramos deserves immense credit for blowing the whistle on this scam, and only he and Milton Marks III had the integrity to oppose the transfer of money. Natalie Berg and Rodel Rodis, who are both up for reelection, supported it – and they need to be asked about it and forced to account for it everywhere they go on the campaign trail. This fiasco should be a major issue in the campaign – and anyone who supports the second part of the deal, the Lick-Wilmerding contract, which comes up for a vote in late September or October, should be targeted for defeat.

... the SFUSD ...

Superintendent Arlene Ackerman has made great strides in reducing waste and corruption in the San Francisco Unified School District. She's brought in the Federal Bureau of Investigation and sued contractors. The schools are getting better too. So why is she so against putting the SFUSD under the Sunshine Ordinance? It makes no sense and isn't good for Ackerman or the district.

Three school board members, Mark Sanchez, Eric Mar, and Sarah Lipson, have introduced a resolution that would direct the superintendent to abide by the sunshine law – and would end the ridiculous and intimidating gag order that keeps district staffers from talking openly to the press and public. The board should adopt the resolution without delay.

We recognize public schools have unique issues, particularly involving the rights of minors. But the resolution specifically exempts student records and anything else that would compromise student privacy or conflict with the state Education Code. The aim of the resolution, the sponsors tell us, is primarily to make sure the public knows where all the district's money is going and how policies are being carried out. It's particularly important now that the city is going to be giving as much as $60 million a year from the General Fund to the schools.

Already, some Ackerman supporters are denouncing this as an attack on her (see Letters, page 6). But in an era when there's far too much distrust in government, asking a school superintendent to recognize that she runs a public agency, which has to operate openly, isn't damaging to the school district. It's exactly what SFUSD needs – and will save the cash-starved schools money in the short and long run.

... and the city attorney

City Attorney Dennis Herrera sent us a formal letter Aug. 27 (click to view page 1, page 2) reasserting what his spokesperson, Matt Dorsey, had told us last month: he believes he has the right to privately, unilaterally determine that a city document isn't a public record – and then dispatch his deputies to help keep it secret. This violates the letter and spirit of the Sunshine Ordinance, and the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force should immediately call hearings on the issue.

The issue came up as the result of a request by Bay Guardian reporter Matthew Hirsch, who wanted the résumés of candidates for the top job at the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. Hirsch wanted to demonstrate that Mayor Gavin Newsom was determined to appoint a pro-Pacific Gas and Electric Co. executive to the job, no matter what the qualifications of other applicants.

Herrera's office secretly decided those résumés should never be released, and a deputy helped the Mayor's Office fight off Hirsch's request – helping protect PG&E's control over the PUC.

If the scandal over Secretary of State Kevin Shelley's campaign cash demonstrates anything, it's that public money has to be carefully tracked – and the pubic schools, the college district, and the Mayor's Office can't be allowed to shut up whistle-blowers and keep crucial records secret. The city attorney should be promoting that policy, not subverting it.