By Tali Woodward

It seemed that the personal tensions on the San Francisco school board couldn't get any more intense. Then board president Dr. Dan Kelly called an emergency meeting Oct. 26 to consider a formal censure of Mark Sanchez, who is part of the board minority that often runs up against Kelly and his allies.

The whole thing traces back to a committee meeting the previous week at which, it's generally agreed, things got a little heated.

A resolution Sanchez wrote about the school reform known as "reconstitution," in which much of a school's staff is replaced all at once, was on the agenda for the Oct. 20 meeting. Board member Heather Hiles, who is allied with Kelly and the other two members who usually support the superintendent, was chairing the meeting – and she decided to put off discussion of the resolution because the attorney most familiar with the issue wasn't available. But she failed to inform Sanchez – or any of the people who'd shown up to speak about reconstitution – until after the committee had spent an hour on other business.

When Hiles finally made her decision public, Sanchez vigorously challenged her. At some point, Hiles, who earlier this year sponsored changes to board rules she said would increase board civility, told him either to "Calm the fuck down" or "Shut the fuck up."

Meanwhile, Sanchez may or may not have hostilely questioned San Francisco Unified School District staff about the postponement. Observers have such varied accounts that it's impossible to figure out what really happened. Many back Sanchez, who told the Bay Guardian, "It was totally professional." But members of the board majority, like Jill Wynns, insist that Sanchez was out of control.

Let's just assume the worst: Hiles cursed, and Sanchez dressed down at least one district staffer. Any other body might regret the incident and try to move on. Not the San Francisco school board.

Instead of letting an embarrassing episode fade into a tiny blip on the screen of its storied dysfunction, the board formalized the bad feelings by taking a vote. Specifically, Kelly called a special meeting, practically on the eve of an election, to consider a formal reprimand – and opened himself up to layered accusations of favoritism, politicking, and vindictiveness.

Kelly's resolution was directed at Sanchez "for his intimidation and angry confrontation with this staff member and with other staff members in the past" and made no mention of Hiles's outburst. With both Sanchez and Hiles on the Nov. 2 ballot, it's hardly a surprise that many people saw it as a last-minute, preelection stunt.

"I know him to be a kind, gentle, and thoughtful man," progressive attorney Randall Knox said of Sanchez at the Oct. 26 meeting. "This appears, by its nature and timing, to be an attempt to discredit a decent public servant."

Kelly claimed that the measure was "not introduced for political reasons" and repeatedly cut the microphone as speakers lashed out at him and his allies. Despite pleas from the public to at least delay a vote until after the election, the board passed the reprimand 4-2 (Sanchez abstained).

Kelly still defends the measure, telling us, "I knew this is a volatile thing to have to do. But boards have to be responsible for their own actions and each others'. It's not appropriate for us to be berating staff in public."

"I'm trying to improve the way we treat the staff that work for us," he added.

At press time, we don't know which of the four board members up for reelection will keep their seats, but whatever the outcome, it's hard to imagine how this reprimand will actually improve relationships.

E-mail Tali Woodward at tali@sfbg.com.