San Francisco school officials used money voters approved for classroom and other facilities’ improvements to pay $525,000 in attorney fees to fight a lawsuit over the fate of a controversial Depression-era mural. The spending is now under review by an official oversight committee.
The district’s Citizens Bond Oversight Committee, a statutorily mandated watchdog group, is currently looking at whether the district properly spent Proposition A funds, which were authorized by voters in 2016 to upgrade, modernize or build school facilities.
The committee’s interim chairman, Rex Ridgeway, said he doesn’t believe bond money meant to ensure safe and modern schools should have covered the cost of a lawsuit over the mural.
“I want them to put the money back,” Ridgeway said. “They’ve been using this as a slush fund as far as I’m concerned.”
District officials pulled the money from the bond program rather than using the General Fund, which covers salaries, classroom costs and other operating expenses at school and district offices. Yet, the school board was forced to make significant cuts in that fund to cover a $125 million deficit this upcoming school year.
The oversight committee’s concerns are the latest in a three-year saga related to the Washington High School mural, which features the life of the country’s first president, including images of slaves working in fields and white settlers stepping over a dead American Indian.
The controversial issue was among several facing the board in recent years, resulting in parents, community members and elected officials supporting a recall and deriding the lack of public trust in the district.
The school board, with three new members appointed by Mayor London Breed, has vowed to work on restoring that trust, putting the academic and emotional well-being of students at the top of the priority list, rather than the previous board’s focus on covering murals, renaming schools and changing Lowell High School’s enrollment process.
Yet the repercussions of those previous decisions remain.
The oversight committee was expected to vote Wednesday on whether to accept the findings of a Prop. A bond audit, which would certify the proper use of bond expenditures, including the legal costs associated with the mural. That vote was postponed until the group’s next meeting on Aug. 3.
A vote denying approval of the audit would be largely symbolic. The oversight committee, while mandated by state law, doesn’t have the authority to address misuse of bond funds, but it could seek outside legal guidance or refer the issue to city or state officials, Ridgeway said.
District officials argue the use of bond money for the legal costs was appropriate because the mural is a part of a school building and “caused psychological harm to students,” and therefore presents a health and safety risk, said the district’s general counsel Danielle Houck, in a March letter to the oversight committee and school board. The bond program allows for remediation of health and safety risks as well as interior modifications, she said.
Yet it’s unclear whether current school board members will resurrect an effort to cover up the mural despite their legal counsel’s assertion that it is a health and safety risk.
Board President Jenny Lam did not respond to requests for comment.
The mural controversy dates back to 2019, when the school board, which then included three members recalled earlier this year, voted to paint over the Depression-era mural, before changing course and deciding to cover it with panels or curtains instead of destroying it.
The school’s alumni association sued, claiming the district failed to follow state environmental impact laws, and a judge agreed.
The district launched an appeal, but decided earlier this year to settle the suit, which included rescinding all votes on the mural and paying the $345,000 of the alumni group’s legal costs.
In addition to covering plaintiff costs, the district also used bond money to pay the $180,000 it spent on a legal firm to represent it in the lawsuit.
While the money spent on attorneys is a small part of the $744 million Prop. A bond program, “a pimple on an elephant’s back,” it’s the principle of it, Ridgeway said.
Ridgeway said he has not seen empirical evidence of psychological harm and that the district is relying on public comment during school board meetings from parents or students, who said the images caused trauma.
“I’m not saying I’m not for correcting wrongs; I’m a Black man,” he said. “But is it a proper use or improper use of bond funds for the construction rehabilitation of these school buildings? My position is no.”
District officials have acknowledged the school facility needs across the city are vast, with parents complaining of falling ceiling tiles, uneven pavement on playgrounds, unreliable heating and other issues.
The board is expected to consider putting a $1 billion facilities bond on the ballot in 2023, requiring the support of 55% of voters.
Currently, property owners pay about $25 per $100,000 in assessed value to repay the Prop. A bond, in addition to costs related to previous school bonds approved by voters in 2006 and 2011.
Mission District resident and attorney Greg Chopskie said the school district has lost the public’s trust and he would like to see the bond oversight committee hire independent counsel to provide guidance on the legal costs related to the mural.
“In the last few weeks, we’ve discovered that hundreds of thousands of dollars of Prop. A money has been used to cover SFUSD legal bills on pet projects of former commissioners and the former superintendent,” he said. “That money was supposed to be used to fix schools, not pay lawyers.”
Jill Tucker is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: jtucker@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @jilltucker
"used" - Google News
July 07, 2022 at 05:39AM
https://ift.tt/xX6Yg3I
SF school district used $525000 aimed at facility improvements to pay for legal fight over controversial mural - San Francisco Chronicle
"used" - Google News
https://ift.tt/Cw1vfjz
https://ift.tt/WFJw8Ku
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "SF school district used $525000 aimed at facility improvements to pay for legal fight over controversial mural - San Francisco Chronicle"
Post a Comment