The crisis in our budget deficit is rooted in poor leadership and management—the tragic and avoidable result of years of overspending and kicking the can down the road.

Unfortunately, numerous past and present School Board members and Superintendents have failed to adhere to their financial responsibilities. For example, the District has regularly and knowingly outspent its revenue and repeatedly used one-time funding to pay for recurring expenses. Various Boards and Administrations have ignored financial red flags, supported programs the District could not pay for, and neglected to implement appropriate financial and personnel systems.

There are many specific examples—adopting the EMPower payroll system without appropriate contracts or testing; failing to implement internal audit controls; failing to do a proper audit of property needs; and failing to address or account for declining enrollment, including by adjusting staffing levels or the number of schools, to name just a few. Moreover, Boards and Superintendents have engaged in divisive and distracting controversies over numerous matters, such as school renaming, Lowell admissions, and 8th grade algebra, that have not only consumed time and energy but discouraged many families from enrolling—or staying—in SFUSD.

More recently, the District chose to make investments in pay raises for teachers and other staff—a decision I support—but did so without fully implementing expenditure reductions to pay for these important investments. (The District’s pay raise investments amount to about $95 million this year and an additional $80 million next year.) The legal challenge to the Prop G parcel tax compounded the problem, as it resulted in withholding funding for salary increases, but does not excuse the District’s failure to act responsibly.

SFUSD must provide quality education, meet the needs of each student, and pay its bills. While the Superintendent and Board are starting to address these fundamentals, we have a long way to go after years of irresponsible actions and inactions.

I don’t flatly support or oppose the Resource Alignment Initiative. I agree on the goals of a consistent school staffing model and Central Office reorganization. We have to attract more students and revenue through a commitment to programs that demonstrably improve student outcomes, consolidate where necessary, and obtain revenue from unused properties. But we have to consider the families and futures affected by every decision.

I will insist on full disclosure and real stakeholder participation before deciding whether to support or oppose particular decisions. We can't just cut our way out of this mess, or we will deprive families of the education kids need. Instead, the District should scrutinize every dollar spent for its impact on student well-being and progress, and it should continue to seek funds to support programs that students and families want.

We must close the budget gap, the achievement gap, and the trust gap. Any school closure/consolidation decisions must follow civil rights laws and be fact-based and sensitive to those most affected. In the “after”—whatever that may be—we must support families and teachers whose schools are consolidated and show better outcomes in their new environments. We can't repeat the mistakes, isolation, and learning loss of the pandemic closures.

The best summary of “what the State wants” SFUSD to do is the Fiscal Health Risk Analysis report, which was created by the State’s Financial Crisis & Management Assistance Team (FCMAT). The report is directed to the Superintendent and his team for action. It was also presented to the Board, as the Board oversees the management and implementation of reforms and improvements by the Superintendent and his staff.

The Board’s role is to set clear expectations, ask questions about how the Superintendent and his staff will respond to the recommendations, oversee the implementation efforts, and hold the Superintendent accountable for the results. The Board can also communicate what is happening to the public and reach out for support and expertise to assist the Central Office. 

FCMAT conducted a fiscal health risk analysis, based on the 2023-24 budget, and concluded that the District is at high risk of insolvency in the 2025-26 school year. It found that SFUSD faces tremendous fiscal challenges and identified six areas in particular need of improvement: budget monitoring, cash management, collective bargaining, internal controls, enrollment and attendance, and position control. Very broadly, major points in the report include the following:

• The District’s financial systems—and lack thereof—prevent it from conducting business accurately, efficiently, and effectively. For example, the payroll and HR systems are not part of the financial system, and there is no true position control system.

• The District relies too much on consultants, rather than permanent employees. The District has not had a chief business officer for several years, which has resulted in a lack of leadership, understanding, and proper monitoring of the District’s finances.

• The District needs to improve staff training. For example, only one or two people in the business and finance departments can generate reports that all should be able to generate.

• The District’s perception that it is unique is incorrect; it would benefit from collaborating with local educational agencies in California.

The District does not have the luxury to pick and choose which measures to implement or to delay instituting reforms to subsequent fiscal years. Thus, it is not really a question of prioritizing. Nonetheless, to maximize the likelihood of succeeding on all of the measures, the District can obtain assistance from City staff with budget and fiscal expertise.