« Citizens Committee Gives its Views on Superintendent Search | Main | Select Committee Notes 4.12.07 »

March 21, 2007



The folowing paragraph is unclear:

Numerous members of the community ........."The amount of money is too high,........This year's Prop. H spending plans calls for $250,000 in in-kind services, one-tenth of that in the resolution for next year. Smith was outraged ........

What does "amount of money is too high," refer to?
What does "one-tenth of that in the resolution for next year," refer to?

It is not clear from the article exactly what was proposed and what the expectations where. Why was someone "outraged?" I do not get it.

Terence Abad

Just a quick correction -- Commissioner Maufus was in attendance for the entire meeting Tuesday evening of the Budget and Business Services Committee.


The city Prop. H plan for this year calls for $250,000 of the amount allocated to SFUSD to be in in-kind services. The Sanchez resolution says $2.5 million can be in in-kind services, for the following year. So that's what the 1/10 refers to.

The community members (Prop. H Committee Members and others) who spoke -- plus a multitude of others -- felt passionately that $2.5 million in in-kind services is too high; that the amount allowed to be provided in in-kind services should be lower and more of the stipulated allocation provided in actual funds. So that's what that referred to.

Community members, committee members, parents, advocates and others are outraged because the city is trying to get away with providing less to our children than it's supposed to, and less than the voters called for.

It's wrong for the city to treat this like a labor or legal negotation, where the smart thing to do is fight hard to give your adversary as little as possible. In this case, the "adversary" is our community's children, and that's who would lose if the Board of Supervisors "won" the fight.

The attempt to define pre-existing "in-kind services" as fulfilling the letter and spirit of Prop. H is fraudulent and wrong. In addition, the definition of "in-kind services" is wrong too. The city is attempting to define all kinds of services provided to the community's children that are not education-related as "in-kind services to the schools." That's not right. Health care, mental health, nutrition, social services, safety, policing, gang andviolence prevention -- and even transportation -- are NOT "in-kind services to the schools." Those are services the community provides to the community's children.

So I hope this clarifies why parents, educators and children's advocates are fired up about this. The city is trying to get away with providing less than its obligation to the children of our community.


Thank you for the clarification.
How can the city define not-education-related services as in-kind, makes no sense?

I can see if the city pays for a nurse to visit school sites (are am i dating myself?) or if they pay for utilities to school buildings, that would be okay.

But if Jimmy is streesed out because he couldn't call a crime prevention hotline and starts to become anorexic and trips on a pothole and a policeman spots him and thinks he is a gang member because he is wearing a headband and ends up taking MUNI to General emergency room, is that in-kind service(s) too, assuming Jimmy attends SFUSD?

What about non-SFUSD children, are kids going to private schools in SF, are their trips to General also going to be in-kind out of the Prop H funds?

And who would keep accounting of this, I ask rhetorically?

Yes, I DO get it now, thanks.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Subscribe for updates to SF school board notes

September 2007

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29