Features

Report: SF school officials misspent tens of millions

The Associated Press
Monday November 12, 2001

SAN FRANCISCO – A newspaper reported Sunday that San Francisco school officials misspent tens of millions during the past 13 years, leaving many schools to wallow in decrepit and unsafe conditions. 

A San Francisco Chronicle investigation found that the district raised $337 million for facility renovations from four voter-approved bond and tax measures. But as much as $68 million of that has instead been funneled toward nonteaching salaries. 

Nearly all the money is now gone and the promised improvements were left unfinished or were never started. 

During a six-month investigation, the newspaper uncovered records showing that the San Francisco Unified School District used as much as $100 million to support a sprawling bureaucracy. The money also went to finance projects that ran far over budget and were not revealed to voters. 

Delaine Eastin, the state’s superintendent of public instruction, called the Chronicle’s findings “a grave injustice against the children of San Francisco.” 

The newspaper traced the beginnings of the mismanagement to former schools Superintendent Ramon Cortines, who persuaded voters to pass the first of the four ballot measures in 1988. He pushed another measure through in 1990, riding on safety concerns following the Loma Prieta earthquake, which had hit six months earlier. 

Under former Superintendent Bill Rojas, the mismanagement grew more widespread with bond measures passed in 1994 and 1997. 

Evidence of the mismanaged funds came out recently, with the appointment of the new superintendent, Arlene Ackerman, in May 2000. Auditors hired by Ackerman have found the district’s Facilities Management Department, which oversees school repair and construction, in utter disarray. 

“Decisions were made that were clearly outside of what voters had approved,” Ackerman said. 

Proposition A, for example, called for asbestos abatement, replacement of wiring and lighting, and general repair of ventilation systems. But a budget memo from June 1988 outlined using $553,000 of the first $4.2 million to pay for nonteaching salaries. 

By the end of the year, the district had created 11 new administrative, engineering and architecture positions. And district payroll expenses eventually consumed $1 out of every $5 raised through tax and bond funds. 

Following the passing, and subsequent mismanagement of funds arising out of Proposition B, there was a snowballing of projects the district could not afford. 

Members of the Board of Education say they were never told about the deficits. 

“I get really upset when I visit schools and see the condition they’re in,” Ackerman said. “You can’t expect children to learn at optimum levels ... in an environment where paint peels from the walls, restrooms don’t work, faucets don’t have water. It’s unacceptable.”