Disregarding information that holding the meeting conflicted with its own rules, the San Francisco Board of Education met Sunday at 9 a.m. to discuss norms of good governance. The meeting, which was announced late Friday afternoon, was held in front of just six members of the public, without any video accessibility or any apparent audio recording.
Despite agreeing only to discuss matters and not to take action, board President Phil Kim set into motion board rules and policy changes that would make it easier to cut off commissioner debate and put pressure on commissioners to reduce the number and types of questions they may ask school district staff. Following recent board meetings that provide examples of ways in which the board can improve its decision-making, its new direction, while intended to improve student outcomes, may make it harder to hold the school bureaucracy accountable and pursue community concerns.
While state law allows public meetings to be held with as little as 24 hours’ notice, School Board Rule 9320 requires 72 hours’ notice “where possible” for such a meeting. The board knew well in advance it would have the meeting and even flew its governance advisor, AJ Crabill, in from the Midwest for it. Nonetheless, board General Counsel Manuel Martinez advised the board it could merely “note” the conflict with board rules and procedures and hold the meeting anyway. The board has separate rules for “emergency” meetings, which this was not.
It is a step forward that the board is acknowledging its governance problems. As advisor Crabill observed, board governance “has improved over the last 10 years, but has flatlined over the past 18 months.” President Kim added that there has been “fire after fire since January, and we can’t keep operating like this.” The board is creating an ad hoc committee on public engagement to be cochaired by Commissioner Parag Gupta, but the committee, and another on how the district monitors student academic progress, will not convene until spring 2026, and will not make recommendations until fall 2026.
In recent weeks, after Superintendent Maria Su ended an ethnic studies curriculum that generated controversy and lacked Board of Education approval, the board attempted to purchase a new “pilot” curriculum at its July 29 meeting — a process that in other districts involves extended educator and community review of the curriculum, formal feedback, and a detailed staff recommendation. The July 29 meeting was marred by procedural errors. As a result, the board has now placed the purchase of the curriculum on the agenda for its next meeting on Aug. 26.
The school board’s new direction may make it harder to hold the school bureaucracy accountable and pursue community concerns.
At the Sunday meeting, commissioners candidly expressed their views of the role of the public. Board Vice President Jaime Huling stated that board meetings “aren’t for or with the public. It is our work in view of the public.” In an attempt to make board meetings both shorter and more efficient, the board has established a process for commissioners to submit written questions to staff about agenda items to be answered in advance. Commissioner Supryia Ray supported use of that process as a vehicle for getting community concerns about agenda items addressed by staff, and considered it an important public service. Commissioner Lisa Weissman-Ward suggested there were other ways to achieve that goal without passing on community questions. Commissioner Matt Alexander added that the staff members believe that commissioners ask “so many annoying questions” and suggested that commissioners would be better served by asking questions at regular nonpublic briefings.
Advisor Crabill praised the board for being “one of the least unprofessional boards we work with” in his national coaching service for local boards of education. He also observed that the board was “not executing basic rules and norms effectively,” including carrying out duties that virtually every other school board in the country has accomplished. He called out the board for spending time at a recent meeting to rename a school gym floor and to recognize National Foster Care Month. On the former, he insisted that the board could honor a respected and dedicated educator, including renaming the facility, outside of a meeting. On the latter, he advised that the board’s time should be devoted to addressing the serious concerns of education and services for foster children and families, rather than proclaiming a month for them.
General Counsel Martinez led the last part of the meeting on Robert’s Rules of Order, which are an integral part of the board’s own rules. Earlier, advisor Crabill noted that following the rules “produces predictability which helps governance” and a “functioning, cohesive school board.” Martinez explained some of the rules, but added that in his 10 years of “doing education law, no school board follows Robert’s Rules. . .The intent of the board is what controls.”
Commissioners expressed themselves with the kind of candor one might expect in an almost closed-door meeting. Legitimacy of elected officials’ actions in a democracy depends on the consent of the governed. There is still time for the community to speak up and speak out about how the board can achieve good governance.
Updated Aug. 26 at 10:22 a.m. to reflect the correct spelling of AJ Crabill.