SFUSD is a public agency with a budget of more than $1 billion, governed by extensive rules meant to protect public money, public trust, and our children. And because it is a public body, its Board is required to conduct its business in the open.
That openness is the very point of a Board meeting.
SFUSD’s consent calendar is meant to be the one narrow exception: the place on every governance meeting agenda where routine, noncontroversial business items are grouped as a single consent agenda item. This is supposed to consist of items that are so routine the Superintendent does not even expect the board to discuss them — this allows them to vote to approve them all as a package.
When the Superintendent and the Board President bury controversial items in the consent calendar, they hide behind the illusion of regular order. And that eats away at the protections our children rely on.
But the SFUSD consent calendar has become the place where the Board President buries contentious items he doesn’t want discussed in public– except that the consent calendar rarely passes peacefully.
Instead, we see our famously long, predictably agonizing meetings that erupt whenever community members feel ambushed by inappropriate, buried consent items. Large blocs of angry voters mobilize en masse from both sides of the issue, lining up at the microphone, antagonizing each other, and expressing their rage and frustration through hours of public comment as the Board and Superintendent sit at the dais looking dazed and uninformed.
It’s like watching Wile E. Coyote step on a rake — over and over and over.
This is similar to the kinds of governance self-sabotage that Mayor Lurie’s recent charter reform measures fought against and won by large margins for City Hall. Too bad we don’t have that kind of moral courage at 555 Franklin.
Agenda item E-66 for the November 17, 2026 draft agenda is the latest such case in point.
This is a controversial item involving a contractor linked to the partisan Arab Resource and Organizing Center (AROC) that deserves to be discussed. Being contested, the item automatically fails the California School Boards Association’s (CSBA) three-part bylaw test for consent items (BB 9322): (1) that they be routine; (2) that no Board discussion is anticipated; and (3) that the Superintendent agrees with and recommends their approval.
Placing E-66 on consent was a deliberate choice by the Board President, hoping to avoid public notice or discussion of what was going on.
Surely this time would be different, right…?
Here’s what President Phil Kim is asking you to accept as responsible school district oversight:
- A controversial program restarted in SFUSD schools back in July before it even had a signed MOU; it has been operating in expanded form on seven school sites without oversight.
- AROC has provided high school students with AROC-branded hoodies that celebrate antisemitism; these hoodies have been seen and documented on campus at multiple school sites as recently as November 10, causing students to feel unwelcome and unsafe.
- At least three outside organizations are involved in this MOU, some quite controversial, and at least two of which have not been vetted by the district as providers; it is unclear which of these organizations is running the ongoing student-facing program.
- There has been no review, approval, or oversight of the proposed curriculum.
- The requirement that three providers be considered for the program has not been followed.
That is not the definition of a routine item.
And it’s certainly not effective governance.
This is not some minor procedural quibble. It’s the kind of after-the-fact, cover-of-darkness business practice that regularly gets SFUSD into the mess we are in.
Contested items placed on the consent calendar weaken school governance.
They abuse discretion.
And they harm students.
The consent calendar has become a pig in a poke: a one-line title on the agenda, a vote with no discussion, and no chance to have it explained or debated before its blind spots are unleashed on our children.
Voters across the country have been voting against this kind of abuse of power.
Why are we still accepting this?
And what would real reform require?
In a few weeks, when it convenes, the new Board should adopt four revisions to its Rules and Procedures:
1 – They should adopt clear written criteria in their Rules and Procedures defining what is allowed to be placed on consent.
2 – They should require staff to certify that each item meets these criteria.
3 – They should give the Superintendent or Board President authority to remove an item from consent to the regular agenda before it is published.
4 – Most importantly, they should lower the threshold for pulling a consent item from our current need for two commissioners down to one, as CSBA’s model bylaw contemplates.
Some might argue that the consent calendar exists to save time, but any shred of efficiency vanishes when consent is littered with questionable items. Covering your eyes and peeking through your fingers is no way to restore trust in Board governance.
We need our Board of Ed to do better for our kids.
Clear written criteria, staff certification, and a pre-publication screening step would go a long way toward protecting children, preserving the Board’s ability to deliberate on behalf of our community, and giving the public a more accurate and timely picture of what they are deciding.
We can only hope that the new Board that convenes in January chooses to rebuild public trust in what have become its ridiculous proceedings. For the sake of SFUSD’s students, the new Board needs to rein in these abuses of the consent calendar and stop pretending they are powerless to provide oversight.
