Opinion : School Board President Boggess the lone vote to back the likely illegal and racially biased parent advisors slate

Last Tuesday night, at the Board of Education Board Meeting, a Parent Advisory Council presented its suggested slate of new parent advisors. The San Francisco Unified School District lawyers found that the process used had “serious issues” of anti-Asian racial discrimination and other violations of state law and School Board Policy.

Faced with those issues, 6 of the 7 board commissioners voted against the slate. Board President Kevine Boggess did not; the lone vote in support.

The Parents Advisory Council (PAC) advertises itself as a group in service of parents and families: “The PAC was created by the San Francisco Board of Education as a formal way for family perspectives to be included in the district’s decision making process. PAC members actively reach out to engage families in district policy discussions and to represent family concerns to district leaders.” It is a Board-recognized group of volunteer parents who are scheduled to meet monthly and present their findings to the Board of Education regularly.

There are only 5 members currently for a group that has spaces for 15, and they have only met twice this calendar year.

One of their big efforts over the past school year was to increase membership. Apparently a majority of the PAC did not want more Asian- American volunteer parents.

The former PAC Coordinator Michelle Jacques sent a denial email to an applicant with unusual reasoning: “... we received more applicants from our Chinese community than could be accommodated.”

Was the Coordinator saying there was a Chinese quota? There weren’t even enough applicants for all the open seats.

Superintendent Wayne and Board Commissioners received many complaints that certain members of the PAC were biased and maybe illegal in who they chose to advance or deny.

After a review of emails, interviews, and other documents, district legal advisors appeared to agree: “Based on legal counsel’s initial review of the written evidence, it was clear that the complaints had merit.”

District Head of Staff Marin Trujillo sent an email to members of the PAC. He wrote, “Per Education Code 200 and Board Policy 0410 note that ‘district programs, activities, and practices must be free from discrimination on all of the following bases [including] race.’”

He further described that emailing about candidates among members and the Coordinator was a violation of the state Brown Act. In other words, district legal counsel found the slate selection process was likely illegal.

When the PAC wanted to present their chosen illegal slate to the Board of Education last September, then Board President Jenny Lam did not let them.

At the meeting Tuesday night, current Board President Boggess said, “I, as Board President, decided to bring forth the nominations at this point even though there’s a dispute from the recommendation from staff.”

At the meeting’s public comment section, Selena Chu, an Asian-American and a member of the PAC, said, “The majority of the PAC decided to advance this slate and I disagree. I agree with the legal counsel’s findings… I am here today to represent many parents who have complained to me they were shut out.. The process was illegal, not fair, and not transparent.”

Another parent speaking in Cantonese said, “I have two children in the district and I am here tonight to speak about the PAC. It’s forbidding Chinese parents from participating. They have lost their trust.”

If the Board voted to approve the illegally selected parent slate, the school district could have faced an expensive legal lawsuit as well as investigation by state and federal groups who look at racial discrimination.

After the public comments, Board Vice President Lisa Weissman-Ward gave her thoughts and said, “I strongly believe that it is in the best interest of the district, our SFUSD families, all of our students, and the PAC itself to have a functioning and robust PAC that allows for meaningful, diverse and inclusive engagement. We benefit from a PAC that can focus on work that is student- and family-focused. We have been advised there might be Brown violations and legal violations including discrimination and bias in the applicant and review process.”

Weissman-Ward, a trained lawyer, further said, “To be clear, I’m not making personal accusations of bias… Where it’s documented, it’s incumbent upon us to do the work to make sure that the process is not tainted. These concerns were brought to the attention of both the PAC, the former coordinator, and the district many months ago."

"They remain unresolved and…[are] a distraction that the district simply can’t afford. Nor does it benefit our students or improve their learning outcomes in any way,” Weissman-Ward said.

Commissioner Lainie Motamedi spoke next and introduced a motion for a Board vote. She said, “Given the multiple and serious concerns in the lack of clear resolution or process, I respectfully make a motion to table this matter…” 6 of the 7 commissioners understood and voted for Motamedi’s proposal to not approve the slate at the meeting.

Only Board President Boggess voted against that proposal, and, in effect, supported the illegal, racially discriminatory slate. What was his reasoning? He never acknowledged that the selection process was racially discriminatory. He never acknowledged the legal concerns from the Superintendent.

Below is Kevine’s reasoning. In short, he accepted the “feelings” of a few PAC members over a “preliminary investigation” that immediately concluded the process “did not align with our values as a district and directly asked the Board of Education to ratify a slate selection process that had issues around racial discrimination as well as violations of the Brown Act.” (words from district staff memo).

Boggess said, “[Some members of the PAC] felt good about their nomination process…..They actually felt that they did follow the Brown Act and that there were not any discriminatory practices they engaged in as a PAC. And they feel confident in the nominations they brought forth and the process they’ve gone through.”

I was very surprised.