HEAT CCSF Collective Gives a "Report Card" That Flunks the CCSF Board of Trustees

HEAT CCSF Collective Gives a "Report Card" to the CCSF Board of Trustees

San Francisco HEAT Higher Education Action Team and the CCSF Collective present their Report Card on the performance of the San Francisco City College Board of Trustees.

For more information
SFCityCollegeHEAT [at] gmail.com

HEAT Higher Education Action Team and the CCSF Collective
We are sad to be issuing this report card on CCSF’s Board of Trustees. As a teacher, I hate failing anyone. But the board of trustees, by mostly going along with and approving the policies of the administration have failed this institution.

The board failed CCSF by hiring Rocha as chancellor over the objections, based on his record, of many in the CCSF community.
Last November, Rocha claimed, once again, there was a budget deficit. He used the claimed deficit as an excuse to suddenly cut some 300 classes from the 2020 Spring term. There was a grassroots effort to gain emergency funding of around $2.7 million from the city to restore some 300 cut classes. Rocha, claiming the support of the board, sent an email to the mayor and supervisors discouraging this funding that ended up being approved by 7 of 11 supervisors, but vetoed by the mayor.

Like to provide the bigger picture of what has been happening: According to the state chancellor’s figures, in the school year 2011-12 90,352 students enrolled at CCSF.

In year 2019-20, enrollment was 55,070— This represents a decline of over 39% despite San Francisco having a bigger population.
With the pandemic, this decline in students has accelerated. In the fall of 2019, there were, according to administration figures 38,957 students. This term, there are 26,891—more than 12,000 fewer students.

There have been comparable declines in the number of faculty. In 2011 there were 1,810. As of August 2020 there are 1,063 with full, time faculty declining from 810 to 538. At the same time, the number of administrators have increased from 40 in 2011, 47 in 2017 and 56 in 2018, increasing by 9 in Rocha’s first year. They were paid more than $27,000 over the state average.

Despite the expectation of greater revenue in January, before the pandemic, that included a cost of living increase and funding for growth, the administration planned to cut some 800 classes for the upcoming school year and eliminate 250 part-time faculty positions. With the unanimous approval of the Board, the Fort Mason campus was recently closed to save money which may end up adding to the college’s deficit due to the way the state provides funding. They will presumably soon be closing the Civic Center rented facility.

At the same time, with the board’s approval, they plan to pay consultants over $4.4 million and to increase expenditures on lawyers by over more than $950,000 from $197,000 spent in 2018-19.

All of these cuts take away from the educational opportunities of students. Given that most students are working class and lower-middle class students of color, these cuts are reinforcing classism and structural racism.

What we hope to do is to explain why this is happening and the negative impact these declines are having on student educational opportunities, and that the two incumbents running, Shanell Williams and Tom Temprano do not deserve to be re-elected.
Failure of the CCSF Board of Trustees to protect City College.
According to the California Ed Code, the most essential duty of an elected community college board of trustees is to protect their
college from forces, especially those with political motives, that would diminish the college's primary goal.

Since the 1960s, when the California Community College system was established, this goal has been to support the ability for all members of the adult community to be able to enroll in a balanced post- secondary institution with a curriculum of courses and programs which meets their interests, needs and requirements. This includes classes that enhance the quality of their lives as well as those taken to increase job skills or to tranfer for more advanced degrees.

During recent years, there have been several outside forces that have attacked City College. During this time the CCSF Board of Trustees has not fulfilled its primary duty of protection. Of course, this was not the fault of the Trustees during what was proven in two courts of law to be an illegal State takeover of City College from 2012 to 2017. The CCSF Board was illegally overruled and even disbanded at various points during those years. The college constituents and community fought hard to successfully have the trustees fully reinstated.

However, since then, the majority on the Board has not shown the necessary leadership to bring the college back to where it was when it was selected a little over 10 years ago as one of the 11 best Community Colleges in the nation---- the only one from California to receive that award.
--------
The Board has not recently effectively guarded and protected the College against such outside forces as:

1• an increased number of private and City developers who are taking over City College property and property that served CCSF such as the Balboa Reservoir, which had been leased to the College for the needs of students since 1946.

2• the State Chancellor's Office which is pushing to reduce CCSF to a Junior College through over-emphasizing the student funding formula imposed by the Koch family's ALEC legislation in California. Its goal is to have CCSF be part of a much smaller California Junior College system run by the State like the UC and CSU systems

3• the Lumina Foundation, whose "Guided Pathways " program promotes reducing class offerings to only those leading narrowly to what it calls "the completion agenda", with an emphasis on full-time students only. This agenda has been the driving force behind the current horrific $1,700,000,000,000 trillion dollars of national student debt. Lumina is a foundation created by student loan companies which have in large part created the student debt mostly generated by full-time students. Coincidence?

4• San Francisco political agencies including such entities as the Mayor’s Office, the Board of Supervisors and the PUC which are constantly making demands against the interests of City College as a whole and its students, the large majority of whom are from culturally diverse communities.
-----
City College must be allowed to fulfill its proper educational goals , promises and commitments to the community without local, state or national threats against its legal rights and authority to do so. The community elects a Board of Trustees who is expected to fulfill its first duty to protect the 'people's college' , and to make sure that the admonition "students first" is truly and appropriately maintained.
Madelyn Mueller, Chair San Francisco City College Department of Music

The City College Aircraft Technicians Maintenances program (AMT) Rents a 35 thousand sq. foot hanger at the airport.

In a September 21st town hall meeting about the Evens center, Alberto Vasquez of the colleges Facilities and planning department announced that the college had lost its lease and the Airport program would be moving to the Evans center and would be squeezed in with the other programs that are already at Evans.
The Evans center houses a lot of the colleges CTE programs such as Automotive, construction trades, custodial, Welding and it is also home of “The City Build program”, a second chance program that helps the city’s unemployed get construction jobs. All of these programs provide good living wage jobs to city residents. Before the Town Hall announcement, the programs at EVANs already had space issues, with many of the programs sharing different spaces at different times. In the past we have managed to work this out but should this move go ahead one of the city build instructors, has stated that will have to leave.

The airport move will take a big space upstairs in Evans for their jet engines and all of the motorcycle, HVAC, piper fitters, metal fabrication and some of the welding spaces. This is about 7000 sq feet which is about a third of the available lab space at the Evans center.

On top of this there are many environmental concerns including, jet engine and riveting noise, small lead petrol aircraft engines being run and the move also needs to be approved by the FAA. In spite of this the college is planning to go ahead with the move which is expected to cost half a million dollars. In fairness to the aircraft program and its director Kenny Verbeckmoes, they do not want to move into less than 20 % of the space they now have and in the process push out good existing programs.

A real estate report presented to the City College Board of trustees on May 5 of this year, stated that the college was in talks with the SFO management and had a verbal commitment to a two year extension to their lease at the airport while they looked for a new area at the airport. It stated there was talks with United Airlines for a sub ground lease at their Maintained facility, for a planned 20 million dollar building for the AMT program.

So this leads me to many questions because this is a disaster and does not make sense:

With a moratorium by the City on commercial evictions due to the pandemic why are they our landlord evicting CCSF from the airport?
What happened to the planned 20 million dollar new building and 2 year extension and why can it not go forward as planed?

Why is the Evans center located in one of the most underserved communities of the city having all its trade programs downsized and diluted and expected to absorb this Iceberg of a program?
Stephen Brady Automotive instructor CCSF Evans Center.
CCSF Trustees Report Card — Responding to the Community
There are two things to discuss today. City College failed to support its claims about using best practices for public meetings during the pandemic, and the Trustees admitted they were violating the law in handling public comments at their meetings, agreed to fix the problem in January but then, after only three months, went back to their old ways.

Anyone who wants to attend a meeting of the City College Board of Trustees during the pandemic and make public comments will see this notice:

“Institutions across the country have been working to ensure public meetings can be conducted effectively and respectfully in virtual formats.

To that end, state and national best practices have been developed regarding public comment. In line with these best practices, CCSF is requiring all requests for public comment be submitted [in writing] to publiccomment [at] ccsf.edu[or by phone to 669.444.1266] 30 minutes prior to the meeting start time.”

On September 11, I submitted a public records request to learn what the College based these claims on. I had already written to the chancellor’s chief-of-staff to find out about their research. They told me that “Board President Williams worked with staff and surveyed other districts and public agencies to establish the protocols, noted above.”
State—national—public agencies—other districts. That sounded rather impressive and resourceful.

So who was responsible for formulating the above statement (“Institutions across the country…”) and having it inserted in the agenda? That question actually was answered--one of the few. When the selection of Dianna Gonzales as the new interim chancellor was revealed on April l, ’20, she soon announced a town hall for April 7. The afternoon of the event, Rachel Howard of BergDavis Public Affairs, a CCSF consultant, was tasked with creating a statement on how to access that evening’s virtual session; it was 98% identical to the version still in use today. As for the numerous questions I raised about the best practices—when the survey was done, by whom and with which districts and public agencies, etc., they were either protected by lawyer-client privilege, disregarded, or exempt from disclosure for a plethora of reasons. In other words, it took a month to discover that the district wouldn’t or couldn’t back up its claims.

More important, the “best practices” only referred to the way of reserving a place in line to deliver public comment. It turns out that other local districts have more generous policies, some not requiring advance notice to make a comment (West Valley-Mission) or giving more time to speak (five minutes at Foothill-De Anza), or being able to make one or more comments during the meeting.

This leads to the more serious complaint about the District limiting the public’s opportunity to participate in Board meetings. The Board of Trustees held a retreat on January 9, before classes began this year. Guy Bryant, a lawyer from AALRR, gave a presentation on the Brown Act and open meeting procedures, as well as other legal issues.

That morning, Trustee Davila spoke of a time when “we had it all the way through”—meaning that public comment had been allowed at a number of places throughout their meetings. You can see this from Board agendas and minutes going back to the early months of 2017. She explained some reasons—greater convenience, minimizing late-night sessions, allowing greater diversity of speakers--why the Board decided to put all the public comment at the beginning of the meeting and people could comment on the specific matters of interest to them. She then wanted to know if that had been a violation of Ed. Code? The lawyer was not shy in setting her straight.

“I would say that the best practice would be to change it to have it [public comment] as the items come up.” (He said it about three times in the next five minutes.)

Bryant: “I would say the best practice is, would be to, if you can—obviously, again it’s your meeting and you’re trying to make sure that you’re getting your business done and if there’s a whole lot of things—but the Ed. Code is pretty clear that it wants you to, if you can, allow for the public to speak when the item is taken up.”
He was even more emphatic when pointing out that this is a provision of the Education Code, which applies particularly to Community Colleges:

“[There’s a similar provision that was] general for other public entities, but Community Colleges section 72121.5* is specific to you guys. And so that’s why [it’s a] best practice that ‘Community College Districts and their subsidiary bodies must allow speakers to be heard as agenda items are taken up.’ ” (*Ed. Code, § 72121.5)

Towards the end of the retreat, Trustee Rizzo commented, “We heard today that we have a problem with the Brown Act by having all of the public comment for items on the agenda at once at the beginning. We heard today that the Brown Act says they need to come up as the items come up. So that’s a problem that we need to fix….”

And fix it they did. During the first three months of 2020, Board agendas showed that public comments were allowed on action items, reports, consent items and closed session agendas, as well as for items not on the agenda. Yes, there were time limits, but suddenly fuller participation was possible. And even after shelter-in-place regulations were in effect, the same agenda structure persisted in March. But in April, the new regime abruptly, with a blatant lack of transparency and no justification, returned to the previous agenda structure, with only limited public comment near the beginning of the meeting. A reservation as now required in advance. (For months, one could not even read one’s own comment.) The Zoom technology makes for a different experience, too.
The Trustees, their thoughts inscrutable, are hidden from view during comments, replaced by a digital clock counting down. The Trustees also seem less accountable than when faculty and students were there in person to observe, and respond. Yet old battles and controversies are not forgotten.

The Trustees in January made it clear that they valued most participants other than those who regularly showed up and were the best informed—City College employees. It’s time to open up the meetings and let those who still observe these lengthy gatherings participate more fully. Follow the Ed. Code and the Brown Act. Be transparent; return to best practices at Board meetings.

According to the REPORT CARD: The Trustees restricted public comments at meetings and violated transparency regulations for public agencies.
Harry Bernstein CCSF Faculty Member and AFT 2121 Member

Class Cuts and Fewer Part Time Instructors
City College of San Francisco’s Board of Trustees has approved the ongoing downsizing of the college.
Despite receiving a level of funding similar to last year (with no cost of living increase,) CCSF’s Board approved a plan that results in some 800 fewer classes for the current school year and the elimination of 250 part-time faculty positions, about one-third of an already smaller number of part-time faculty. Many of those still holding jobs teach a reduced number of classes. These reductions were planned for before the pandemic. (see below)
These cuts, along with the cuts in the Spring 2020 term, result in the reduction of some 1,100 classes depriving students of educational opportunities.

Given that most of CCSF’s students are people of color, the cuts are reinforcing structural racism.
Note: The working conditions of part-time faculty are the higher education version of the gig economy. They have no job security and are paid significantly less than their full-time colleagues even though they are just as qualified.
_____________________
Substantiation: Planned Class Cuts and Lay-offs
Then interim chancellor Dianna Gonzales, now Deputy Chancellor, described the cuts in her message dated May 15, 2020

“Unfortunately, we have had to remove teaching assignments for nearly 250 part-time faculty for the Fall 2020 semester…”
https://www.ccsf.edu/news/chancellors-weekly-message-may-15
A week later, in her May 22, 2020 message to the college community, she wrote,

“Initial work on the 2020-21 academic year schedule was based on a budget of 1200 FTEF [Full-time equivalent faculty,] leading to a reduction of approximately 800 classes…”

https://www.ccsf.edu/news/chancellors-weekly-message-may-22
Gonzales made clear in the board meeting on July 30, 2020 that the cuts had been planned in January before the pandemic despite the anticipation of a cola and additional funding for growth in the budget.

From the video of the July 30, 2020 board meeting, starting at 6:39, Gonzales shows that in January, the budget plan was to make these cuts, described at 6:41:50 as “a considerable reduction [in classes] from the previous year” despite an expected budget for the next year in January that included a cost of living increase and growth.

Video: https://ccsf.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2...
CCSF Budget and 5 Year Plan
Cuts to educational programs were approved by the board when they passed an interim budget in July that provides for paying consultants over $4.4 million and increasing expenditures for legal services by almost $1 million from $196,549 in 2018-19 to $1,158,345 for the 2020-21 school year.
Page 6 https://go.boarddocs.com/.../Budget%20Write%20Up%20July...
At the September 22 meeting of the Budget Committee, each of the four possible budgets in a five year plan anticipates more reductions in faculty expenditure which means more class cuts. Under each, throughout the five years, consultant services expenditures would remain at $4.43 million with legal services expenditures for each year between $460,000 to $960,000 greater each year than in 2018-19.
https://archive.ccsf.edu/.../revised_handouts%20for...

CCSF Student, Faculty and Administration Data
CCSF is being downsized. The downsizing is accelerating during the pandemic.
CCSF Administration Student Enrollment Figures
Fall 2020 Fall 2019 Decline Percent Decline
Credit 20,287 25,045 4,758 23.5%
Non-Credit 6,604 13,912 7,308 52.5%
Total decline 26,891 38,957 12,066 31%
Fall 2020 data as of census, 9/8/20; Fall 2019 data as of census, 9/10/19
https://go.boarddocs.com/.../00Fall%20Census%20Enrollment...
State Chancellor Student Count at CCSF
Annual Fall Term
2011-12 90,352 2011 63,179
2012-13 79,728 2012 58,033 Accreditation crisis began July 2012
2018-19 65,447 2018 43,632
2019-20 55,070 2019 38,256
Total decline in student population from school year 2011-12 until 2019-20 before the pandemic 35,282
For fall terms before pandemic since 2011 until 2019 24,923
start https://datamart.cccco.edu/datamart.aspx click annual/term student count go to or start at
https://datamart.cccco.edu/.../Student_Term_Annual_Count... enter district-wide, san Francisco, annual, check years
CCSF Faculty and Administration Employee Data
Faculty
August 2020 April 2019 Decline
Full-Time 538 613 75
Part-Time 525 884 359
Faculty numbers as of August 2020 pages 12—full-time and page 15--part-time
https://go.boarddocs.com/.../F19SP20%20HIRING%20RPT%20%26...

Faculty numbers as of April 2019 pages 20—full-time and 21—part-time https://archive.ccsf.edu/.../edata-hiring-report-sp18-f18...
State Chancellor CCSF Faculty Count
As of Fall Full Time Part Time
2011 810 1,006
2012 748 898
2018 520 868
2019 549 766
http://employeedata.cccco.edu/headcount_by_district_19.pdf for other years, change the number

State Chancellor CCSF Administrators
Fall 2011 40
Fall 2012 42
Fall 2017 47
Fall 2018 56 average salary $172,620 Average State Salary $142,497
September 2019 55
For 2019 state chancellor figure is wrong. see with 10% salary increase
https://go.boarddocs.com/.../Revised%20Recommended...
Fir other years http://employeedata.cccco.edu/avg_salary_18.pdf see link for faculty count

Failure of the CCSF Board of Trustees to protect City College.
According to the California Ed Code, the most essential duty of an elected community college board of trustees is to protect their
college from forces, especially those with political motives, that would diminish the college's primary goal. Since the 1960s, when the California Community College system was established, this goal has been to support the ability for all members of the adult community to be able to enroll in a balanced post- secondary institution with a curriculum of courses and programs which meets their interests, needs and requirements. This includes classes that enhance the quality of their lives as well as those taken to increase job skills or to tranfer for more advanced degrees.

During recent years, there have been several outside forces that have attacked City College. During this time the CCSF Board of Trustees has not fulfilled its primary duty of protection. Of course, this was not the fault of the Trustees during what was proven in two courts of law to be an illegal State takeover of City College from 2012 to 2017.

The CCSF Board was illegally overruled and even disbanded at various points during those years. The college constituents and community fought hard to successfully have the trustees fully reinstated.

However, since then, the majority on the Board has not shown the necessary leadership to bring the college back to where it was when it was selected a little over 10 years ago as one of the 11 best Community Colleges in the nation---- the only one from California to receive that award.
--------
The Board has not recently effectively guarded and protected the College against such outside forces as:

1• an increased number of private and City developers who are taking over City College property and property that served CCSF such as the Balboa Reservoir, which had been leased to the College for the needs of students since 1946.

2• the State Chancellor's Office which is pushing to reduce CCSF to a Junior College through over-emphasizing the student funding formula imposed by the Koch family's ALEC legislation in California. Its goal is to have CCSF be part of a much smaller California Junior College system run by the State like the UC and CSU systems

3• the Lumina Foundation, whose "Guided Pathways " program promotes reducing class offerings to only those leading narrowly to what it calls "the completion agenda", with an emphasis on full-time students only. This agenda has been the driving force behind the current horrific $1,700,000,000,000 trillion dollars of national student debt. Lumina is a foundation created by student loan companies which have in large part created the student debt mostly generated by full-time students. Coincidence?

4• San Francisco political agencies including such entities as the Mayor’s Office, the Board of Supervisors and the PUC which are constantly making demands against the interests of City College as a whole and its students, the large majority of whom are from culturally diverse communities.

-----
City College must be allowed to fulfill its proper educational goals , promises and commitments to the community without local, state or national threats against its legal rights and authority to do so. The community elects a Board of Trustees who is expected to fulfill its first duty to protect the 'people's college' , and to make sure that the admonition "students first" is truly and appropriately maintained.

Candidates for CCSF's Board of Trustees were asked to respond to the report card. Below are the statements by six candidates.
As a college professor and former senior university administrator, I wholeheartedly agree with your report card grades and support your endeavor to elect better leadership for the Community College Board.

The current Trustees have failed our community with year-after-year of poor fiscal management, the politization of an education board, and the privatization of our college. Their egregious choices have now bankrupted City College, placed our accreditation at-risk (again), and caused for the unnecessary suffering of thousands of students, and that was all prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Count on me to make the right decisions and never repeat their mistakes.
Victor Olivieri
________________________
Protecting educational opportunity and student access during the pandemic, putting students first, and responding to the community are critical components in ensuring that City College of San Francisco is thriving.

Unfortunately, the Board of Trustees has failed to successfully execute and address these critical components for our college community. Although the Board of Trustees has brought in some resources to the college, such as securing Free City and the facilities bond, new leadership on the Board is needed to ensure greater transparency and accountability, along with an unwavering commitment to finding community-oriented solutions.
-Aliya Chisti
________________________
Your report card rating the performance of the CCSF Board of Trustees identifies specific issues under each category that I have addressed in a variety of public formats including endorsement interviews, community meetings, Board meetings, and press conferences. These issues resonate with San Franciscans who raise them if I have not had the opportunity to raise them myself.
I am running because I hope to be a member of a Board of Trustees that will address the issues. Perhaps working together we can raise our grade point average to at least satisfactory while we aim for an A.
Anita Martinez
___________________________
I agree that on all important metrics current City College Trustees earn an “F.” But this is not surprising. The outcome (a failing institution) is perfectly correlated to the input (a Board of politicians lacking relevant experience). I will bring A+ expertise, independence and 22+ years of Board experience to CCSF, ensuring it survives and thrives. I will work tirelessly to ensure that the CCSF Board hires a permanent chancellor, balances the budget (not just with fiscal discipline, but with creative revenue-generating opportunities), opens the lines of communication with students and faculty, and commits to operating with transparency.
-Marie Hurabiell
________________________
The report card shows the many ways in which the Board has neglected the people that elected them. I am running because the last-minute cuts harmed thousands of teachers and students — my classmates — and yet the Board made these changes with no warning, limited ability of the public to comment, and zero accountability. We all know there will be hard decisions ahead: the budget is in bad shape, and enrollment and funding are falling. But I will pledge, as Trustee, to listen to stakeholders, be transparent about the Board's plans, and be a responsible steward of City College.
Jeanette Quick ?婕安
___________________________
Reading the Trustees Report Card was distressing. As a Candidate for CCSF Board and an ally to the CCSF Collective and HEAT, I take this evaluation seriously.
The Board has failed to put students first. Trustees must value students and faculty. The current Board’s inability to represent students who depend on CCSF and ensure their success risks the institution’s accreditation.
The challenges of solving CCSF’s systemic issues are daunting but not impossible. Action is required. Returning City College to the high academic standards needed to serve its students, faculty, and communities should be the priority of any CCSF Board Candidate.
Geramye Teeter
___________________________________________
The two incumbents seeking re-election, Shanell Williams and Tom Temprano, did not respond to the report card. Two other candidates, Han Zou and Alan Wong, also failed to respond. Temprano is Supervisor Mandelman's chief of staff, Zou is an aide to Supervisor Haney and Wong is an aide to Supervisor Mar.
When CCSF student organizations hosted a candidates' forum on September 23, these four candidates did not participate. Only Williams responded to their invitation by letting them know she could not participate because she had another meeting to attend.
Neither incumbents seeking re-election, Williams or Temprano, were endorsed by CCSF's faculty union, AFT 2121.
An Open Letter Regarding The CCSF Board Of Trustee Elections
https://www.ccsfcollective.org/open-letter-regarding-the...
When student organizers were planning the City College of San Francisco (CCSF) Board of Trustees Candidates Forum, our intention was to finally get answers from people running for positions that will allow them to make the highest decisions for CCSF. We did not want any fluff.

We wanted commitments to ongoing advocacy efforts, and we wanted them to address the current practices of the trustees and administration. We want actions right now, before the elections. We want trustees who will act and respond, and be present. Noticeably, incumbents Shanell Williams, Tom Temprano, and their slate mates Han Zou and Alan Wong were absent.

To plan the Forum, we collaborated with student organizers from the Black Student Union, the Disabled Students Program and Services, the Interdisciplinary Studies Department, the CCSF Facilities Committee, CCSF PUSO, CCSF4All, the John Adams Associated Students Council, and the CCSF Collective, as well as the African American Studies Department Ambassador and the Student Trustee.

It was motivating to hear candidates Anita Martinez, Geramye Teeter, Jeanette Quick, Aliya Chisti, and Victor Olivieri--the candidates who did show up at the Forum--agree to organize a town hall addressing the current board, even more so when they agreed to write resolutions in support of the Black Student Union, the Affirmative Action Task Force, and the Philippine Human Rights Act.

As the US elections approach with threats to all we value, including racial justice, food security, and immigrant rights, we cannot afford to gamble with the future of our public education. The CCSF trustees have a direct impact on student lives. Ask the African American Studies Department students who still do not have their elected chair in a full-time position, Fort Mason students who lost their entire campus,
Southeast Campus students who did not have any classes, immigrant non-credit ESL students who experienced daunting registration issues and who suffered from deep cuts to their department. Ask all students who are waiting for the College to post an official statement from CCSF in support of Black Lives Matter.
We, as students and active community members, know exactly what is happening at our school. We know the performance of the current Board of Trustees, what downturn our school has undergone in the last four years, and what we are looking for when we vote for the four open seats on the Board of our College.
We are being told to vote like our lives and futures depend on it. This November, it does. City College’s and our future depends on every single vote cast in the next month. We need your help to elect the right people, people who actually care to show up now for students.

We need candidates like Anita Martinez who has been a CCSF faculty member, a union organizer and president, and who comes with leadership experience at two other Bay Area community colleges. There are also other candidates who have actually shared specific ideas, plans, and have not skated by on political campaign rhetoric.

Incumbents Shanell Williams and Tom Temprano voted to give Chancellor Mark Rocha a golden parachute though he left the College in disarray. They voted to close the Fort Mason campus. They allowed the gutting of the Older Adult program at CCSF. They stood by while the non- credit ESL program suffered egregious cuts. They hired expensive consultants, and they neglected financial governance/transparency by not hiring a budget analyst/Chief Financial Officer for the entire 2019-2020 school year. The current board and candidates seeking re-election must be held accountable for their votes and decisions.

We at City College are tired of aspiring politicians using our beloved educational institution as a stepping stone. We want trustees who will show up for us. Now and in the future.
-CCSF Collective members Jess Nguyen & EK