Bridge Funding Falls Short of Veto-Proof Majority

By Aminah Jalal 


The emergency bridge fund of $2.7 million dollars was approved by a 7-4 vote at the  Board of Supervisors meeting last Wednesday, but failed to get enough votes to avoid a possible veto by Mayor London Breed. 

Various students and faculty groups joined in North Light Court at San Francisco City Hall before the meeting took place last Tuesday to show their support for the vote on the $2.7 million emergency bridge funding to revive cut classes.

All of the board members upheld the common belief that the City College is a significant and vital part of the city, but expressed their worry of how the bridge funding would be used, saying that there must be a big discussion and conversation over the mismanagement of finances by the city college.

Board President Norman Yee expressed his concerns for City College’s management and spending of the money, on the account of the San Francisco Unified School District having trouble with financial management in the past before.

“What I’ve seen over the many years is that City College is unable to manage what they have and get themselves in trouble,” Yee said. “It was difficult during the time the school district was in trouble with the deficits. If we hadn’t made hard decisions at that time to close out certain schools, the school district may have not bounced back to what it is now and continued overspending.”

“It wasn’t easy then when I had to make those decisions and today it won’t be easy for me to take a no vote on this,” Yee said. 

Supervisors Rafael Mandelman, Aaron Peskin, and Catherine Stefani joined Yee in voting against the emergency funding.

Illustration by Kristina Heines/CCSF Portfolio Club

Supervisor Shamann Walton in favor of the emergency bridge fund said the appropriation of the fund would benefit the college despite the worry of how the funds would be utilized by the college.

“These are not just supplemental resources that give City College a blank check,” Walton said. “This is specific to the preservation of classes that were cut.”

Walton believes the funding is important to the city college to be used for the classes that were abruptly cut with no outreaching to the students or faculty for discussion beforehand. 

“Yes, this is a one-time bridge funding opportunity to restore classes that we need to be preserved while we have a conversation,” Walton said. “You don’t just cut classes, throw students out, cut jobs, and then say that it without a conversation where the city can get involved.”

Faculty member Leslie Simon said she hoped at least one supervisor would “make City Hall history” by changing their “no” vote to a “yes,” when the Board takes its final vote on Feb. 4. If no one changes their vote, however, it will be up to Breed to approve or veto the funding. A representative from Breed’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

One thought on “Bridge Funding Falls Short of Veto-Proof Majority

  • It’s sad that several of the four supervisors who voted no cited CCSF’s history of poor financial management as their justification for voting no. That argument is short sighted because it ignores the underlying justification of these cuts as stated by Chancellor Rocha on multiple occasions: the new State funding formula. The reality is that the additional $3 million or so in budget shortfall for Spring 2020 was not a surprise. It was known long before this second round of class cuts was done by the administration. The Chancellor stated that those cuts were part of a long-term plan to focus only on degree or credential seeking students. That part of the story should not be ignored by The Guardian because it will continue to be a major factor in enrollment decisions for future terms–even with perfect budget management. Supervisor Preston made this point in his remarks and Leslie Simon also cited the new funding formula in a recent op ed.

Comments are closed.

The Guardsman