On the subject of the SF-CCSF connection, I should mention the Citizens' Bond Oversight Committee.  CCSF Trustee Susan Solomon lives in the same co-op as Betty Traynor, Head of SDA and VP of OWL (Older Women's League).  She let Betty know that City College needed someone on the CBOC to represent senior organizations, and Betty brought this up with the OWL Board, who thought of me.  Melanie broached the subject, and I said no.  But after discussing it with Leslie Simon, Chris Hanson, and Susan Solomon herself, I decided that there really was a need, and the bickering between one part of the faculty and another wouldn't necessarily affect us.

The picture above is a shot of the interview.  

More later.
 

 Although I've been a strong union supporter at CCSF (and of unions generally), I think it's healthy that people are questioning union decisions, specifically its defiance of state guidelines--guidelines we should work on changing but can't really defy and still save our college (even in its downsize).  

One of the most brilliant people expressing his view on what was the Electronic Faculty Forum (EFF) is Richard Baum.  Here his brilliance doesn't shine because he's asking a question, and the answer is obvious!  Here's what he sent out today:

Since 2017, Gohar Momjian has been a vice president of the ACCJC. On the ACCJC website, she is described "As Associate Vice Chancellor of Institutional Development, and Accreditation Liaison Officer (ALO) for City College of San Francisco from July 2012 until June 2015..."

 In a deposition occurring on June 9, 2014, Momjian was asked the following question and gave the response below. 

Q. Okay. So the AFT was a hindrance to City College coming into compliance with the accreditation standards;  true?

Mr. Goldberg: Objection; leading.

The Witness:  In my opinion, yes.

Momjian did not provide any explanation for this answer.  I wrote to her asking that she inform us as to how “AFT was a hindrance to City College coming into compliance with accreditation standards.” She never responded.

Personally, I like people who respond and resent people who don't.  But of course it's obvious that the AFT opposed CCSF's coming into compliance with the accreditation standards.  I think it has even called the ACCJC a "rogue" organization.

 Nanette Asimov has often been maligned by CCSF faculty as unfair to our college, and this was reflected in something she wrote for the SF Chronicle when she was reporting on AI for students.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/reporter-s-notebook-ai-helped-steer-19599871.php

Below the picture of her on a panel in 2012, when CCSF had been given Show Cause ( proof of why you shouldn't be closed down) and her taking notes at a rally, I've pasted what she says in reference to the blowback.  

Now comes 80 words of personal stuff. I’m supposed to describe an instance where I had to disclose difficult information.

So I write about a time when, in my stories for the Chronicle, I revealed financial problems at a beloved local college. In those stories, I explained, an accrediting agency complained about the college’s management, and the college defended itself.

Next up, according to my AI counselor, I need 60 words explaining the backlash or criticism I received.

I say that, as an impartial messenger, I was caught between both sides: faculty furious that my stories made the college look bad, and accreditors ticked at me for airing complaints about them. I write that it hurt when people stopped taking my calls and someone spit at me.

 Abigail Bornstein sent this to our EFF, Electronic Faculty Forum:

There's lots of discussion happening right now about Free City funds because the city is looking to lower the amount given to CCSF each year.

This was discussed at the last BoT Student Success Committee meeting (video starting at 18:20).  

https://ccsf.granicus.com/player/clip/2134?view_id=5&redirect=true

Part of the issue is that we have not been using all the funds (see attached spreadsheet).  We roughly have unused Free City money each year between $8 - $9 million.  

2022 - didn't use $7.6 million

2023 - didn't use $9.3 million

2024 - didn't use $8.7 million even after paying off student debt of $1.6 million 

When we don't use the money, it sits in an account that no one can touch.  No one is using it, but it just sits unused while the city is struggling to balance its own budget.

The city is now looking to take away funds that we aren't using.  It's a shame that we haven't been using them.  We also haven't come up with other options besides clearing outstanding student debt to take advantage of the unused funds.  

If we present something to the city with likely dollars needed, we may be able to redirect the unused money towards something beneficial.  We haven't done that yet.  Time is running out.  

Ultimately, we want to keep as much Free City funding as possible, but we have to actually use the money in an acceptable way and not just have it sit in an account with unused funds.

The above is a fuller view of what is happening with Free City and the possible partial removal of CCSF funds.

Abigail

 

I've printed out the latest opinion pieces about SF, but I should add Leslie Simon's op-ed piece in 48 Hills.  https://48hills.org/2024/05/restoring-the-ecosystem-of-city-college/

Two others, which appeared in The Examiner and in the Richmond/Sunset Beacon, were written by Alan Wong, president of the CCSF Board of Trustees, and the latter got a rebuttal by Jill Yee.

BeyondChron/The Voice of the Rest, had an article on 750 Eddy that came out/online May 6th, but I didn't know about it until yesterday.  

https://www.sfexaminer.com/forum/san-francisco-city-college-is-not-out-of-the-woods-yet/article_76757ec6-f697-11ee-b333-1bce56429011.html

https://richmondsunsetnews.com/2024/05/17/commentary-alan-wong-3/

https://beyondchron.org/abandoned-tenderloin-ccsf-building-is-magnet-for-drug-dealers/

This blog is called the SF-CCSF Connection, and what a connection this has been--in both really good and really awful ways.  Here's the link to the article Sam Whiting wrote.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/entertainment/article/diego-rivera-mural-sfmoma-lawsuit-19206319.php

But it went into print after the fact.  This article was in the home edition Saturday, March 23rd, and Dana and I had seen the first two panels being moved (very cautiously) into the Diego Rivera Theater on March 9th.

Now it goes into storage.  But I hope the relationship between CCSF and SFMOMA can breathe freely.
 

 

Last night I attended the CCSF Board of Trustees meeting virtually, hoping to hear them address the warning the ACCJC gave them and further elucidate the report given in the SF Chronicle, but there were just bits and pieces except for a presentation by the SFMTA on the Frida Kahlo Quick Build, which the campus is rejecting.  

 I was surprised that the chancellor wasn't there, and neither were Shannell Williams or Murrell Green. Shannell was quoted in the article Nanette Asimov wrote, "Errors by CCSF board could save Chancellor."   

They never really got to anything substantive about how they were going to deal with the ACCJC's warning.

I like Anita Martinez' manner.  She speaks very civilly and seems to know what she's talking about.  She always makes a point of taking notes on what complaints are in the administration's purview.

I never understand the budget, but Susanna Atwood spoke convincingly on that subject, using her CPA expertise.

Madeline Mueller's reading from a paper about a conflict going on in 1982 was quite interesting!  So were the comments by Taeko (last name?) of Japan, comparing the destruction of Hiroshima to Gaza.  

I was impressed that both Fanny Law and Harry Bernstein spoke in a conciliatory way instead of whetting people's appetite for descension and seeing The Other as evil.

So the chancellor's report came only as an attachment?  

I heard Sheri Miraglia, pesident of the Academic Senate, which changed their "No Confidence" resolution to "Censure,"  speak with a couple of other members from the Academic Senate beside her.  

I didn't understand what classified was talking about.  Or SEIU, but it seems that SEIU was excluded from decision-making and furious about it.  

The second time Madeleine spoke, warning about Lumina, I did understand!  Her comment was funny that "Being the chair of the Theater Department, I don't like the term 'bad actor,'" which the Lumina Foundation seems to be, giving money to educational institutions run like a business.  

I knew there was resistance to the SFMTA's Quick Build on Frida Kahlo Way.  I know how important moving away from our car-centric country is, and CCSF is in an ideal spot for public transportation, which 2/3 of the students take.  (I think it's 2/3 of the staff and instructors who drive.)  But I doubt that SFMTA really found that most people really favored these changes.  I didn't stay to see how it turned out or whether there was a vote taken on it.  I do know that I sometimes get home faster on public transit than I would have if I'd accepted the ride in a car that I was offered, and our transit system is getting better and better.  But who am I to talk? When I taught at CCSF, I always drove!

It's fascinating that HEAT has come up with an alternate plan, if I understood correctly!

But what does the BOT plan to do about the ACCJC's warning?  

 

 

I love City College, and like most people I hate to see it down-sized.  But are the Board of Trustees really acting with evil intent if they abide by the dictates of the Board of Governors of the  California Community Colleges?  I campaigned for the three newest trustees, who were defying the state, but I was always wondering whether they would really have the power (and find the money)  to bring back the laid off instructors, raise salaries, and keep CCSF accredited.  Now CCSF has gotten a warning, and Supervisor Mandelman is asking the trustees to "explain how they will address their new accreditation problems and what they will do if they aren't about to find a 'suitable replacement' for Martin before he leaves on June 30."  David Martin was CCSF's nineth chancellor in eight years.  

I'm wondering what they're going to say and do!  

 

I wore the same bright yellow dress to SFMOMA's Farewell to the Rivera Mural of Pan American Unity that I'd worn in the early aughts, more than 20 years ago, when Dra. Guadalupe Rivera Marin was with us.

This time I'm posing with Jeff Goldthorpe and Vicki Simms, who both did a lot to promote the mural. The event turned out to center around Will Maynez, who's devoted his life to the mural for decades. Jeff Goldthorpe paid a tribute to Will as a slide of Will working on the mural was being shown.  I also spoke.   Michelle Barger, head of conservation at SF MOMA,  gave us the chance to write something on the back of the mural, and I wrote "Where there's a Will (Maynez), there's a way to keep the mural in the public eye."