Page 1 of 2

1

Ann Hsu, Chair, Rex Ridgeway, Vice Chair

of the San Francisco Unified School District

Independent Citizens’ Bond Oversight Committee

Ann Hsu (annhsu25@gmail.com); Rex Ridgeway (chivis.bris71@gmail.com)

August 23, 2021

Dawn Kamalanathan

Chief Facilities Officer

San Francisco Unified School District

555 Franklin Street

San Francisco, CA 94102

Dear Ms. Kamalanathan:

At the conclusion of the August 9, 2021 SFUSD Independent Citizens’ Bond Oversight

Committee (CBOC) meeting, Lynne Bourgault, Senior Deputy General Counsel at SFUSD

objected to our seeking and obtaining outside advice from bond experts and told the Committee

that our actions as CBOC Chair and Vice Chair were inappropriate and outside the scope of our

CBOC charter.

Specifically, from the meeting, at 1:49:27, Deputy General Counsel Bourgault said that speaking

to an outside bond attorney “...is outside the scope of what CBOC is here for...”

And, she stated further, at 1:52:50 that, "...seeking legal opinions in a public meeting is not an

appropriate use of the CBOC Committee’s meeting time."

From Counsel’s statements, it appears that a fundamental misunderstanding of CBOC’s charter

and responsibility exists between the District and us as members of this CBOC. This situation

requires immediate clarification so that our Committee’s work can continue based on a clear and

mutual understanding between SFUSD and CBOC.

Concerned that we may have indeed acted improperly or outside of our authority, we did more

research, and the outside advisor with whom we spoke referred us to the California Association

of Bond Oversight Committees.

From the Association, we learned that: “Citizens’ Bond Oversight Committees

(CBOC) established by California Proposition 39 of 2000 to negotiate meaningful,

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with their Governing Board of the School

District or Community College. Prior to beginning to customize a CBOC MOU with a

governing board, interested parties should familiarize themselves with the specific State of

California statutes that are on point, including Education Code §§15264-88 on “Strick

Accountability in Local School Construction Bonds Act of 2000” and particularly §§15278-82

on Citizens’ Bond Oversight Committees.”

Page 2 of 2

2

On January 26, 2021, the California Association of Bond Oversight Committees published a

Best Practices Memorandum of Understanding (from the LA Unified School District).

Section 8, entitled “Logistical Support from the District,” states, at Section 8.1.1, “[the

District agrees to] [provide Independent Legal Counsel, responsible to the Committee on

relevant legal issues.”

It goes on to state that “the cost for such Legal Counsel will be paid by the District but all legal

privilege and client loyalty shall be accorded solely to the Committee.”

In light of SFUSD’s claims that we acted outside of our scope of authority and that we acted

inappropriately, we ask:

(1) SFUSD objections be clarified, formally and in writing;

(2) SFUSD affirms that CBOC has both the right and the responsibility to, at our

discretion, retain “independent” counsel to advise us and that such costs will be paid

by SFUSD; and,

(3) SFUSD, if you disagree, please explain, in detail, your disagreement(s) and provide

a justification in writing.

According to the California Association of Bond Oversight Committees’ Best Practices, Mission

and Purpose:

The shared vision of the Committee and the District is to build, modernize, repair,

and maintain schools that promote the full development of the student; are

educationally and environmentally sound; enhance their neighborhoods through

design and programming as centers of community; provide for the safety and

protection of students, district faculty and staff, neighbors and visitors; and

reflect the wise and efficient use of limited land and public resources.

The mission of a strong and independent Committee is to oversee the expenditure

of money for the construction, repair, and modernization of schools by the

District in accordance with California law. The Committee is charged with the

responsibility of communicating its findings and recommendations to the District

and the pubic so that the school bond funds authorized by the District’s voters are

expended as the voters intended and comply with all applicable statutes, and that

projects are completed wisely and efficiently.

We take these responsibilities very seriously and seek to bring the utmost of dedication to our

mission. In order for us to complete our work on a timely basis, your full cooperation is needed.

We respectfully request that response to our questions in this letter shall be provided without

delay.

Sincerely,

Ann Hsu, Chair Rex Ridgeway, Vice-Chair

San Francisco Unified School District Independent Citizen’s Bond Oversight Committee