schools.jpgThe San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted today to put a measure on the June ballot that would allow members of the school district’s Board of Education to receive a pay raise.

Supervisors voted 8-3 in favor of the measure, which would amend the city charter to allow the Board of Education to set the level of compensation for its members, as long as it does not exceed $25,000, which is one-half the annual salary of a first-year public school teacher in the city.

Board of Education members are currently paid $500 per month.

Supervisor Jane Kim, who served on the San Francisco Unified School District’s Board of Education for four years–including as president in 2010 before being elected supervisor–co-sponsored the proposal, which she said more properly compensates what is a nearly full-time job.

Kim said board meetings “alone run six, seven hours apiece, and you have three or four a week,” on top of visits to schools, parent-teacher association meetings and other events.

She said the current $500 a month number was set in the early 1980s.

Supervisor Scott Wiener said it is “a very modest measure, especially when adjusted for inflation,” and pointed out that it does not officially increase compensation for the school board, but simply gives the school district the power to do so.

Supervisors Sean Elsbernd, Mark Farrell and Carmen Chu voted against the proposal.

Farrell said it was “the wrong time to be bringing this up,” given the district’s budget deficit, and that it could lead to a “slippery slope” where other elected or appointed officials could call for increased pay as well.

Elsbernd said, “We have to recognize these folks are volunteers,” and said there’s never a shortage of candidates for the positions despite the relatively low pay.

Kim pointed out the proposal “has been in discussion for many, many years” and said that opponents “don’t think any year will be the right year.”

Other proponents of the measure, including supervisors David Campos and Malia Cohen, argued that increasing the compensation will create a more diverse field of candidates who might be willing to serve on the board.

“Especially in these tough financial times … members of the board need this money to make ends meet,” Campos said.

The measure, which would also establish training and professional development requirements for board members, will go before city voters in June if the California Legislature approves a proposal by Gov. Jerry Brown to create a special election addressing the state’s budget deficit.

Dan McMenamin, Bay City News

Want more news, sent to your inbox every day? Then how about subscribing to our email newsletter? Here’s why we think you should. Come on, give it a try.

Please make sure your comment adheres to our comment policy. If it doesn't, it may be deleted. Repeat violations may cause us to revoke your commenting privileges. No one wants that!
  • Gashlycrumb

    Please at least credit the photographer for the image you used. She is an amazing local SF photographer that has a lot of love for San Francisco and the people who live here. As you can see here:

  • StaceyD

    I think it’s horrible that photos are taken without credit to the photographer. How unprofessional..and illegal. Please do the right thing here and credit the photographer! What you’ve done here is essentially theft….

  • Sam Breach

    Photo theft is not the slightest bit cool. The photo is clearly marked “All Rights Reserved”. Maybe an investigation into “All Rights Reserved” actually means might help?

    Think about this. You have now made a copy of a picture that belongs to someone else and published it with no credit and no link to the original. Now, someone can come and take it from you because you have not protected it under the conditions it was originally published. And so the photograph can be spread around the web and the original artist recieves nothing. Like I said. Not cool.

  • Brock Keeling

    Oh please, bite it. What you’ve done here is essentially stupid commentary. If Julie is, in fact, upset over it, she can email Eve herself in lieu of having her minions do it for it. Disgusting.

    And if you can’t stomach the wild world of image shifting on the internet, please turn off your computer and grow the hell up.

  • Eve Batey

    Thanks to all of you for your comments.

    This image is actually one we were sent, quite some time ago, by another photographer, who said it was his.

    The first commenter helpfully emailed me with a link to Julie’s photo, which you can see here.

    However, since we got “permission” to use the photo only from someone who didn’t own it, we have removed it from our site.

    Updated to add: It was not that simple, of course! This is boring, but for those of you who care…

    We were sent a photo in March, 2009, which we saved in our archives, added the credit information to, and named it “schools.”

    Some time later, a one-time contrib posted this story

    Which used Julie’s photo with credit and link.

    However, he titled the photo “schools,” so the old photo was overwritten, with Julie’s. Our internal credit information remained the same as it was for the image we had been sent, but the image itself “became” Julie’s. I didn’t notice the change, which was my error alone.

    I am giving y’all the above explanation not to excuse the mistake, but to clear this up, since, judging from folks’ reactions here and elsewhere, there is a certain amount of interest in how this happened.

    Of course, I’ve explained this to Julie, as well, as she’s graciously accepted my apology.

  • Sam Breach

    Julie didn’t ask us to to do this. As someone who constantly has photographs stolen and used by commercial sites, it often seems like the message that photos aren’t free for the taking is very slow to register in some quarters. Now you have explained the mistake, it all makes sense.Glad to hear that your site clearly does understand the implications. Thank you for correcting the situation.

  • Brock Keeling

    Oh please. You made shitty statements on a blog without having the decency to contact the editor prior. (An honest mistake need not translate into a barrage like this.) Not cool. If you can’t handle the internet, log off.

  • Thierry

    Brock, much like your statement on the snow websites, this is unprofessional. It’s good that you’re not the editor of a citywide website upon which you shine a bad light.

  • Brock Keeling

    Judging by your refreshingly uninspired photos, I’ll take your commentary with a horse’s salt-lick.

  • Sam Breach

    Um, excuse me? . You got called out for publishing a photo you didn’t own the rights to, you explained you weren’t at fault and I bought your explanation, thanking you, quite calmly and pleasantly for the update about the situation.

    If you would like us to comment on posts via the editor then why the comments sections underneath the post? Comments are quite clearly invited.. Did we touch a raw nerve? What’s the problem here?

    I write a polite a thank you and your response is to attack me? It’s not really looking like I am the one who ‘can’t handle the internet’.

  • Brock Keeling

    No, you’re just looking like the one who can’t read. Eve didn’t write that; I did. lol

  • Thierry

    I can see you think nothing of my comment and it doesn’t bother you, that’s why you took the time to reply. The exit to the high road was a couple of meters back, my friend.

  • julie michelle

    I think the issue that’s missing here, aside from the fact that in future I’ll certainly contact an editor first before mentioning it to friends on facebook, is what Eve wrote. The person who has been taken advantage of here is Eve. There was no way for her to know that the person who submitted that photo to her was not being honest.

    I find the fact that someone gave her another person’s photograph (in this case, mine) as said it was his own is bizarre. Like most photographers, I remember exactly the day, the when’s and where’s of that photo and the other ones I took that day. Mistaken attribution or forgetting to link back is one thing but why someone would someone intentionally deceive and misrepresent his work to another person is really unfortunate. Not only for those of us who take photos and enjoy seeing them online and put to good use, but for those people who depend on photos for their blogs and websites.

  • Brock Keeling

    I’m glad you mention this, Julie. I know I’m elated when Troy Holden or Ariel Dovas or any number of other talented photogs let me know when SFist forgets to credit. It happens! Like Eve, I do all my work from my couch at home. And, as you can imagine, it’s a lot to do on a daily basis. (Also, having to hear not only my stories but my own copy read aloud on the evening news almost every single day sans credit, I can tell you that I understand the frustration of content that’s stolen.) That said, I’m also glad when said photogs feel open to communicate with me – in lieu of starting poisonous flame-wars on Facebook. It really makes me feel part of a community of people who actually care about others and others’ work.

    Screw-ups happen and can hurt. It’s nice when fellow online colleagues don’t pour salt in those wounds.

  • Sam Breach

    I would like to apologize for behaving rashly and interfering in something that was not my business. I also apologize for assuming, wrongly, that Brock was part of the Staff at SF Appeal. Personally I always contact a website directly when I come across the photo theft issue (it happens quite often to me), so it was wrong of me to jump on Julie’s band wagon, especially since that is not how I would handle things myself.