CCSF Board Adopts $72M Budget Amid Faculty Outcry Over Zero Raises

The City College of San Francisco Board of Trustees adopted the FY 2026-27 budget on a 6-0-1 vote after an hour-long hearing in which faculty unions, students and advocates hammered the administration for stockpiling reserves while offering nothing for salary increases and letting class wait lists balloon. The evening's second act — a Committee of the Whole session — brought a wave of disability-services staff to the microphone demanding automatic doors the district has refused to install, raising the specter of renewed litigation under the Cherry v. CCSF settlement.

• Board adopts $72M FY27 budget with zero dollars budgeted for faculty raises, despite years of documented structural surpluses and full-time faculty compensation in the bottom 40% statewide
• AFT 2121 president calls budget "absolutely unacceptable" as FY25-26 surplus balloons to $18.4M — nearly $14M more than projected
• DSPS staff deliver coordinated testimony demanding automatic doors at the Student Success Center, warning of Cherry v. CCSF settlement exposure
• Students describe enrollment barriers: 451-student wait list for English C1000, missing counselors and financial aid staff at campus centers, and lab aid budgets cut without warning
• General Counsel contract amendment draws governance questions after public commenter flags removal of California Bar Exam requirement as rewarding non-performance
• Board sunsets two ad-hoc committees, shifting policy review work to outside consultants

---

$72M Budget Passes, but the Fight Over Faculty Pay Is Just Beginning

The board's special meeting was called for a single high-stakes purpose: adopt the annual budget before the state's Sept. 15 deadline. What followed was the most contentious budget hearing in recent memory, with five public commenters, pointed trustee questioning and a chancellor who had to reassure her own board that voting yes did not mean voting against faculty raises.

Why it matters: CCSF's ending fund balance of $72 million is designed to carry the district through the expiration of its hold harmless funding protection in FY 2029-30 — a fiscal cliff that has shaped every budget decision for years. But faculty unions and students argue the college is hoarding cash while starving classrooms, a pattern the state auditor has already flagged.

Where things stand: Vice Chancellor Carter presented the budget, highlighting the $72 million ending fund balance. But the numbers that dominated debate came from the other side of the table.

Rick Baum, a public commenter, revealed that the FY 2025-26 surplus grew from a projected $4.47 million to $18.4 million in actuals — a $14 million swing. "How could your figures be so far off? This extra money could have been used to keep Downtown campus open and schedule" more classes, Baum said. He cited a wait list of 451 students for English C1000 alone.

Robin Pugh, AFT 2121 president, was blunter: "You have years and years and years of documented structural surpluses. And yet again, we don't see any space for faculty raises here. This is unacceptable. This is absolutely unacceptable." She noted that full-time faculty remain in the bottom 40% of compensation statewide.

Abigail Bornstein, representing the full-time faculty caucus, said the caucus had sent a letter citing "deep concerns" about double-digit spending increases in every category except faculty compensation. She warned that full-time faculty "will not be staying silent."

Paulette Brown, a 66-year-old DSPS student with dyslexia and long COVID, described being unable to get tutoring and being told the budget had been cut. Lydia Hernandez said she had personally helped 30 students who did not even know they had CCSF email addresses, and argued state-funded services are going undelivered at campus centers.

The other side: Chancellor Messina acknowledged the tension but drew a firm line: "If this budget is approved, it does not mean that we are precluded from negotiating and offering a salary increase. That is not the intent of it not showing up in these numbers." She called it irresponsible to insert a salary figure before negotiations conclude.

The explanation did not fully satisfy the dais. Trustee Susan Solomon said she nearly voted against the budget. "I thought about voting no on the budget," she told the board, citing the state auditor's finding that CCSF generates significant surpluses with no spending plans while "$0 set aside to fulfill our obligations to the employees of our college." Solomon urged the administration to rewrite the budget narrative to avoid language implying zero raises.

Trustee Vick Van Chung questioned why expenditures climbed in services and equipment while student lab aid positions were held flat: "It is quite baffling to see significant increases in our expenditures this year."

Trustee Anita Martinez raised the competitive pressure from Mayor Lurie's recently announced 14% raise for city workers over four years — "including city workers who are represented by one of the unions that is also present at this campus" — and asked whether the district should adopt the state auditor's recommended "reserves" terminology.

Vice President Luis Zamora requested that future budget books include historical comparison data showing predicted versus actual figures, noting trustees cannot track year-over-year discrepancies without it.

A procedural gap also surfaced: the budget skipped the full Participatory Governance Council review, going only through the PGC Budget Committee. Vice Chancellor Carter took responsibility for the oversight.

Decisions: The budget passed 6-0-1 (For: Chisti, Chung, Ferguson, Martinez, Solomon, Zamora; Abstain: Student Trustee Wong; Absent: Trustee Heather McCarty).

What's next: With the budget locked in, salary negotiations between the district and AFT 2121 move to center stage. The $14 million surplus revelation and Mayor Lurie's city worker raises will give the union powerful leverage at the bargaining table. The full PGC review process the budget bypassed remains an unresolved governance concern.

---

DSPS Staff Demand Automatic Doors, Warn of Cherry Settlement Exposure

Three Disabled Programs and Services staff members delivered coordinated public comment during the Committee of the Whole describing systematic accessibility failures at the Student Success Center and other campus buildings — a striking presentation that put the board on notice about potential legal liability.

Why it matters: CCSF is bound by the Cherry v. City College settlement, which requires strict ADA accessibility. Staff argued the district is falling short of even the legal minimum, let alone best practices for students using full-sized electric wheelchairs and scooters.

Where things stand: Kathy Williamson Choi, a DSPS staff member, said automatic door requests have been pending since before the Student Success Center was built. She said facilities staff told her the doors "break easily" and that existing doors "meet ADA standard" — a response she rejected, noting that construction and maintenance of automatic doors costs less than another lawsuit.

Savio Chan, a DSPS counselor, escalated the critique, calling the district's response "ableist behavior" and characterizing its inclusion efforts as performative. "By reducing our needs to compliance, leadership dismisses our lived experiences and expertise. CCSF continues to literally close the door on us and disparage those who point out the barrier," Chan said. He also criticized the district for excluding DSPS from planning the Flex Day keynote on access and urged the board to implement a concrete accountability plan.

Jasmine Moser, a DSPS staff member, described daily encounters with students struggling to access campus spaces. She noted that an automatic door was installed on a top floor for a non-essential space while accessibility requests for DSPS were denied. A coworker with a disability had volunteered to personally demonstrate the difficulty accessing restroom doors — and was still told no.

Paulette Brown, who had also spoken during the budget hearing, returned to describe her struggle to get a faculty member to submit accommodation forms. She said she faced retaliation after filing a complaint with the department chair.

What's next: The coordinated nature of the testimony — three staff members and a student presenting a unified case — signals an organized push the board will need to address. The Cherry v. CCSF settlement gives the district little room for delay.

---

Students and Advocates Link Enrollment Decline to Vanishing Services

Multiple speakers across both the budget hearing and general public comment connected CCSF's declining enrollment to concrete service failures: missing counselors at campus centers, no financial aid staff, no computer classes, and wait lists running into the hundreds.

Why it matters: Under California's student-centered funding formula, enrollment directly drives revenue. Commenters argued the college is caught in a downward spiral — cutting services that drive students away, then citing lower enrollment to justify further cuts, all while reserves grow.

Rick Baum pointed to 451 students on the English C1000 wait list alone and the closure of the Downtown campus as evidence that the administration is "diminishing student educational opportunities" despite having surplus funds. Leslie Smith urged the board to develop a strategy to grow enrollment, arguing it is the only path to increased revenue and salaries.

Evangela Brewster, Student Vice Chancellor at CCSF, told the board that lab aid budgets were cut and students arrived to find their jobs eliminated without notice. She raised concerns about the district not taking 9+1 student governance rights seriously.

Lydia Hernandez described campus centers with no counselors, no financial aid staff, and no office hours. She said funds are "sitting in a bank account" while legally required services go undelivered, calling it potentially "illegal."

Marilee Hearn reminded the board that the Academic Senate passed a resolution in May requesting a special committee on the Downtown center's status and that Trustee Martinez had asked related questions — none of which have received a response. The Educational Strategic Plan Committee has met six times with no reports to the board.

---

General Counsel Contract Amendment Raises Governance Questions

During public comment on consent item 15.A, Abigail Bornstein challenged the board's consideration of an amendment to the General Counsel's employment contract that would remove the stipulated requirement to sit for the California Bar Exam in July 2026.

Why it matters: The General Counsel is the district's chief contract enforcer. Bornstein argued that rewriting terms after apparent non-performance — when the original contract specified termination as the consequence — undermines the district's credibility on every other contract it enforces. She called the situation "particularly concerning" given the office's role.

---

Board Sunsets Two Ad-Hoc Committees

VP Zamora reported that the Advocacy Ad-Hoc Committee had produced only one report in over a year and a half and recommended sunsetting it. Trustee Solomon presented a final status report on the Board Policies Ad-Hoc Committee's chapter one work and recommended sunsetting it as well, with the understanding that the Community College League of California consultant Dr. Wright would continue policy review through governance channels.

Trustee Ferguson supported sunsetting, noting the work had become duplicative. Lydia Hernandez, speaking during public comment, expressed concern that sunsetting the committees would reduce transparency and student access to information about board work. Chancellor Messina said the CCLC work would go through PGC governance and legal review before returning to the board for a vote.

---

Minor Items

• May 2027 board meeting date: Chancellor Messina proposed shifting the regular meeting from May 27 to May 20 to avoid a conflict with commencement. Discussion only; a formal vote will come at the next regular meeting.
• EEO Annual Certification Report: Presented as informational; the designated presenter had already departed. Board President Aliya Chisti urged the board to move beyond the compliance snapshot and develop actionable diversity goals for hiring. Chancellor Messina confirmed this aligns with existing board goals.
• Domestic Violence Awareness Month resolution: First read. Trustee Solomon requested the resolution not be categorized as "celebratory" given the subject matter. Trustee Chung flagged an incomplete sentence in the draft.
• Public records compliance concern: CCSF student Andre Bakhtin told the board he filed a California Public Records Act request on June 6 for financial aid counter surveillance footage and staffing records. He said the Office of General Counsel denied both requests across three pages citing six exemptions, which he characterized as a "boilerplate denial." Despite a formal preservation notice, the footage was not retained. Bakhtin asked the board to direct General Counsel to respond and audit how many other requests remain unanswered.
• No reportable actions were taken in either of the evening's two closed sessions. The meeting adjourned at 10:36 p.m.