Huge suit dropped in school board case
Embattled San Francisco school board member Alison Collins dropped her $87 million lawsuit against the district and five fellow board members Tuesday, opting not to fight a federal judge’s strongly worded dismissal of the case in August.
Collins filed the paperwork Tuesday to voluntarily dismiss all claims against all defendants, the same day recall supporters submitted 81,200 signatures to try to oust her from her seat on the school board.
Her decision to terminate the legal case offered some reprieve to a district facing a massive budget shortfall in the coming years, an annual deficit that is expected to exceed $100 million.
It also ends an uncomfortable chapter for a school board facing significant criticism in recent months over the reopening of classrooms, the vote and then reversal to rename 40 school sites and a judge’s rebuke over the decision to cover up a historic mural.
Collins filed the lawsuit in March, accusing her colleagues and the school district of violating her free speech rights when they voted to strip her of her vice presidency and remove her from committees over tweets she posted in 2016 about Asian Americans.
Collins’ lawsuit sought $72 million in general damages from the district and board members Jenny Lam, Mark Sanchez, Matt Alexander and Kevine Boggess, as well as board Vice President Faauuga Moliga. She also asked for $3 million from each board member in punitive damages.
The question now is whether the district and five board members she sued will demand she pay their legal costs in what they previously argued was a frivolous lawsuit.
As of mid-August, the district had already spent $110,000 on the lawsuit, with more bills coming due.
District officials said a decision hasn’t been made on whether to go after Collins for the money spent to defend the lawsuit.
Community organizer Meredith Dodson, founder of SF Parent Coalition, wants to see the money back in district coffers.
“SFUSD is in a serious budget crisis,” she said. “We need every last dollar to go to our kids.”
At least two board members don’t want to go after the money.
“I don’t support pursuing legal costs,” Moliga said. “There are other issues the board needs to be focused on. I would like to get beyond the drama and work on the substantive issues that require our attention.”
Boggess agreed, although he said it’s important to share with the public what it cost to defend the suit.
“I don’t think it worthwhile for the district to pursue recovering legal costs. We need to prioritize supporting families and schools with any extra money and resources,” he said. “But I would support the board passing a resolution mandating a commissioner engage in mediation before bringing lawsuits against the district or Board actions.”
The lawsuit, Boggess added, was reasonable.
“I don’t believe the lawsuit was frivolous, and that Commissioner Collins had a right to file the lawsuit, because she felt wronged and saw this as her only path to
get justice,” he said. “I was confident in the legality of the actions we took, and felt confident the courts would see it the same way, and glad that they did.”
Yet it appears likely that Collins — as well as President Gabriela López and Moliga — will face a recall election in the coming months.
The recall campaign submitted about 30,000 more signatures than required to call an election to decide the three board members’ fates. City officials will have 30 business days to determine whether there are enough signatures.
“I’m glad she’s finally paying attention to the voice of the people,” said recall organizer Siva Raj. “It shouldn’t be this hard to have our voices heard and our children educated.”
An election would likely be scheduled in the coming months, or February at the latest.
If any of the three are recalled, Mayor London Breed would name replacements, who would serve until the regular election in 2022.
The other board members and Collins did not immediately return requests for comment.