Monday, March 29, 2010

SFGate: Maufas' daughter took items, superintendent says

This from SFGate:

The 22-year-old daughter of a San Francisco school board member stole a district laptop and $250 from another school board member and a district staff member while her mother attended board meetings in the same building, district officials confirmed Friday.

Francesca Maufas, the daughter of board member Kim-Shree Maufas, took the laptop and $90 cash from a third-floor office of a senior staff member during the school board's March 9 meeting at district headquarters, officials said. A surveillance camera captured the 22-year-old in the hallway and entering the office, said Superintendent Carlos Garcia.

She confessed to the theft the next day and disclosed the location of the laptop, which she had stashed in the building, Garcia said.

The younger Maufas also acknowledged taking at least $160 from board member Jill Wynns' purse, which had been placed under a desk in the board's office during a late February committee meeting.

No police report was filed. Garcia said the district declined to contact police regarding the laptop theft because the computer never left the building and was returned in 24 hours.

"Had the computer been taken off grounds, I might have viewed it differently," he said.

Francesca Maufas "was very up front about it. If that hadn't happened, we would have immediately called in police," Garcia added.

He left the decision to file a report with police over the stolen money to the two victims, who so far have declined.

The money had yet to be returned.

"I think it's an unfortunate incident," Wynns said. "The superintendent told me that the district would not file a report and that I could if I wanted to, but that he was trying to work out some arrangement for restitution and to satisfy all our concerns about protecting the district and all employees."

Wynns said she was waiting for an update on that arrangement before making a final decision on police involvement.

Francesca Maufas could not be reached for comment.

164 comments:

  1. Wasn't her daughter in the JROTC?
    So much for the high moral standards the JROTC supposedly teaches.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Kimshree charged her tires, windshield, itunes songs, starbucks coffees and everything else on the district credit card, that is also stealing.
    Will Kimshree bring her daughter to DCCC meetings, to steal out of the Central Committee purses?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nobody is going to want to invite Kimshree to any fundraising parties anymore, they'll be afraid her daughter will steal things out of their houses.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The "child" is 22 years old. Why aren't they pressing charges against her?

    ReplyDelete
  5. They aren't pressing charges because of cronyism. No surprise.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think this says more about the lack of morals from her mother rather than the moral standards of the JROTC.

    With the lack of funding for our schools and he's not pressing charges after she stole school property. Parents should be demanding Kimshree's resignation. If she's elected the DCC then they get what they deserve.

    Enough cronyism and board members who are out for their own personal agenda. Our kids are not a platform for your political gain.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Wasn't Kimshree telling parents at the last Board meeting about what a good parent she was? And how they should take her example?
    She should resign, using her district credit card for personal expenses,

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/29/BAEJ1CLR4L.DTL

    and now this?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I wonder if the kid split the cash with her mom?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Disgusting. Press charges. Send a message that the City and District takes things like this seriously, regardless of who commits the crime and who they are related to.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Peer Court? She is 22, isn't she too old for 'peer court"?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Please send an email to Carlos Garcia urging the resignation of Kim-Shree Maufas. She used her district credit card for personal use. I'm an SFUSD teacher and I've yet to receive a single cent for my classroom supplies (you heard that right!); I pay for them out of my own paycheck. That money Maufas stole was taxpayers' money, intended for students like mine. Now her daughter is stealing from the district and Garcia is covering it up? I tend to support Garcia, but this is really beyond the pale. Email Carlos Garcia and Kim-Shree Maufas at Kim-ShreeMaufas@sfusd.edu and cgarcia@sfusd.edu. District funds are for students, not for corrupt board members and their families.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Now anybody who ever had something stolen from them when Kimshree and her daughter were present will kknow what happened.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Ironic that Kimshree is at a restorative justice conference right now, how much is that costing the taxpayers?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Is this really an appropriate topic for the sfk files?

    ReplyDelete
  15. yes it is an appropriate topic. this happened at school board meetings, is representative of a person who is supposed to be leading our school system. If he allows cronyism to rule in this blatant criminal behavior then realize what may be happening behind closed doors. Garcia didn't even try to be anything than honest that he is giving her special treatments. Would any of the students in SFUSD be given that same kind of treatment if they were caught red handed stealing school property. No, nor should they. Neither should this thief.

    ReplyDelete
  16. 9:57,

    I agree completely with your comment, especially considering the comment by 9:26!

    ReplyDelete
  17. 9:57, I also agree, especially considering the comment from 9:37! Over on the private school threads, there's plenty of whining (whether justified or not I can't say) about how the admission process is all about who you know. Well, I guess the same thing applies to SFUSD. Symbolically, failure to prosecute is a disaster--why would voters want to pass more taxes for crooks?

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Wasn't her daughter in the JROTC?
    So much for the high moral standards the JROTC supposedly teaches."

    Anon M - with logic like that you are not going to win any debating contests.

    XXXXXXXXXXX

    "Francesca Maufas "was very up front about it. If that hadn't happened, we would have immediately called in police," Garcia added."

    But the money was never returned while her mother, ironically, rushed off to a Restorative Justice conference. How is that being up front about it?

    This reaction by the superintendent seems to be very in keeping with the so-called priniciples of restorative justice. Don't call in the police, avoid suspensions and generally sweep all unseemly and criminal behavior under the carpet, for the sake of making the schools look like safe places on paper.

    Maufas is finished politically if she wasn't already. Garcia's response to this serious crime is the bigger story. When is it appropriate to call the police? If she used a gun? Held hostages? The woman used her privilege as Board member guest to gain access and to steal not once, but several times. The Superintendent passes the buck and asks that others lead. It was clearly his responsibility to take action. He doesn't deserve to guide this ship.

    A few months ago I went to 555 Franklin, signed in at the front desk with the guard, and went to the third floor media office to inquire about why district employees were editing a private blog - Your SF Schools- on the taxpayer's dime. That blog has nothing to do with SFUSD business. As I mentioned before on this blog and I'm not afraid to say it again, someone at the district chose to have me escorted out because I was not suppose to be on the third floor without a pass. I signed in with security and no one gave me a pass. (I think that is because they know me as I am a regular visitor at 555Franklin as part of various advocacy efforts.) But Maufas' daughter steals district property and robs a school board member and district employees of cash and the Superintendent does nothing. Good call! These are the very same people and the mentality that brings "Restorative Justice" to the schools. God helps us with these clowns in charge.

    Given the largess shown to Maufas' daughter, one has to wonder what exchanges may take place for the Superintendent's act of kindness. Maybe none at all. But this has created a very sticky situation and Maufas should resign.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Don :"someone at the district chose to have me escorted out because I was not suppose to be on the third floor without a pass"

    Perhaps that is because you are a creepy stalker and are threatening Board of Education members?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Civil public criticism of public official is a ntuaral and necessary part of the democratic process. If such activities make you show your true colors so much the better. You see the benefits of free speech?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Free speech, yes.

    Creepy stalking, no.

    The district doesn't escort people out of the building for no reason, Don.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Could we have one thread where Don doesn't try to make it all about *him* ?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous,

    PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE I am tired of reading your repetitive and irresponsible attacks. If you have nothing of value to add say nothing at all. Can Kate do something about this?

    ReplyDelete
  24. 11:29

    Kate has better things to do than to censor these posts. Ignore what you don't like.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Reminds me why I long ago gave up on public education and am sending my kids to a private.

    ReplyDelete
  26. It's time for Maufas to resign.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Yes, but she won't resign. If she had any integrity, she would insist that her child's thieving be reported to the police, instead of getting special treatment and covering it up.

    The district staff won't want to press charges because their boss (Carlos Garcia) doesn't want them to, so they are put in a bad situation.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Kimshree is a parent and is likely disappointed in her daughter. Her daughter is 22 years old and Kinshree cannot control her actions. As parents, we should recognize that Kimshree is in a difficult position. I think the superintendent's conduct, is something he is responsible for, not Kimshree. That said, she should go for her own irresponsible conduct in charging personal items on her distrct credit card.

    ReplyDelete
  29. To the teacher posting on March 29, 2010 9:37 AM
    -------

    Please note that UESF has historically endorsed her and been very supporting of Kim-Shree Maufas.

    You should make sure that UESF support and endorsement for Maufaus ends NOW for anything else she is thinking of running for (she's currently on the ballot for the DCCC election this fall)

    UESF should walk, no run, away from any connection to Kim-Shree Maufas.

    ReplyDelete
  30. The school district is claiming that they're letting it slide because the daughter was "up front" about it and returned the property . . . well, what was she going to do, lie about it after she got caught on the surveillance camera? Really does make you wonder about the ethics SFUSD is going to teach our children.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Carlos Garcia really needs to step up and show a bit more leadership here. Francesca Maufas was very upfront - yes, after being caught red-handed on security cameras. And the money still hasn't been returned.

    Carlos Garcia says he is leaving it up to the board members to decided whether or not they want to press charges. He has put them in an impossible position. How could they possibly press charges against the daughter of a colleague when their boss clearly doesn't want them to.

    I would feel slightly better if either Francesca or Kim-Shree had put their hands in their pockets and at least returned the money.

    I am planning to send my daughter to an SF public school next year, and this whole episode does not increase my confidence in Carlos Garcia at all.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Carlos Garcia isn't actually the board members' boss. They are his boss.

    It's obviously unfortunate, and the daughter has some real problems. But I have to ask: if your colleague at work had a troubled child (older teen or young adult) who stole money from your purse, would you press charges, or would you pursue back-channel avenues for restitution and insist on the child making amends through private agreement? Or that the child get help?

    I'm not presupposing what is right here, but I would assume that there are people here who would pursue private avenues. Obviously the young woman needs help, and she must pay back what she stole and she should make amends. There may be ways to do that without involving the criminal justice system. It may be that some of these avenues are being pursued.

    I have personally known of cases in which highly privileged children of influential people have done wrong, stupid things, and they have always been handled through back channels rather than involve the police. Sometimes in a real way, with restitution and private deals for making amends, and sometimes letting them off scot-free (which is a bad idea, btw, but it happens all the time.)

    ReplyDelete
  33. 2:21

    Carlos Garcia is the staff people's boss, and Kimshree's daughter stole from staff people as well as board members.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Unbelievable, she is a stealing 22 yr old and she's not being charged?
    Great leadership from Garcia, putting the decision to press charges on the shoulders of the victims. This happend Feb and early March, yet, Kim-Shree Maufas, didn't even take it opon herself to pay the money back. I don't care if it was daughter who stole it, she should have had the decency to pay her colleages back. What an embarrassment.

    ReplyDelete
  35. from the article:

    "I think it's an unfortunate incident," Wynns said. "The superintendent told me that the district would not file a report and that I could if I wanted to, but that he was trying to work out some arrangement for restitution and to satisfy all our concerns about protecting the district and all employees."

    Wynns said she was waiting for an update on that arrangement before making a final decision on police involvement.


    Agree or disagree, it does sound like the people involved are interested in a private arrangement rather than getting the police involved. Which is what a lot of people would do if their colleague's troubled kid did something like this. I mean, it's not unheard of.

    Agreed that it puts pressure on the victims not to press charges if the district doesn't--but we are talking about a Boe member and "senior staffer."

    ReplyDelete
  36. Just what SFUSD needs right now, another scandal. Why was this covered up for a month? Will the district now waste time and energy trying to find out who leaked the story to Jill Tucker at the Chronicle, when what they should be doing is turning the matter over to the cops or the DA for a full investigation?

    The theft of school district property makes this a crime against not just the individuals involved but also against us, the taxpayers. Garcia has no business trying to negotiate a hush hush settlement behind the backs of the public he is supposed to be serving. He is in this as much as the 22 year old, in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "Agree or disagree, it does sound like the people involved are interested in a private arrangement rather than getting the police involved. Which is what a lot of people would do if their colleague's troubled kid did something like this. I mean, it's not unheard of. "

    I understand wanting to settle it without police involvement out of respect to your colleage but how long does it take to arrange restitution, a month? If my child stole $160 right now from a colleague, I would pay it tomorrow. I should count my lucky stars my child didn't get charged. Then I will deal with my own troubled child. But it's been a month and it still hasn't been settled, so maybe she should get charge, she may need to learn a lesson..stealing is bad.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Maybe Kim's daughter hasn't repaid her mother's collegues that she stole from because she is still waiting for her mother to be reimbursed from the district for a pair of croc's, a sweater from the Limited, and a dinner from TGIF's that she purchased on her last SFUSD paid junket.
    You got to wonder about the delay in restituiton. If my kid had stolen from my collegue, I wouldn't be waiting weeks to pay it back.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Did anyone else think it was odd that while this article quoted two board members, there was no comment from school board president Jane Kim?

    Let's see...Jane Kim recently switched her party affiliation from "Green" to "Democrat"...she plans to run for board of supervisors in district 6 in November....she will want the endorsement of the DCCC...Kim-Shree Maufas is running for a seat on the DCCC in June...what are the odds that Jane Kim will say anything about this mess?

    ReplyDelete
  40. 9:57,

    You should know that SFUSD students ARE allowed to get away with crimes on campus all the time. The prevailing attitude is that children ought to be given a second chance and a third and a fourth ad infinitum. That has to do with the character of the leadership as demonstrated in the response to this incident. Not getting away with it an an early age is precisely what discourages bad future behavior and vice- versa.

    Also - why was there a delay in reporting this incident? I'm sure it was not the Chronicle that decided to put a lid on a juicy story. It seems likely that SFUSD tried to keep it under wraps, but I couldn't say for sure. If so, that does not speak well for public transparency and the ideals expressed in the Superintendent's strategic plan. But I will agree that this logic is a bit obselete as the strategic plan's Balanced Scorecard seems to have gone belly up this year. No wonder.

    Someone else pointed out that this (type of incident)is why s/he does not enroll in public. That speaks to why these incidences are so damaging to public education - not so much because that anyone is shocked to learn about gambling going on in Casablanca, but because the manner in which it was handled speaks to the character of the leadership downtown.

    When an adult commits a series of serious crimes on district property and the district does vitually nothing about it, it makes one question whether the same people ought to be responsible for making decisions that affect the health and welfare of our children on campus. Allowing an adult to walk away scott free is a very bad example to set for our children. This is why both Maufas and Garcia ought to resign.

    ReplyDelete
  41. 6:41
    Are you kidding??? A comment from Jane Kim- that woman is just a puppet for Campos, Avalos, and Mirkarimi. I'm sure all the supervisors are diligently working on federal legislation for illegal immigrants and probably some new plastic bag legislation while our kids struggle for good teachers and just getting the basics of the 3R's. Kim has never cared about our children's future and with her mentors busily wasting their time on things that don't affect this city just thier political careers and personal endevors, I'm sure they haven't given a nod to Jane on what her reaction should be.
    Don't hold your breath for the school president to have any kind of reaction. The puppet has not been rehursed.

    ReplyDelete
  42. It seemed clear from the article why a police report had not been filed: 1) the computer never left the building so wasn't technically stolen and 2) it is up to the people who were stolen from to file a complaint - not SFUSD.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Even if it didn't leave the building that only means that, in the case of the computer, a theft did not take place. There is still the matter of trespassing and tampering. As for the cash, when a crime takes place on school district property that IS the district's responsibility to report it. Whether the victims want to press charges is another matter. The fact that it took place on the district property puts the district in a position of some liability. It is not like this happened at a private residence.

    ReplyDelete
  44. The daughter should be charged!

    It's irrelevant if the computer never left the building and was returned within 24 hours.

    Why does the time frame matter? She still stole it from someone's office and relocated to another part of the building with the intent to retrieve it on another day.

    What about the money? The article said "the money had yet to be returned." Is that gounds for filing charges (she didn't return it within 24 hours)? Could someone walk into B of A and steal an employee's money and not be charged with crime? Of course NOT!

    I'm not 100% sure but since the money was stole on the SFUSD premise, doesn't Garcia have the obligation to file charges?

    ReplyDelete
  45. I agree that the Superintendent did not show leadership in this case. These are tough times
    for public education and people want to see strong leadership. I don't think Carlos Garcia passed the litmus test.

    ReplyDelete
  46. If an African American black male stole money out of a principal's purse at school, they would expel the kid and call the police immediately.

    But when it is a school board member's daughter, they look the other way? Is that SFUSD's idea of "social justice"?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Right on 7:14.

    I'm sick of the Campos sychophant narcissitic career builders as well.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I hate crooks, but I hate hypocrites more! Don, the stalker, shouldn't even be allowed to comment since he has his own crimes to worry about. Trespassing, stalking, harassment of district staff to name a few.... Just be thankful YOU haven't been arrested! Just get off the bandwagon please. The Maufas lynch mob doesn't need you anyways. You're all bark and no bite. You just like to stir stuff up don't you! Do you have anything better to do? Why don't you go get a job or something!

    ReplyDelete
  49. Ironic comment that Kim Shree made to me when I asked for her support for neighborhood schools.

    She first told me that neighborhood schools had a racism tone to it and I should refer them as walkable schools.

    Secondly, she told me that I would benefit from getting to know a different neighborhood like she and her daughter.

    I think she should have spent time parenting instead of being a member of the school board

    ReplyDelete
  50. Anon. 10:59, that was my first thought.

    I've never met Kimshree but she does sound like a nightmare -- does she really "advise" parents by telling them to emulate her parenting and neighborhood choices, while charging personal expenses to the district and inviting her daughter to roam a district building during meetings?

    ReplyDelete
  51. 2:46, "walkable schools" is ludicrous in a city so filled with hills -- our neighborhood school is only walkable from our house if you are an Olympic athlete. There is nothing racist about the term "neighborhood," last time I checked. And while I do not support neighborhood schools, you don't "get to know" a different neighborhood by driving your kid there and dropping them off. You get to know a neighborhood by walking around in it. She sound insufferable.

    ReplyDelete
  52. -Trespassing, stalking, harassment of district staff to name a few.... Just be thankful YOU haven't been arrested!-

    You can say whatever you want about me, I suppose. What are they going to arrest me for - political activism? If that is a punishable offense in YOUR America, God help us.

    I am on the phone, on email and at 555 quite often to talk with district staff. It's all routine as part of information gathering. I interact with several different people at the central office. If anything you said was true why then haven't any of these people taken the actions you recommend? You are clearly loosing it in your blind rage. It is YOUR behavior that is beyond the pale. Just because you are angry over your own family situation doesn't mean you should take it out on others. Furthermore, while saying untruths over and over may convince influence some people, most are smart enough to spot the difference between a personal vendetta and an honest and intelligent critique. If anyone is ruining this blog it is you. In any case, I would never stop commenting based on your adsurd accusations.

    ReplyDelete
  53. I too was shocked that the term "neighborhood school" was racist. She told me that it was a term used in the 70s.

    Ok .. I am walking to my public school in the 70s and didn't understand the word racism.

    ReplyDelete
  54. It takes a village, unless that village is a neighborhood. But what do neighborhoods schools have to do with this thread?

    ReplyDelete
  55. Don,

    Don't worry about it. What can you expect from someone who says that hypocrites are worse than criminals? Anonymous is working with a full deck.

    ReplyDelete
  56. I mean Not working witha full one.

    ReplyDelete
  57. I feel bad for everyone involved. Why on earth would a 22 year old make the decision to a. steal and b. steal from her mother's co-workers?

    If the daughter is making these types of decisions, it makes you wonder what else she is involved in. As a mother myself, I feel bad for Kimshree as a mother. I am sure she is ashamed and feels guilty and depressed as a parent.

    ReplyDelete
  58. True. It is all very sad and horrible, but I do think it is being handled badly.

    ReplyDelete
  59. If she feels so badly for her daughters actions why does't she return the money?

    ReplyDelete
  60. She's saying: "I only took 240 bucks Mama, that bitch is lying."

    ReplyDelete
  61. This incident has racial overtones. The previous comment is inflammatory conjecture. It isn't funny either. Don't fan the flames.

    ReplyDelete
  62. For me the issue is if a person who was not in any way connected to the board or SFUSD had:
    a) removed a district laptop to a different part of the building with probably intention to remove it from the building later
    b) on two seperate occasions had stolen money from individuals who worked within the building and had not returned that money
    c) had confessed only when confronted with the images on the security cameras
    Would the district be acting differently now? I pretty much think they would. It doesn't reflect well on the district to be seen to be giving preferential treatment to a board members daughter.

    I agree that this is a difficult situation for all involved, but I don't think it is being handled well at all.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Of course it is not being handled well. Mr. Garcia is in charge. He's the one that wants to prosecute people at district expense for using fake addresses, but won't call the police when a crime is committed in his own offices.

    ReplyDelete
  64. The issue with Maufas goes well beyond her behavior or her daughter's. It is not enough for board members to simply act appropriately. The other members have to have the courage of their convictions to speak out against their colleagues' actions that demean the institution of public education and the character of the Board that represents it. To the last one they have all been notably silent. Sad what passes for leadership in education nowadays.

    ReplyDelete
  65. You're overposting again, Don. And no, I'm not the poster who keeps accusing you of being a stalker -- just someone who gets bored of reading similar stuff from you on every thread.

    ReplyDelete
  66. He's off his meds, apparently.

    ReplyDelete
  67. What would you have don do, post anonymously so he isn't accused of doing what the other anonymous people frequently do, post over and over with no name? If you don't like his comments don't read 'em. It's pretty simple. Don't fault him for standing behind his name. Or are you just jealous that you do not possess the courage of your convictions to do the same?

    ReplyDelete
  68. 10:58=Don, sockpuppeting. Ignore him.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Anyone who spends anytime in the blogosphere knows that it's unreasonable to make anonymous accusations. You people don't get around much, do you?

    ReplyDelete
  70. Seriously, people. Go outside. It is a lovely day.

    ReplyDelete
  71. you're not outside enjoying it either

    ReplyDelete
  72. I have brilliant suggestion. Why don't those of us who tire of Don simply ignore his comments, so that every single thread doesn't devolve into a tea party between him and his detractors? That's my main problem here, the ruination of this blog by every single thread coming down to him-vs-whomever, including his anonymous accusers. Just let his comments sit there where Jesus flang 'em, and contact him directly with whatever issues you have. I realize I am doing the diametrical opposite just now, but I can't communicate telepathically.

    ReplyDelete
  73. I have no problem with Don commentary. I do have a problem with some other uncouth commentary. If this high school nastiness continues no one will want to read KFILES.

    ReplyDelete
  74. 11:07am=Don=A-DON-ai=Don Krause. Sockpuppeting again. There's really only one guy ruining this blog. Please stop.

    ReplyDelete
  75. hows about we get Kate to rename the blog "The SF Don K Files"?

    /snark

    but seriously, those who complain about Don are far more tiresome to me than he is. please put Don on ignore if you don't like him, and stop compounding the situation with your righteousness. thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Hey Don,
    Look, you're famous! That's what you wanted right?

    ReplyDelete
  77. Don deserves it for not posting anonymously like the rest of us.

    ReplyDelete
  78. 5:14
    You have a point.
    For all those that are bothered by his posts and feel it necessary to complain- please do so by identyfing yourself by your birth name- none of this anonymous baloney. Don has the guts to publish his name- maybe you should also.
    But alas, I remain
    -anonymous
    and not a peep out of me regarding his posts.

    ReplyDelete
  79. M, thank you for providing us with a demonstration of how terrorism works on-line - how it is easier to destroy than it is to build - how it is easier (for some) to engage in character defamation than to display character. I would hope that this is not a lesson we need.

    As for the meds crack, I find it curious that you would use this choice of putdowns and to do so in a mean schoolyard bullying fashion, given your own unfortunate family situation. Your hysteria and mean spritedness is well known, but it is a choice, not irreversible, unlike some other ailments.

    As for someone's suggestion that this is be renamed the SF Don K files, that's cute. Perhaps I should post anonymously. Then I would breathe easier about taking responsibility for the blog.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Is there a way to block certain people's posts? So you don't even have to click through them?

    ReplyDelete
  81. Can you block it by IP address? Most of this is all written by the same person pretending to be other people.

    ReplyDelete
  82. "Don, the stalker, shouldn't even be allowed to comment since he has his own crimes to worry about."

    Come on Don, you posted this yourself so you could pose as a victim, didn't you? Or did someone hack into your IP address again, like on the SF Schools list?

    Give it a break, for God's sake.

    ReplyDelete
  83. PLEASE JUST IGNORE THE SOCKPUPPET TROLL.

    ReplyDelete
  84. How come the Maufas family never returned the money after more than a month? At the very least they ought to do that.

    ReplyDelete
  85. I was wondering the same thing. How is it that Kim-Shree Maufas can afford to go out of town to a "restorative justice conference" but she can't afford to pay back money her daughter stole from her work colleagues?

    ReplyDelete
  86. Either Kimshree is broke, and doesn't have the money, or she thinks she shouldn't have to repay it (like her personal credit card charges).

    ReplyDelete
  87. 8:59
    Believe it or not, SFUSD pays for Kimshree's trips to those conferences. Teachers have no money for supplies, but Kimshree goes to restorative justice conferences.
    makes so much sense, doesn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  88. You "sockpuppet" commenters are way worse than Don. It's really annoying to discredit someone you don't agree with by calling them a "sockpuppet" as if they couldn't possibly disagree with you (or agree with Don, in this case.) I'm sure one of the subsequent comments will call me one of Don's sockpuppets too.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Why doesn't the Board and the district staff forego further travel until this budget mess is over? Are these conferences essential for running our district?

    ReplyDelete
  90. 9:10
    Yes, it's a good question.
    There's no money for such luxuries right now.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Skim-free Maufas is not the only one to burn through our education dollars with expenses-paid junkets are the country. Everyone at SFUSD should stop this practice.

    ReplyDelete
  92. I meant to say "around the country". Morning coffee?

    ReplyDelete
  93. All perks like business lunches, seminars,retreats, etc. ought to be discontinued immediately. This is a crisis. Can we count on our district to be a good steward during this time of need and to demonstrate on how to tighten the belt by tightening its own belt first?

    Why not ask Francesca to do some community service in exchange for her 'indiscretions'?

    ReplyDelete
  94. Is she still spending the kids' money recklessly?

    ReplyDelete
  95. Hey 9:15

    There's no money for such luxuries right now.

    Since when has education budgets in California been so flush that we can afford luxuries? We've been in crisis a lot longer than just this year. What are they going to do with these expenses, write it off on their taxes?

    ReplyDelete
  96. The Board of Education already passed the Restorative Justice Resolution and like it or not it is now in the administration's hands to implement it. So can somebody tell me why a Board member is still running off to conferences when it is now up to staff to get the job done?

    ReplyDelete
  97. The San Francisco Bay Guardian just endorsed Kimshree for Central Committee in the upcoming election.

    Reach into your purses for your checkbooks. Oh wait, my checkbook is gone! And so is my money!

    ReplyDelete
  98. They don't call it the "Guardian" for nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Wait! It gets better.
    Sandra Fewer is also running for DCCC as is Maufas and Jane Kim is running for Supervisor.
    This explains all of the demagoguery and pontificating by Fewer and Maufas for the "home viewers".
    Let's stop the political stepping stone practice;
    No on Fewer, Maufas and KIM! If you don't want to work on the BOE- don't run in the first place!

    ReplyDelete
  100. 12:09
    That's just perfect. These creeps who promote restorative justice as the solution for kids who are just plain thieves, want to be the official governing body for the Democratic party in San Francisco? Talk about inmates running the asylum!

    ReplyDelete
  101. Exactly!
    New Kinder Parents need to be aware of the shenanigans going on at the BOE.

    The inmates ARE running the asylum.
    The "policy churn" that results from political grandstanding gets in the way of the district responding to the needs of ALL students.
    It also adds to renegade power mongers like Kevin Truitt whose job is to align himself with these creeps and grandstand at the expense of programs for children.

    ReplyDelete
  102. What's the connection/comment about Kevin Truitt? He is in admin (and from what I can tell, quite good) and is not an elected official.

    Why is he mentioned in the comment above?

    ReplyDelete
  103. I like Kevin Truitt. He was a great principal and thinks of the kids first.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Truitt lied to the Cobb community, maligned the Montessori staff and has been a co-politico with Maufas and Fewer and Kim at the expense of Western Addition children.
    He did a good job at Mission as principal but went to the dark side when he became a district administrator. He's been protected by Maufas when caught lying and violating confidential information.
    He's a byproduct of a micromanaging, grandstanding BOE.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Don: "Then I would breathe easier about taking responsibility for the blog."

    It's not your blog, Don, however you might wish for it to be so.

    ReplyDelete
  106. IGNORE THE PSYCHO.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Has there been any word on whether Maufas has repaid the money that her daughter stole? Doesn't the school board job pay $500 a month? It's the end of the month, must be close to payday. Maufas will have $500 soon - an honorable person would use that money to make restitution to her daughter's victims.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Nope, she hasn't repaid the money. That is the weirdest part of the whole story. I can sort of understand not calling the cops, but I can't understand how the people were not given their money back.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Does Kim Shree have a paying job? I am just curious. If so what is it? If not, how does she support herself?

    ReplyDelete
  110. Maufas worked at UCSF and was fired for not following through on work. She is unemployed.
    She is the poster child for "smoke and mirror" progressive politics. There's no there...there.
    She is running for DCCC board along with Sandy Fewer another BOE member.
    Parents need to look hard at the ambitious demagogues vying for political office using the SFUSD Board of Ed as their stepping stone to bigger and better things. They make decisions based upon inuendo and rumor and knee jerk politics- not what is best for children or research based.

    ReplyDelete
  111. She hasn't paid back the stolen money? That doesn't sound very "restorative", nor does it sound like "justice." What a bunch of BS! Call the cops.

    ReplyDelete
  112. For me the biggest issue is not about the theft itself or the lack of repayment, although those were pretty outrageous under the circumstances. The real issue is the fact that Garcia put the onus on Jill Wynns to call the police on a family member of one of her Board colleagues. Instead of acting himself, he put Wynns in the very bad circumstance. Hypothetically, what could Wynns' silence buy? A crime was committed and Garcia failed to act.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Best example yet of progressive hypocracy. Doesn't bother the Bay Guardian - the centerpiece of the left in SF.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Day 22 of MaufasGate
    Has she repaid the money yet?

    ReplyDelete
  115. ER, um... It is up to Wynns to press charges, not Garcia.

    If someone broke into my apartment, *I'd* be the one calling the police, not my landlord.

    ReplyDelete
  116. 12:57,

    Yes, that is true but Garcia set p residence that charges not be filed. Wynns would be the only one pressing charges. I think that Garcia, as a leader, should have taken it to the police and let them handle it. This is not a good stance to take in making sure children in the city know that there are laws and that we all must be accountable for them but I guess that isn't true for BOE and their ilk.

    ReplyDelete
  117. 12:57 Your landlord is also not in charge of our children's education who is being paid by our tax dollar.

    ReplyDelete
  118. UESF endorsed Kim Shree last time she ran for school board so I voted for her. I won't make that mistake again.

    ReplyDelete
  119. 12:57

    the crimes were committee on school district property, and were committed against school district employees.
    It most certainly is Carlos Garcia's responsibility to press charges.

    ReplyDelete
  120. 5:19

    Thank you for reminding us what common sense is. How can anyone think that the district has nothing to do with this?

    ReplyDelete
  121. Her daughter Sharee was in the JROTC. Not the purse snatcher.

    Saw the first post and had to correct this.

    [It shouldn't matter; but MuggieLogic dictates that the evil JROTC mark must be printed on the forehead of anyone ever had a family member in the organizaton, even Obama.]

    ReplyDelete
  122. 7:26, She only has one daughter, named Francesca, so unless her nick-name was SHaree, you are mistaken.
    I think the JROTC thing was brought up because people were making comments on sfgate about Kimshree voting to end JROTC, as if that was in some way connected to this sad situation.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Commenters on sfgate were saying that her daughter would not be stealing if she was in JROTC, so you can imagine the irony of it all, the fact that her daughter was in JROTC.
    It really has nothing to do with anything, though. Just both sides of an old issue trying to dredge it up again.

    ReplyDelete
  124. 5:19, yes. It's the equivalent of someone visiting a school and stealing from teachers' desks, no? Which I believe would be grounds for some action by the school or district and the police.

    ReplyDelete
  125. "I think it's an unfortunate incident," Wynns said. "The superintendent told me that the district would not file a report and that I could if I wanted to, but that he was trying to work out some arrangement for restitution and to satisfy all our concerns about protecting the district and all employees."

    Does this include paying back the money stolen or is it some kind restorative justice resolution? I wonder what kind of restitution Mr. Garcia is seeking if not returning the money? There is something seriously wrong with the picture and everyone involved is conspicuously silent. Skim-free is nor directly responsible for her adult daughter's "unfortunate incidence", but I cannot understand how this can be resolved without restitution. Welcome to the brave new world of Mr. Garcia's morally equivalent equity.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Don't hold your breath waiting for closure.

    ReplyDelete
  127. When the Maufas credit card story broke, Tim Redmond of SFBG tried to marginalize it as a minor issue with the money immediately paid back. He went further to say that it was detracting from pressing education issues. And that credit card guidelines were not clear.

    What's he got to say now that the money isn't repaid? It isn't Kim's responsibility? Or that stories that speak to character like this one are meaningless in the context of the pressing education issues? Or that the definition of stealing on the premises is not clearly defined? This story and the credit card story speak to the judgment of those in charge.

    ReplyDelete
  128. Bay Guardian is still endorsing her for Democratic central committee.

    ReplyDelete
  129. There was a time earlier in this decade when it was thought that a candidate could not get elected to the school board without the endorsement of the Bay Guardian. In 2004, all four of the candidates they endorsed(Eric Mar, Mark Sanchez, Jill Wynns, and Norman Yee) were elected.

    But the SFBG has not had a clean sweep like that since 2004. In 2006, they endorsed Kim-Shree Maufas, Jane Kim, and Bob Twomey; Twomey lost and Hydra Mendoza won. Then in 2008, the SFBG's grip on school board elections loosened further when just two of their four endorsed candidates won. Sandra Fewer and Norman Yee were elected, but the other two SFBG-backed candidates, Kimberly Wycoff and Bobbi Lopez, lost to Jill Wynns and Rachel Norton.

    The moral of the story is, Tim Redmond has shown poor judgement before, and no doubt he will do so again. Endorsing Kim-Shree Maufas for DCCC is just his latest gaffe. Those who are fed up with her lecturing SFUSD parents on how they should emulate her parenting style (while her child steals from district personnel), and those who are tired of listening to her pointless rambling monologues during board meetings, and those who are sick of her lax ways with district credit cards, need to come out and vote in the June election. There are plenty of other candidates running for DCCC; let's elect some responsible folks for a change.

    ReplyDelete
  130. I used to vote the SF Bay Guardian line (took their recommendation sheet to the polls with me).

    But, after living in this city for three decades, I have seen how dogmatic progressivism harms us all.

    Look at the school board. Jan Kim has never paid much attention to the board (she was too busy attending law school). Mar and Sanchez had all kinds of silly ideas about economic justice (Mar never bothered putting his kids in the East Side schools like he ordered the rest of us to do).

    Mar, Kim, Maufus, et al, se the school board merely as a stepping stone to bigger things.

    ReplyDelete
  131. The San Francisco Women's Political Committee is suggesting endorsing Maufas as well, so it looks like the "fix is in."

    If you live in AD-13 you should vote for Catherine Stefani instead of Maufas for DCCC.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Hmmm, that is disturbing news about the possible SFWPC endorsement, especially given that their website lists the following
    SFWPC Values

    Professionalism
    Integrity
    Collaboration
    Political Pragmatism & Savvy
    Inclusion
    Equity
    Grace
    Strength
    Vision
    Financial Responsibility
    Ethical Conduct

    Financial responsibility? Ethical conduct? Hello?

    ReplyDelete
  133. Of course we need responsible folks at the bare minimum. But you also need people with some vision as to where they want the district to go.

    ReplyDelete
  134. What do you mean "the fix is in"?
    That implies some kind of corruption which is different from endorsing poor candidates.

    ReplyDelete
  135. It's MaufasGate Day 24!
    Stop the Madness! Pay back the stolen money!

    ReplyDelete
  136. Will UESF endorse Maufas again for school board? If they do that would reflect very poorly upon them.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Day 25 of MaufasGate.
    What did Kim-Shree's daugher use the stolen money for - was it to help mom pay the rent? Or to buy food which mom helped her eat? Or did she buy gas for mom's car?Inquiring minds want to know!

    ReplyDelete
  138. The Maufases are lucky to have escaped wider publicity, so far. This is like a National Enquirer story or something.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Seriously, I wish the Chronicle reporter would do a follow up piece. Is everyone in the SFUSD just going to pretend that this is no big deal, and figure that it will all blow over and the Maufas family will never make restitution to the victims?

    ReplyDelete
  140. I was told that the SFWPC has their endorsement meeting this Thursday, April 8th. Unfortunately, I cannot attend, but intend to weigh in. Seriously, all those on the BOE should not be on the DCCC.

    Can anyone point to a link that shows the SFWPC is seriously considering endorsement of Maufas?

    If they do, I'll never take them seriously ever again.

    ReplyDelete
  141. 3:54 it is absolutely corruption -- or collusion is probably a better word. The political establishment wants candidates it can control and count on. Not to mention that there is a WAR going on between the progressive and moderate machines in SF for control of the central committee.
    The current leadership of SFWPC is clearly aligning itself with the progressive machine - its recommended endorsements (below) are almost identical with the Bay Guardian's.
    SFWPC recommended DCCC endorsements:
    Democratic County Central Committee-Assembly District 12
    John Avalos
    Michael Bornstein
    Sandra Lee Fewer
    Mary Jung
    Hene Kelly
    Jaynry Mak
    David Wong
    Jake McGoldrick
    Jane Morrison
    Melanie Nutter
    Connie O'Connor
    Kelenia Olson

    Democratic County Central Committee-Assembly District 13
    Melissa Apuya
    David Campos
    David Chiu
    Michael Goldstein
    Gabriel (Robert) Haaland
    Leslie Katz
    Kim-shree Maufus
    Rafael Mandelman
    Carole Migden
    Aaron Peskin
    Alix Rosenthal
    Debra Walker

    This is exactly what I meant by "the fix is in."

    ReplyDelete
  142. Still don't get your point that it is corruption. All political organizations want to count on the candidates they endorse. So what?

    ReplyDelete
  143. 11:38, don't play dumb. If those endorsed candidates actually aligned with the organization's values rather than the Bay Guardian's editorial board then it wouldn't be collusion. Otherwise, it's just all a big game where the same 10 or 15 people are pulling the strings. They like Maufas because she reliably votes with labor and the far left, not because she embodies the SFWPC's stated values of "ethics" and "financial responsibility."

    And let's not just pick on Maufas. How about the SFWPC endorsement of Jaynry Mak? She's got a long history of corruption and a cozy relationship with (soon to be the favored progressive Mayoral candidate) Leland Yee:

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/07/BAG7AKCFGN1.DTL

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/09/14/BAGPJL5DHP1.DTL

    This run for DCCC is her last chance - she ran for Supervisor in D4 (Sunset) in 2006, for school board (shudder) in 2008, and now the DCCC. Make sure this woman's political aspirations are over! She is bad news.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Rachel comments on wannabys ( like Fewer and Maufas) and unions on her blog on an article in the Economist.

    She says:

    " A brief article on California’s education woes is pure conservative party line (with a halfhearted dig at Prop. 13 tacked on at the end for balance). It’s almost as if the writer just phoned in the commentary from a comfy perch in the magazine’s Washington bureau (there is a Los Angeles dateline, so maybe the writer phoned in the piece while relaxing poolside at the Chateau Marmont). But really, when you look at who is quoted, it’s not surprising the article takes the slant it does:

    Eli Broad, a Los Angeles philanthropist who is trying to reform education, blames a combination of California’s dysfunctional governance, with “elected school boards made up of wannabes and unions”,..." End quote.

    It may be pure conservative party line, but Rachel fails to mention that the issues raised are also Obama and Duncan's policy objectives and strategies, ESEA (NCLB). There IS way too much dysfunctional governance as the Maufas scandal illustrates in a small but highly personal way for many of us. There is a lack of leadership as Garcia has shown.

    Rachel also puts the onus of the education woes on funding. While it is undoubtedly a big big problem, it ought to be no more the largest problem for progressives than teacher quality is for conservatives. Everyone understands that the biggest problem is the lack of preparedness and family support. Administrators can't fire parents or students so teachers take the fall instead. Teachers claim it isn't their fault if students fail, it is lack of funding.

    Both are pointing elsewhere and I believe both are incorrect. Each side has an ulterior motive. The conservatives want to lessen the hold of unions on state and local boards and the liberals want to hold onto their control. They are both talking money and power.

    If you want to address achievement, academic outcome is mostly a function of home life, SES and culture. Schools may intervene in positive or negative ways but usually don't fundamentally change the outcome even with better teachers or more money. At least that what the data shows in what Mr. Garcia terms "the predictive power of demographics". Look what $20k per student bought in DC. One of the worst outcomes in ther nation. But teacher bashing is not the answer.

    Also just as an aside, Rachel's imaginary embellishments about phoning in the story reveals more about her bias than it does the author's.

    ReplyDelete
  145. DON is writing about imaginary embellishments? That's ironic.

    ReplyDelete
  146. MaufasGate Day 26
    Spring break is over; the BOE starts meeting again. Will Kim-Shree show her face at the curriculum committee meeting tonight? Will she bring money with her to pay back her daughter's victims? Or will it be business as usual, with everyone pretending they are all just such good friends (and after all, what's a little thievery among friends?)

    ReplyDelete
  147. 6:54 - Whatever problem you have with Don why don't you take it off line? Why make this blog your vehicle for your personal vendetta? Give us a break.

    ReplyDelete
  148. Second that.

    I too wonder why the left and the right formed an alliance on NCLB. Isn't it the ONLY policy that has bipartisan support? Getting off topic.

    Not playing dumb. Only don't understand. Straying from a principled position on endorsements is not the equilvalent of corruption.

    ReplyDelete
  149. While you can agree or disagree regarding the handling of thefts from 555 Franklin by Francesca Maufas, directing frustration at the concept called "Restorative Justice" is wrong.

    Restorative Justice stresses repair of harm, and focuses on the needs of victims and community members.

    IF you're against involving victims in the resolution of their crimes, then be against Restorative Justice.

    If you're against reducing the harmful impacts of the juvenile and criminal justice systems, then be against Restorative Justice.

    If you believe that the current systems of suspension, arrest and expulsion in SFUSD has benefited kids and society, then be against Restorative Justice.

    If Francesca fails to pay restitution, then Restorative Justice has NOT been done! If the victims of this crime are not heard and honored in the outcome, then Restorative Justice has NOT been done. Restorative Justice is not synonymous with "getting out of trouble".

    Say what you will about the handling of this incident, the district's fiscal policy or their "social justice" attitude; but railing against Restorative Justice makes no sense and is counter-productive.

    ReplyDelete
  150. Don't know about the others, but from where I am coming the two issues are linked. Those who are in charge must demonstrate their commitment to justice in their own lives and dealings. If they can't do that, how can they be trusted to adopt and implement Restorative Justice system wide? The program is only as good as those that run it and if "MaufasGate" is any indication, those that run it have a strange idea of justice. First they tried to hide the crime and when that didn't work they made false promises of restitution. So why on earth should I support a Restorative Justice program coming down from 555?

    ReplyDelete
  151. Dateline San Francisco
    Today, Day 27 of MaufasGate, it was revealed that the scandal which has shocked this City by the Bay may claim yet another victim. The Restorative Justice concept has been blamed, unfairly some say, for the refusal of Superintendent Carlos Garcia to insist that confessed thief Francesca Maufas make restitution to the two victims of her crime. Will Restorative Justice topple, a third victim of the Maufas family's callous refusal to pay back the stolen funds? Stay tuned.....

    ReplyDelete
  152. Restorative Justice????? That's just an expense item that Kim can use to skim extra dollars from SF taxpayers, for her pockets while she stays in nice hotels with room service.

    But really Day 27, this woman still hasn't found someone else to pilfer from to pay off her daughter debt? Or has her daughter stolen from others that she also needs to make restitution for.

    This story become sicker and sicker.

    ReplyDelete
  153. It's not a matter of being for or against restorative justice. Rather it is the hypocrisy of BOE members and Associate Superintendents who choose to; lie to a commuity then claim to be in favor of restorative justice. Examples:
    Kevin Truitt at Cobb and Montessori
    Maufas and Carver families- talking smack at a BOE meeting that she wasn't even attending about the Carver families- shame on her!
    Jane Kim who postures and pontificates but doesn't have the time to get the facts from families because she's too busy building her law and poitical career.
    SFUSD families are getting short shrift in the name of all of the jargon; equity, restorative justice; walking the talk.
    hmmm.... It's not what restorative justice MEANS. It's the liars who are talkiing so much about it and who are blowing smoke for political careers; who hold up progress on ANYTHING and go on hearsay instead of getting facts.

    ReplyDelete
  154. One of the principles of Restorative Justice process is asking the offender to take ownership of the problem. We are waiting for the Maufas family to do that.

    ReplyDelete
  155. Don,

    I think the correct phrase will be..."You'll wait until He!! Freezes over!" This really stinks!

    ReplyDelete
  156. Sandra Fewer and Jane Kim are both comfortably off, from a financial perspective. Since they are such good friends with Kim-Shree, it seems odd that they wouldn't offer to lend her the money so that she could have her daughter repay what she stole. For that matter, Carlos Garcia could lend her the money. Or maybe they are worried that Kim-Shree would never pay back the loan?

    ReplyDelete
  157. How do we know that Francesca has not yet repaid the money she stole? She may have done so quietly.

    ReplyDelete
  158. The money isn't the point.
    It's the way that it was handled by the district and the misplaced emphasis on issues that are politically correct but are hypocritical to reality and to core values.

    ReplyDelete
  159. How do we know she hasn't paid the money back quietly? Because there would be no advantage to doing that. Paying the money back quietly is only advantageous if you have also managed to keep the news of the theft quiet. Once the whole world knows you are a thief, and everyone is talkin' smack about you, why would you want to keep it quiet that you paid back the money? You would want the whole world to know, so that they would stop talking about you.
    Do you have proof that the money HAS been paid back?

    ReplyDelete
  160. I'm not sure there would be no advantage. In a case like this any publicity is bad publicity. Sure restitution might convince a few, but out there in the general public, another story about the theft would just be more bad news for those involved. I figure they would rather it go away quietly, even it that means leaving it undone.

    ReplyDelete
  161. MaufasGate Day 29
    It has been almost a month since the 22 year old daughter of school board member Kim-Shree Maufas confessed to stealing money from a top district staffer, and also from one of her mother’s colleagues on the school board. Yet thus far there has been no public statement from the Maufas family apologizing for the theft, or explaining why the younger Maufas also took a laptop from the district staffer’s office, or declaring that the stolen funds had been repaid. While observers hope for clarity on the situation, it has been suggested that perhaps the Maufas family’s silence is a strategy to hush up the whole sorry affair. Meanwhile the City waits for Restorative Justice…and waits…and waits…..

    ReplyDelete
  162. I am horrified to learn that the SFWPC (SF Women's Political Committee) endorsed Maufas for DCCC.

    WTF! Is it only because she is female?

    ReplyDelete
  163. Maybe she isn't even female!

    ReplyDelete