Thursday, August 12, 2010

SFGate: New twist in alleged theft at S.F. school board

This from SFGate:

The adult daughter of school board member Kim-Shree Maufas recanted her confession that she stole money in February from another board member after video surveillance showed she wasn't in the district office that day, district officials said this week.

Francesca Maufas told Superintendent Carlos Garcia in March that she took $160 from Jill Wynns' purse, which was in the Board of Education office, during a late February board meeting.

She also confessed to stealing a district laptop and $90 cash from a third-floor office of a senior staff member during the board's March 9 meeting, Garcia said.

In the second incident, a surveillance camera captured Francesca Maufas, 22, in the hallway and entering the staff member's office; Maufas admitted to the theft the next day, district officials said.

69 comments:

  1. I find this whole story perplexing. Why confess to the 2nd crime and repay the money if she didn't do it? Why wasn't she charged with the first crime? Jill Wynns is returning the $160 repaid her? Someone is spending their days watching video surveillance tapes? It must be an SFUSD employee, since the crimes were never reported to the police. What a fiasco.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Protecting her mother?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree. It only makes sense if she was protecting her mom. That would explain why the daughter copped to a crime she now says she didn't commit. She was caught on tape committing the first theft, so rather than watch her mother's career go up in flames, she cops to the second theft too. The question is, why the change of heart now?

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's so sad, all of this. There's obviously huge problems in that family.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Doesn't this feel like waiting for the other shoe to drop? There is obviously so much more to this story than we are being told.

    ReplyDelete
  6. No kidding! But meanwhile, hang onto your wallet when the Maufas family is around.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I can't believe she is running again for School Board.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Didn't the teachers union endorse her the last time around? I hope they don't make that mistake again.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yes, they endorsed her last time and I heard that they made a deal to endorse her again for some favor?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Maufas is backed by David Campos, Aaron Peskin and Tom Ammiano.

    All are part of the Democratic County Central Committee:

    http://www.sfdemocrats.org/section.php?id=8

    While there are a few people on the DCCC that I consider to be honest politicians advocating for their constituencies, there do seem to be quite a few members with pet agenda's such as:

    The legalization of marijuana,
    The MacDonald's wars,
    The cell phone wars,
    and other utopian issues.

    I've been following Melissa Gilbert's blog (www.thesweetmelissa.com) and I find her observations about the surreal nature of the DCCC to be pricelessly funny.

    Unfortunately, Ms. Maufas will probably continue to get support from the DCCC, regardless of these events.

    If the city can turn their backs on the murder of a German tourist in order to try to save Camilla Harris's run for attorney general, I'm sure they can turn their backs on a petty theft issue concerning Ms. Maufas.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Why would Campos, Peskin and Ammiano support her?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Everything else aside: Kamala Harris, not Camilla. She's part South Asian (Indian) American and part African American. The name Kamala reflects her South Asian heritage.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Campos, Peskin and Ammiano must not be paying close attention.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Maufas is also supporter by fellow BOE member Sandra Fewer who is on the DCCC. Not sure about Aaron Peskin. I had heard he was trying to talk her out of running again. I guess he knows what an embarrassment she is.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Have you listened to her, during Board meetings? She rants on like an idiot. She forgets what the subject was during her lengthy responses, but just keeps on talking.

    ReplyDelete
  16. That would describe Fewer or Maufas, wouldn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Isn't Maufas the one who lectured parents at a school board meeting about how they should emulate her child rearing techniques? So, the next time I steal from one of my colleagues at work, I should just let my child take the blame for it?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Yes. She's also the "restorative justice" person on the Board.

    ReplyDelete
  19. At 7:50 AM

    I totally agree! I have listed to Sandra Lee Fewer during Board meetings. She is an idiot! I don't know how she gets elected....

    ReplyDelete
  20. Unfortunatley the endorsement that really counts is the Bay Guardian and their stance on all crimes Maufas is "what's the big deal."

    ReplyDelete
  21. Word is that Sandra Fewer threatened to try to get SF Chronicle reporter Jill Tucker fired if she wrote the story about the Maufas theft(s?).

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anybody read Ken Garcia's article in the SF Examiner today on the DCCC?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Sandra Fewer thinks she runs the SFUSD. She has targeted many staff people for termination, including some who were at schools her children attended. I guess her motivation in running for school board was so that she would have a way to settle old scores. Charming.

    ReplyDelete
  24. The San Francisco School Board is such a mess. Jane Kim only became a school board member so she could someday be a supervisor. Jane Kim spent her time as a board member accomplishing nothing and used school kids' money to go to hip hop convention in Las Vegas. In true carpetbagger form -- Jane Kim moved to District 6 because she thought that was her best shot at it, not because she is part of the neighborhood or cares about district 6. Another child of the wealthy trying to buy her way onto the board of supervisors.

    ReplyDelete
  25. What buffoons - I don't know how these public school boosters do it. These lunatics are running the show. REALLY?

    ReplyDelete
  26. How many BOE spots are up for grabs in Nov?

    ReplyDelete
  27. At 8:02pm, I agree with you. SFUSD BOE is only a stepping stone for her. Jane Kim got admitted to State Bar of CA on 12/8/09, then she uses her newly acquired attorney title to support her District 6 campaign.

    Half of the people on the current BOE are jokers.

    ReplyDelete
  28. There are three spots open on the BOE in the upcoming election. Jane Kim is running for Supervisor in D6, so a new person will get her spot. Hydra Mendoza and Kim Shree Maufas are also up for reelection. Mendoza is likely to get re elected but no one with any sense would vote for a dodgy character like Maufas, so that spot will also probably go to a newcomer.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I don't know which is worse, the idea that Kim Shree stole from another school board member, or that she let her daughter take the blame for it.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I think the Maufas family deserves sympathy. Lots of families are dysfunctional and troubled. But they shouldn't be holding positions of public trust where they can inflict their troubles and dysfunctions on others.

    And that's not even counting the fact that Kim-Shree Maufas is using a board car at SFUSD expense -- and taxis at SFUSD expense -- for personal business and campaign business. I hear her campaign finances are being investigated, too.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Wouldn't the proper thing be for Maufas to step down at the end of her term? Why is she running for another term? We need people of integrity on the school board, not crooks and bullies.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "Kim-Shree Maufas is using a board car at SFUSD expense -- and taxis at SFUSD expense -- for personal business and campaign business."

    She should be fired and forced to do 300 hours of community service in the schools.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I don't want her anywhere near my kid's school.

    ReplyDelete
  34. It's no wonder so many people in San Francisco put their kids in private school. This whole story is just another example of how the clowns are running the circus that is the public schools.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Isn't anyone having a look at all her taxi rides and car use? Don't the BOE members have to log the usage down, and explain why it was BOE business?

    ReplyDelete
  36. There are a remarkable amount of entirely unsubstantiated claims on this thread. Commenters have anonymously accused Kim-Shree Maufas of theft, having her child take the blame for her theft and inappropriate/illegal use of District resources. Sandra Fewer is charged with attempting to quash stories and retaliation against people who have made her unhappy.

    Not one iota of evidence is given. That's disturbing.

    It is possible to vehemently disagree with the positions and priorities of members of the SFUSD Board of Education without resorting to Rovian tactics.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Yes, it all should be investigated. Give them lie-detector tests and get to the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Kim-Shree's recent "tweet":

    " Learned from my daughter this evening that she's having a daughter....another fine progressive female heading our way. 9:59 PM Jul 23rd "

    I don't consider Kim-Shree or her daughter "fine progressive females", in fact, both are an embarrassment to progressive politics in San Francisco.

    ReplyDelete
  39. If there is another explanation for why Maufas would allow her daughter to confess to stealing money from Jill Wynns, to make restitution, and to write an apology to Wynns, when the surveillance tapes prove that the daughter did not enter or leave the scene of the crime on the day in question, I would love to hear it. Since the daughter was not guilty of this crime, she must have told her mother of her innocence. Wouldn’t it be the natural inclination of any parent to defend their child against unjust accusations? To demand proof of the child’s guilt before compelling a confession, apology, and restitution? There was no proof, so how to explain the confession and subsequent actions? It is not a stretch to assume that Maufas was knowingly letting her daughter take the blame for her own actions. But stay tuned - there is bound to be more to this story coming in the Chronicle, assuming Sandra Fewer was not able to make good on her alleged threat to get reporter Jill Tucker fired.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Sandy Fewer doesn't have the "power" to get anyone fired, not even school district employees who probably should be fired.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Thanks for mentioning that Kim Shree tweets, 8:31. I searched for her on twitter and read some of her "tweets". Found this, sent from the DCCC meeting on August 11th at 8:49pm.
    "Member Jane Morrison holdin' it down about why "no" for Sit/Lie! Fazio agrees w/Campos & Sparks. Fewer confirms w/Police Hubby says No!"
    I had heard that Sandy Fewer's husband was a police officer but I had no idea he was the official spokesperson for the police department!

    ReplyDelete
  42. It's like a bad dream.

    ReplyDelete
  43. You mean recall Fewer? Maufas is running for re-election, so she just needs to lose.

    ReplyDelete
  44. You mean recall Fewer? Maufas is running for re-election, so she just needs to lose.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Fewer has two more years, god help the kids of SFUSD.

    Maufas is running again, and UESF will probably endorse her again because she is stupid and easy to manipulate. The Bay Guardian will endorse her again because they are stupid and don't want to admit the mistake they made, endorsing her the first time. If the DCCC endorses Maufas again, it's time to rethink being a democrat.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I think Maufas used to be on the DCCC but in the most recent election she lost her seat. Maybe the DCCC should listen to the will of the voters and not endorse her for another school board run.

    ReplyDelete
  47. No, she was never on the DCCC.
    She tried to run for it, in June, and failed.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I wish people would pay attention to performance/views of board members and vote accordingly. I voted against all the board members that supported the lottery system, but they all won. And I had to do a lot of detective work just to find out who they were and what their stance was. You'd think if all the people complaining on this board voted against them, there would be an impact!

    ReplyDelete
  49. Silly logic. There's only 51 responses to this thread, some are from the same people, so that ain't an awful lot of votes, is it?

    ReplyDelete
  50. People reading this blog and people who pay attention do vote; it's the idiots who just vote the way the Bay Guardian tells them to vote, or how the union tells them to vote, that saddle us with the bad commissioners.

    ReplyDelete
  51. " voted against all the board members that supported the lottery system, but they all won. And I had to do a lot of detective work just to find out who they were and what their stance was. "

    If there is a link for this info, pls share. I'd like to vote against them next time they are up for election too.

    ReplyDelete
  52. All of them voted for the lottery system.

    ReplyDelete
  53. 12:45 PM

    A lot of people vote using the DCCC or Guardian recommendations.

    So many decision makers in the city don't have young children, so they don't experience the schools first hand. Therefore, they have no basis on which to evaluate our politicians or city policy regarding education issues.

    Ah yes, the Guardian, home of the bicycle coalition. Not that I don't wish the city wasn't safer for bikes, but is that really our biggest issue?

    The problem is that the DCCC uses the BOE and the police commission to bring their junior candidates forward.

    But the problems facing the schools extend beyond school policy alone. The Democratic Party uses San Francisco to field its most radically left policies. Trouble is, those radically left policies mostly don't jibe will with being a parent.

    Even in the discussion about John Muir school, someone is trying to stir the conversation to the idea that middle class parents don't care about poor kids.

    Fact is, we're ALL suffering with these radically left positons. As long as jobs are leaving the state, and as long as employers know that their employees are going to have trouble finding schooling for their kids, as long as overcrowding, poor infrastructure and healthcare costs continue to escalate, jobs are going to keep walking out of the state. Income tax dollars, our primary source of revenue for the schools, are going to keep walking out of the state.

    That's hurts everybody.

    For now, the radically left thinks they are somewhat protected from the massive loss of jobs in the private sector. They continue to advocate positions that seem completely disconnected from the realities, costs and needs of families.

    Sure, there are a few hand outs for those on the very bottom economic rung. But who is really being fooled? Does anybody really think that those kids scoring 1/10 in English and 1/10 in math are going to grow up to carry the tax paying burden to pay for future generations? I'm not faulting these kids, just talking about how things actually are. After many attempts and considerable investment, many of our city schools are unspeakably poor performers. Most of these kids will probably be lucky to graduate. Most will be stuck in low wage jobs that will not significantly contribute to the tax base.

    Sure, we should fix that. But is that the only thing we should be focused on fixing?

    It's sad.

    Where's the reality?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Where's the reality?
    Maybe someone left it unattended in the board of education office and Kim Shree Maufas stole it.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Even in the discussion about John Muir school, someone is trying to stir the conversation to the idea that middle class parents don't care about poor kids.

    Um, no. On another thread, someone, probably 1:39 here from the political-ranty nature of this post, is trying to stir up conversation by suggesting that investing resources to improve John Muir (primarily bringing in an experienced principal and teachers) is somehow antithetical to middle class interests. Most posters are supporting the efforts at John Muir AND efforts to support middle class kids. Why does it have to be a zero sum game? We have many kids of all incomes in SFUSD. We need to fight for appropriate resources for all of them.

    -- longtime SFUSD parent (middle class)

    ReplyDelete
  56. Antithetical? That makes no sense.
    The criticism I am hearing is that the new principal and experienced teachers were brought in because children from middle-class families were being assigned there, and how only then and because of that did they finally pay any attention to the long-troubled school.

    ReplyDelete
  57. 1:57 PM:

    Where's the reality?

    Where's the revenue to pay for it all?

    ReplyDelete
  58. Maybe. But children from middle class families universally did not enroll at John Muir (in contrast to the families over the years who have enrolled at what were then unpopular overflow schools such as McKinley, Sunnyside, Glen Park, and now Junipero Serra--I'm leaving out the magnet immersion schools, which are a different story). Certainly JM has had a reputation as being not only poor but also dysfunctional in terms of leadership.

    But I think the real impetus was the fact that it landed on the failed schools list, which qualified it for federal funding for a turnaround (carrot) and potential loss of funding to the district if drastic turnaround methods were not implemented (stick). This is something of a blunt instrument and I don't always see the point in the measures prescribed, but in John Muir's case it is a good thing.

    What is really refreshing about this case is the fact that the district seems to have hired a really competent principal, who is in turn recruiting good teachers. That is the basis for a LOT of potential, especially if they get additional resources too. But it starts with the principal and teachers. It is good to see that they didn't just dump someone in there who was failing somewhere else, as is so often the case in low-income schools.

    Perhaps the previous poster is therefore correct that the attention focused on JM as a poster child for failed schools--particularly one located in a mixed-ethnicity and mixed-class neighborhood outside of the Bayview, where middle class families did get assigned frequently--is one of the reasons for the decision to hire a principal with a good track record. If so, then good. Whatever it takes. Parental pressure will have done some good in this case.

    ReplyDelete
  59. "Where's the reality? Where's the revenue to pay for it all?"

    Close the corporate loopholes in Prop 13--divide the rolls. That's the state level.

    Let the Bush tax cuts expire on those earning above $250,000. Also, impose a graduated higher tax on those earning over $1,000,000. And cut the military budget. That's the federal level.

    Where's the reality? We can make this a reality if we stop buying into the divide-and-conquer strategy of pitting low-income people of color against resentful white middle class folks. The rich are getting very rich off this strategy, folks! Time to fund our schools. This will benefit all of us.

    ReplyDelete
  60. 2:37:

    "Where's the reality? We can make this a reality if we stop buying into the divide-and-conquer strategy of pitting low-income people of color against resentful white middle class folks."

    No one is doing that.

    However, I don't see waitlist parents flocking to John Muir. So, for whatever reasons, their needs are still unmet, as least in the short term, regarless of what will be happening at John Muir school in the coming years.

    ReplyDelete
  61. True, waitlist parents are not flocking to John Muir right now. Nor would I encourage them to do so, frankly. Yet I still root for John Muir to succeed, and I hope that the new leadership will help them do that. Those kids deserve a break, and their needs are higher than most.

    Regarding the waitpool parents whose needs are still unmet, I truly wish them all the best this week in the waitpools. I know that many spots will open up in popular schools. I would also encourage parents who don't get that lucky call to look at some of the schools that may have spots when all the dust has settled. No, probably not John Muir. But maybe Junipero Serra, Jose Ortega GE, Glen Park, Sheridan. These are spots I would take if I were 0/15 or whatever the number is now. I understand the disappointment of not getting one's first or even seventh choice. But these are decent options with some middle class base and good teachers.

    As a middle class parent myself, and a single parent too, I am often frustrated by the bureaucracy in SFUSD and in general in SF with the difficulties in raising children. But I don't see how we are really that screwed. If we persevere, the vast majority of us find reasonable options for our kids--and I don't mean John Muir, which is so often used as a straw man on this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  62. "But maybe Junipero Serra, Jose Ortega GE, Glen Park, Sheridan."

    Maybe if you live in SE or SW. Very awkward for people who live in the NW or NE and work downtown rather than on the peninsula. Good luck to you though.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Rosa Parks and Redding are in the NE. When things settle down, there may be openings in Yick Wo and Sutro (NW) as well. There will be options besides John Muir. Children will be fine in any of those K classrooms.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Also in the NE, there may be spots at Jean Parker, which has only one kid in the K waitlist for English speakers and none for the Chinese bilingual program. It's a highly functional school and your kid would be absolutely fine there for kindergarten. It's not that far from downtown for those who don't want to drive to Ortega, Sheridan, Glen Park, Serra.

    ReplyDelete
  65. UESF endorsed Maufas. Crooks backing a crook.

    ReplyDelete