In July 2021, the San Francisco Unified School District sent a sternly worded letter to the head of the San Francisco Parks Alliance. The language was cool and technical, but the meaning behind it was not. If anything, it mirrored the poem that won Flyguy the Pimp of the Year contest: Better have my money! Through rain, sleet or snow! Better have my money! Not half! Not some! But alllllllll my cash!
At issue was funding for the Shared Schoolyards program, in which school playgrounds were made accessible to the general public during weekends. Mission Local has learned that the SFUSD calculated that it was owed more than $100,000 the Parks Alliance had raised for the program.
The SFUSD has spent years trying to get this money. The 2021 letter recounts a series of fruitless attempts, over months and months, to even get the Parks Alliance to disclose how much money is in question, let alone formalize a way of distributing it to the district.
“The information … requested in September 2020 regarding the account balance and fundraising on behalf of Shared Schoolyards remains outstanding,” reads the letter the school district sent nearly a year later.
“I would appreciate a response within two weeks,” SFUSD’s 2021 letter concludes, after recounting a litany of unresponsiveness from the Parks Alliance.
“If that timeframe does not work for you, I would appreciate receiving an acknowledgement of this letter along with a proposed timeframe by which you could provide the financial information we requested.”
We are told that this timeframe did not work for the Parks Alliance. The school district, which could use the money, has still not recovered the six-figure sum it believes it is owed. There hasn’t even been any progress in getting the Parks Alliance to acknowledge this money should go to the school district, and certainly none in revealing where it did go.
This is especially germane now because, on Friday, Mayor Daniel Lurie cut off the Parks Alliance from city funding until City Attorney David Chiu and Controller Greg Wagner complete a probe of where not half, not some, but alllllll the money went.
There is also, purportedly, a criminal probe in the offing from DA Brooke Jenkins. This comes on the heels of more stellar reporting from the Chronicle’s Michael Barba, who revealed that the Parks Alliance had been playing musical chairs with funding and purportedly misapplied at least $3.8 million in restricted funds pledged to specific projects to instead backfill its overhead costs.
There are going to be a lot of aggrieved people and entities alongside the SFUSD clamoring for funding they never received, and directing their wrath at a fiscally bereft entity already accused of pillaging project-specific donations to essentially pay its own bills.
And it’s not just major donors and major projects: The leaders of small community groups tell us that the Parks Alliance, their nonprofit fiscal sponsor, spent down the money that they themselves had raised for their projects and deposited with the Alliance for safe-keeping.
That’s a kick in the teeth, and it’s only made worse because, with the Parks Alliance cut off from city funding, small community groups say they are cut off from Parks Alliance funding.
There will also be a great many donors, some of them rich and powerful, who are angered that their gift was purportedly misdirected.
One of them, fortunately, is not Lurie. He and his wife recently gave the Parks Alliance $12,000. Mission Local is informed that this donation went toward a memorial for Luis Manuel Arguello-Inglis, the 19-year-old shot last year at Dolores Park. We are told the money actually went to the memorial, not overhead costs. It is set to be installed in the coming months.
The downfall of the Parks Alliance — gradually, then suddenly — is yet another challenge for Lurie. And an unwelcome one; he already had enough of them. But it will be informative to see how he handles the forthcoming probe from Chiu and Wagner, and what that probe reveals. San Francisco, after all, is a city that excels at not finding what it does not seek.
For all the angry people who think they understand city government fulminating about funds being siphoned to corrupt nonprofits by city progressives, it warrants mentioning that two of the most spectacular meltdowns in this arena came courtesy of moderate-aligned entities.
Those would be SF SAFE, a nonprofit with city ties so tight that it literally operated out of the police department, and the Parks Alliance, an entity operated by swells, city politicos and their family members, and essentially a client state of the Recreation and Parks Department.
That should warrant some introspection.
But wait, there’s more. More than 20 years ago, Mayor Willie Brown enacted a measure restricting nonprofits from spending grant money on political purposes. The controller randomly selects 10 organizations each year to audit. Guess what outfit is the only one to ever get busted in one of these audits?
The resulting 2014 report from the controller reads, “Nine of Ten Selected Organizations Complied With the San Francisco Administrative Code, Chapter 12G, by Not Using City Funds for Political Activity.” Yes, that makes the Parks Alliance the 10th dentist you’ve always wondered about in the toothpaste commercials.
But wait, there’s more. Yes, it was the Parks Alliance that served as the repository for since-convicted and incarcerated Public Works boss Mohammed Nuru’s slush fund to underwrite boozy parties. A subsequent controller’s report noted that the funds housed by the Parks Alliance “Operate Like a City Account Without City Oversight.”
Hold that thought.
The huge, luminous Ferris wheel at Pier 39 seems to be in its element. On a clear day, you can see for miles. With luck (but not necessarily good luck) you can even see the guy breaking into your rental car. It’s a natural fit for the waterfront.
It was more problematic when this Ferris wheel was at Golden Gate Park. You could object to the Dumpster-sized diesel-burning generator powering the wheel. You could object to the crass violation of the pastoral aspirations for this space espoused by William Hammond Hall and other long-dead bewhiskered white men.
There are objections to be had, for sure, but those aren’t even the major ones (and the wishes of Hall et al. would also exclude ball fields, museums and bluegrass concerts from the park).
The price tag for a 15-minute ride on this wheel for a San Francisco family of five was $65, and this was a ride operated by SkyStar, a for-profit company operating on public land. In fact, the city managed to negotiate itself a deal in which it received between just 1.15 and 3 percent of the money amassed by the Ferris wheel. And, curiously, it was the Parks Alliance, not the city, that received the first cut of funding.
When Supervisor Connie Chan questioned these and other details, the Parks Alliance’s then-CEO in 2021 sent her a mafia letter, essentially demanding fealty in written form. The alternative? The curtailment of Alliance funds earmarked for a playground in Chan’s district.
Putting such demands in writing is gauche, even by San Francisco standards. In the end, Richmond Playground was funded and completed. But if the Alliance had instead stiffed Chan and her constituents, at least they could now claim to be trendsetters.
“What am I supposed to do? My sphincter was tight.”
How could this sort of overt hostage-taking be engaged in so blithely? How could this go on for so long without attracting city censure? That gets to the heart of what Chiu and Wagner may or may not lay bare in their coming probe. The Parks Alliance isn’t just a nonprofit raising lots of money for our city’s (excellent) parks and playgrounds, or directing funds to scores of active and productive community groups.
It is, essentially, a Venmo account facilitating the transactionality that acts as a political lubricant in this town. Money flows in and money flows out as it Operates Like a City Account Without City Oversight.
Outsourcing matters to the Parks Alliance enables the Recreation and Park Department to neatly sidestep city rules regarding procurement or not doing business with restricted entities. But it enables more than that.
In 2021, vendors hoping to seal the deal on contracts with the Recreation and Park department told us they were unsubtly urged to donate to the Parks Alliance by Rec and Parks higher-ups, up to and including director Phil Ginsburg.
Our direct questions to Rec and Parks about this at the time were answered indirectly: “We encourage fundraising for our projects, like the playgrounds campaign.”
Everybody likes playgrounds, after all. They’re certainly less problematic than people who wanted to do business with Rec and Parks being leaned on by Rec and Parks to make big donations to the Parks Alliance, donations not included in any contracts.
“What am I supposed to do?” one aspirational Rec and Parks business partner asked us at the time. “My sphincter was tight.”
He made the donation. Now, he and many others have to wonder what really became of their largesse.
Forthcoming probes of both the Parks Alliance and the Recreation and Parks Department will likely be revelatory to the general public. But it’s hard to foresee the powers-that-be learning anything new. That’s the problem here.
And now it’s on the city to track down what became of not half, not some, but alllllllll the cash.
Additional reporting by Margaret Kadifa.
SFPA’s ties to the City are definitely relevant, and any City funding should come with appropriate City oversight. That said, SFPA is a nonprofit organization governed by a volunteer *Board of Trustees*. Their legal responsibilities are significant–look up duties of care, loyalty, and obedience, as well as the fiduciary obligations of nonprofit board members. If SFPA’s financial missteps went on for an extended period, then members of that board were likely negligent. And as fiduciaries, they could potentially be held personally liable.
SFPA lists 20 trustees on its website at the moment. Last year, there were 28, including a couple with close ties to a SF mayoral candidate. Ideally, all this scrutiny will help pinpoint when the organization crossed the line, how often it happened, and who was responsible. If those individuals are held accountable, it could serve as a wake-up call for boards across the city–and maybe help reduce the number of public trust-eroding incidents we see from nonprofits in the future.
P.S. If this story seems messy now, wait until Trump’s IRS decides to get involved. A 501c3’s tax-exempt status comes from the IRS, which can, in some cases, fine board members or revoke status entirely.
The Parks Alliance story will filter up to the federal government, just as the San Francisco Department of Public Works corruption scandal did. So many people know that these civic entities are corrupt, but it often takes an outsider, like, in the Public Works case, David Anderson, US Attorney for Northern California, who was appointed by Donald Trump, to have the political cover that indemnifies them to act. Oddly, Anderson is the husband of SF Parks Commission president Kat Anderson. That’s a commission that one would assume might have some oversight of the Parks Alliance relationship to SF Rec and Parks. I am curious to see where this goes.
They know they’re guilty, they’re ducking meetings now.
cbs (remove space) news (dot) com/sanfrancisco/news/former-san-francisco-parks-alliance-ceos-board-treasurer-subpoena/
You’d be crazy to sign up for a position on a board like the SFPA and not be indemnified.
I would expect SFPA indemnifies them against lawsuits related to their service, but that protection might not extend far enough to cover, say, IRS fines (if any would materialize). I don’t have any knowledge of SFPA’s bylaws or their agreements w/ outside orgs, but you raise a good point about how tangled situations like this can get.
Why? How hard is it to do that job without breaking laws?
Why has nobody had this problem before lying sellout Ginsburg?
Parks Alliance did not exist before Ginsburg. It resulted from a merger.
Again – How hard is it to do that job without breaking laws?
Why are you making excuses for a crook who thinks side-stepping City laws is fine as long as he’s in control of “donations” that he unsubtly leans on vendors to acquire, without oversight, and disburse to favorite children as He sees fit? Hm?
Why the fawning over a monarch in a Democracy?
“you” = the OP who says he needs indemnification just to run a parks-related “non-profit.”
What a crooked load.
I wonder if any licensed attorneys are serving on their BoD?
This is about to get fun.
In 2024, San Franciscans overwhelmingly voted in support of
Prop C, legislation creating an independent inspector with the power to investigate government and City, contractor, fraud, waste, abuse, or misconduct. It is long past time we stop relying on the FBI to uncover systemic corruption.” We are not satisfied that DA Brooke Jenkins and City Attorney David Chiu have announced they will investigate. Self investigating…..self policing……..WE ARE NOT HAVING IT.
Thank you for tempering everyone’s expectations from the upcoming RPD audit. “San Francisco, after all, is a city that excels at not finding what it does not seek.” 100% true! When the Controller conducted its 2016 audit of the Fine Arts Museums, it failed to comment on what appeared to be serious violations of federal tax laws by COFAM including the misreporting of FAMSF employee William Huggins as a COFAM employee on COFAM’s Form 990.
You forgot to mention that the San Francisco Botanical Garden Society was due to pay Parks Alliance a cool million for a “COVID deficit” to take over the Conservatory of Flowers!
This was protested, but it may well have been paid. The Tea Garden, Conservatory and former Strybing all are under the control of one private business, which now calls itself “Gardens of Golden Gate Park.”
https://commonsprotector.medium.com/the-betrayal-of-helene-strybing-0bf23fb446ec
Absolutely disgusting.
This always happens when you privatize, even if only partially. Reagan suckered us into believing the private sector’s efficiency was much better than the public sector’s wastefulness, but it wasn’t true.
Yes! It’s PRIVATIZATION of the PUBLIC COMMONS, in plain sight.
4 out of 4 stars on Charity Navigator ??
Phil G gas always been transactional! About time the back room of Rec & Park is opened to scrutiny… including the Commissioner appointments going back every Mayor since and including DaMayor! Mayor Lurie should do a clean sweep of the Rec Park Commission if for nothing more then their sins of ommission.
I recall Mark Farrell advocating for Shared Schoolyards whose donations were directed to SFPA. To jog my memory, a Google search brought up an SF Gate article confirming same, and that Liz Farrell, his wife was a board of trustee for SFPA. This may go hand in hand (or hand to hand) with his campaign finance violations.
It’s funny, I’ll be reading an article here at Mission Local, and about midway, I’ll run into a line like, “Yes, that makes the Parks Alliance the 10th dentist you’ve always wondered about in the toothpaste commercials.” And that’s when it hits me, ‘Did Joe Eskenazi write this?’ I’ll scroll up and, behold, he did write this. It’s funny that no one else on the ML’s staff has chosen to develop a personal writing style that marks them so clearly as Mr. Eskenazi has.
What happens to all the work these community groups do, with the funding shut off? What is Lurie’s plan for the day after SFPA collapses?
Either projects get abandoned or other neighborhood non-profits (e.g. CBDs) absorb the costs. Those are the options.
Who ever needed them!?
Who ever needed parks? Are you kidding?
Perhaps you misread? Who ever needed crooked “non-profits” selling out portions of our already-paid-for public parks to commercial interests that are hand-picked from a list of DONORS to a damn slush fund run by Ginsburg and the Breed Clones?
Obviously I’m DEFENDING PARKS from PRIVATE GOONS, guy.
Thank you for the I’m Gonna Get You Sucka framing. Made my morning.
How is the CEO Drew Becher not getting more attention in this scandal? He doled out six figure salaries and bonuses to his small staff amid a budget crisis.
An individual making less than $105,000/yr is considered “low income” in San Francisco. “Doling out six-figure salaries” is otherwise known as “having employees”.
“Non-profit” employees who just happen to get PUBLIC MONEY and lean on private donors to a slush fund? Real jobs don’t run on graft.
I am not too optimistic about anything truly being done to prosecute the perpetrators or recover all the misspent funds. This is yet another chapter in the story of corrupt city employees being allowed to ripoff city funds at will. Is there any city department and workers that aren’t incompetent and/or corrupt?
SFPA is privately run. You’d know that if you read the article.
Privately run but siphons money out and gives it to favorite Children.
Stop defending crony capitalism under the guise of good governance.
Pathetic and Breedesque.
The crass commercialization of the parks has been a problem for years and years.
Don’t forget bright floodlights on all night for “soccer” that isn’t happening, CAMERAS tracking faces in the park, selling out of vendor spots to favorite donors, (pay to play in the open), renting out huge swaths to be utterly DESTROYED by for-profit concert promotion events… it’s endless.
THEN they come at the end of year saying they need MORE MONEY to achieve basic service compliance with their obligations! Audits can’t come quickly enough.
Is this reporting or an op ed? I am interested to understand the details of what happened here, but this seems to be a persuasive piece that is concerned more with selecting those facts which construct a particular narrative. This is a let down.
Hi Ken —
As clearly listed, this is a “column.” It is a reported column, which is a form of journalism I did not invent; Mike Royko did it and so did people generations earlier. So I am confused by your confusion, being as this is a form of journalism that existed centuries ago. But, more to the point: What’s the point? I am not a conjurer who can mesmerize the masses into doing my bidding; if that were so the city would look a lot different and Mission Local would have cases of Fuller’s ESB in the fridge. If you perceive flaws in the argumentation or the facts, I welcome the dialog. But if the notion here is that argumentation and journalism never mix, that is a misinformed position.
Best,
JE
My objection is that this doesn’t end up feeling informative, it feels like it’s just a medium for you to kick political opponents. Feels like propaganda.
Ken —
Nobody had previously reported on the SFUSD claiming the Parks Alliance owes it more than $100K and attempting, futilely, for years to collect — and that’s just in the first sentence. If you don’t feel the article is “informative,” I got nothing for you.
JE
Here’s an idea, why don’t you provide one or two specifics?
You know, so we know you’re not just saying that for no actual reason or purpose in defense of a corrupt city Agent.
Found the Parks Alliance shill.
I take it you’ve never read an editorial before?
I do not know the history (creation of) the Parks Alliance but I have seen things done under Ginsberg’s shift that make me question what is going on. #1 would be a polo match taking place on the Polo Grounds (first I’ve seen in my 60++ yrs as a native!) and, when I congratulated those putting it on I was told there would be no more as Ginsberg didn’t think it was appropriate use of the POLO FIELDS! ?? Then there is the ferris wheel, then there are Doggie Diner heads on JFK Dr, there was a question about putting in beer gardens and, as a gardener myself educated in SF schools, I thought what ever happened to the tranquility of our gorgeous world -reknowned park?