Former CCSF Chancellor Martin’s Financial Misconduct FAQ

Dear Community,

We’ve received a number of questions about the ruling last week regarding former CCSF Chancellor Martin’s financial misconduct.

What exactly was the ruling last week and what does it mean?

Last week, the Public Employee Relations Board (PERB) issued a complaint on the charge that former CCSF Chancellor David Martin knowingly provided false information to City College’s faculty union, AFT 2121, in the context of contract negotiations.

Martin provided the same knowingly false information to the college’s accreditors (ACCJC) and Trustees. In doing so, he engaged in behavior that also constitutes management fraud.

Martin’s administration spent an untold amount of taxpayer money fighting these accusations with lengthy position statements from contracted attorneys arguing that PERB should dismiss the charge and not issue a complaint.

Last week, PERB nevertheless issued a complaint, meaning that there is a prima facie case that Martin knowingly falsified financial information to AFT 2121 and by extension the ACCJC and CCSF Board of Trustees.

Why is AFT 2121 so confident that Martin engaged in management fraud?

Because the evidence speaks for itself. See the full case and evidence here (scroll down for the exhibits).

Martin inserted information he received in 2023 into a 2020 financial report in order to create the impression that his unprecedented transfers from the college’s General Fund were rooted in long-standing policy. They were not. Martin distorted the college’s financial records to justify layoffs and class cuts. In doing so, he jeopardized the integrity of the college’s finances, CCSF’s accreditation process, and his own license as a certified public accountant.

Our students deserve better. Instead of continuing to fight a clear case of misconduct, we urge the new CCSF administration to acknowledge these actions by a former Chancellor and not continue to waste classroom dollars on frivolous legal defenses.

Why is AFT 2121 talking about management fraud if the ruling discusses only bargaining?

PERB’s complaint focuses on whether Martin committed an unfair labor practice in deliberately providing false and misleading information about CCSF’s finances to AFT. This kind of behavior is not only a violation of labor law, such actions also constitute management fraud, or “the deliberate material misstatement of financial statements by top management.” See the DOJ’s definition here.

As a labor court, PERB’s jurisdiction is only over labor practices, and in this case, the labor practice in question–falsifying financial records–also constitutes management fraud.

What comes next?

The District has 20 days to respond and either (1) acknowledge that Martin, acting as an agent of the District at the time, provided knowingly false financial information or (2) the District can deny that Martin took these actions and pursue its right to a hearing. If the District denies the charge, the next major step in the legal process is a Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.

The judge will issue a decision with a proposed solution or remedy after the Hearing. Both parties have an opportunity to appeal the decision. Should the District opt for a hearing, the entire process could take many more months.

What can I do?

Stay tuned, speak up, and again vote for strong College Board members this November. San Francisco voters have made it clear: the era of lax oversight is over. We urge all voters to support candidates who are prepared to do the hard work of demanding full transparency from CCSF leaders for the good of our students and city.