Speaker 1, who convened the Judson ISD finance committee, opened the session by warning of a large projected budget shortfall for the coming fiscal year and presented figures taken from superintendent materials: projected revenue of about $236,300,000 and projected current expenditures of roughly $266,000,000–$266,500,000, leaving an approximate $30,100,000 deficit.

"Those are all very approximate numbers," Speaker 1 said, emphasizing the district took the figures "right off a document that the superintendent gave us." She framed payroll as the largest budget driver and described an operating benchmark in education that places payroll at roughly 84% of total expenditures. Using the district's projected revenue, she said payroll would need to be about $198,000,000 to meet that benchmark — down from current payroll spending of about $225,000,000. "So that's about a $27,000,000 cut in payroll," she said.

Speaker 1 also gave workforce context: Judson had about 3,331 full‑time‑equivalent employees at the time of the meeting and the superintendent's materials estimated personnel reductions on the order of 500 positions ("give or take 75," she said). She stressed the arithmetic hides wide variation: cutting lower‑paid paraprofessionals and cutting higher‑paid administrators have very different personnel and program impacts.

The committee reviewed an average compensation figure cited in the superintendent's packet — $66,006.85 including benefits — and material from an external reviewer (identified in the meeting as "Casey") that compares Judson's staffing and financial health indicators to five comparable districts. Speaker 1 cautioned that districts code roles differently, so the consultant comparisons do not produce a single, simple list of positions to eliminate.

Speaker 1 repeatedly framed the superintendent's proposals as preliminary: "These are all just proposals from the superintendent. None of this has been approved," she said, and noted that a separate, confidential list of positions the superintendent had flagged for potential reduction would not be distributed at the superintendent's request and that affected employees had not been notified.

Committee members were asked to work in assigned breakout groups, review provided CAPA (corrective and preventative action) materials and consultant reports, and return written recommendations on items they support, oppose or want modified. The committee scheduled follow‑up work sessions to consolidate that input and prepare recommendations to the full board.

The committee took no formal votes or personnel actions during the meeting.