Union leaders and community speakers press Rialto Unified for earlier budget review and more transparency

A wave of public comments at the Rialto Unified School District board meeting on Sept. 24 focused on budget transparency and negotiations, as union representatives and community members urged the board to move the public-facing budget timeline earlier in the year and to provide draft materials in advance.

Tobin Brinker told the board the current sequence — a first budget presentation in early June and a final vote later that month before the July 1 filing deadline — prevents association and community members from participating meaningfully. “When the first presentation is made, we're seeing it blind,” Brinker said, urging the board to require the process to begin in April and May with multiple public meetings and materials posted in advance.

A representative for the Rialto Education Association pressed similar themes and questioned the reliability of the district’s multi‑year projections. The speaker cited past year‑end surpluses — “$79,000,000,” “$37,000,000,” and “$23,000,000” were named — after the district earlier projected deficits, and said the pattern has eroded trust in the budget numbers. The union speaker called for a “meaningful salary offer” rather than a simple cost‑of‑living adjustment, and said educators are taking on responsibilities beyond instruction that merit higher pay.

Classified staff represented by the California School Employees Association reiterated requests for pay increases and urged the board to approve a fair raise for bus drivers, custodians, instructional aides, nutrition workers and other classified employees. A CWA representative also asked the board to consider the union’s reopener item on the agenda and signaled readiness to negotiate in good faith.

Board members discussed possible next steps during the first reading of revised budget policy BP 3100. Several board members supported forming a budget advisory committee or using the LCAP (Local Control and Accountability Plan) process to channel community and union input into budget assumptions and multi‑year projections. Interim Superintendent Dr. Judy White cautioned that any shift in internal timing must account for state budget processes such as the May revise, which can materially change projections.

Vice President Joseph Martinez proposed a practical change to make budget scenarios easier to understand: present three‑year projections (the year of the budget and two out years) with the ability to "punch in" alternate assumptions so the board and public can see the multi‑year impacts of different one‑time or on‑going choices.

The board accepted the first reading of the revised budget policy and directed staff to collect proposed language and stakeholder input for a second reading. Members asked staff to return with options for a budget advisory group and to provide a calendar of the budget cycle to associations and community stakeholders.

Next procedural steps: staff will take written suggestions from board members for the second reading of the policy and return with proposed draft language and implementation steps. No final changes to the budget timeline were adopted at the meeting.