Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget And Staffing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Classified staff and community urge board to prioritize people as budget discussions continue; board survey highlights class size and mental‑health concerns
Summary
During public comment three speakers described the effects of past staffing cuts and urged trustees to avoid further layoffs. Separately, the board presented results from a short district survey (423 responses) showing staff praise but persistent worries about class size, compensation, facility disparities and mental‑health supports.
Three members of the public used the meeting’s public‑comment period to press trustees on budget priorities and staffing decisions.
Michelle Glenn, a long‑time district health technician, told the board that recent budget changes left her with four fewer hours per week, a requirement to pay 25% of insurance premiums and a loss of income she estimated at more than $1,000 a month. “Cuts to the health technicians… impact the safety and health of all of our students and staff,” Glenn said, describing how diminished clerical and health coverage leaves remaining staff unable to complete daily tasks.
Nathan Donnelly criticized district budget management more broadly, citing special‑education funding shortfalls and arguing the district historically prioritizes technology and equipment over people. “We must choose people over robot lawnmowers,” he said, urging trustees to fight for more state funding and to avoid further job cuts.
Katherine Pike urged trustees to recall the human cost of cuts and to seek alternatives before the coming year’s budget decisions, saying the loss of staff has been “wretched” for schools and students.
Board members then reviewed the results of a brief district survey that collected 423 responses. Staff summarized key findings: respondents repeatedly praised teachers and staff, and listed priorities for any new spending as class‑size reduction, mental‑health services, academic supports and libraries. The survey also revealed concerns about disparities between schools, the desire for more proactive transparency from the district, and a low response rate among Spanish‑language respondents (only one Spanish response noted), which trustees said they plan to address in future outreach.
Trustees thanked staff for the survey work and discussed next steps—using the survey to inform the budget process and outreach for future surveys to better reach underrepresented families.
The board also announced a public budget meeting to clarify restricted versus unrestricted funds as part of the district’s next steps in the budget‑setting calendar.
