Trustees press for transparency as they debate deputy‑superintendent posts and central‑office cuts

Trustees scrutinized central‑office spending lines and a roughly $1.1 million package tied to two proposed deputy‑superintendent positions. One trustee urged pausing both deputy roles; another said she would support pausing the deputy for operations but remain interested in a deputy for teaching, learning and leadership.

Trustees asked staff for far more transparency: a department‑by‑department non‑staffing budget, a line‑by‑line accounting of cuts made previously and funds added back, and an explicit breakdown of stipends and allowances (including cell and travel allowances) and athletics operations. Several trustees said that public problem‑solving requires better data and that the district should post more of the budget online.

Technology and contracts: Trustees raised concerns about multi‑year contracts and district device policies, including whether district devices are used offsite and whether strategic abandonment of low‑value products could produce savings. The board discussed Title I and locally funded positions (for example, instructional coaches and interventionists) and asked staff to identify which positions are funded by restricted sources and which are locally funded.

Why it matters: Trustees said central‑office cuts are politically and practically important to demonstrate, but emphasized that many central positions perform campus‑facing work (grounds, custodial, special‑program staff) and that transparency is needed to evaluate where real savings exist without harming students.

Next steps: Staff committed to returning with departmental non‑staffing budgets, a clear accounting of prior central‑office reductions and an itemization of stipends, technology contracts and athletics staffing costs.