Sacramento City Unified board approves non‑LCFF classified layoffs, rejects LCFF‑funded cuts after public pleas

The Sacramento City Unified School District Board on the agenda item for Resolution No. 3569 voted to approve Exhibit A, which lists central‑office classified positions for layoff notices, and to disapprove Exhibit B, which lists positions funded from LCFF/base (unrestricted) resources.

The decision follows two public comments urging the board to avoid blanket cuts and to protect small but essential teams. "This method of cutting where you just say pink slip them all is grossly irresponsible. You're alienating your employees," said Steve Bruno, a public commenter, who warned the district could lose institutional knowledge. Tasha Weatherall, who identified herself as part of library/textbook services, described her team's work distributing curriculum, Chromebooks and testing materials and said those behind‑the‑scenes duties affect "every student at every site every single day."

Board members framed the vote as a way to give staff flexibility to implement the district's fiscal solvency plan while they continue analysis. "The decision before us isn't to say these positions should be cut. It's to give the staff the flexibility to spend the next two months making that determination following our direction and our priorities," said Member Kayata. Several members said they were uncomfortable acting without fuller staffing analysis. "We have been requesting this information for over a year now," said Member Ibata, noting delays in receiving requested data.

Staff described how the lists were generated from position control and explained the district's use of LCFF (Local Control Funding Formula) resource codes. Staff told the board that Exhibit B excluded split‑funded positions and that many Exhibit B entries represented fractional hours. Member Singh said Exhibit B "adds up to 34.02" full‑time equivalent positions and argued many listings are for very small hourly allocations, which informed his recommendation to vote no on Exhibit B.

On procedure, the board split the vote so Exhibit A would be considered separately for clarity in the minutes. The roll call for Exhibit A recorded affirmative responses from the members present and the motion passed. For Exhibit B, after a brief pause for additional discussion and clarification on the presiding officer's authority under Robert's Rules, the board voted to disapprove Exhibit B.

Board members repeatedly stressed the human impact of layoffs and their reluctance to act without clearer numbers. One member said the district still lacks a clear accounting of the roughly "$230 million we need to cut by next year," and asked whether the list of positions would move the district meaningfully toward that target.

The board's votes produce two immediate outcomes: staff has approval to proceed with the process described in Exhibit A (central office classified positions) and is directed not to move forward with the LCFF‑funded positions listed in Exhibit B. Staff remains available to refine the lists and to provide additional analysis in the coming weeks as the district works toward its fiscal solvency plan.

The board did not adopt a staffing analysis during the meeting; members asked staff to continue providing detail and numbers as they pursue decisions over the next weeks.