Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Staffing Analysis topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District staffing review finds office staffing broadly in line with peers; board asks for FICMAT cost/scope options
Summary
A board‑requested comparative staffing study found Pacific Grove Unified’s district‑office staffing and district‑wide FTE ratio broadly similar to peer districts; trustees asked staff to return with cost/scope estimates and examples for an external FICMAT review to explore additional savings.
Chief Rogman and Superintendent Dr. Kevin Adamson presented a district staffing comparison on Feb. 26 that the board had requested to test whether the district office is “top‑heavy” and to identify opportunities to align staffing with enrollment.
The district compared itself with nine districts of similar size (1,200–2,500 students) by counting district‑office staff and site staff. Chief Rogman reported that most peer district offices had roughly 21–27 employees and that Pacific Grove’s district‑office staffing fell within the same range when expressed as a share of total district employees. Over the past decade, the district added FTEs, with most new positions located at school sites (instructional aides, counselors, adult‑school roles) rather than in the district office.
Dr. Adamson framed the work as part of a stabilization strategy: “Students remain at the center of every one of our budget decisions,” he said, asking trustees to weigh operational stability against program preservation.
Trustees also discussed whether to request an external Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FICMAT) review, a county‑endorsed outside assessment that analyzes staffing, expenditures and organizational structure. Staff explained that FICMAT is impartial and that scope, cost and timing depend on what the board requests; staff said there is typically a fee and a waiting period. Trustee Wax and others asked staff to return with a clearer menu of options: likely scopes, estimated fees or payment terms and examples of other districts that have used FICMAT or similar reviews.
Staff emphasized that any external review would likely focus on personnel costs because salaries and benefits account for about 85% of district expenditures; it would not, staff said, unilaterally determine cuts but would produce recommendations the board and management could consider.
Next steps: staff will prepare a future agenda item that summarizes potential FICMAT scopes, approximate costs, timeline expectations and examples of outcomes from other districts, and will return that research to the board for a policy decision.
