Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents, principals and unions urge board to protect school‑site staff as budget cuts loom
Summary
Nineteen public commenters — parents, principals, SEIU and UAS representatives, and students — criticized proposed site‑level cuts to case managers, community‑school managers, TSAs and special‑education contracts, urging greater transparency and alternative central‑office reductions.
Dozens of speakers in the Feb. 11 public‑comment period urged the Oakland Unified School Board to shield school‑site staff and special‑education services from budget reductions the district presented the same night.
Bedrin (Bedrin) Kukulovic, a chief steward with a Building Trades Council, thanked the board for its work but warned that reductions to buildings and grounds staff and a lack of bargaining engagement would severely affect school operations and the district’s ability to maintain safe, clean campuses. "I'm begging you: really reconsider this — not cut us," he said.
Union representatives and site leaders pressed similar themes. SEIU members and principals said cuts to community‑school managers, attendance specialists, case managers and instructional aides would worsen attendance, mental‑health supports and day‑to‑day safety. SEIU vice president Phoebe Wynne warned against hasty reductions: "Haste makes waste," she said, adding that site‑level positions generate measurable returns in attendance and supports.
Principals emphasized site realities: Vanessa Flynn (Sequoia Elementary) and other principals said losing multiple positions (CSMs, TSAs, attendance clerks) would make it impossible to sustain student supports and raised concerns that site budgets shift essential functions onto already strained school leaders.
Public commenters also flagged special‑education contracting and capital issues: one speaker cited large special‑education contract totals on consent forms (about $28.55 million) and questioned whether contracting choices had contributed to the fiscal crisis. Several speakers urged the board to publish a single tracker showing how each proposed change folds into the district’s multi‑million‑dollar plan.
The public‑comment block concluded with calls for greater transparency and for the board to provide an itemized, quantified impact list ahead of the Feb. 25 action date.
