Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Labor Negotiations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Educators cite audit in tense bargaining standoff with Woodburn School District leaders
Summary
At the May board meeting, teachers and union representatives cited a delayed audit that they say shows roughly $11 million more than previously reported and urged the board to direct the district bargaining team to negotiate in good faith; auditors said the financial statements received a clean opinion except for a GASB‑related modification.
At the Woodburn School District's May regular board meeting, teachers, union leaders and other public commenters pressed the board to exercise oversight of district bargaining after a recently released audit that several speakers said shows the district is in stronger financial shape than previously reported.
"The audit clearly shows WSD is in far better financial health than was previously reported with nearly 11 million more than what was projected," said Max Sanchez, a public commenter, arguing the district could afford a reasonable cost‑of‑living adjustment. Several speakers, including WA bargaining co‑chair Kathy Mincer and long‑time educators, described persistent concerns about bargaining tactics and class‑size protections.
The auditor, Timothy Lamont of Paulie Rogers, told the board the firm issued a generally clean opinion on the district's financial statements but issued a modified opinion related to not implementing GASB 87/93 requirements for leases and subscriptions. "We issued a modified opinion over the Woodburn School District's financial report... the part that was modified was due to us not implementing GASB 87 or 93," Lamont said, and he described the GASB implementation as a cost/time decision many districts elected to defer.
Commenters told the board the audit's figures contradict earlier statements by district negotiators. Jason Leven urged the board to direct its bargaining team to stop "negotiating from a place of manufactured crisis," saying the district's forecasting discrepancies were "either extraordinary incompetence or [a] deliberate attempt to manufacture financial panic." Several other speakers said contract demands are modest and tied to basic cost‑of‑living needs.
Board members asked the auditor clarifying questions about the timing and causes of the audit's delay and about fund‑balance figures. The auditor explained a federal single‑audit letter remained pending because the federal compliance supplement was issued late; he also noted the audit's statements reflect last fiscal year while board financial reports project current year changes, which helps explain differences between a reported $15.1 million beginning fund balance and more recent projected figures.
No formal board action was taken on bargaining at the meeting. The board recessed to executive session for labor negotiations later in the evening; public commenters noted that district and union mediators were scheduled to meet within days.
What happens next: union speakers urged the board to direct the bargaining team to seek a timely settlement; district staff and the auditor said they would continue working on the single audit and provide the FY25–26 report after July 1. The public mediation schedule and any formal board directives to the bargaining team will be the next public developments.
