1. I think the current board is filled with people having the best of intentions but simply lack key skills. If you look at the district as a "business", you have a $90 million business that is running in the red. I don't see the current board members as having the background through business experience of managing budgets in the tens of millions. And it seems to show in their actions regarding budgetary issues. It takes some considerable experience and insight to plow through these types of budget numbers and find "fat". If the district budget is just 1% fat, that's almost $900,000 which provides as much benefit as the board and staff alleged we'd see by closing down two schools. In addition, the board members seem to lack the leadership skills to not only effectively lead the district in the direction the community desires but to also become advocates to resolve funding issues, etc.
2. The district does not have, at least in public domain, an understandable line item budget. No company with a budget the size of the district's would have such a jumbled budget. The district really needs CFO skills at the senior financial level of the district staff. It needs someone who can explain budgetary issues in "layman" terms so the board can ensure the budget is effectively spent and that the public can be reassured the budget is being spent prudently and effectively.
3. The board seems to have a flawed understanding of their role and the role of the superintendent. The board is elected by the community to represent the community's interests with regard to education and operation of the district. In turn, the board hires a superintendent that is suitable to implement the direction of the board. Somehow, the current board seems to have gotten it backwards where the superintendent was hired by the board which now seems to feel obligated to support the superintendent's recommendations and actions regardless of the "fit" with the community's interests. I have been to numerous board meetings in the last year and have yet to see a board member really challenge the district staff on any issues. The only way to ensure that the community's interest is protected is for the board to ensure the staff demonstrates it has done its "homework" is following the board's intent.
4. The current board has really done all it can in terms of the district's financial crisis. Once the board crossed the line into closing schools and generally eliminating class size reduction it faces an interesting situation. If there is a future budget shortfall (which is likely) based on past performance, the board will need to shutdown additional schools. However, if additional budget money is found, why wasn't it found for the 2004/2005 school year? The fact is, the current board has had 4 plus years to look at the budget and find areas to cut and be efficient. We know the current board has had to resort to school closures which is a pretty strong indication they have reached the limits of their ability to work the budget. So the community has nothing to lose and everything to gain by have a group of new board members managing the budget. Worst case, the new board closes more schools just as the old board would have to do. Best case, the new board finds some other ways to make the districts budget stretch farther and lessen or eliminate the impact on the students.
5. There seems to be a lack of accountability on the part of the district staff to the board. For example, several members of the citizens group that studied and made recommendations for the school closures spoke to the school board during the public meetings and said that key information was withheld from them by a deputy superintendent. That information may have changed their recommendations had it been available to the committee. Regardless of where the citizens stand on the school closures, it is troubling that the staff did not fully disclose all information in its possession to a committee faced with a difficult and thankless task. I have seen no public board follow-up to determine why that information was withheld and what is the appropriate accountability for the staff member that withheld it. Now we find out after this very painful and divisive process to close two schools that the facility savings, which were one of the main reasons for closing the schools, will not happen. How could a staff do such an alleged thorough review and yet 4 months after making their recommendation report that the facilities savings will not occur? Again, the board needs to be asking some tough questions and deciding if the staff has a skill problem and how to hold the staff accountable for such a large miss. With all that said, it concerns me that the board has provided the superintendents with a 36% salary increase in the last 6 years and provided Ms. Miller with a four year contract extension when it appears the staff is having a tough time getting things right.
6. Lastly, a significant number of people are opposing the parcel tax because they believe the district has failed to spend the district's current funds in a cost effective and prudent manner. There simply is a lack of trust that the district is truly in financial crisis and not mismanaging its funding. If you look at the survey conducted by the board recently, depending on the specific question asked, up to 39% of the people surveyed are either undecided, probably voting no or planning to vote no on the parcel tax this November. I believe this is primarily due to a lack of a proactive effort to make the budget publicly available in a manner that the average citizen can understand it and in a way that helps the public know that the funds are either well managed or not. With it taking only 33.1% of the voters to kill the parcel tax, it is very important that the proponents convince the doubtful voters that the parcel tax funds will be well managed. The current board simply does not have enough credibility to make a believable case to those opposing voters. I know of people who will vote for a parcel tax in the future but will not vote for a parcel tax as long as the current board members hold the majority on the board. These voters simply believe the current board would not spend the parcel tax revenues in a prudent manner. Therefore, unless the proponents can show that new board members will be better stewards of the public's funds, it will be pretty tough to convince many of these opponents to reconsider. I believe that the board members and the parcel tax supporters have to examine the possibility that the greatest public service the current board members could provide to the parcel tax effort and the community is to agree to resign and/or not run for reelection.