In Saturday's column I relayed word the Burbank Unified School
District needs to cut $1.9 million from the 2002-2003 school year budget,
and some of the controversial proposals district staff advocated. But
prior to the school board's Monday meeting, several changes were made.
The new proposals now include cuts in district administration, and
speculate on the possibility of the City Council coughing up cash
(again). Proposed cuts in the health and counseling services were
reduced, but were still enough to send parents out of Monday night's
meeting angry.
The new list was released Monday morning for discussion that night. In
the process, they left hanging the status of school board resolutions
already written and distributed in preparation for the second board
meeting of this week, which is Thursday. The resolutions detail the
firing of nurses, counselors and a psychologist, and create a process to
determine seniority as other employees have to go. A state education code
mandates the district notify certain employees in mid-March about their
jobs for the following year, but extensions are available. Moreover, the
deadlines make it clearer that the part of the process the district is
rushing through now should have begun months ago.
The district's position is to reiterate that the proposals leaked last
week were only proposals, not plans carved in stone. I've been told
everyone knew changes were expected out of last Friday's meeting of the
district's budget committee, the first opportunity for anyone outside
district offices to comment and offer alternatives.
So, why does the report for tomorrow's meeting provide devices to
finalize cuts that were only preliminary ideas? I was told that's because
deadlines demanded tomorrow's agenda be compiled and the staff reports be
distributed Friday, before that budget committee session that might
change the budget proposals. On Friday, when I asked for reports that
would be considered at Monday's board meeting, those weren't available.
Friday was too soon to expect a report up for discussion two days later,
but reports for a meeting a week off were available.
Why do I have a feeling these guys transferred over from CalTrans,
where they were the ones who make sure signs announcing an upcoming ramp
closure are posted 30 feet past the last alternate exit? And I haven't
even reminded you yet of officials having notified guidance advisors last
week that they were on the chopping block, or of principals having been
