Hopefully someone will take your advice. You are definately on the right track about consulting costs. I would also look at travel and conference costs and modification of RBB since it creates a need for additional fiscal and HR staff to manage it. During tough times, it needs to be modified. There is also too many school sites and salaries at or near $100,000. There are more administrative and management staff then there needs to be. There is a budget crisis but bandaids have been used to cover the problems instead of fix them.

I agree why shouldn’t Oakland make the same priority cuts as other districts are being forced to make. And, the Oakland School Board needs to immediately stop approving expenditures that don’t make sense during this time of cuts in the basic state funding the District receives.

During the state take-over the state administrators did make some changes to the District’s budgeting system but its record on putting the District back in financial order was spotty as State administrators were more concerned about putting their experimental concepts of reform into place than making the District’s budgeting systems reliable.

In fact, the State grew the District’s debt, in part, because its priority was reforms such as RBB. The State Controller audits contained double fines because once reported they often were not addressed. The FIGMAT reports near the end of the State take-over criticized the State for not keeping a focus on returning the District to financial solvency as the priority and laxity in implementing the FIGMAT finance reforms.

District core services are going to be cut into because the financial crisis is chiefly the State cutting funding to all school districts. But, I believe the degree of cut into core services is related to the degree the Board stops approving contracts that are not a priority or a necessity.

Although I am sure there is marginally at least an impact in the District having to budget $5 million to pay down the debt every year for 20 years. But, in a budget nearly $500 million the payout is around 1% per year.

However, as the student population shrinks, and the District’s income becomes less, that $5 million yearly debt service is being paid by fewer and fewer students. Charter schools’ growth contribute to fewer OUSD students and result in less and less ADA revenue paying the $5 million debt service. Over time declining enrollment will cause the same $5 million to become a growing percentage of the OUSD budget. Passage of a parcel tax, with a portion benefiting charter schools, might well increase the percentage of charter schools growing the negative impact that $5 million has as a percentage of the OUSD budget.

I think it is irresponsible of the Oakland School Board to ignore the long range effect of charter school growth on growing the negative impact of the yearly $5 million debt service.
The School Board on Wednesday night is most likely to pass on financing a parcel tax feasibility survey. I question the Board passing on expending $41,000 of general funding for the pre-ballot survey. $41,000 should be spent directly on OUSD children’s education. And, I question the wisdom of the School Board passing such an expenditure when a new parcel tax with local funding for charter schools will likely contributing to the negatively to balancing future OUSD budgets.

Jim Mordecai

Cut what you can without gutting core services.

What I see coming is gutting core services to pay back a state that didn’t straighten financial house when it controlled the district for six+ houses.

It is along that line of thinking, that no good cause can go unfunded, I am concern with a new cause that is emerging from the Board’s safety subcommittee and it is called “Restorative Justice”.

The $75,000 that is before the Board on Wednesday night for a contract for the Washington D.C. lobbyist group “The Podesta Group”, agenda item 10-0512 I believe is an effort to fund the idea of “Restorative Justice” with federal grants.

My take is that the concept of R.J. is that the system leaves many kids behind and that funding is to compensate for having bad break of not having a stable upbringing or making bad decisions.

My objection is, not that there shouldn’t be such programs, but I object to the lack of discussion of how a school district can sustain paying for programs that appear to be trying to correct society’s wrongs. There are programs that the Federal/State government has but they often require local contribution and funding of personnel. Down the line of winning a grant the local school board is faced with cutting basic programs to retain good programs and personnel.

My criticism of this School Board is that it continues to spend without rigorous evaluation of each expenditure as to how the spending will make larger or smaller the District’s budget hole.

Why it is true the Board can act like it is a Board trained entrepreneur and put up money it gets for textbooks and teachers to leverage that money to win grants that bring more money to the District spending on grant writers and D.C. lobbyist.

This is a wishful thinking approach to closing the District’s budget hole with gambling initiatives and magical thinking that worked to a degree in the past but also failed as the state takeover and current District budget hole demonstrate.

Jim Mordecai

Jim Mordecai

Listen, I’m sure there are more good programs and raises that are important. But, it is simply insane to keep asking people to pour in more money when we taxpayers don’t think you can manage what you have. Until the state resolves how it will tax so it can spend, we just rinse and repeat the same cycle.