Why the Special Board Meeting?

On Tuesday, Dr. Kayrell pulled agenda item #15.3, to certify the Second Interim Report. He said there was nothing wrong with the report but there was an issue with the agenda item. The board agreed at that time to hold a special board meeting to take up the issue tomorrow. This is why the special board meeting was scheduled.

I reviewed both reports and found one small change in the report and some interesting information left out of the wider circulated board agenda for the regular meeting.

One line item, Decreased Home to School transportation $25,213 originally was listed under the "Restricted" category. In the new report, the same line item appears twice, in the "Restricted" category and in the "Unrestricted" category. I'm not an expert in school district budgets but this looks like it may be being counted twice.

Also...

Both agenda items concluded with the following paragraph:

Commitment to Fiscal Solvency by Beaumont Unified School District

The governing board recognizes its responsibility to plan for and maintain the fiscal solvency of the District for the current year and two subsequent fiscal years. The District's multi-year projections reflect the need for reductions of $0 in 2011-12 and $4,023,537 in 2012-13. The Board recognizes the need to implement ongoing reductions in order to maintain fiscal solvency. A detailed list of Board-approved ongoing budget reductions for 2011-12 and 2012-13 will be developed and submitted with the 2010-11 Second Interim Financial Report.

However...

The agenda item for the special board meeting added the following:

Fiscal solvency options include:

  • Eliminate K-3 Class Size Reductions, Grades 1 and 2  $1,073,856
  • Elementary School Closure $566,240
  • Eliminate Home to School Transportation - Elementary  $598,772
  • 1% Salary Reduction - all units $418,412

Because of what I have seen from this administration over the past 4 years, I have to admit, I am a little suspicious. If we were use to complete transparency and full disclosure from these people, I would say this is just the cabinet wanting to be as helpful as possible to the board members and let them know some of their options. My suspicious nature says these are all very controversial options that generated a lot of emotion two years ago when these options were considered and they were hoping not to draw too much attention until they have to. 

What do you think?