May 13 Board Meeting Recap
Lee esta publicación en español: Resumen de la Reunión de la Directiva de OUSD del 13 de mayo
Hi Community,
Welcome back to another Dig Recap (the second-to-last one of this school year!). There is so much to discuss from the Wednesday board meeting that we are breaking this issue down into sections.
📊 Budget background & financial update discussion from Wednesday
📋 Going Concern Appeal to Alameda County of Education (ACOE)
📄 Superintendent extension
📊 Budget background and financial update discussion from Wednesday
⌛Context: A timeline of recent budget-related events
As ever in Oakland, there's a lot of background that explains where we are now. We thought a refresh would be helpful before we dive into last night's meeting.
Budget background
- The district has a $100M structural deficit, which means OUSD spends about $100M more each year than it earns in revenue.
- OUSD has been able to do that because it has "reserves", savings in the bank.
Previous Administration
- The previous board and superintendent were working on a plan known as "The 3 Rs" to address the deficit, which many in the district expected to include closing schools.
2024 Election
- The current board, elected in 2024, strongly opposes school closures, and stopped the 3 Rs process.
Winter 2025
- The board asked then-CBO Lisa Grant-Dawson to come up with a plan to close the deficit and avoid running out of reserves without closing schools.
- Ms. Grant-Dawson (who has since left the district) responded that wasn't possible, and said that the board was going to need to borrow money.
- Taking out a loan would have triggered a county takeover and loss of local control.
- Interim Superintendent Denise Saddler worked with her team to propose a Fiscal Stabilization Plan, a list of measures to reduce the deficit by $65M.
Spring 2026
- In March the board voted to approve layoffs at school sites and the central office
- The district has also negotiated a raise with the teacher's union (OEA). OUSD is still calculating the cost of that raise, and it has not been formally approved by the board.
📊 Wednesday Financial Report
Deputy Superintendent Tara Gard and CFO Ryan Nguyen presented an update on the fiscal stabilization plan. Ms. Gard noted that the district has had a lot of plans, but has been missing execution. Key numbers and details from the presentation:
- The team reminded the board that the district has reduced its $100M structural deficit by $65M
- The district’s finance team believes the state’s May budget revision will add around $30M to our 26-27 revenues
- The team’s preliminary forecast of the cost of the OEA agreement is $13M this year, $33M in 26-27, and $62M in 27-28
- “Structural reform” is planned for the 27-28 school year, and may include reducing per-site operating costs.
🔎 Two weeks ago, in a letter to the County, the district projected that they would end the 26-27 school year with $16M in cash. On Wednesday, the presentation predicted $150M in cash at the end of 2026-27. Directors Hutchinson and Berry both point out that large and unexpected change. The finance team was asked at least four times from the dais to explain what caused the swing, and responded with statements like “The cash flow that we are presenting is the latest information we have in the financial system.”
> Frutos responding to Hutchinson's questions about the cash flow projection change
> Frutos responds to Berry’s questions about the cash flow projections
Directors Latta and Berry asked how the district was progressing against the commitments in the fiscal stabilization plan. As Berry pointed out, Ms. Gard’s presentation defined a fiscal plan as “a document that identifies gap between revenues and expenditures, proposes a specific action to close it, assigns ownership, and is formally adopted by the governing board.” No such plan was presented last night, though Dr. Frutos assured the board “Whatever label you put on it, it is a plan and it’s being implemented by a lot of actions behind the scenes.”
Director Bachelor used her comment time on this agenda item to tell the community: “I’m proud of my board colleagues who have voted to shift our budget to support fully funded schools and stabilize our district… I also shared how OUSD has increased enrollment for the first time in years, and proved that when a district stops closing schools and investing in communities, families respond.”
Our take: When the board approved cuts in March, they were careful to specify which positions should be restored first if more state money came through. The numbers presented tonight suggest those cuts will be permanent, as the projected increase in state funding of $30M appears entirely offset by the $30M cost of the OEA raise. Indeed, the 2027-28 fiscal stabilization measures include “school model redesign to reduce per-site operational costs.” We worry that means further site cuts.
We were particularly surprised to hear Director Bachelor praise her colleagues on the dais for supporting “fully funded schools”, given that ⅔ of Oakland principals recently signed a letter telling the board “we are struggling to pursue the basic conditions for success [because] our decisions as a district have resulted in a structural deficit and cash-strapped schools.” We also think it’s strange for Bachelor to praise this board for increasing enrollment, when they voted to cut the entire enrollment stabilization team that actually did the work.
We hope Ms. Gard follows through with her promise for more transparency and disciplined execution. One way to do that would be to provide a detailed report updating the board on this list of actions from the fiscal stabilization plan.
Fiscal stabilization plan update from the Feb 27 Board Meeting
📋 Going Concern Appeal to Alameda County of Education (ACOE)
Context: the ACOE has issued a “notice of ongoing concern”, which is the county’s way of saying that OUSD may be unable to meet its financial obligations in the next 2-3 years. Superintendent Saddler responded with a letter calling Castro’s assessment “factually incomplete, legally imprecise, or inconsistent with the demonstrated record of this Board and Administration.”
Last night: The General Counsel (GC) filed an appeal on behalf of the board, asking the state to reverse the notice of ongoing concern. The board voted on whether to ratify that appeal.
Brouhard, Latta, Thompson, Williams, and Bachelor voted yes.
Hutchinson challenged the legality of the appeal, leading to some tense back-and-forth with General Counsel Lindsey. Director Berry asked pointedly, several times, what the intent of the appeal was. Eventually the GC said she could not answer publicly, as she wanted her advice on the topic to be protected by attorney-client privilege.
Berry asks about the intent of the appeal and GC Lindsey responds
Our take: Castro’s notice of going concern doesn’t say the district will definitely run out of cash. She says that it’s unclear whether the district will remain solvent. After watching last night’s financial presentation to the board, we think Castro is right. The district’s own financial leadership team said as much during its presentation.
- “We’re not trying to make anyone believe that we don’t have a challenge, and we’re working through it.” - Ms. Gard
- “The 26-27 state budget assumptions improve the outlook… but these do not eliminate the structural deficit or the need for reductions.” - Dr. Frutos
- “The projection shows no total General Fund cash insolvency under the known conditions, but projected liquidity can become constrained if the ongoing fiscal stability plan does not continue to improve district solvency.” - Mr. Nguyen
These 3 leaders are saying in three different ways: “We’re trying to solve this problem, but it isn’t solved yet, and we don’t have all the data yet.” Given this context, it’s hard to argue with Superintendent’s Castro’s assessment that the district’s financial picture is unclear in ways that could affect OUSD’s ability to meet its financial obligations. We share Berry’s confusion about what the district was hoping to accomplish with this appeal.
Update: The appeal was rejected by the state on Thursday morning.
📄 Superintendent extension
Background: Saddler was brought on as interim superintendent after the board ended Kyla Johnson-Trammel’s contract. The board hired consultants to conduct a search for a permanent superintendent, but that search was recently paused.
Last night: The board voted on a one-year contract that gave Saddler a raise and dropped “Interim” from her title.
Latta, Brouhard, Bachelor, Williams, and Thompson voted yes without comment.
Hutchinson and Berry voted no. Hutchinson claimed the board had not discussed the terms of the contract, like the raise. (General Counsel Lindsay said he had been part of a closed session discussion of those terms). Berry told Saddler ‘I like what you contribute’, but felt that it was inappropriate to shift from “Interim Superintendent” to “Superintendent” without more room for community discussion.
Our take: The board majority has been clear and consistent in its praise for Saddler. This vote was unsurprising, as the Superintendent has been diligent in executing the board’s priorites, which is her job, whether or not you agree with the board’s priorities.
📝 Also of note
👏 The board celebrated outgoing Student Directors Maxiumus Simmons and Marianna Smith. Both Student Directors have used their time on the dais to uplift the voices of students across Oakland, and they will be dearly missed.
There were multiple public comments about the district’s handling of accusations of antisemitism. See Ashley McBride’s article in the Oaklandside for background on this issue.
The board considered two versions of a resolution that attempted to provide Special Education students with the same procedural protections against program closure that general education students have. The resolution was pulled after CAC chair JD Woloshyn publicly opposed the language of the revised resolution. We expect to see it back on the agenda in a future meeting.
Thank you for making it all the way to the bottom! Two things before you go: mark your calendars for the June 1st Community Meeting with PSCA and, we hope to see you today at our first happy hour at Nido’s!
(We plan to host another Dig happy hour in August when we’re back in school together.)