I recently received an email from a teacher who was concerned about the fact that our board of trustees approved all three readings of the 2012-2013 School District Budget at our May 29th board meeting. Here was my response, which I am pleased to share on my blog with others who have similar questions.
Thanks for your email regarding budget process and your patience in waiting for my response. The issues you raise are important for me also as I have many questions for our district staff, chair, and fellow trustees around budget process. I would like to comment on your questions and add my own thoughts about budget process. Of course I speak as one trustee and do not speak for the board.
The three readings in one session seem to be the process our district uses to pass its budget. As far as I can tell, budget consultation takes place in three areas. To put it very simply, the finance department works with fixed costs, the Senior Admin works with principals on what they are going to do with school money, and district staff work out what to do with what’s left over. The trustees have a chance to ask questions and make suggestions about many of these areas over a number of meetings leading up to budget approval. I think we put in about six hours on this. Given this process, passing a budget in one meeting is understandable as the trustees have already had their say. I can see how it does not look good from the point of view of others who may want to be involved in the process. If and when we decide to have more public and partner group consultation on the budget this process or tradition may need to change.
The problem is that anyone with feedback to give only had from Friday (when the board agenda was published) until Tuesday to read over the budget and consider a response. For my part I apologize for not consulting with any partner groups during this short period. I think it is not a realistic time frame for meaningful consideration. I remember the shock that many parents and partner groups had back in January 2010 when the District Sustainability report came out on a Friday to be approved in principle on the following Tuesday. There are many other examples in the last two years that followed that same process and it has added cynicism around decision-making. We need to give more time for input on big decisions, and I hope next year will look different.
I wonder if the board had delayed the budget vote till June, do you think even with public input much could have been changed? School organization and staffing decisions have already taken place. If we would have started some open budget talks in January there might have been time to debate major directions and make amendments between meetings, but we had just taken office and were not ready to alter the course of the district. To be honest, we’ve had a very full agenda and are still working out what needs to change and how. For example, three trustees (including myself) asked for a more open budget process next year, so I ask you to be patient with us, it may happen. I would love to see all of our processes in School District 57 become increasingly open and transparent, but I also realize we are a new board and change takes time. During this budget cycle there was more consultation time given to the board prior to passing the budget. We have removed confidentiality clauses from our committee meetings. I think this is necessary for a first step in getting dialogue elsewhere. During the Policy and Governance section of last week’s board meeting we discussed opening up committees to partner groups. I requested that when the committee reviews this policy that all committees now be open to partner group representation.
One thing that the public, or partner groups, or individuals can do to help us is to provide some input upfront on what kind of consultation they would like to see at the board level. Partner groups are free to react to what they see happening, but I’d like to see some prior description of the process they want in the form of a proposal or request. Share your vision, help us develop ours is what I mean. One recent example is the DPAC recommendation that our district look at some kind of inclusive long-term sustainability planning. We’re still considering what that might look like. An older example was the More with Less Report that you and I were both involved with in 2010. The more people that come to us before a process is finished or becomes an issue, the more we are educated about how it fits into the district plans. I’m particularly interested in hearing how board decisions (like the budget) affect student learning both positively and negatively. This is one of the reasons I think we need more open dialogue with and between partners.
I’ve spent some time investigating what other districts do around budget consultation and there are many that are quite deliberate about gathering input. Some also have strategies for engaging the government on funding issues. You might recall seeing SD79 Cowichan Valley in the news for adopting a “restoration budget.” They did so after extensive public consultation. I might possibly be alone on our board in applauding their efforts, but I think we can find more agreement that education is underfunded. School boards need to wrestle with that issue by engaging their community and the government. This is an advocacy role that I take seriously. I have been asking for more consultation for the board on SD business and have voted no when that has not happened.
I’m not sure what “open” could mean in the future. I believe that we should seek public input because this is a public school district spending public tax dollars. I believe that partner groups like teachers have felt left out of the district conversation for a few years through their voice on the District technology team, Success for all Leadership Team, Social Responsibility Working Group, etc. This board is slowly opening up that process but the partner groups, too, have to take up the challenge and change the conversation. They need to avoid apathy and keep us on our toes, as you are doing. This is a board who will listen and we are learning and doing our part. I would love to see some kind of yearly forum around budget, strategic plans (sustainability), and the achievement contract. A chance for Senior Admin and the trustees to share plans and ideas. Better yet would be for partner groups to be involved in the creation of these plans, including the parts of the budget that do not involve fixed costs, like salaries. This would be new and scary for many in our school district, but again other districts have figured out how to do this.
The issue of surplus spending came up at the board meeting. We have postponed a decision on this for a month in order to get input. I’m not sure what this will look like, but be assured I’ve asked about it. Maybe we can use this to test how willing the partner groups are to be involved in educating us about what they’d like to see around consultation. I know June is busy with summer on everyone’s mind, but I’d welcome any suggestions you or others have on what a process for reviewing surplus spending should/could look like. I understand something is supposed to go up on the website but I haven’t seen it yet. I have attached a copy for you.*
My own personal lesson I am learning is to stick by my values as a trustee. One of them is to vote only when input from the public and partner groups has been requested for major decisions. I am far enough along in my learning curve that I would like to start insisting that real consultation take place if I am expected to agree to big ticket items like budgets, achievement contacts, or significant new programs or plans. This does not mean I wish to challenge all decisions. It means that some decisions need consultation with appropriate partners to be inclusive and transparent.
* the document http://www.sd57.bc.ca/fileadmin/cao.sd57.bc.ca/FORM_AND_DOCUMENTS/Unappropriated_Surplus_Proposals.pdf is available on the district website http://www.sd57.bc.ca/ and feedback is due by June 14th, 2012 by email to wdemarsh@sd57.bc.ca.
