.
.
.
Perhaps I am spending too much time writing about high-speed rail. Last night a small group of concerned parents were railroaded by the “7/11 Committee” of the Saddleback Valley Unified School District at their surplus property hearing. In addition to the Committee Board there were 15 parents, reporters, Mission Viejo Council Member Cathy Schlicht and Elaine Lister, Planning Manager of the city of Mission Viejo at this 40 minute meeting.
The 9 members of the “committee” were tasked to provide recommendations on the lease or sale of potential surplus School District properties. The District reports SVUSD 2010 student enrollment of 15,395 students with a capacity of 18,320 for their elementary schools, resulting in a surplus of 2,925 open seats.
Arriving before the (April 28th) meeting began I picked up a copy of the Agenda that was dated April 14th.
Under Items of Business is item # 2, Approval of the April 14th Minutes, item #3, Review and Discuss Draft Report, Item #4 approve Final Report to Board, Item #5 Public Comments and lastly #7 Adjournment.
Notice that the Agenda called for a vote “before” taking Public Comment. Being chastised for Agendizing their vote before taking public testimony they delayed their unanimous vote in support of their fast track recommendation until after taking public comments from a half dozen Lake Forest and Trabuco Canyon parents, each of whom expressed concerns relating to the impact of closing the Aliso and Trabuco Elementary schools. Some of the parents raised the question of Brown Act violations and failure to provide proper and timely notice of the 7-11 meeting.In the April 14th meeting summary committee advisor Bob Nicholson stated that “we are following the same pattern as any school board meeting.” From the testimony heard last night I respectfully challenge that compliance.
As there were no copies of any documentation for the public or the press I asked one member to see the back-up material documentation that they were scheduled to vote. She asked for my business card stating that she would email a copy. How thoughtful. Hearing my request another member did hand me the 22 page report from which some of this post is utilized.
From the Eric Hall & Associates report it reads: “State law requires community input whenever a school District is considering the sale or lease of property not needed for classroom purposes. The Saddleback Valley Unified school District (SVUSD) Board of Trustees established a Real Property Advisory Committee and approved the Committee members at the regularly scheduled board meeting of April 12, 2011.
The stated purpose of the committee is to review projected school enrollments and other data provided by the district to:
Determine the amount of surplus space in the districtEstablish a priority list of use of surplus space that is acceptable to the communityCirculate throughout the attendance areas a priority list of surplus spaceProvide a hearing of community input to the committee on acceptable uses of space including sale or lease of surplus propertyMake a determination of limits of tolerance of use of space and real propertyForward a report to the district governing board recommending uses of surplus space and real property as set forth in Education Code section 17390.”“The governing Board identified and limited the real property referred to the Committee for discussion and consideration to the Aliso, La Tierra, Linda Vista, O’Neil, and Trabuco Elementary School sites and the SVUSD Surplus Warehouse site. “Note: La Tierra and O’Neill elementary schools in MV were closed in 2009.
Allyson Shimasaki, a Lake Forest homeowner with students at Aliso Elementary, Serrano Intermediate and El Toro High School, expressed her concerns about the structure of the 7-11 committee. Following is part of her public comments:
“Realizing that there can be no more than 11 people on the 7-11 committee, the CDE continues to summarize that, “…it is important that this…committee be perceived as objective and independent from suspected school board or other political agendas.” In contrast, this committee was chosen behind closed doors giving the appearance, whether warranted or not, that the committee was hand-picked to expedite the process for the school district. I certainly don’t think there is anyone serving on this committee who might be affected by these potential school closures, and although I’m sure you are all fine individuals, this committee doesn’t reflect the population or interests of the community surrounding Aliso Elementary. I would respectfully request that if you are representing our educational community by serving on this committee that you critically evaluate all information provided. If you do not feel that the information needed to make the determination of surplus or not surplus has been supplied you have a legal responsibility to abstain from voting.I further request that all properties being considered are evaluated individually, and that Aliso Elementary be removed from the list of surplus properties. Thank you.”
Ulu Cook, Lake Forest resident and parent testified:
“The legislation in clear that the duties of this committee are to be taken very seriously, and no decisions should be made without all pertinent information being analyzed. Since this is only the second meeting of this committee, it doesn’t seem that there has been any discussion about what requirements might be necessary to close a public school, e.g., public hearings, environmental impact report, etc. There hasn’t been any discussion of how accurate enrollment predictions have been in years past. Studies have shown that projections for one to possibly three years were useful, but the projections five to 10 years out are less reliable. There hasn’t been any discussion of an independent traffic analysis to see if the receiving schools can absorb the traffic for a new student population. There hasn’t even been any discussion of the values of the properties being studied. In fact, appearances would lead an observer to believe that this committee might not be taking their responsibilities seriously. Two of the members didn’t even stay until the end of the last meeting. The SVUSD School Board Code of Ethics (which applies to committees that report to the School board, also) states that committee members should “Devote sufficient time, thought, and study to proposed actions so as to be able to base decisions upon all available facts and vote in accordance with honest convictions, unswayed by partisan bias of any kind.”I urge the committee to delay presenting their report to the board until every member is sure that all required information has been gathered and due diligence has been done. I would further urge the committee to consider each property individually and consider more comprehensive investigation into closure of Aliso possibly utilizing a 2-3 year plan which would allow time to stop the process if enrollment rises, and allows time to look at the approvals needed and the issues involved such as environmental and zoning issues, potential issues regarding racial segregation and restrictions imposed by the Naylor Act. Thank you.”
In her speech Lake Forest parent Tami Palos addressed the Brown Act requirements and fast track actions of the committee where she stated:
“The Brown Act requires the agendas for these meetings to be posted 72 hours prior to the meeting which would have been 6:00 p.m. on Monday. Before this meeting, which is supposedly a Public Hearing, the Notice of Public Hearing and the agenda were not posted online until Tuesday afternoon after a request had been made for both items by parents. A copy was not posted in the District office until another parent visited the District office Tuesday afternoon to request it. No copy of the notice is posted at Aliso Elementary, and no staff member there received a copy of it to post.Just as the Facilities Advisory Committee met only twice within a two week period and then was told their service was completed before they ever even voted to recommend any schools for closure, this 7-11 Committee seems to be rushing through this process as the agenda states that you will be ready to prepare a report for the school board after meeting only twice. Even though tonight is supposed to be the hearings of community input regarding acceptable uses of space and real property that are required by the Education Code, the committee has already voted in their first meeting to declare Aliso a surplus property and lease it out. This vote was made without all committee members there, without any discussions regarding potential revenue from sale or lease of the property, and without any discussions regarding the cost of closing the school, including moving technology such as SmartBoards, possible environmental studies, and potential costs of rezoning if the site were to be used for something other than a school.Two years ago, the school district closed O’Neill and La Tierra Elementary schools. Currently, both properties are still functioning as cost centers. In Lake Forest alone, there are 870 vacant commercial properties which could be considered by renters before they consider Aliso. Now, the district wants to add Aliso Elementary to the list of vacant properties in the school district, and they want to do so without a thorough and fair investigation into the benefits and costs to the community. I urge you to consider each property individually and to remove Aliso from the list of surplus properties.”
My final quote comes from Lake Forest homeowner Rob Lange who also testified at the April 14th meeting.
Last night Rob addressed the criteria for the 7-11 Committee recommendations:
Speaking to Criteria 1 “Appraised Value of Property and Buildings” – During the April 14, 2011 meeting when asked by a committee member how much the properties were worth, Mr. Nicholson stated that there was, and I quote, “no need to worry about valuation of property.” This is contradictory to the first criteria presented as important criteria to consider when designating as “surplus” or “non surplus”. Properties were then very briefly discussed individually with no information about their potential revenue should they be leased or sold. The committee then voted to surplus all properties as a block and did not look at them individually as far as income potential AND this vote was done before allowing any public comments.In discussing the warehouse that has been vacant for about 1½ years, it was revealed that it has no zoning issues, and revenue from its sale would have no restrictions on how it is used. Orange County records show the warehouse property with a current assessed value of $1,924,059. Sale of this one vacant property could provide the boost to the general fund that is needed right now, and give the district time to more thoroughly investigate which schools it would be most fiscally and educationally responsible to consider for closure.Speaking to Criteria 3: “Community Use of Fields and Facilities” – For years Aliso has served as the home of Saddleback Little League. Any disposition of this property could uproot and possibly disband a well established, character building youth organization comprised of community volunteers who also help maintain the facility and contribute revenue. It would not only affect the students, it would have spider web like negative implications on a portion of the Lake Forest community as a whole.That said, I also would like to air concerns I have on the committee meeting on April 14th. The entire meeting lasted one hour and 20 minutes with a good part of it devoted to personal introductions of the members, election of a chairperson and secretary and listening to an overview of committee goals and responsibilities.Within those 80 minutes I was confused how a decision could be reached on the fate of six taxpayer owned properties with a cumulative value of well over $10 million without detailed short or long term analysis of the financial implications of the decision.I request that the committee make a decision on each potential surplus property separately, I recommend sale of the warehouse property first before any other decisions are made since the revenue from that sale could immediately resolve the potential closure issues and I ask that Aliso Elementary be removed from the list of surplus properties.”
Larry comment: I label this a travesty in that the meeting may not have been properly noticed, they failed to provide members of the public documentation on the actions they were about to undertake and had closed minds as to how they would vote telling the attendees that declaring a “surplus doesn’t mean schools will be closed.”
This reminds me of when a public agency includes your home in a redevelopment project area (RDA) with eminent domain powers when you are told they may not have plans to take your private property.
It is true that enrollment in our local public schools are declining. It is also a known fact that there is a fixed cost to keep schools open. While Mission Viejo is almost built out the same may not be true for some of our neighbors. In that case we might see young families moving into the SVUSD where enrollment might increase.
Relocations impacts everyone, be it displacement due to eminent domain or having your children be moved to another school due to actions for which you have no control. My sense is that the 10 members at the meeting failed to show any compassion for the parents knowing that their families will be impacted by their actions.
I would be interested in knowing how much will actually be saved by closing this school, and how that savings compares to the measure B taxpayer funds recently spent in construction of the brand new sixth grade classrooms and computer lab at Aliso. After hearing dollar amounts from the SVUSD superintendent, I would gather that the balance would not be reached in the foreseeable future, and that closure would result in a significant net loss, not just for the community, but for the taxpayers themselves.
Ted.
I believe one of the Aliso speakers did mention the recent expenditures.
Ted,
I’ll try to share some light. I don’t yet have the figures for the just over 2 year old construction of the new building housing 2 classrooms, 4 lavoratories, the computer lab and storage area. But I can say that Aliso also has a unique situation in that because it is and has been used as a recreation facility (home of Saddleback Little League) it is governed by the provisions of the Naylor Act. This dictates that the first option for sale of the property must be to any 1 of 4 public entities ( city, county etc) and any of the four can purchase it for 25% of market value…in effect the school district would be giving it away…probably for less than even the cost of the construction of the new building. Even it was to be leased the Naylor Act restricts the type of lessors so there is a very small group that could use this almost 9 acre facility and an even smaller group of those who would be able to handle the type off fees this type of property would demand. Bottom line, both educationally and fiscally, Aliso best serves the taxpaying public in it’s use as a facility to educate our kids.
We haven’t even addressed quality of education with Aliso raising it’s API scores an astounding 45 points this year, is home to the Apple iengage program that drew state wide attention and helped the CA Board of Education to recognize Aliso as a Premier School because of it’s innovation, technological features ( there are SmartBoards in each classroom) and rise in test scores. This school, because of the dedication and enthusiasm of the staff and students, is heading up …and fast. Sad part is …none of the reports released have even addressed quality of education, which I would think would be one of the, if not the most important criteria evaluated in the sad event that a school would be required to close.
Doesn’t matter how you look at it…academically, it’s a great school, fiscally, it makes sense to keep it open because of the restrictions on other use…and obviously the rest of the school is in good physical condition because I’m sure they would not have invested millions of dollars just over 2 years ago. SAVE ALISO! It only makes sense.
Email from parent/speaker Rob Lange:
Thank you so much Mr. Gilbert!
Finally a candid disclosure of what is really going on. I thank you for being the first to stand up and candidly report the real story…and what you heard last night is only the tip of the iceberg. I encourage you to continue to follow the developments as there is so much more to this story. The next meeting of the Board of Education, where so far as we know they will be voting on actual school closings, is on May 10th at 6 pm. There is also a Lake Forest City Council meeting on 5/3 and this situation will be brought to the forefront.
Thank you!!!!
Rob
Thank you so much for attending last nights “public Hearing” of the 7/11 committee. The SVUSD has condensed a process that according to the California department of education should take several months into 2 meetings of the FAC and 7/11 committee with a final vote possibly scheduled for the May 10th school board meeting. With all the complex factors that are inherent when considering school closures there is no way sufficient reports were done or all pertinent information gathered.And while the 7/11 committee believes we as parents do not understand their mandate or the process they are incorrect. I am sure of one fact…if a school is closed it will be one of the properties that they designated as surplus.
Thank you for your time and compassion for our situation.
Although I know that many may seem to think that Trabuco Elementary should be closed due to its small size, here are some things to consider:
Trabuco’s API scores rose by an amazing 61 points in the 2009-2010 school year! Our school was recently rated by the Orange County Register, along with Greatschools.com, as the fourth highest achieving school in SVUSD. It was one of only four district school to be ranked with a silver medal. Sadly, SVUSD has no gold medal ranked schools.
Trabuco Elementary is home to the Trabuco Field Study program. Many of the entire District’s elementary aged students have probably been to our school for a field trip. It is because of this Field Study – a MONEY MAKER for SVUSD – that I personally believe that Trabuco will not be sold as surplus. The students attending Trabuco are able to take advantage of many of the assets of the Field Study on a regular basis. Our younger students raise chicks, and spend time at our small farm, learning about life sciences.
We have an excellent science curriculum, provided by a Beckman@Science Grant along with the District’s Educational Foundation. Our Computer Lab is used by all the students in the school. It was recently completely update with new computers to take our students head on into the 21st century.
Our entire campus was remodeled and updated three short years ago ago with Measure B funds. Millions of dollars have been spent on new classrooms, office space, restrooms, playground equipment, and parking areas. It is essentially a brand new school from a facilities perspective.
Trabuco Elementary is one of the oldest schools in Orange County. Opened in 1879, the school has survived worse economic situations than the one we currently find ourselves in. It is a touchstone and meeting place for a community unlike any other in Orange County. After Silverado Elementary School in OUSD closed last year, we welcomed their displaced students with open arms.
Many in the Saddleback Valley look at Trabuco Elementary and Trabuco Canyon as “different”. Well, I suppose we are. ALL of our students know each other. Across grades and ages, ethnicities, and genders. Teachers spend multiple years with our children, getting to know them in ways that would be difficult in other schools. Serious discipline problems are practically non-existent in our classrooms. Our Family Nights are attended by not only nearly every family in the school, but also by many of the nearby community members. Our PTA membership is almost always 100%. Parents are in our classes every single day of the week. I would guesstimate that at least 30% of our parents volunteer a significant amount of time in our classrooms and at school event. We even had a former student raise several hundreds of dollars for our annual Jog-A-Thon this year. He had moved on to middle school but still felt that Trabuco was like family and wanted to contribute. That is the kind of loyalty and dedication that we see every day at Trabuco.
Closing Trabuco Elementary will NOT provide SVUSD with significant savings. Our costs are extremely low as schools go – we share a principal with another school, and have an extremely small staff. It is my understanding that the Board is looking at our school for closure simply due to low enrollment and its effect on our students. This year, we have three teachers at the school. Our children are all in combination classes. If we cannot increase our enrollment, we could potentially be looking at having only two teacher.
This school year, under the supervision of our new Principal, Dr. Petersen, we have been making an outreach to bring new families to our school. We have so much to offer, yet so many are worried about the “little country school” not being up to standard. They worry about the drive on windy Live Oak Canyon Road. They are concerned with the inherent natural dangers of canyon life, such as fire and floods. As a parent who is “choiced-in” from a suburban Mission Viejo school and a family that does not live in the canyon, I can just tell you that these have not been an issue for us. The biggest issue of these that has had an impact was during the Silverado Fires four years ago was that our school was closed one day more than the other schools in SVUSD. Our children were never in any danger, and no damage was done to our school. With all of the enthusiasm, ideas, and leadership that Dr. Petersen brings to our school, I truly believe that Trabuco has the potential to be even more of a shining star for SVUSD, if we are just given the chance.
Sorry to write a novel; I just would not want the public or the SVUSD to have the mistaken impression that Trabuco families are not passionate about keeping our little school open. We respect that the District has tough choices to make, and budgets to trim. We just hope that they can recognize Trabuco Elementary as the unique asset that it is, and consider taking it off the closure list. Thanks for reading!
Last night a group of us attended the meeting of the SVSUD 7-11 committee meeting that was scheduled in response to all of the recent controversy relating to the way this committee has irresponsibly handled this process. I went hoping to see a change, a realization of the importance of the responsibility this committee has accepted. Sadly, last night’s meeting only further confirmed that this committee is a sham.
At this meeting there were representatives from all 3 currently open schools being considered for designation as surplus or non surplus and multiple representatives from all 3 delivered well prepared, specific, verifiable and very important concerns….all of which should certainly require extensive investigation in order to make any type of informed decision.
Prior to last night this committee had met only twice for a TOTAL of 118 minutes, most of which were taken up with introductions, listening to committee responsibilities and public comments ( ALL of which were heard AFTER they had already voted and made a decision on the disposition of 6 taxpayer owned properties valued at well over 10 million dollars). My hope and expectation last night was that these well thought out comments would cause this committee to step back and see the need to reconsider the way they have irresponsibly handled this entire matter. Sadly, it was business as usual. Not one committee member had the backbone to say ” Hey, wait a minute, after all we have heard we need to take a much closer look at these issues”. Once again they rolled over, hastily reconfirmed what from all appearances is a predetermined decision and concluded the meeting after just 41 minutes …again largely consisting of public comments.
I’ve tried to hold my tongue in the interest of diplomacy. At this point there is nothing more to do than call these proceedings what they really are…a farce, a cartoon. I am embarrassed for these people in the way they have conducted the taxpayers business and shirked such an important responsibility.
This should not end here. It can’t. There is too much at stake for the students, the caring staffs and the affected communities to let this go without extensive investigation. We as a group have so, so much information that needs to be considered before this committee’s recommendation should ever make it out the door. The fact that they even hold the power to make recommendations to our Board of Education makes me sick. They have been remiss in their duties, they have been irresponsible and they have the power to influence decisions that could possibly do great harm. What they don’t have, and this committee will never have, is integrity and credibility.
I have said nothing here that I would not say to each committee member face to face. In fact, I would like the opportunity to do just that…I held back last night after the meeting for one simple reason. I did not want to do any harm to the efforts of so many dedicated parents, teachers and staff members who spent so much time investigating, preparing and presenting the information that the committee has elected to disregard.
The students deserve better, the dedicated teachers and staffs deserve better, the taxpayers deserve better and the communities as a whole deserve better.
What we have all witnessed in the 3 short weeks(or should I say 159 minutes) this committee has been together has been an eye opening experience in the worst of ways. If this is the way business is conducted on a regular basis it should come as no surprise that these fiscal circumstances exist. Even worse, that they will continue rather than be responsibly rectified.
We have so much information that can be used to help identify and solve the problems. What we hoped for and expected was to be heard and reacted to in a way that would serve the best interests of all. Regretfully, we have been totally dismissed and viewed as nothing more than an annoyance.
Rob.
Someone gave me a heads-up that another RECALL may be in the making.
When elected officials are put into office their job is to represent their constituents. When they fail that responsibility perhaps it is time to either vote them out of office at the next two elections or take the other approach, which we have utilized in Mission Viejo, and RECALL them.
For the SVUSD to ignore thefact that your city is in the process of adding 4,000 new dwelling units which will contains thousands of school age children, this fact should not have been buried in the 7-11 analysis. Having read the 22 page report there is no reference to those future homes.
Mr. Gilbert,
Thank you. I spoke about the Lake Forest City Council plans to allow consturction of 4300 homes at the 7-11 committee meeting. I had copies of the article ( link below ) available and offered them to each member of the committee…not one was interested in obtaining a copy.
We don’t need less schools…we will need more…but apparently this information was of no interest to the committee…..it will be when they come to the public asking for money to build more new schools at the cost of millions of dollars
http://www.ocregister.com/news/-299103–.html
Rob.
It’s time to turn up the heat. Before the SVUSD takes any action.
look for allies across Lake Forest. i.e. How many teachers will lose their jobs because of the Aliso school closure?
How will the children get to the NEW school? Will they be walking across the Metrolink R/R tracks, the same tracks where we have had two deaths in the past year.
Will either the husband or wives whose children attend these schools have to drive them to and from school or will you now need to purchase a transportation pass?
Just a few thoughts to consider.
Thank you Mr. Gilbert. I can tell you that all of these questions and more have been posed and have been disregarded. On Friday the SVUSD sent representatives to Aliso to prepare the teachers for what is about to happen. How or why they did this before a vote has been taken leads me to believe they have already decided the fate of Aliso behind closed doors. I have also heard from a very reliable source that the husband of SVUSD president disclosed to some of his colleagues that this is a done deal, that on Tuesday night Aliso will be voted to close.
A very curious event happened on Friday. The agenda for this coming Tuesday night’s meeting was posted and two of the schools slated for potential closure, Trabuco Canyon and Linda Vista , have been removed from the list and the agenda. I don’t know how this could have happened since they were on the agenda at the last school board meeting, were not removed by any motion or vote at that meeting, so somehow between meetings it was decided to remove them. How is this possible without having an unpublicized meeting?
Rob.
While I rarely attend school district meetings my vast experience with City Council meetings is that they can add items on a Closed Session Agenda without taking it under discussion. The reason given is that if they don’t include it on the posted Agenda they cannot discuss that item in that same meeting. My point is that they do not have to provide notice on items they have decided not to address at specific meetings.
I will be knocking on doors all day tomorrow encouraging all of the residents of the areas surrounding Aliso Elentary to be at the meeting on Tuesday night to see and witness for themself the way this is being handled.
The Lake Forest City Council has voted to invetiagate and make this part of their 5/17 meeting…but by them the vote will already have been taken.
What I have witnessed has caused me to lose faith in the system…not only that , but to also be afraid of it. But that fear has only increased resolve because I know one thing for sure, right is right and wrong is wrong…and the way this process has unfolded in wrong in every way. So things need to be changed.
Accidently submitted prior to proof reading my typing.
Do not wary Rob, I do that all the time…….. and my comments are most intelligent, informative and modest.
Mr. Gilbert…..can you attend this meeting on Tuesday night at 6:15? We would really appreciate if you could come.
Thank you,
Rob
Rob. As much as I would love to be there to hold their feet to the fire I have a meeting to attend at the same time and date that I simply cannot miss.
Start an email or telephone tree of all the parents. As discussed previously bring every one of your children, collectively, along with home made signs.
Contact Erika Ritchie of the Register and notify her that you will hold a press conference in front of the Bd of Educ. building one hour prior to the meeting starting time. I would also notify the MV Dispatch editor and the Patch reporter to increase your potential media coverage. Voice of OC is another possible media contact.
Make sure to follow up with Terry Franke of Cal Aware regarding the prior meeting Brown Act violations. I sent him a copy of my earlier post and he has responded to us.
Continue to make noise with letters to the editor and local blogs.
Thanks Mr. Gilbert….I will contact Mr. Franke at CalAware on Monday. This has lit a fire under me because of what I have seen, the way the public has been treated and the fact that this reaks of …dare i say it…..the “c” word as it relates to a lot of governement agencies these days. Something is very wrong here..very wrong…there is more to this story. 2 schools and a warehouse have sat idle for a long time costing taxpayers money for upkeep and now they want to close a 3rd stating a budget “savings” of 400k per year. I’m not sure how this works because the budget items for the salaries, benefits , book and supplies will remain the same…personnelt need to be paid and kids stil need books. To me that we’re being told that it costs 400k to turn on lights and supply water for the school each year. It still has to be insured since they still own it, it still requires upkeep and maintenance. The SVUSD proposed budget for 2011 -2012 on the SVUSD web site lists item numbers 13 and 14 titled “Other Services and “Other Outgoing” for a total of 30 million dollars. You can’t tell me they can’t find 400k out of that 30 million ” outgoing” to leave Aliso, a high performing school ranked # 1 out of 23 district elementary schools in API score improvement this year, open. There are many, many other benefits of Aliso…all have been outlined, presented and disregarded by the board, .not the least of which is the students sense of pride and the feeling of community in this residentail neighborhood school.
Another thing is …the school budget is 240 million per year. This proposed savings equates to .2% of the overall budget…..,2%. …i’ll say it again…. .2%. The school board has identified a 19.5 million dollar deficit yet there has been no talk, I see nothing on any agenda about where the other 19.1 million dollars is coming from…yet they have targeted school closings to save .2 % of the budget. Seems to me that if anyone had concerns about being” fiscally responsible” they might start by figuring out where the lions share of the budget deficit is going to come from……and I don’t understand how or why they are taking steps to save .2 % of the budget on the backs of the children. I suggest a line item review of the budget and I’ll guarantee you we can find 400 K…and more..because “other outgoing” is a bit too ambiguous to be left alone…I’d love to see who is receiving the “other outgoing’ . …and there is so much more to discuss.