There has been no such thing as easy progress at the Santa Barbara School Board in recent months. Last winter, it was a grueling and contentious salary negotiation process with district teachers that dragged on into the spring. That set the stage for an April decree from staff bean-counters that more than $2 million in immediate and heart-wrenching cuts would be the only way to get the district fiscally sound for the coming year. But it wasn’t until this summer when the wheels really came off the wagon: In June, the district’s business services director, Ed Diaz, revealed that the previously slashed budget actually had a surplus of nearly $5 million in undesignated and wholly unanticipated dough.
From then until now, the actual account of extra cash has been as tough to pin down as a paper bag in a windstorm — every time the board seems primed to vote on a finalized budget, the number bounces up or down again with no clear answer why. As a result, frustration levels for board trustees, members of the public, and district staff alike have been in full flare. Add to this ongoing concerns about declining enrollment (this year’s attendance levels are down, though not as drastically as in past years), the rise in violent youth gang activity, and the annual struggle to meet mandated academic performance levels, and you start to get the feeling that an easy day at the Santa Barbara School District’s office anytime soon is about as likely as needing a snowplow on State Street.
There is perhaps no one feeling the heat more these days than Superintendent Brian Sarvis. By job description alone, he is the one ultimately responsible for the safety and success of the district’s approximately 16,622 students. In a discussion last week with The Independent, Sarvis reflected on the state of the district. Like many a public commenter at the last several school board meetings, the superintendent had money woes on his mind.
“Having a healthy, accurate, and timely budget is foundational to our district. It was a serious shock to everyone when we heard the news in June,” he explained. “We can no longer afford to fail in that process.” To that end, Sarvis laid out a process, set to unfold in coming weeks, in which an outside entity — either the state’s Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) or the for-profit firm School Services of California — would perform an independent investigation of this situation and an analysis of the district’s entire accounting department. “We have to restore confidence in our numbers for both the public and the board — and even me, for that matter,” said Sarvis. “And this is the best way to do it.”
However, despite the superintendent’s good-foot-forward intentions, the mystery money shell game continued at the September 25 meeting, when the board once again failed to pass a budget. That budget, according to the latest figures, appears to have $1.17 million in undesignated dough. Adding insult to injury, the board also voted to put the brakes on the third-party investigation plan after trustee Bob Noël voiced concerns regarding vagueness and possible bias in the contract language put forth by Sarvis. The board asked for a more specific contract by the October 9 meeting, some five months since it first attempted to approve the final 2006/2007 budget.
With the recent resignation of longtime fiscal services director Robert Wolf and projections that the district will face a multimillion-dollar deficit in 2008/2009, it’s easy to see why public trust is running low. Does that loss of faith concern Sarvis? “Absolutely it concerns me,” he responded quickly, “but not nearly as much as I am concerned about simply getting reliable budget numbers myself.”
At the center of the ongoing budget chaos have been the questions, concerns, and criticisms of Noël. Never in danger of winning a popularity contest among his fellow boardmembers, Noël has worked doggedly to unearth the origins of the mystery money while also publicly calling foul about the district’s budgetary process. More than two months ago, Noël first mentioned bringing in FCMAT — the notion was soundly dismissed by his fellow trustees, Sarvis, and business director Diaz. All have since come around to believing an outside inquiry is more than necessary.
Sarvis believes the board’s efficiency is often hindered by Noël, as many votes on important issues end in a 4-1 split or 4-0 (with Noël abstaining). And even when Noël has a valid point, said Sarvis, his fellow boardmembers and staffers are slow to see it. “It is more a matter of how he says it rather than what he says,” said Sarvis, lamenting, “It is real hard to get people on the same page when they are feeling blamed.”
While tact is certainly a helpful tool on any committee, it’s far from a requirement and is no replacement for saying out loud the things that need to be said. Noël hammered that fact home last Tuesday, September 25, when he said directly to Sarvis and the staff: “At no time has the public gotten a clear answer as to why [the budget numbers have changed so much]. … It is time for the board to get its own answers.”
Amid the stalls, the board did tentatively restore $340,000 in funding for junior high electives to bring back some of the programs, such as performing arts and foreign language classes, that were controversially cut during the misinformed April budget slashing. Though the specifics of what exactly this new money means won’t be known until later this month, it’s an undeniable bit of good news for students. And that news is brighter thanks to a recent vote by the Santa Barbara City Council to kick in major funding for after-school activities at both the junior high and high school level.
A meeting earlier in September also restored funding for the elementary schools’ music programs; combined with a grant from the Santa Barbara Education Foundation, the music programs have been returned to their pre-April level of funding and staffing.
But even though these recent mini victories undid some of the harm from spring’s unnecessary cuts, Sarvis believes it’s going to be a while before people can begin to trust the process again. “I know it’s going to take time to convince me,” said Sarvis, sounding upset. “Everything else is really on hold until this budget business is settled up.”
Double-clicking on any word or phrase in this story will open a reference window with definitions and links to other reference material.

Print friendly
E-mail story
Contact an Editor
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
Previous Month


Comments
Discussion Guidelines
As a teacher I find myself more and more frustrated with the administration of our schools. Teachers must be 100% ready to go on the first day of school; we must hit the road running; the bright, shiny faces of our pupils are present and must be accounted for, before they become bored and complacent. To put everything on-hold until they get this budget settled, is to start a class a month into the school year, or to let a child fall through the cracks because we are not ready. It is shameful. This should have been done months ago, or more obviously, never happened...
Bring back more electives, help our kids and community NOW!
tammy (anonymous profile)
October 4, 2007 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Sarvis presents himself as a victim of this budget mess, but as superintendent he is responsible for it: Mr. Wolf and the dubious Mr. Diaz work--or worked--for him. Moreover, it is difficult to dismiss the idea that the bad budget numbers were really an obfuscation on Sarvis's part aimed at punishing teachers for demanding and winning a much-deserved raise despite his intemperate objections. It will never be possible to attach the word "trustworthy" to Mssrs. Sarvis and Diaz again, and for this reason alone they should be replaced as soon as possible. The fact that they remain unable to give the public reliable budget numbers even now only makes their dismissal more urgent. Any other employer would have fired them months ago. As for the board, it obviously should have been following Mr. Noel's lead on this issue from the beginning. I continue to find their tolerance of incompetence--if not malfeasance--incomprehensible.
il_miglione (anonymous profile)
October 4, 2007 at 3:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am amazed at the short sightedness of the current board. They lament the growing gang problem in Santa Barbara yet cut arts programs which keep kids busy pursuing perfection and off the street. Dr. Noel knows that these programs can't survive on campuses that only offer 2 periods of music or drama per day. Perhaps the rest of the board has never known how incredible it is to produce something with your peers. They don't realize that a kid will choose to go to class when an opportunity to ditch school and smoke weed arises. Think I'm being overly dramatic?... I was that kid!
Bob Noel is the only member of the board with the guts to call em' as he sees em'. The rest of the board tries to shut him down when he is attempting to hold the district accountable.
My kids will be entering Jr. High soon. I will see that they know the joys of producing art with others. Collaboration, commitment, and persistence are qualities that these programs infuse. I thank Dr. Noel for continuing to fight for these programs.
Restoring the arts programs is good common sense. Being accountable for a grossly mishandle budget is good conscious. Our school board has neither.
dadof4 (anonymous profile)
October 4, 2007 at 6:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It is truly good news that the school board has authorized $340,000.00 which is the equivalent of one full time teacher to each junior high school to be used for the electives. This means that the board has restored half of what it cut in the electives in the April $2.5 million dollar cuts that never needed to be made in the first place. If each full time equivalent of a teacher is really used for the electives then this authorization has helped. My question is, Who is watching the store? The very next board meeting should have each junior high principal stand before the board and prove how that 1 FTE has been used on each site to improve elective offerings. It is not enough to release funding. There must be oversight which this district lacks. It is the lack of oversight that has gotten this district in the mess that it is in right now. Our elected school board is accountable as is the Superintendent of schools. If the community is not paying attention and not holding these stewards of the public trust accountable it will be business as usual. This community needs to step up and verify that real oversight in this school district takes place.
AltheFirst (anonymous profile)
October 4, 2007 at 7:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm a 12th grader at dos pueblos high school. DP is amazing, but unfortunately Mr. Sarvis has relegated one of my most intensive and enriching activities, mock trial, to the club level. as a result we now have no funding. thank you "doctor" Sarvis.
isidewey (anonymous profile)
October 4, 2007 at 9:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Getting rid of Sarvis or Diaz is not the answer. Each time we get a new superintendent they think and we hope that they can do the job well, but after a few years it all catches up with them. Each new superintendent spends the first couple of years cleaning up the garbage left by the last while creating their own garbage for the next new hire. The answer is splitting the elementary and high school districts, giving each one a separate board and administration. The work load is too big and complicated for our leaders to adequately supervise, making them unable to effectively respond to the community's needs. The financial books are too complicated with funds being transferred between the districts and different rules for each pool of money. It will probably cost more to fund separate boards and administrations, but you get what you pay for. What we are getting now is worthless.
sgriffin (anonymous profile)
October 5, 2007 at 11:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow! SGriffen makes sense...the other elementary districts such as Hope and Goleta are not saddled with so much bureaucracy and seem to be able to account for their funds and run their programs more efficiently. The secondary district would represent all the junior high and high schools from Montecito to Goleta and the Santa Barbara Elementary district would only be responsible for the city elementary schools.
Two boards, two districts...much better management! Better taxpayer representation!
nativesb (anonymous profile)
October 5, 2007 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Post a comment