05/05/21: SD61Budget $7 Million In Cuts: Double-Plus UnGood

I’ve never been a fan of “high level” strategic plans, and with speakers approving this budget continually referring to the ways $7 million in cuts that deeply and negatively affect students align with the strategic plan, I’m a confirmed strategic plan cynic. Apparently, strategic plans can be used to justify anything.

The final vote to approve this budget (or not) will take place at the Board meeting on May 17.

Boards have until the end of June to submit a balanced budget to the Ministger of Education.

Here’s the link to a multitude of budget related documents. (Move the slashes back one space)

https: //www.sd61.bc.ca/our-district/financial/

Whatever public discussion has taken place is on the SD61 Youtube Channel.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRtyy8Uak0lVS-wxlwPeuXw

Listen especially closely to parents Brett Gaylor, Megan Taylor and Brianna Day
right after ‘Approval of the Minutes”, early in the May 3 Education Policy and Directions meeting.

I don’t know what votes or discussions have taken place in in camera meetings, secret from the public, as a decison from the Board to “allow”
me to return – or not – is more than two months overdue. (Background: Part 1 of 3) (Adminstrative fairness, anyone?)

 

 

Click to access GVSD61_StrategicPlan2020-2025.pdf

How can cuts to vital services, only some of them  on only one page of the budget presentation to the public (p21 below) align with
the stated Mission and Vision? Thousands of parents, students, and community members have emailed the Board asking exactly that question.

These are CUTS. The red “reinvestment” reassurance means that money will go somewhere else.

 

My motion to add to the May 3  Ed Policy agenda a motion to write to the Minister of education with some urgency, asking her to  allow SD61 to submit a deficit budget this year , as allowed by the School Act, while we all take some time to sort this shortfall over the next couple of years in a way that does not destroy opportunities and supports for students, was rejected by the Standing Commitee  (For: Duncan, McNally /  Against: Ferris, Painter, Watters)). I have submitted it to the next meeting, May 10 Operations Policy and Planning Standing Committee, along with two others, below.

A member of the Operations Standing Commitee will have to move them (I hope), ie put them on the table for debate, as I am not a member of this committee.

Motion 1:

Motion 2:

 

 

About Diane McNally