What More Did They Want Cut?

Donna Carey and Dana Kalczuk have spent previous board meetings talking publicly about wanting to add things to classrooms and give teachers more support.

On April 16, they voted NO on the clerical reapproval motion tied to the tentative budget. Then on May 6, when the board took the final budget vote with those same cuts in place, they voted NO again.

The budget they opposed included cuts to:

• 2 teachers
• 2 part-time nurses
• 1 head custodian
• A full-time secretary reduced to part-time
• Summer custodians
• STEM stipend funding
• Technology and maintenance supplies

District officials also made it clear that even deeper cuts could be coming next year.

So what, specifically, were they prepared to cut next before they would support it?

April 16: “Let’s just pick a different number”

The April 16 vote was procedural: a re-approval to correct a clerical entry issue in the tentative budget so it could be properly filed. Carey and Kalczuk voted no.

During the same meeting, Carey admitted she had missed the prior budget vote and still had not received basic budget details. Despite that, she argued the board should simply reject the numbers and aim lower.

“I have not seen any of this information… I don’t think it’s fair for me to even vote for this right now. And I would have voted no because I wouldn’t have agreed on 6.55. I would have said, why don’t we just pick a different number? Let’s go for five.”

But budgets don’t work by “picking a number.” The 6.65% levy reflected painful tradeoffs, including $239,000 in cuts that had already been discussed. When Carey complained that finance committee conversations weren’t “filtered out” to her, the board president noted that full details would be presented before the final adoption and encouraged her to call anytime to discuss them.

Kalczuk also voted no on that motion-without offering a concrete alternative that preserved classroom supports.

May 6: no again on final adoption

When the final budget came up for approval on May 6, the same reality remained: reductions to staffing and services, plus warnings that the district still faced structural pressure next year.

Carey and Kalczuk voted no again.

That is what makes this more than a one-off protest vote. The position held on the procedural motion in April was repeated on the final adoption in May.

The bill is coming due

Other board members warned that the district is past the point of easy fixes. After years of keeping tax increases artificially low by draining reserves-moves some members previously took credit for-the district now faces a healthcare cost spike and a budget where salaries and benefits consume 75% of spending.

As one member noted during the meeting, the current tentative budget already includes cuts, and the district is “not going to make it through this year without facing some of those challenges.”

Which brings us back to the core question: if a budget that already cuts teachers, nurses, and student support staff is unacceptable, what exactly is the alternative?

More staff cuts? Bigger class sizes? Less student support?

The contrast is hard to ignore: campaigning as “Kids First” while voting no on both the April budget motion and the May final budget adoption.

If you vote no, the public deserves a specific, workable alternative-not slogans.