Letter to the Editor: Resident Points Out Frustrations in School Board’s Appointment Process

This week the Burbank Board of Education was tasked with appointing a new trustee to fill the seat that has been vacant since June 2025, when District officials revealed that then Trustee Charlene Tabet was allegedly involved in an embezzlement of $93,000. She has since been charged with one felony count of having a financial interest in a contract or purchase made in an official capacity, according to the Burbank Police Department.

Below is my experience of witnessing the process used by the Burbank Unified School District to appoint a new Board member to fill the vacancy.

October 7, 2025, Board of Education Meeting

Twenty-One Burbank citizens applied to be appointed to the seat left vacant by Charlene Tabet in Trustee Area 3. Because she was elected “at-large” in 2022 prior to districting requirements, candidates to fill the year left in her term could be from any of the five trustee areas. Due to dropouts and no shows, sixteen applicants were considered.

The special meeting of the Board of Education began with another demonstration of this Board’s challenges to govern with grace despite best efforts by President Aghakhanian. There was no plan or process in place to vote on the 16 candidates they were interviewing to fill the seat left vacant by recently indicted Trustee Charlene Tabet. Item 7.a. on the agenda for the evening included “select a provisional appointment to the vacated trustee seat.”  After some confusion, and argument, trustees Weisberg and Pontzer Kamkar insisted that the vote be postponed until the meeting on October 9^th, citing anticipated exhaustion as the reason.

Before the meeting got started it was clear that some members of the Board were not willing to hear from the community during public comment. Without asking how many speaker cards had been submitted, Trustees Weisberg and Pontzer Kamkar immediately insisted on reducing the time allocated from five minutes to only two minutes for the small group of eight speakers, resulting in a total of sixteen minutes allocated for public comment. This was at best a stretch of Board Policy 9323, which states,

“In general, individual speakers will be allowed five minutes to address the Board on each agenda or non-agenda item. However, in exceptional circumstances when necessary to ensure full opportunity for public input, the Board president may, with Board consent, adjust the amount of time allowed for public input and/or the time allotted for each speaker.”

 Board President Aghakhanian’s protests were overruled, even though it was within his authority as president to decide. After fast scrambling to cut speeches and find additional people in the audience who might be willing to read part of speeches, all 8 spoke in favor of applicant and previous Board of Ed member Debbie Kukta. To be clear, speakers were not given any time to adjust or edit their comments for time. They had to focus on the primary message they wanted to make and cut anything extraneous.

To add insult to injury, trustees Weisberg, Pontzer Kamkar, and Cano then spent eleven minutes lecturing and admonishing the speakers about why they didn’t agree with their comments. They expressed great offense that more generally positive comments were not made about the schools, after forcing speakers to rapidly reduce their well-prepared speeches and messages to fit into only two minutes. Their comments felt like deliberate attempts by both Weisberg and Pontzer Kamkar to silence the public by reducing time allocated to speakers, and to again suppress speakers with hostile and disrespectful responses from their seat of authority. It’s worth noting that at both meetings this week, in contrast to his colleagues, Aghakhanian repeatedly said he respected the right of the public to speak and welcomed it.

Amidst protests from community members present, applicants for the vacancy were not sequestered, thereby handicapping the first candidate because he did not know the questions that were asked ahead of time and benefiting each speaker that followed with advance knowledge of both the questions and the answers provided by their competitors, as well as additional time to prepare their response.

The questions asked of the candidates were ideological. None were about specific experience. Not one was about fiscal responsibility, the area BUSD struggles with most, has made the most serious mistakes, is still reeling from the FCMAT report done in 2024, and has the greatest need for support. Once again, demonstrating this Board’s lack of attention to District financial management.

Instead, questions might have focused on board responsibilities, fiduciary duties, and the upcoming process of hiring a superintendent. They might have discussed setting goals and a vision statement, required to be renewed annually by BUSD Board Policy, yet not updated by this board since 2022.

 Despite the absence of these relevant questions, Candidate Debbie Kukta answered them all in her succinct and informative responses, including relevant, holistic suggestions about District management and urgent needs while promising to be a team player to rebuild trust. Candidate Annie Markarian had specific, concrete suggestions for how to improve fiscal oversight, and improve communications. Their experience, and qualifications to immediately be ready to meet the specific needs of BUSD during these troubled times stood out.

Many of the applicants suggested that Board members could be better listeners, model decorum, and respect community members. Hopefully several of them will consider running for seats in Trustee Areas 3 (currently without representation) and 4 (represented by Pontzer Kamkar) for the Board of Education in the 2026 election. 

October 9, 2025, Board of Education Meeting

The Board reconvened on October 9^th to vote on the applicant. Again, no plan was in place or procedure established to manage the process of approving a candidate. After confusion and bickering on the dais, a member of the community shouted, “do what the Council does,” and that’s how they proceeded. President Aghakhanian strongly supported candidates Debbie Kukta and Annie Markarian because of their unique ability to immediately meet the most pressing needs of the School District in fiscal oversight.

Debbie Kukta was elected to the Board of Education for seven years and then to the position of City Treasurer for another seven years. She was also appointed to be BUSD Assistant Superintendent of Administrative Services for three years, previously overseeing a department that currently is fraught with scandal, mistakes, criminal investigation, and crises. Ms. Kukta has demonstrated a lifelong commitment to the city of Burbank in a vast list of volunteer and professional roles. Her fiscal skill set, service history, and experience could have helped BUSD earn back the trust of the public. Ms. Kukta had the support of the community, as demonstrated by past elections.  This support was cited as a negative by Weisberg and Pontzer Kamkar. Pontzer Kamkar explained that she didn’t trust public support.

Annie Markarian’s experience in labor relations, human resources, risk management, financial efficiency, compliance, leadership development, and community building would have served this district well by filling current BUSD skill gaps. She has working knowledge of Brown Act regulations, budgets, personnel matters, and litigation. As an attorney working in the public sector, she could have brought much needed expertise and guidance to help the board navigate its many recent challenges with governance and oversight.

Both Weisberg and Pontzer Kamkar supported Celia Needum, Justin Robertson, and Kelsey Olsen, and dismissed any need for their picks to understand financial controls. It did not appear to be a coincidence that they selected the same three applicants. Laurette Cano suggested Christa Kassouny, Debbie Kukta, or Jamie Dewitt. Board members Weisberg and Pontzer Kamkar were argumentative with their colleagues about their suggestions. Aghakhanian respectfully acknowledged each candidate, but pointed out that none would be ready, or experienced enough to help the district navigate the issues they’re burdened with at this time, particularly in fiscal oversight. Later in the meeting, Dr. Abdelhamid, Assistant Superintendent of Business explained that she is working beyond capacity to manage finances, likely due to the continuing four-month absence of Chief Administrative Office Andrew Cantwell, and ongoing revelations of fiscal management mistakes.

Ultimately Weisberg, Pontzer Kamkar, and Cano voted to approve Kelsey Olson. Aghakhanian dissented. Her application revealed that she is a parent to a two-year-old and a five-year-old student at Roosevelt Elementary School in Trustee Area 1, currently represented by Trustee Cano.  Olson stated her experience as,

“I am a mother, former teacher, and have a career in the education sector as a leader and executive. I studied to be an elementary school teacher and have worked in the service of youth my entire career. My civic service and engagement has traditionally been to our close community of friends and neighbors. I have hosted meet ups for mothers, catered events and film sets, prepared countless meals, and opened our home to those in need. Aside from being a participant to community councils and educational board meetings in my areas of residence, I have not otherwise been politically active and have no higher political aspirations.”

When asked about areas needing improvement in the district, Olson suggested,

“The obvious being more integrous leadership that reflects the heart of the community and schools. I also think we need to get deeper into the community to emphasize the reality of funding and the implications for not prioritizing education for the longevity of this place that so many are proud to live and be a part of. Again, with no agenda other than service to my kids’ schools, I hope to come in with fresh eyes to see where these areas may be.”

When asked about possible conflicts of interest, Olson responded,

“I currently work in education technology where my company licenses software to districts and states. My role has no connection to k12 sales nor do I have any equity in any educational software company. However, considering the circumstance of this vacancy, if offered the position I am willing to explore other employment opportunities in order to effectively use my expertise in purchasing, technology, etc. cleared of all ties to organizations in that space.”

Ms. Olson did not indicate any previous board service or financial experience in contrast to the many qualified applicants with a much broader understanding of BUSD operations and Board responsibilities. Upon her selection, Kelsey Olson thanked everyone and left. She did not stay for the remainder of the meeting.

The Board revealed that there is no formal “on-boarding” process for new Board members. Trustee Weisberg indicated that she was working on it.

After the selection, speakers in public comment brought forward revelations about MORE fiscal errors and compliance mistakes. A speaker spoke about the absence of administrative leadership for more than 50% of staff and operations in financial, legal, operational, facilities, and human resources, illustrating leadership staff deficits in every department other than instruction. Two parents brought forward painful revelations of Title IX reporting and compliance failures leaving a young student unprotected and unsafe at school.

The registered voters of the district may, within 30 days from the date of the Board’s provisional appointment, petition for the conduct of a special election to fill the trustee vacancy under California Code, Education Code – EDC § 5091.

Alexandra Helfrich
Burbank