Letter to the Editor:
I am writing to express serious concerns about a vendor contract approved by the Burbank Unified School District (BUSD) Board of Education that raises troubling questions about transparency, accountability, and the fair treatment of classified employees.
At the September 5, 2024 regular board meeting, the Board approved a contract with a company called Clerical Specialized—later renamed Specialized Support Services—to provide temporary administrative and clerical support due to staffing shortages. The staff report, submitted by Assistant Superintendent Sarah Rudchenko, cited the need to maintain operational efficiency and meet deadlines. However, this contract appears to violate Article 7 of the district’s collective bargaining agreement with the California School Employees Association (CSEA).
Per the contract, the vendor was hired to perform tasks—clerical work, administrative support, daily office operations—that are customarily and routinely performed by CSEA union members. Yet CSEA leadership reports they were never notified of the district’s intent to outsource this work, as required under Article 7.1.1. Nor was there an emergency that would justify bypassing this notice under Article 7.1.2. Worse, CSEA staff say no opportunity was offered to current employees—many of whom would have welcomed the extra hours and income.
Instead, the district paid $93,000 to a newly formed LLC—Specialized Support Services—between December 2024 and May 2025. This company was created on December 5, 2024 by none other than Charlene Tabet, a sitting BUSD board member, who registered the LLC at her personal address. The company had no public history, no demonstrated qualifications, and was not vetted through any competitive bidding process.
The contract’s sole deliverable was the preparation of long-overdue Board of Education meeting minutes. To date, that project remains incomplete. Yet $93,000 in taxpayer dollars were spent.
This situation worsened when, at the June 5, 2025 board meeting, a proposed contract renewal appeared on the agenda—again under the incorrect name “Clerical Specialized,” a company that no longer exists. The item was quietly pulled, and the public link to the contract was disabled. But the fact remains: this was the same contract, repeating the same mistake, with the same ethical red flags.
We must ask:
• Why did the district approve a contract with a company created by a sitting board member without proper disclosure or vetting?
• Why weren’t district employees—those already on the payroll and represented by CSEA—offered the opportunity to do this work?
• Why was payment made when the promised services were not delivered?
Many in the community have lost complete confidence in this Board of Education and are demanding the resignation of all five members.
Rebekah Burcham
CSEA Member
