As a longtime Burbank resident and taxpayer, I am deeply disappointed—and frankly, outraged—by the Burbank Unified School District Board of Education’s approval of a $90,000 purchase order on December 12, 2024, for secretarial services rendered by Breeann Weist. The contract had previously been approved in September 2024 under a different vendor name, Clerical Specialized, and reappeared in December under yet another name, Specialized Support Services. What initially appeared as a routine item has instead raised serious concerns about transparency, ethical conduct, and oversight.
According to public records and meeting videos, the vendor—Breeann Weist—is the daughter of board member Charlene Tabet. A newly elected board member, who has publicly acknowledged a close personal friendship with Tabet and family ties through the National Charity League, cast a vote to approve the $90,000 contract during her first board meeting, without disclosing that relationship. This purchase order was not insignificant; it was the third-largest item on the report.
One would expect more scrutiny from senior board members. One, having served since 2015, has had ample time to develop the institutional judgment to spot a potential conflict of interest of this nature. Yet the record shows no objection, no inquiry, and no comment.
Another board member, who often states that she reviews every agenda item in detail, also offered no questions or concerns about this contract. If that level of review truly occurred, then the failure to act raises troubling questions about either competence or intent.
In a June 11, 2025 board meeting, another member expressed regret, stating she had spent sleepless nights reflecting on what she failed to ask. Yet board videos show that she did not ask a single question in public about this contract—not during the September 5 meeting when the contract was first approved, nor at the December 12 meeting. During that December session, over $1.2 million in purchase orders were approved in under 30 seconds, with no discussion from any board member.
Even more concerning: while the board approved $90,000 for this contract, records indicate that Weist was paid $93,000—$3,000 more than the approved amount—and that the work remains incomplete. No board member has asked public questions about the status or quality of the work. The board’s silence has prompted community members to ask: Where was the newly promoted Assistant Superintendent of Business Services? How did this contract pass through his office without proper review or accountability? These concerns are being investigated by ordinary residents—parents, neighbors, and volunteers—who are reviewing public records and board meeting archives. They are continuing to uncover additional irregularities, many of which will soon come to light. If the public can uncover these problems, why can’t the board?
The Board of Education is entrusted with critical responsibilities: hiring and evaluating the superintendent, setting policy and direction, and safeguarding the district’s financial integrity. It appears the board has failed on all three counts—none more gravely than its fiduciary duty. These are not merely bureaucratic errors; they are causing real harm to students, staff, and families in our community.
If this is the best oversight Burbank can expect from its elected board, then perhaps the only honorable path forward is for those responsible to consider resignation.
Anita Schackmann
Burbank
