Editor’s Note: The following was submitted from comments made at the recent School Board meeting
Letter to the Editor:
At the Board Meeting on November 20th, it seemed to me that some of you were concerned and unhappy with the messages that were delivered to you during the Public Comment portion of the meeting. You were hoping that those of us that spoke to you would focus on students, teachers and staff. It was suggested that we are perpetuating scare tactics and attacking the district. The need for speakers to talk about policies and not people and to ask where the district is going rather than who to blame for existing problems was recognized.
After listening to your comments and relistening to them again a few days after the meeting I began to think about exactly why this “so-called” group keeps coming to address you.
It is my opinion, that we are here to focus mainly on leadership and fiscal issues. As to leadership, I told you in my speech on November 20th that my concern, not criticism, was that the district is in a moment where multiple key leadership positions were vacant or soon to be so. I asked you what your plan is for addressing these vacancies to create stability and leadership support for the superintendent. The need for better fiscal management is clear to me and most of your constituents. The loss of $93,000 dollars and another $30,000 to poorly written contracts, the fact that the County assigned you a qualified certification and required you to submit a Board approved Fiscal Stabilization Plan by December 5th are just a few of the concerns that need to be addressed.
Is asking you to consider and address these issues good for students, teachers and staff? Yes! Without quality leadership and strong fiscal management, the education of Burbank’s students will be in jeopardy. I know that, and you do too.
As I close, I want to read to you something that a friend shared with me. It gives the reader a clear understanding of why anyone speaks to you. It says:
Public comment isn’t a formality— it’s a legal right protected by the Brown Act. California law guarantees the public the ability to speak openly on issues within the Board’s Jurisdiction, precisely so concerns aren’t buried in inboxes or handled privately. When a school board encourages people to “just email instead,” it sidesteps transparency and removes concerns from the public record— undermining the purpose of open meetings.
The board may not be able to debate nonagendized issues in the moment, but they absolutely can request reports, direct followup, or place items on future agendas. And when key documents—like fiscal letters, certifications, or county directives—aren’t posted or shared, it becomes even more critical for the public to speak out during meetings. Public comment is where accountability happens, on the record and in full view of community. Transparency isn’t optional, and neither is public participation.
Linda Walmsley
Burbank
