Three part question here: Do you support a full and complete & independent financial “forensic” audit of D65, going back to when the last referendum was passed—in order to get a handle on what has happened in D65 financially? And then, importantly share the findings with the community via open house two way Q&A forums? If you support, ca…
Three part question here: Do you support a full and complete & independent financial “forensic” audit of D65, going back to when the last referendum was passed—in order to get a handle on what has happened in D65 financially? And then, importantly share the findings with the community via open house two way Q&A forums? If you support, can we get your commitment to call for this at the first BOE meeting you attend as a new BOE member?
Hi Truth Seeker, I just want to note that we candidates do not receive notifications for comments on our posts unless it's a direct reply to one of our own comments. Therefore, you may miss some of your intended recipients (and audience) by posting these in each of our individual posts since it requires us to come back here to check.
I've been pretty candid in several spaces about the reality that we may need to seek support for a referendum in the not-so-distant future, primarily due to looming capital expenses and a lack of alternate mechanisms to fund those near-term. Part of earning that support is making it clear that we not only realize mistakes were made in the past in a general sense, but that we intend to learn from them to avoid repeating them in the future. The only effective way to do that is to understand specifically what went afoul and when. To Dr. Turner, Tamara Mitchell, and Dr. Grossi's credit, they've already uncovered and made adjustments from previous practices that amounted to bad financial hygiene at best. We're not out of the woods yet though.
Based on the above, I support an independent financial forensic audit, although would need a clearer understanding of cost, timing, scope, etc. My goal as an aspiring board member is to a better job, which involves learning from the past without becoming entirely stuck on it.
Regarding your second question, the findings would certainly be shared openly, but I would have to work with board colleagues to determine the format and forum. That's not meant to be cagey, it's just that most board work ultimately occurs during board meetings. As a current citizen and D65 parent, I can totally understand the frustration with how those meetings can feel like a one-way street but ultimately I hope people are voting for candidates in part based on confidence in them being responsive -- or doing their part to ensure the administration is -- to lingering community concerns and feedback.
I think it's worth bringing this forth at ONE OF the first board meetings but admittedly want to manage expectations around it happening during the initial one, between getting sworn in, on-boarding, and also more generally, a pre-determined agenda (and current board meeting policy) does not automatically afford the space to introduce such a mandate or resolution on Day 1.
Three part question here: Do you support a full and complete & independent financial “forensic” audit of D65, going back to when the last referendum was passed—in order to get a handle on what has happened in D65 financially? And then, importantly share the findings with the community via open house two way Q&A forums? If you support, can we get your commitment to call for this at the first BOE meeting you attend as a new BOE member?
Hi Truth Seeker, I just want to note that we candidates do not receive notifications for comments on our posts unless it's a direct reply to one of our own comments. Therefore, you may miss some of your intended recipients (and audience) by posting these in each of our individual posts since it requires us to come back here to check.
I've been pretty candid in several spaces about the reality that we may need to seek support for a referendum in the not-so-distant future, primarily due to looming capital expenses and a lack of alternate mechanisms to fund those near-term. Part of earning that support is making it clear that we not only realize mistakes were made in the past in a general sense, but that we intend to learn from them to avoid repeating them in the future. The only effective way to do that is to understand specifically what went afoul and when. To Dr. Turner, Tamara Mitchell, and Dr. Grossi's credit, they've already uncovered and made adjustments from previous practices that amounted to bad financial hygiene at best. We're not out of the woods yet though.
Based on the above, I support an independent financial forensic audit, although would need a clearer understanding of cost, timing, scope, etc. My goal as an aspiring board member is to a better job, which involves learning from the past without becoming entirely stuck on it.
Regarding your second question, the findings would certainly be shared openly, but I would have to work with board colleagues to determine the format and forum. That's not meant to be cagey, it's just that most board work ultimately occurs during board meetings. As a current citizen and D65 parent, I can totally understand the frustration with how those meetings can feel like a one-way street but ultimately I hope people are voting for candidates in part based on confidence in them being responsive -- or doing their part to ensure the administration is -- to lingering community concerns and feedback.
I think it's worth bringing this forth at ONE OF the first board meetings but admittedly want to manage expectations around it happening during the initial one, between getting sworn in, on-boarding, and also more generally, a pre-determined agenda (and current board meeting policy) does not automatically afford the space to introduce such a mandate or resolution on Day 1.
Don't worry about presenting it to the public, I'll FOIA it as soon as the record exists ;)
Best. Reply. Ever. 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Thanks Peter. I really appreciate your reply here.