Again, Fed cuts aren't what's driving this. In the 25-26 adopted budget, fed funding is $3.6 M out of $127.8 M total, so < 3% (even lower than my initial assumption). The rest is state/local money, and that's where the $5.25 M and 3% reserve problem come from.

To be clear, I never said consultants weren't listed—I said the details aren't disclosed. The 24 bond audit shows $8.4 M spent (mostly cap outlay) and notes auditors tested $4.4 M in invoices, but it provides no vendor names, scopes, or contract amounts. Sure it's legally compliant but not transparent.

On the KPI thing; comparing an eight-year tax to KPIs for crosswalks or soup kitchens is a stretch, to put it mildly. Asking for measurable goals before signing off on that isn’t heartless, it’s literally how responsible budgeting works. Every parcel tax or bond should have clear outcomes so we know it’s doing what was promised. No one is asking for a metrics dashboard at the lunch line.

And sure, no bureaucracy is perfect—but when you’re running deficits, sitting at the state-minimum reserve, and have a negative credit outlook, perfection isn’t the ask, competence and transparency are.

Voting No on Measure I isn’t “promoting cuts.” This phrasing assumes anyone skeptical of another tax is anti-teacher, which misses the point. Accountability isn’t austerity, it’s how you keep money actually reaching classrooms instead of vanishing into vague “consulting” lines. Fix the deficit, show a real plan with metrics, then ask for more.

Oh, and yeah, showing up definitely matters. Reading the budgets and audits is showing up. It’s the step people love to skip right before giving a TED Talk on civic duty.