Election: Richland School Board candidates answer your questions

For a few years, district administrators and the board were distracted and took their eyes off the ball when it came to spending. We simply can’t afford that anymore. With the help of our new director of finance, we are now keeping a close eye on the budget each month, working to align expenses with revenues, and are following a solid plan to restore financial health over the next few years.

We need to continue to work with building teams to find creative solutions to some of the issues that may come up as a result of some of the cuts we have had to make. As a community, we must also continue pressing our state legislators to fully fund public education in Washington.

The board has a good working relationship with Dr. Shelley Redinger and her team. We spend a great deal of time listening and learning, and we work to ensure teachers, staff, students, and families have the resources and training they need to succeed.

Standardized test scores are just one measure; I see them as part of a broader picture of student growth and achievement.

Our two comprehensive high schools are already very full and our choice high school programs often have waiting lists. We’ll need to make decisions soon to relieve that pressure. However, I’m not convinced that a third traditional high school is the best solution, and it seems that voters agree.

Feedback we received suggested interest in an innovative, CTE-focused high school something along the lines of Tri-Tech or Orion that might better serve our community’s needs. While that project is still a few years out, broad community input will be essential before moving forward with any new high school option.

There is evidence of positive outcomes from certain versions of a balanced calendar, but the additional services are expensive. I believe we would be better served by first considering adjustments to start times, then evaluating whether a modified calendar—not year-round school—warrants consideration. We must also weigh the challenges of having a schedule very different from neighboring districts.

Major changes are difficult for a community, even when they may bring long-term benefits. After considering several options, our committee of parents and teachers concluded that a balanced calendar is not a priority at this time.

• Eliminate some of the high paying jobs at the Teaching, Learning and Administration Center.
• Bring the pay rate for admin employees in line with other districts (right now over 25% of the employees are each costing the district upward of $200,000 each).
• Hire someone with an MBA and a good private business background to be a co-superintendent. This person would be in charge of running the finances, while the current superintendent focuses on the learning side full time. I have complete confidence in her abilities to do that.

Look up to number 3 above.

With around 14,000 students in the districts, the school is needed. Richland High has no room left to expand. But we should consider expanding Hanford High since there is plenty of room to expand that school, if a new high school is not feasible.

$314 million by the way included a lot of other projects, I would separate the highschool from other projects to sell it to voters.

District staff were not consulted when this idea came up. And when they did, the vast majority were against it. I love the idea, but many things have to be done ahead of consideration.

• All school buses need to be air-conditioned, as this area gets deadly hot for small children on a bus.
• Kids can not go outside during recess after the middle of June due to excessive heat. We need to figure that out (maybe shorter school days in the summer before it gets too hot).