Embedded Files
Volume XIV – September 11, 2025
Volume XIV – September 11, 2025
A clear, weekly roundup of actions, alerts, and stories that matter. Forward freely. Act boldly.
Don't miss an update. Subscribe to our mailing list.
This week: Short-term borrowing • McKinley → Recreation • Medicaid tip • PTA/referendum • Spring ’24 survey + USTEM/WSTEM • Student walkout • Neutrality standard
LEAD — WHERE’S THE CASH?
Plan: District expects to short-term borrow about $17M for cash-flow (last year $10M).
Cost: About $300k projected carry/issuance (last year $57,835).
Why it matters: Liquidity is a canary. A larger line and ~5× carry cost points to thin operating cash, not just timing. Capital dollars are restricted—they can’t patch operating shortfalls. With a ~$350M facilities plan under exploration, the trust bar should rise, not fall.
Three public questions (answerable on one page):
What changed year-over-year to move from $10M → $17M and to a ~5× cost?
How much has actually been drawn, for how many days, and at what all-in cost?
When will reliance decline (timing & conditions)—and will the promised fund-balance deposit happen this year?
Ask: Post a monthly one-pager: lowest cash point (days cash), amount drawn & average daily balance, and all-in cost to date—separating restricted capital from operating cash. (CFO memo + fund-balance note screenshots on file.)
Receipts: CFO memo (Sept 5, 2025): plan to short-term borrow ≈$17M; budgeted carry/issuance ≈$300k. Prior year LOC: $10M; total cost: $57,835.
Memo screenshot now available on the Open Records Hub.
!! ACCOUNTABILITY ALERT — MEDICAID FILING (TIP)
Raised in public comment (Mon, Sept 8) and sent to Treasurer Jason Wautier (Tue, Sept 9): a request to confirm or correct a missed Medicaid filing (~$600k at risk).
Why it matters: Liquidity is tight (see LEAD). One paragraph + timestamped ForwardHealth/PCG receipt would resolve this quickly.
Right of reply: We’ll update immediately with any response from the Treasurer or CFO.
CASE FILE — MCKINLEY → RECREATION (JULY 2025 ORR)
What the records show (facts):
HR stated the District is not required to post/accept external applications; the Board revised the Recreation Director job description in June to add a preference for management experience in education tied to planned wrap-care/child-care expansion.
The move was documented as a voluntary, internal transfer: start July 7, 2025; eligible to maintain the same salary/benefits as principal.
HR’s “Transfer Notification” lists no pay change, plus $50/month travel and $45/month phone stipend.
A July 1–2 thread shows message drafting/re-wording around the public announcement.
The Director of Recreation JD itself is stamped “Revised 6-13-25.”
District communications frame the role as also chartering exploration of child-care services by Fall 2027.
Policy tension (posting vs. transfer):
3130 Assignment & Transfer: Superintendent manages assignments/transfers.
3132 Vacancies: Vacancies shall be announced per district procedures.
3120.11 Community Services: Board sets compensation; hires candidates recommended by the Superintendent.
The question: Was this treated as a transfer (no posting) or a vacancy (announcement required)? The June JD revision + child-care expansion broaden scope—so transparency on posting/waiver and applicant pathway is reasonable.
The Martin ORR file now available on the Open Records Hub.
Responsive_Documents-3.pdfWHAT’S STILL MISSING FROM THIS ORR PULL
Pre-6/13/25 job description (only the revised JD is included).
Any posting or formal waiver (none included alongside HR’s “not required to post” statement).
Applicant metrics/interviews and Mr. Martin’s résumé (referenced in citizen requests; not included here).
Salary comparison (prior director vs. current comp, including stipends). ORR confirms no pay change at transfer and stipends, but no side-by-side.
However, the Task Force has on file the prior director’s contract. Prior year salary: $89K. Principal’s salary retained, as confirmed, points to significant increase for this role.
Recap and Upshot: Community concerns → independent reviews → leadership change via internal transfer following a broadened scope and coordinated communications. The open questions remain: Why was a transfer chosen over a posted competitive process? On operations, a member of staff told the Task Force they perceive the new director as “very hands off”—we invite the District to respond. More broadly, administrative emails pledged positive references; what is the District’s standard for reference letters following sensitive leadership changes? Finally, how did the McKinley and RTCS findings inform this decision?
WHISTLEBLOWER INBOX (THIS WEEK)
PTA & Referendum: Alleged PTA donations to “Say Yes to Tosa Kids.” Reminder: 501(c)(3)s may advocate on ballot measures within limits; public resources may not be used. Orgs that do may risk loss of tax-exempt status according to the IRS. Request: local committee filings. Question: Why did so many PTAs allegedly fund a political advocacy group in advance of the 2024 referenda?
Spring ’24 Survey: Short field window (over spring break) + claims that support for admin staff reductions wasn’t reflected. Request: instrument, dates, cross-tabs, Board deck. Question: Why wasn’t this survey made public? What else did it contain?
USTEM vs WSTEM: WSTEM sunsets by June 2026; USTEM through 2029–30; allegation of minimal curricular distinction. Request: program docs, outcomes, costs. Question: Why is one elementary STEM program shut down and the other allowed to continue? Is this STEM for ALL or STEM for the Select Few?
Student Walkout: “Ban guns, not phones” at Tosa East during class. Ask: publish aggregate, de-identified logs/impacts and ensure content-neutral enforcement under Tinker. Question: How does the District determine what is an acceptable school disruption under what policy?
ONE CLARIFICATION FOR THE BOARD — NEUTRALITY
Given the audio file made public last week, what is the Board’s official viewpoint-neutral standard for staff and parent groups around referenda and public advocacy? With 2024 capital work underway—and a likely 2026 referendum—the third since 2018—a posted, neutral standard would help everyone.
This Week’s Actions
Where’s the cash? Monthly one-pager: lowest cash point (days cash), amount drawn & avg balance, all-in cost, with capital vs operating separated.
Medicaid memo: Confirm/correct (program/period, recoverability, controls) with a timestamped receipt.
McKinley docs: Cite which policy applied (3130 vs 3132), and post: pre-6/13/25 JD, any posting/waiver, applicant count/interview notes/résumé, and a one-page salary comparison (prior director vs current comp incl. stipends).
Recreation scope: If child-care expansion is driving the change, publish the timeline, cost model, and governance for that program.
Why the discrepancy on WSTEM and USTEM?
Community Note
Want the source docs and a plain-English summary each week? Tosa2030.com → subscribe to The Tosa Ledger or click Get Involved to join the 2030 Task Force.
Send documents, tips, or stories
Reply to this email or use the contact form at www.tosa2030.com. Anonymous submissions welcome; please include dates, docs, and specifics where possible.
Disclaimer
All views reflect testimony, public records, and editorial opinion. Allegations are supported with source documentation where noted. No conclusions are asserted here; all parties are invited to provide corrections or context. Right of reply:send corrections or context via the contact form at tosa2030.com/contact and we’ll review promptly for inclusion in the next issue. Freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment.
Page updated
Report abuse