Alameda County Superintendent Alysse Castro warned in an April 16 letter that the Oakland school board keeps making new spending promises "without a clear plan to pay for them."
@Oakjand — Thank you for your comment. If I understand the superintendent’s perspective correctly, the 4:3 split refers to votes on the substantive issue of OUSD’s budget deficit and its potential return to state receivership — the subject of the superintendent’s letter to the board — and not the entire voting record of the board which covers many other issues that do not pertain to the budget.
Thank you again for your comment; the discussion is appreciated.
So interesting that the Superintendent would perpetuate the myth of a 4:3 majority vs minority split. Of the 148 board resolutions that were passed from January 2025 through February 2026, the three-person "minority" (Hutchinson, Berry, Thompson) both agreed with each other and opposed the "majority" on exactly 3 resolutions. Overall, 96% of the Board Resolutions that passed did so with broad support.
Hello, thank you for your comment. If I understand the superintendent’s perspective correctly, the 4:3 split refers to votes on the substantive issue of OUSD’s budget deficit and potential return to state receivership — the subject of the superintendent’s letter to the board — and not the entire voting record of the board which covers many other issues that do not pertain to the budget.
Thank you again for your comment; the discussion is appreciated.
Agree, but her statement is unsupported by data. No clue which votes Castro is referring to. I looked at the subset of fiscal oversight-related resolutions alone. Only 2 out of 19 fiscal oversight-related resolutions fit the narrative of a 4:3 split. Fact is, there's lots of crossover and independent voting. For example, Thompson voted "Yea" on Resolution No. 2526-0082 - Notice of Layoff: Classified Employees - Reduction In Force Due to Lack of Funds and/or Work (2026-27). Hutchinson and Berry voted "Nay."
“Recent board actions related to fiscal oversight have frequently been decided by narrow 4–3 votes, reflecting a significant divide on key decisions. In addition, the upcoming election cycle introduces further uncertainty, as board composition—and therefore fiscal direction—may change in the near term.”
She is referring to recent votes related to fiscal oversight, not the entirety of the board’s voting record.
Yes, I understand. You tell me -- which "recent votes related to fiscal oversight" is Castro referring to? If you think the example I provided on layoffs with Thompson voting "yes" (2/25/2026) is NOT related to fiscal oversight, then which votes are you and Castro talking about?
@Oakjand. This is interesting. Your analysis does not fit with my observations of watching board meeting. But I have never before tallied and totaled the votes. Can you share some of your data and your methods.
In my observations, there is a clear “board majority” (4 directors) that nearly always vote in lock-step. Often, one or two of the “board minority” (3 directors) join the board majority. But I cannot remember seeing the reverse: a director from the “majority” breaking in opposition to the other 3. In other words, I haven’t observed “lots of crossover.”
I probably should not have said "lots of crossover" because that credits the notion that there is a clear minority. In my data, that appears to be false. I do see one vote within the time frame of my study where a so-called majority member voted along with two of the three so-called minority members, and the third "minority" member voted with the majority.
Method:
Start with the OUSD Legislative Information website. Download the type of legislation of interest, e.g., "Passed Resolutions." Look up the "Action Details" for each resolution (or action of interest).
The entirely predictable result of voters repeatedly putting labor unions wholly in charge of government.
@Oakjand — Thank you for your comment. If I understand the superintendent’s perspective correctly, the 4:3 split refers to votes on the substantive issue of OUSD’s budget deficit and its potential return to state receivership — the subject of the superintendent’s letter to the board — and not the entire voting record of the board which covers many other issues that do not pertain to the budget.
Thank you again for your comment; the discussion is appreciated.
So interesting that the Superintendent would perpetuate the myth of a 4:3 majority vs minority split. Of the 148 board resolutions that were passed from January 2025 through February 2026, the three-person "minority" (Hutchinson, Berry, Thompson) both agreed with each other and opposed the "majority" on exactly 3 resolutions. Overall, 96% of the Board Resolutions that passed did so with broad support.
Hello, thank you for your comment. If I understand the superintendent’s perspective correctly, the 4:3 split refers to votes on the substantive issue of OUSD’s budget deficit and potential return to state receivership — the subject of the superintendent’s letter to the board — and not the entire voting record of the board which covers many other issues that do not pertain to the budget.
Thank you again for your comment; the discussion is appreciated.
Agree, but her statement is unsupported by data. No clue which votes Castro is referring to. I looked at the subset of fiscal oversight-related resolutions alone. Only 2 out of 19 fiscal oversight-related resolutions fit the narrative of a 4:3 split. Fact is, there's lots of crossover and independent voting. For example, Thompson voted "Yea" on Resolution No. 2526-0082 - Notice of Layoff: Classified Employees - Reduction In Force Due to Lack of Funds and/or Work (2026-27). Hutchinson and Berry voted "Nay."
The superintendent’s letter states:
“Recent board actions related to fiscal oversight have frequently been decided by narrow 4–3 votes, reflecting a significant divide on key decisions. In addition, the upcoming election cycle introduces further uncertainty, as board composition—and therefore fiscal direction—may change in the near term.”
She is referring to recent votes related to fiscal oversight, not the entirety of the board’s voting record.
Yes, I understand. You tell me -- which "recent votes related to fiscal oversight" is Castro referring to? If you think the example I provided on layoffs with Thompson voting "yes" (2/25/2026) is NOT related to fiscal oversight, then which votes are you and Castro talking about?
No.
@Oakjand. This is interesting. Your analysis does not fit with my observations of watching board meeting. But I have never before tallied and totaled the votes. Can you share some of your data and your methods.
In my observations, there is a clear “board majority” (4 directors) that nearly always vote in lock-step. Often, one or two of the “board minority” (3 directors) join the board majority. But I cannot remember seeing the reverse: a director from the “majority” breaking in opposition to the other 3. In other words, I haven’t observed “lots of crossover.”
I probably should not have said "lots of crossover" because that credits the notion that there is a clear minority. In my data, that appears to be false. I do see one vote within the time frame of my study where a so-called majority member voted along with two of the three so-called minority members, and the third "minority" member voted with the majority.
Method:
Start with the OUSD Legislative Information website. Download the type of legislation of interest, e.g., "Passed Resolutions." Look up the "Action Details" for each resolution (or action of interest).