letter. But often ignorance is bliss, as within her letter, Ms. Davis claims "there is real waste in our budget, but we have not seen the fine details of the budget and won’t until after it is submitted to the county." OK? How does Ms. Davis know there is "waste" in a budget she have not seen? By the way, the WTBOE presented its budget during a public hearing, held on March 27th, 5 days prior to Ms Davis' letter being published in the OT. The budget is also posted online, well in advance of the upcoming April 20th election.
By law, school districts are prohibited from conducting public hearings on their budget until after it has been approved by the county. If the BOE can't conduct a public hearing on the budget, it should not be putting out "work-in-progress" versions it can't officially comment on. This ensures only the resulting "advertised" version is floating around in the public domain prior to the April 20th vote. If you want an example of what can go wrong when someone uses unauthorized versions to "spread the word", talk to former WTBOE member James Harmon, who admittedly "got the numbers mixed up" when he wrote a letter based on a version of the budget other than the official advertised version.
So my question to Ms. Davis is simple. Now that you have hopefully seen the advertised budget, where is the "real waste" you claim is in it?