By Jennifer Brouhard, Oakland School Board President

There has been considerable speculation recently about why Measure G1 will not appear on the November ballot and what that means for the Oakland Unified School District’s current budget.

I want to provide some clarity about what happened and, importantly, what did not happen.

Measure G1 is the local tax measure that supports middle school teacher retention and the expansion of arts, music, and world language programs at both OUSD middle schools and charter middle schools. The current measure expires in 2029.

Because these funds are important to our schools and to the continuity of these programs, the district initially intended to place a renewal initiative on the November ballot to provide greater early certainty about funding beyond the expiration of the current measure.

As part of that process, the Board scheduled a special meeting for the required public hearing on the ballot initiative. There has been some suggestion that this meeting was noticed only one day in advance. That is not accurate.

Public hearings of this nature are subject to specific notice requirements, and the meeting must be noticed at least two weeks before the hearing. In practice, the notice may appear even earlier depending on publication schedules. The notice for the Measure G1 public hearing was published in the Tribune on 7/24/2026 and 7/31/2026.

So, why wasn’t the Measure G1 paperwork ultimately filed?

After the Board approved placing the measure on the ballot, the next step required the Alameda County Superintendent of Schools to sign the necessary paperwork before it could be submitted to the Oakland City Clerk.

During that process, Alameda County Superintendent Alysse Castro raised concerns about potential litigation stemming from another court case unrelated to OUSD and about whether proceeding with the measure could expose the district or County to legal challenges. Superintendent Castro’s action is unprecedented and concerning. 

It is important to distinguish between the Board’s decision to pursue Measure G1 and the subsequent procedural and legal issues that arose. The Board did approve moving forward with the measure. The measure did not fail because the Board chose not to support it, nor was the public hearing improperly noticed.

The decision not to proceed with the November ballot was made in light of the County’s concerns about potential litigation and the County’s required approval process.

We also need to be clear about what this does, and does not, mean for OUSD’s current budget. The existing Measure G1 funds remain available through the expiration of the current measure in 2029. The immediate issue is the longer-term continuity of funding beyond that date, not the elimination of these resources from the current year’s budget.

Our responsibility as a Board is to protect the educational programs and services our students depend on while ensuring that our decisions comply with the law and protect the district from unnecessary legal and financial risk.

We will continue working to understand the County’s concerns, explore our options, and advocate for the resources our students deserve. Our middle school students, teachers, and school communities deserve stability, and continued investment in arts, music, world languages, and teacher retention—and that work remains a priority for Oakland Unified.

Jennifer Brouhard is a retired OUSD educator and is the current OUSD School Board President representing District 2.

bpusa-syndication

Posts by bpusa-syndication

By Post Staff

A recent show on radio station KPFA 94.1 featured a discussion about the racialized threats to less affluent urban public school districts as state authorities pressure school leaders to take out bailout loans to resolve budget shortfalls. These loans come with draconian terms that eliminate the authority of voter-selected school boards and impose extreme austerity measures, including the closure of many schools in poorer neighborhoods.

A dozen mostly minority school districts have been forced under state control in the past 20 years, including the Oakland Unified School District. At present, Sacramento City Unified School District (SCUSD), an ethnically and racially diverse district of about 42,000 students, is the target, but the district’s school board and the community are fighting back.

Speaking on the July 15 show, “Education Today,” hosted by education professor Kitty Kelly Epstein, Taylor Kayatta, a certificated public accountant (CPA) who serves as the first vice president of SCUSD, spoke about the ongoing struggle of their board and community to keep SCUSD from being taken over.

“There’s been pressure on my school district for over a decade now; there’s a feeling (from the state) that we’re intrinsically broken, that we cannot manage our finances,” said Kayatta, who has two elementary students in SCUSD.

Trending

WMATA to crack down on fare evaders as proposed bill seeks to offer $100 transit voucher for qualified residents

“It reached a fever pitch a couple of years ago before COVID; I really felt it as a parent in the community that they were coming for us,” he said.

“Within the past year, they’re back at it again,” he said. “The pressure right now to accept a state loan is something I am not sure I could even describe.”

He said that the outside authorities would not even allow the board to hire its own financial adviser to help find solutions; the state takeover is the only option they want.

“We have a county superintendent in Sacramento County (who) has been on the job for decades. It’s been his mission, in my opinion, that something is wrong with Sac City Unified, that we are the problem child; we need outside control, (and) we shouldn’t be running ourselves,” said Kayatta.

In a district where enrollment is slightly declining, and many students have complex educational needs, SCUSD does face financial difficulties, he continued.

“There’s going to be challenges with the budget in the long term, but I think we need to address that in a way that is community-driven, with the community understanding what it means rather than accepting some blanket (imposed) ‘best practice’ that often involves making dramatic, harsh cuts, things like closing schools without plans.

“If you need to make cuts, make them in a way that makes sense rather than just trying to save a dollar this school year,” he said.

For example, closing a school may save a little money in the short run but almost always means loss of student enrollment as families move out of the district, which ends up costing a district more than it saves and can lead to a cycle of decline and demoralization.

Closely allied with the County Superintendent is the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT), “which has been at the heels of this district as long as I’ve lived in the district,” he said.

FCMAT is a state-funded nonprofit based in Bakersfield that has been granted sweeping authority under state law to pressure school districts to adopt fiscal austerity.

In theory, something like FCMAT would be a good thing, an agency that would help districts that face some financial difficulties, he said. “But my experience and the experience of people in Sacramento is that they’re an outside agency that has its own motivations.”

“They are not about helping you save your budget and helping you get through temporary (issues). They’re more about taking control over a district that they think shouldn’t be running itself.”

A school board is democratically elected and exists as “the people’s voice,” Kayatta said. Local schools need leadership that understands the problems and issues the community faces, “not an outside appointed group of people from Bakerfield who don’t really understand what Sacramento needs,” he said.

Show host Kitty Kelly Epstein, who actively opposed the state takeover of Oakland schools two decades ago, discussed its impact, which formally lasted until OUSD’s bailout loan was repaid in June 2025.

“When a district is taken over by the state, that means the school board loses all their power, which means that the electors, that’s the residents, lose all their power because they don’t get to elect anybody. There’s somebody put in charge, and they make all the decisions.”

“In the case of Oakland, Oakland’s debt could have been solved internally. That was not allowed by the state senator at the time, Don Perata,” she said.

“The actual amount that the district needed was about $37 million, and they were not allowed to use their own money to cover the debt. The loan that was imposed without the will of the people of Oakland was a $100 million. They fired the superintendent, brought in a state receiver, and spent the $100 million on whatever they wanted because there was no participation by people in Oakland,” she said.

“I know it sounds shocking. It was shocking, and Oakland was not the only district. There were others: Inglewood, Vallejo, Compton, said Kelly Epstein.

“The people who often have the least amount of input anyway, because of inequalities and racism in our system, get the little bit of participation that they have in schools, which is to elect a school board, taken away from them.”

bpusa-syndication

Posts by bpusa-syndication

By Tanya Dennis

For nearly four years, Beverly Shaw fought to bring her husband home.

She watched as David Shaw moved through three nursing homes, became increasingly sedated and repeatedly expressed his desire to return to his wife. Last week, that finally happened.

The National Probate Reform Coalition (NPRC), formed by the Post Newspaper Group in January following years of reporting on alleged abuses within the probate court system, helped Beverly secure the return of her husband, along with the couple’s property and assets.

For NPRC, the Shaw case represents its first major advocacy victory. For David, it means something much simpler: He finally got to go home.

In a letter to the court, Beverly raised serious concerns about her husband’s care at Riverview at the Park Nursing Home.

She alleged that David was frequently heavily sedated and questioned whether his medications were properly documented. She said an aide told her medications were sometimes administered without proper charting, although she acknowledged she had not independently verified that information.

Shaw also said she was unable to obtain David’s medical records and questioned medications he was receiving despite previous medical instructions following his 2023 stroke.

Trending

Opinion: Trump’s Budget Escalates His War on People of Color

“I believe David has been subjected to abuse, neglect, and unnecessary chemical restraint,” Shaw wrote.

The allegations are Shaw’s account and have not been independently established. But they raise questions central to NPRC’s mission: Who is watching when a vulnerable person becomes subject to guardianship? Who is accountable when family members say they are ignored? And who makes sure the person under guardianship, not the professionals surrounding them, remains the priority?

“Please let me go home”

Perhaps the most compelling part of Shaw’s case was David’s own voice. Shaw told the court she possesses recordings in which David repeatedly expressed his desire to return home.

After 45 years of marriage and four years apart, Beverly argued that David deserved the opportunity to spend his remaining years at home with his wife, receiving individualized care.

NPRC responded with a “Request for Compassion” letter-writing campaign to Judge Thomas Inman, Associate Circuit judge for Ste. Genevieve County, Missouri. The coalition also helped Shaw pursue appropriate legal filings and engaged with her attorney to press for action.

The court ultimately returned David to Beverly’s custody and restored the couple’s property and assets.

“What we have here is the power of coalition,” said Alee Carrino, an NPRC planning committee member. “We applied pressure from all sides, and it worked.”

The victory comes during NPRC’s eighth month of organizing for probate reform. The coalition advocates for greater judicial and governmental oversight, court ombudsmen, mandatory mediation, transparency in probate billing and stronger protections for elders and disabled people.

The Shaw case sends a powerful message: Guardianship is supposed to protect vulnerable people, not permanently separate them from those who love and care for them.

David Shaw asked to go home. His wife fought to bring him home. NPRC supported her every step of the way, and this time, the system listened.

bpusa-syndication

Posts by bpusa-syndication