The $8.6 Million Fantasy: How Livermore’s School Board Approved a Strategic Plan They Can’t Afford
While approving a budget that bleeds $6 million annually, the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District board simultaneously rubber-stamped an ambitious five-year strategic plan with no realistic funding mechanism. It’s like planning a luxury vacation while your credit cards are maxed out—except it’s your tax dollars funding this fiscal fantasy.
A Strategic Plan Built on Borrowed Money
The board’s June 17th approval of the “Strategic Plan Initiatives 2025-2030” represents the height of government delusion. After cutting 18 teaching positions and approving deficit spending, four trustees—Emily Prusso, Steven Drouin, Christiaan VandenHeuvel, and Craig Bueno—voted to adopt a plan that promises everything while delivering accountability to no one.
Only Trustee Deena Kaplanis had the fiscal sense to question how a district spending $213.1 million against $207.1 million in revenue could possibly fund grandiose strategic initiatives. Her colleagues ignored this inconvenient math, preferring political theater to financial reality.
The Five-Year Shell Game
The strategic plan identifies five “Focus Areas” that sound impressive but lack concrete funding:
1. Academic Achievement: Promises improved student outcomes while eliminating teaching positions 2. Student Wellness and Safety: Pledges enhanced safety while deferring facility maintenance 3. Communications & Engagement: Vows better community relations while ignoring taxpayer concerns about deficit spending 4. Leadership Development and Employee Success: Commits to staff development while laying off employees 5. Fiscal and Facility Resources: Claims responsible resource management while approving $6 million deficits
Each initiative reads like a consultant’s fever dream—long on buzzwords, short on specifics, and completely divorced from financial reality.
The $284,300 Consultant Contradiction
Perhaps most revealing is the board’s simultaneous approval of a $284,300 contract with CliffordMoss for “communication and pre-campaign consultant services.” While cutting classroom teachers, the board found nearly $300,000 for political consultants to sell taxpayers on future bond measures.
This isn’t strategic planning—it’s strategic manipulation. The district can’t afford current operations but somehow found money to hire consultants who will convince voters to approve more debt.
Trustee Kaplanis alone questioned this priority inversion, asking why consultant fees take precedence over classroom instruction. Her colleagues offered no substantive response.
The 178-Person Charade
The board proudly touted input from “178 educational partners—including certificated and classified staff, students, parents, and community members.” But here’s what they didn’t mention: How many of those 178 people knew the district was simultaneously planning $6 million in deficit spending?
This “collaborative process” becomes meaningless when participants operate without crucial financial information. It’s like asking passengers to plan an airline’s route while hiding the fact that the plane is out of fuel.
The strategic plan promises “monthly monitoring” and “evidence of completion documented throughout the timeline.” Given the board’s track record of fiscal oversight, this monitoring will likely receive the same attention as their budget management—which is to say, none.
Administrative Bloat Meets Strategic Ambition
While approving this unfunded strategic plan, the board also finalized management restructuring that creates new Director positions at various levels (Director I, II, and III). The net cost: $2,425 annually to the General Fund.
This reveals the board’s true priorities: Expand administration, hire consultants, and approve strategic plans while cutting teachers and increasing class sizes. It’s government growth disguised as educational improvement.
Trustee Kaplanis consistently opposed this administrative expansion, recognizing that every dollar spent on bureaucracy is a dollar stolen from classroom instruction.
The Federal Funding Fiasco
The strategic plan’s timing coincides with the board’s reckless approval of Resolution 081-24/25, celebrating LGBTQ+ Pride Month in potential violation of new federal guidelines. This political pandering risks approximately $2.6 million in federal categorical funding—money that directly supports the strategic plan’s stated goals.
Only Kaplanis understood this connection, warning colleagues that federal compliance isn’t optional when you’re already overspending. Her warnings fell on deaf ears as the progressive majority prioritized virtue signaling over fiscal responsibility.
The Real Numbers Behind the Fantasy
Let’s calculate what this strategic plan actually costs taxpayers:
Annual Budget Deficit: $6,000,000 Federal Funding at Risk: $2,600,000 Consultant Contracts: $284,300 Administrative Increases: $2,425 Total Annual Impact: $8,886,725
That’s nearly $9 million in taxpayer money either wasted or put at risk to fund a strategic plan that promises everything while delivering accountability to no one.
What Strategic Planning Should Look Like
Trustee Kaplanis represents the kind of fiscal leadership this district desperately needs. Real strategic planning would:
- Align initiatives with available funding
- Prioritize classroom instruction over administrative expansion
- Ensure federal compliance before approving political resolutions
- Demand specific metrics and accountability measures
- Focus on core educational services rather than consultant-driven buzzwords
Instead, the board approved a document that reads like a wish list written by people who’ve never balanced a checkbook.
The November 2025 Reckoning
Livermore voters face a clear choice in the upcoming school board election. They can continue supporting trustees who approve unfunded strategic plans while cutting teachers, or they can elect leaders who understand that strategic planning requires strategic funding.
Trustee Kaplanis has consistently demonstrated the fiscal discipline this district needs. Her colleagues have consistently demonstrated they view taxpayer money as an unlimited resource for their political ambitions.
The Bottom Line
The Strategic Plan Initiatives 2025-2030 represents everything wrong with modern school governance: grand promises without funding mechanisms, consultant-driven buzzwords without measurable outcomes, and political theater disguised as educational leadership.
Four board members approved this fiscal fantasy while one—Deena Kaplanis—demanded accountability. The question for Livermore voters is simple: Do you want leaders who live in financial reality or those who spend your money on strategic dreams?
Your children’s education depends on leaders who understand that strategic planning without strategic funding isn’t planning—it’s political theater performed at taxpayer expense.
The strategic plan promises five-year tracking. Start tracking your board members’ votes instead.
Tom Wong is an independent investigative reporter and conservative watchdog focused on government accountability and fiscal responsibility in public education.
Sources: Project info and instructions, 25-06.17 LUSD Regular Board Meeting.pdf, 25-06.17 LVUSD Regular Board Meeting.pdf, Government Accountability Office, California Taxpayers Association
