Richmond Community Schools board approves reduction in force, eliminating director of operations position

At a special meeting on Monday, June 29, 2026, the Richmond Community Schools Board approved action item 3.01, a human-resources reduction in force that eliminates the district's director of operations position, by a 4–2 vote.

The vote followed more than an hour of discussion in which several board members described the choice as difficult and said they were weighing commitments to staff and students against the district's fiscal constraints. "Removing one of the key leaders responsible for carrying out the operational components of that vision sends the wrong message and introduces unnecessary unnecessary risk at a critical moment," Member Lauriaga said in a prepared statement opposing elimination of the post.

Board members raising objections pointed to active facility projects and the district strategic plan. One board member noted the district is in the middle of a roughly $20 million bond program and a separate $6 million project tied to moving fifth grade back to elementary schools, and warned that splitting operations duties among existing administrators would overburden staff and could lead to delays or cost overruns.

"Eliminating this position may produce short-term savings, but poor project oversight, deferred maintenance, emergency repairs, and inefficiencies can quickly erase those savings," Lauriaga said. Another member noted that the director's position remains under a two-year contract and the district would continue paying that salary for another year, questioning the immediate financial benefit of cutting the role.

District administrator Mr. Hinsley responded to the concerns, saying the board had given direction to make administrative cuts and the recommendation before the board followed that guidance. "The direction from the board was to make cuts that are administrative in nature," Hinsley said, and he described a proposed restructuring that would redistribute some duties and retain a facilities staff person while implementing a plan upon board approval.

Despite the objections and the explanation from administration, the board voted to approve the reduction in force as presented. The Chair read the roll call: Member Stevens voted yes; Member Lauriaga voted no; Member Stoultz voted yes; Member Pickering voted no; Member Bruntton voted yes; the motion carried 4–2.

Earlier in the meeting, the board considered and rejected a procedural motion to pull a single case — employee number 46591 — out of the overall reduction list for a separate vote. That motion failed on a voice vote, after which the board proceeded to consider the full reduction-in-force item.

Following the human-resources vote, the board approved consent item 4.01 (human resources) unanimously, 6–0, on a motion by Member Stevens with a second by Member Stoultz.

The Chair reminded the public of the complaint process referenced in Policy 9130 for concerns about specific personnel and said the board president would follow up by email with those who sought to speak. The meeting then moved on to closing business and adjourned.

Votes at a glance: approve 3.01 (reduction in force) — passed 4–2; motion to separate employee 46591 — failed (voice vote); consent item 4.01 (human resources) — passed 6–0.

What happens next: The approved restructuring plan will be implemented as presented by administration; the record of who will assume specific operational duties and any timeline for transitions was not specified in the meeting record.