How should Riverside Unified balance its budget without weakening the services students rely on? The three candidates running for the district’s Trustee Area 1 seat outlined their approaches to district finances, from scrutinizing spending outside the classroom to using money set aside for one-time campus investments.
The questionnaire asked candidates how they would address a 2026-27 budget with $846 million in spending and $816 million in revenue, along with projected enrollment declines that could require future staffing reductions.
Jinane Annous and Duffy Atkinson are challenging incumbent Noemi Hernandez Alexander for the Trustee Area 1 seat this November. All three responded to questions about spending cuts, additional revenue and possible school consolidations.
Readers can learn more about their backgrounds in the Gazette’s candidate overview.
The questions and each responding candidate’s full answers appear below. Responses are reproduced verbatim as submitted.
1. Spending cuts
RUSD's adopted 2026-27 budget spends $846 million against $816 million in revenue, which the district's own business services staff has called the final year of deficit spending using reserves. If the deficit continues past this year, what specifically would you cut — which programs, positions, or schools?
Jinane Annous: “The district projects that 2026–27 will be the final year of deficit spending from its unrestricted ending balance.
First of all I would for sure not start by cutting teachers, counselors, special education services, arts, athletics, CTE, or other programs that directly serve students because our most important goal are the services for students.
If the deficit remains beyond when expected I would start with expenditures furthest from the classroom: vacant or duplicative central-office positions, administrative layers, outside consulting and professional-services contracts, nonessential travel and conferences, and programs that cannot demonstrate sufficient student participation or measurable results. I would also use reassignment before layoffs wherever possible.
Before voting for any reductions of personnel or programs I would require the administration to publicly identify the savings associated with each option and its impact on students and school sites. The Board should make those choices in public, with the data in front of us for transparency and shared decision making purpose.”
Duffy Atkinson: “I am fully prepared to make difficult fiscal decisions. What I won't do is claim the need for any cut before reviewing the data necessary to determine whether that cut will improve or degrade student outcomes.
I’d start with an in-depth review of expenditures, like contracts, programs, administrative costs... and ask a basic question: Is this spending producing measurable value for students? Programs that directly improve academic achievement, student support, and college/career readiness earns priority.
Administrative inefficiencies, off-mission spending, and expenditures that cannot demonstrate meaningful student benefit should receive deeper scrutiny for continuation or trimming/cost-cutting.
I’m dedicated to the improvement of student outcomes AND bringing spending into alignment with sustainable revenues. I know it can be done. That is precisely why I am running: the Board must exercise intentional fiscal stewardship, not simply react to the pressures of a systemic deficit AFTER it is already impacting district operations.”
Noemi Hernandez Alexander: “It is important to first explain what is meant by deficit spending. Many of us think about budgets through the lens of household finances: if you spend more than you bring in, something is wrong. Public school finance is different because all in-coming money is not income, but more like gifts or savings outside of our budget.
Let me explain with actual examples. The District received substantial one-time money during the COVID-19 pandemic and has not spent all of that money down yet. So currently we are spending down those resources on one-time investments like CTE technology, equipment replacement, shade structures, maintenance, safety, and beautification projects on campuses. We call that deficit spending. Approximately $48 million of the projected expenditures represents one-time investments with no on-going programming costs associated with it. Think about it like if you inherited some money and you put that money in your savings account so that you can remodel your kitchen with it in the coming year. Your total account balance will show that you once had a lot of money and now you have less. However, since you live off of the money you make from your job, it's not going to negatively impact your day to day. That is how RUSD's current deficit spending is structured. The district is using funds that were intentionally saved in prior years for specific needs, projects, and investments. Those expenses show up in this year’s budget, but the money was received and set aside earlier. When that money is spent in later years, it can look like "deficit spending" on paper, even though the funds were already received, saved, and designated for exactly this purpose. This is standard practice in public school finance. So, we will not have to cut programs, positions, or schools because the money we are spending down is only tied to one-time projects and not on-going needs.”
2. Additional revenue
Do you support pursuing new revenue to close the gap, or should the district close it through cuts alone? Be specific about what you'd support.
Jinane Annous: “I do not think cuts alone should be the strategy. I support pursuing additional revenue while also making sure existing dollars are being used effectively.
That means aggressively pursuing state and federal grants, maximizing reimbursement and categorical funding for services we are already providing, expanding partnerships with the City, county, colleges, nonprofits and employers, reviewing developer-fee revenue where legally appropriate, and improving enrollment and attendance because both directly affect district finances.
I would investigate all possible ways to increase revenues from different governmental and city sources because I would not support asking taxpayers for additional money simply to postpone difficult operating decisions.
The goal should be a sustainable budget: protect classroom services, eliminate ineffective spending, maximize outside revenue and make sure ongoing expenses are ultimately supported by ongoing revenue.”
Duffy Atkinson: “That’s a false dichotomy. The district should first demonstrate that it is being an effective steward of the resources it ALREADY receives from multiple funding sources before asking taxpayers for more.
I support a disciplined review of broad spending, such as contracts, programs and overall organizational efficiency before pursuing additional revenue sources. RUSD has a responsibility to maximize the educational value of existing dollars and eliminate waste or spending that does not advance clearly identified student outcomes.
I’m not prepared to support any new tax/revenue measure without first seeing the complete financial analysis, identifying what has already been done to control costs, and understanding how additional revenue would substantively improve student achievement.
Here’s a fundamental district governance question: Are we spending what we have effectively, transparently, and in ways that markedly benefit students? If not, then that standard isn’t being met, so seeking additional revenue isn’t the first step.”
Noemi Hernandez Alexander: “Absolutely! We actively pursue grants upward of $11 Million. We have plans to continue seeking grants, raising money through our RUSD foundation and being good stewards of public funds. We are also adopting policies that will keep improving student attendance which is a major priority. Maintaining and increasing attendance supports both student achievement and District funding.”
3. School consolidations or closures
District staff have flagged declining enrollment over the next three fiscal years that could require future staff reductions. Would you support consolidating or closing any schools in Area 1 or districtwide? What criteria should guide that decision?
Jinane Annous: “I would not support closing or consolidating a school simply because enrollment has declined, and I would not single out onrushing area schools without a districtwide analysis. However, depending on the situation I would not promise that no school could ever be consolidated because if enrollment continues to substantially decline then keeping some schools operating at very low utilization can divert resources away from students overall across the district.
Lastly, I believe that considering closure or consolidation, I would require transparent, districtwide criteria that include enrollment trends over multiple years, building capacity and utilization, cost per student, facility condition and future capital needs, academic programs, transportation and travel impacts, neighborhood growth projections, effects on special education and other specialized programs, and the impact on historically underserved communities.
The district to examine alternatives first such as boundary adjustments, relocating or combining programs, attracting interdistrict students from neighboring districts and creating and implementing specialized programs at under-enrolled campuses, and using excess space for early childhood or community services.
Furthermore, families, employees and neighborhoods need to be involved well before a decision reaches the Board.”
Duffy Atkinson: “Enrollment numbers are declining nationwide. However, no school should be targeted for closure simply because of enrollment, but neither should a Board ignore the long-term financial consequences of maintaining facilities that may no longer be sustainable.
I would expect any consolidation or closure decision to be based on objective, available criteria, including projected enrollment factors and trends, facility utilization rates, per-student costs, transportation impacts, student demographics, program availability and, critically, the effect on student achievement and educational opportunity.
Above all, families and affected communities must be given a meaningful voice in the decision-making.
I also would not prejudge any school site in TA1—or anywhere else—before reviewing the same information available to district staff. My objective would be to make the decision that best protects educational quality and taxpayer value over the long term, rather than preserving or closing a school for politically expedient reasons.”
Noemi Hernandez Alexander: “We are taking declining enrollment seriously and we are reviewing enrollment projections regularly at board meetings. Although responsible cost reductions may be necessary, we will make decisions carefully and strategically to protect classroom instruction, and preserve essential student services and supports. In Trustee Area 1, we continue to see a sustained influx of families and our numbers remain steady. Riverside Unified is also doing better than many school districts across Southern California that are experiencing more significant enrollment declines.”
4. Budget priorities
If elected, what budget-related vote or motion will you prioritize bringing to the board, and why?
Jinane Annous: “My top budget priorities would be a motion requiring a public, multi-year budget sustainability plan tied to enrollment.
The Board should have at their disposition a clear forecast showing projected enrollment, staffing, unrestricted revenue, ongoing expenditures and reserves — along with specific actions that would be triggered if those projections deteriorate. One of the most important factors is obtaining a transparent review of central-office spending, contracts and vacancies before reductions are proposed at school sites where it affects teachers and students
The district and the board need to be proactive when it comes to budget. If declining enrollment is going to change our finances over the next three years, families and employees should be able to see the problem coming, understand the options and participate in the decisions. Thus transparency in action is a must and protecting the students should run parallel with fiscal responsibilities. They should not compete. Our main goal is to protect classrooms and students from disruptive cuts.”
Duffy Atkinson: “A Step-1 priority would be greater transparency in how RUSD presents and manages its finances.
Public school budgets are nonintuitive and complex—RUSD's printed 2025-26 budget is 186 pages—and families and taxpayers should not need to be financial experts to understand where their money is going. I support a simplified, accessible public reporting process that clearly connects expenditures to priorities, measured student outcomes, and academic performance that parents can understand.
I will also seek a systematic review of all discretionary spending to identify opportunities for greater efficiency and academic outcomes before reducing any investment that directly affects classrooms.
The Board's job is not simply to approve a budget; it is to govern the resources entrusted to the district. I want families to be able to see, understand and evaluate that process—and to know whether the dollars being spent are actually improving outcomes for their students.”
Noemi Hernandez Alexander
No response to this question was provided.
This is the first installment in the Gazette’s questionnaire series for RUSD Trustee Area 1 candidates. Future installments will explore other issues facing the district as the November election approaches.
