Reclaiming public education
I won’t be the first person nor the last to talk about the launch of the Alameda Education Foundation’s awareness campaign about the value of public education in our community. You may have seen the signs for the campaign cropping up around town like spring daffodils. A publication who shall not be named mistook this launch as yet another protest, but it’s so much more than that. Too long public education has been a dirty term in our common vernacular and it’s about time that those of us that see and understand the value of public education reclaim the term “public education” and give it a positive, rather than negative, connotation.
Last September, Peter Schrag wrote an article for Harper’s Magazine about how we as a society have pointed a collective finger of blame at our schools for the past 50 years. The only problem was, I couldn’t access the Harper’s site (I’m cheap, I didn’t want to pay for it), but thanks to SFSchools, I was able to access the shortened version from the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette. Hey, you get your articles wherever you can, even an Indiana newspaper. Before I move on to highlighting passages from the article –chock full of great stuff, the scariest part is the listing of the various “reforms” that have taken place in the past 50 years, often conflicting, but all have been applied at one point or the other to our public schools — I want to give you more information about the event today in case you will be around to catch it.
Today, from 3:00 - 6:00 p.m. teachers, other school officials, and students will be placed in trash cans all around Alameda, most notably lining Park and Webster Streets and at Alameda Towne Centre (corner of Park and Otis). This will kick off the campaign declaring that “Public Education is to valuable to throw away” and will also launch AEF’s STEP UP awareness campaign. For the amateur (or not so amateur) photographers out there who might be snapping photos of the event, you can send your photos to TeacherPhotos@Alamedans.com to be included as part of a larger slideshow memorializing the event and this will find a place of prominence at alamedans.com.
Anyway, back to the article, if you have time to read the entire article, it’s worth it, but for now, highlights:
In 1951, when historian Henry Steele Commager first observed that “no other people ever demanded so much of schools and of education as have the Americans,” he couldn’t have dreamed how much more would be demanded.
Win the Cold War; beat the Germans and the Japanese in the battle for economic supremacy; out-duel the Chinese and Indians in the training of scientists and engineers; Americanize millions of children not just from Southern and Eastern Europe…but from 100 Third World cultures…; make every child “proficient” in English and math; educate the blind, the mentally handicapped and the emotionally disturbed to the same levels as all others; teach the evils of alcohol, tobacco, illegal drugs and premarital sex; prepare all for college; teach immigrants in their native languages; teach driver’s ed; feed lunch to poor children; entertain the community with Friday-night football and midwinter basketball; sponsor dances and fairs for the kids; and serve as the prime (and often the only) social-welfare agency for both children and parents.
…Given the mandates, is it any wonder that so many Americans think the schools are lousy?
…there have been countless declarations from politicians, official commissions, business organizations, foundations, editorialists and academics – what John Mockler, a leading California education consultant, has called “the schools suck industry” – that our schools are failing us.
…
A lot of the touted reforms of the past half-century have been discredited, abandoned and forgotten; according to Chester Finn, who was himself an assistant secretary of education during the Reagan administration, many were “irrelevant and probably harmful.”
Others are currently in their third or fourth incarnation.
…
Despite steps to increase per pupil spending, decrease student-teacher ratios, strengthen standards and recruit a better-prepared teaching force, student test scores have remained stubbornly flat over the past 35 years. By international standards, the U.S. spends far more than other nations on education – and has smaller class sizes – yet receives far less value in terms of educational outcomes.
In fact, a lot of such international comparisons lack context and are therefore debatable. Because of the relative paucity of social services in this country – as opposed to the universal preschool, health care and similar generous children’s services provided in other developed nations – our schools are forced to serve as a fallback social-service system for millions of American children. In addition to teaching a far greater diversity of children than is the case in other nations, our educational workers must address countless medical, social and family problems before they can even begin to think about teaching math, reading or history.
…
More so than other modern societies – and after a generation of conservative attacks on our social-welfare programs – the United States tends to act as if the schools can do it all. Yet children who come to school hungry, or with vision problems, or with toothaches, and who pass through mean streets to get there, can’t possibly be expected to learn as well as healthy kids. Kids without engaged parents, or with only one functional parent (if that), are almost certain to be less engaged in the classroom.
…
It is the fashion among ed-policy wonks to complain that American parents are too satisfied with their children’s schools, and the work their children do, even as these kids lag far behind students abroad…But is it just possible that…American parents might understand something that the politicians and businesspeople seemingly do not: that academic achievement is only one element in the future success of their children, that the good life depends on much more than high grades?
…
Americans are far too hung up on the notion that in some past golden age the schools were better. When was there ever such an age? The people who blame the schools for today’s ills are themselves products of schools that were under attack for similar failings a couple of generations ago. Are the schools good enough? Of course not. But then, they never were. And as long as we expect schools to solve every cultural and economic challenge the United States faces in an ever-evolving world, as long as we continue to tinker with them as if they were training facilities for warriors in cold wars still to come, they never will be. Perhaps it is time we thought of schools as places where our children might simply learn something – not just for our benefit, not just for the nation’s, but for their own.
So have our schools failed us or are we failing our schools by expecting too much from them, but not giving it enough support? And if we haven’t given it the support its needed througout the years, it’s not too late to start now, with this generation, in this community.
Great post, Lauren. This article and your post exhibit some critical thinking skills lacking in many criticisms about our school situation, which is I guess just the point of the article.
Having seen children through the entire system K-12 recently ( and ongoing), and in different eras of funding (though never that great), I am very supportive of the job our schools have been doing with the means available.
Comment by Mark I — March 18, 2008 @ 7:44 am
Finally … somebody puts pen to paper and sets the record straight, instead of just adding to the echo chamber on this blog.
As reported by Don Roberts:
HERE WE GO AGAIN, ANOTHER TAX MEASURE IN ALAMEDA FOR A DISTRICT IN PANIC MODE. Remember the $298 Health Care District parcel tax in 2002? The $189 AUSD parcel tax in 2005? The recent BART, East Bay Regional Park District, AC Transit and Vector Control assessments?
AUSD ALREADY GETS A $189 PER PARCEL ASSESSMENT PLUS 0.0469% OF A DWELLING’S ASSESSED VALUE ($235 FOR A $500,000 HOME) AND NOW WANTS ANOTHER $120 PER PARCEL. Owners of new homes in Alameda would end up paying almost $650 per year equal to about 10% of the tuition for a private grade school.
AUSD HAS ENOUGH MONEY AND SHOULD NOT BE ASKING FOR MORE. Their current budget is about $78 million for 9,779 students; over $8,000 per student and more than the K-8 tuition at the Chinese Christian School or St. Joseph’s Elementary School.
THEY WANT TO RAISE YOUR TAXES TO INCREASE THEIR PAYCHECKS. High school principals – who work 10 months per year – have a top salary of $115,000. Of course, that amount does not include the generous benefits. What is your salary and benefit package?
HAS YOUR SALARY AND COMPENSATION INCREASED 24%? AUSD’s salaries and compensation budget increased from about $51,800,000 in 2000-2001 to about $64,500,000 six years later; an increase of nearly 24% while attendance was in decline.
THE PROPONENTS APPEAR TO WANT HOUSING IN ALAMEDA TO BE EVEN LESS AFFORDABLE THAN IT IS NOW! With all other taxes rising (not to mention the cost of gasoline), can you afford this tax?
A NEW TAX ON ALAMEDANS WILL STOP STATE LEGISLATORS FROM ELIMINATING FUNDING DISPARITIES. Alamedans have been duped since 2001 into paying a tax for funds that most other school districts receive from the state.
PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN AND VOTE NO ON MEASURE H.
Comment by David Thomas — March 18, 2008 @ 7:56 am
I knew Don Roberts would set us straight.
Comment by MarkD — March 18, 2008 @ 8:18 am
MarkD, very informative reply … typical of the parcel tax supporters who are afraid of the facts being known to the public.
As stated in #2, AUSD has more money than it needs and it is time to put an end to this charade.
Comment by David Thomas — March 18, 2008 @ 8:45 am
Just to keep things on an even keel. Peter Schrag has a bone to pick and public education is just one of many in his skeleton laden bag.
Here is a portion of a Schrag review written by Nick Gillespie, Senior Editor, For “Reason” Magazine, from a piece Schrag wrote entitled:
“Paradise Lost: California’s Experience, America’s Future
by Peter Schrag”
“For Schrag, California’s demise is identical to what he considers the ruin of its public sector. He quotes a 1939 WPA Guide (of all sources) to the effect that once residents felt a “personal pride in the State’s gargantuan public works: highways, bridges, dams and aqueducts” and points to 1959-67 reign of Gov. Edmund (Pat) Brown as the “high point” and “Golden Moment” of the place–a “stunning run” when the government literally moved mountains, built one college campus after another, and never let a lack of funds stop it from writing a check.
Now, says Schrag, Californians have been evicted from Eden. The underfunded public schools are no good anymore; the freeways are in disrepair; public libraries have shortened their hours if not shut their doors altogether; and “the state’s social benefits, once among the nation’s most generous, have been cut, and cut again, and then cut again.”
“The snake in the grass of Schrag’s paradise is the ballot initiative process. This is no easy admission for the author, who, as a professed admirer of populist reformers, notes in passing that California’s initiative law, passed in 1911, is itself “a Progressive Era instrument whereby ‘the people’ could from time to time check the excesses of a state government.” For Schrag, the fall from grace began in earnest with the 1978 passage of Proposition 13, which capped property tax rates at 1 percent of assessed valuation, stipulated that assessed valuation can rise no more than 2 percent annually, and mandated that local special taxes and bond measures need a two-thirds vote to pass.”
“More specifically, his condemnation of Prop. 13 for killing public-sector spending is not particularly convincing: In fact, the total state tax burden has more than doubled since the early ’60s and state per-capita spending in real dollars has more than tripled. Between 1991 and 1996 alone, state spending rose from $38 billion to $50 billion in constant dollars. And, as Schrag points out, in 1997, 26 of 38 school bond measures passed the two-thirds standard enacted by Prop. 13. That such spoils are not spent wisely or efficiently is an argument against public-sector spending, not evidence that it does not exist.”
“In the end, Schrag is railing against the end of the Big Government era, against the recognition that governments cannot indefinitely tax and spend. This is, of course, a development that ranges far beyond California’s borders (debates about the need to reduce the social-welfare state have even emerged in such Old World strongholds as France and Germany). But Schrag seems manifestly uninterested in doping out the long-term connection between public spending and the private sector that ultimately pays for such largess, other than to assert that Californians are not now and never been “overtaxed.” (He is similarly uninterested in considering the ways in which the welfare state intensifies social fragmentation by pitting special interest groups, often constituted along racial, ethnic, and class lines, against one another in a struggle for tax money and special treatment.)”
Schrag’s virtually complete lack of interest in California’s private sector is perhaps the ultimate failing of Paradise Lost. His Eden, it seems, is purely a public-works project. Such an emphasis is more than a little misguided, for it has always been the jobs and work opportunities California offered that, at rock bottom, drew people West and fired their imaginations.”
My own feeling about public ed:
Perhaps, just perhaps, the best solution to this public education mess is for the Federal government to divide all the Federal spending on public education by the number of K-12 students in the country (and the State do likewise) then send a check to the parents of each student. The check good only for educating their kids then let the parents decide where and how they want their kids educated. Let the marketplace of ideas do the rest.
Comment by Jack Richard — March 18, 2008 @ 8:56 am
Oh boy. Statistics and numbers.
Fact checks on the “facts”:
* “Would I like a 24% increase in my salary from 2000-2001″… OVER SEVEN TO EIGHT YEARS?
Now 24%/7 years = ???
(Hint: That’s called “keeping up with the rising costs of doing business” at 3.4x%/year, if that.)
* Did you know the maximum salary was 115k? Well, here’s the thing — maximum is one thing, but it’s also a “scare number”. What’s the number of principals in the district? What’s the average? What’s the median salary?
Public school math skills at work.
However, I’ll be honest — I’m on the fence with this tax. I don’t have school age kids… yet. So it’s a question of principles and economics for me at this point.
(Give me 3-4 more years, then I’ll be in those crazy kindergarden enrollment lines with the rest of you …
And to answer the economics question for myself, I need real information and not scare numbers.
Comment by Dave S. — March 18, 2008 @ 9:33 am
Re #2: The proposed short-term parcel tax is to offset a precipitous and unprecedented cut in state funding of education.
Here is a quick response to a couple of the false and/or misleading assertions set forth in #2:
“AUSD HAS ENOUGH MONEY AND SHOULD NOT BE ASKING FOR MORE”
- What in the budget specifically is funded “enough” and should be cut? If you can identity $4 million in specific cuts that AUSD could and should enact, please share them.
- Private schools do not have to comply with about a gazillion mandates that public schools do. Public schools also offer many services that private schools do not. As a result, the cost structures of private schools and public schools differ significantly. Special education services are just one example among many.
“HAS YOUR SALARY AND COMPENSATION INCREASED 24%?” (over seven years)
- Due to the fact that many AUSD employees pay hundreds of dollars out of pocket for health care coverage (with that number continuing to rise significantly annually), take home pay for many AUSD employees has actually declined over this period not just in real terms, but even in nominal terms. I am grateful to be able to get health coverage for my family, but the reality is that I have less monthly take home pay now than in 2001.
“A NEW TAX ON ALAMEDANS WILL STOP STATE LEGISLATORS FROM ELIMINATING FUNDING DISPARITIES.”
- No it won’t.
“PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN AND VOTE NO ON MEASURE H.”
- There are about 9500 students enrolled in AUSD schools. Their educational opportunities are going to be trashed if these cuts happen. Of what children are we supposed to think?
Comment by Rob Siltanen — March 18, 2008 @ 2:04 pm
Here are a few more statistics that should be factored into the equation. They can be found on http://www.ed-data.k12.ca-us. These statistics are for 2006-2007. (Although I realize that some of these numbers have changed since then, 2006-2007 is the most recent available year for purposes of comparison).
For all school districts in Alameda County, administrative expenditures per capita ranged from $342 to $1519. AUSD’s per capita administrative expenditure was $369, placing AUSD near the bottom of school districts in Alameda County.
Alameda’s average teacher salary was $61,018 which was $2,622 below the statewide average and again near the bottom of school districts in Alameda County.
The highest and lowest offered teacher salaries were below the median of comparable numbers for other school districts in Alameda County.
The percentage salary change from the prior year ranged from 2.5% to 8.0%. AUSD’s salary change was 4.9% putting AUSD’s salary change in the bottom quartile for Alameda County.
Per capita expenditures on employee benefits were nearly $400 per student lower than the statewide average.
Moreover, the comparison between AUSD and public or parochial schools is not really a fair comparison. Unlike AUSD, private and parochial schools are not required to comply with certain government mandates (Many of which are unfunded) and the funds they receive are not restricted — as much of AUSD’s funding is. If AUSD was free to spend its dollars as it saw fit and was not required to comply with federal and state bureaucratic requirements, it likely could deliver a superior product at a reduced cost. Unfortunately, without a complete overhaul of the educational system, AUSD is not free to spend its dollars as it wishes. While I would like to see that sort of shakeup occur, realistically, I know that it is not going to happen between now and next fall when the cuts will start to hit.
Finally, to Dave S. and others who are similarly situated — while you may not have children in school now, these cuts are likely to effect children in AUSD for years to come. If the parcel tax is not passed AUSD will have to eliminate class size reduction for grades K through three, meaning that experienced elementary school teachers will be laid off and when your children enter school, they will be in classes of 30 instead of 20. And if you’re a homeowner, I encourage you to consider the fact that one of the things that enhances our property values here in Alameda is our excellent schools. People move to Alameda because of the schools and are willing to pay a premium to send their children to school here. The elimation of athletics, music, class size reduction and other critical school services is likely to make AUSD a much less desirable option and will likely reduce property values in Alameda. It seems to me that it would be penny wise and pound foolish indeed to not pay $10 a month (tax deductible for those who itemize) when the lost value to homes in Alameda is likely to be so much greater.
Comment by Page — March 18, 2008 @ 2:10 pm
Ooops! I meant “private and parochial schools” in the first sentence of paragraph 7.
Comment by Page — March 18, 2008 @ 2:29 pm
Per #*: “The elimation of athletics, music, class size reduction and other critical school services is likely to make AUSD a much less desirable option and will likely reduce property values in Alameda. It seems to me that it would be penny wise and pound foolish indeed to not pay $10 a month (tax deductible for those who itemize) when the lost value to homes in Alameda is likely to be so much greater.”
If true, then why exempt seniors?
Comment by Neal_J — March 18, 2008 @ 2:35 pm
#8, The fact that we’re near the bottom in all of those categories squares with the fact that we’re at the bottom in funding relative to other school districts in Alameda County, and it is not because our parcel tax is too low. I wonder what would happen if all of the energy (including from people like Ian) put behind the parcel tax were instead focused on getting our elected officials to fix the unfair funding formula. The world will never know, because aside from Rob’s efforts at looking into a lawsuit everyone has decided to not do anything else to even try to get the funding formula fixed. What if all of those new lawn signs encouraged people to vote for candidates committed to fixing the formula? What if the student walkout focused on fixing the formula? What if Superintendent Jack O’Connell was asked about the unfair formula instead of allowing him the easiest possible way out; to blame the Governor for budget cuts?
When the first parcel tax was passed I wrote a letter to the Journal saying that unless the funding formula was fixed we be looking at another parcel tax increase in a few years, and here we are. The same is true now, but I don’t see the people who have the most at stake putting much if any political energy behind fixing the formula, and I don’t understand that. And don’t tell me that fixing the formula is impossible; I don’t believe that because there are a lot more unlikely things that have come to pass due to the focused political efforts of dedicated people. I am not denigrating the people working for the parcel tax but I do think that your efforts should be directed toward a long term solution, which is to get our elected officials to fix the funding formula.
Comment by Mike Rich — March 18, 2008 @ 2:40 pm
#10 — I’m not going to defend the senior exemption. I think they should also pay although I think I understand why the exemption was included. That being said, I don’t think that the senior exemption is sufficient reason to vote no on the parcel tax when so much is at stake.
Comment by Page — March 18, 2008 @ 2:41 pm
#7 Rob - My bargaining unit has only received 1.5% pay increase over the last 7 years. I am at Berkeley USD maintenance Dept - funded by a Parcel Tax to provide maintenance for the district. This tax must be used for maintenance.
Brief side bar: even though this tax measure that supports BUSD maintenance cannot be used for operating budget, the portion of the tax accrued but not spent can be considered part of the 3%reserves as far as ACOE Fiscal Oversight - even though it is restricted.
Maybe AUSD should get special parcel taxes exclusivly for art, music and athletics as well as CSR.
Comment by David Kirwin — March 18, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
Page, the question is more about equitable “sharing the pain” especially if the benefits are supposed to accrue to ALL of us, not just the folks who pay the parcel tax!
Also, I don’t quite get “when so much is at stake”. Says who?
Comment by Roberto — March 18, 2008 @ 3:25 pm
Mr. Rich (#11),
I am in complete agreement with you that we as a community have not put enough energy into fixing the system. I believe, however, that the unprecedented funding crisis that AUSD now faces has brought an increased awareness and urgency to both the inequity and inadequacy of public education funding. I also believe that the current level of energy and awareness will carry on after the June parcel tax election and that the proponents of the parcel tax will turn their attention to the “bigger” issue once the immediate crisis is addressed. I, for one, would like to see every yard sign currently on display replaced with signs for candidates that will make educational funding equity and adequacy their top priority. I am reasonably confident that other supporters of the parcel tax feel the same way and that the political will and energy will carry forward from the immediate issue to the bigger picture.
The problem is that addressing the “bigger” issue alone ignores the immediate crisis. Although I hate to resort to a tired analogy, the patient (AUSD) is dying on the table and we need to do CPR in the form of a parcel tax to keep the patient alive. Once the patient has stabilized, we can direct our efforts to curing the disease from which the patient is dying by putting our efforts toward electing candidates who will make adeqaute and equitable educational funding their top priority.
Comment by Page — March 18, 2008 @ 3:37 pm
The issue is two parts. The Parcel Tax does nothing to address either issue. What are the school’s going to do between now and June? When this goes to the Ballot.
The issues are funding and maximizing the facilities we have. Nobody is talking about consolidation. AHS and EHS can be consolidated. AUSD’s on study shows over 200 out of district students nearly 25% of EHS population. My guess is the high school population has closer to 400 out-of district. Take the three properties AHS, EHS and Thompson field sell them, trade them out, develop them and build one big high school on the Wood/Krusi Park Site. No more arguments about East vs West. Maxamize AP Classes, Sport programs and music.
Consolidation makes sense. One set of stadium lights to turn on, reduce transportation cost the savings go on and on and on.
We also need to make sure that every clssroom is filled to State level capacities. I am sure as a former teacher that many classrooms are not fully filled and consolidation would force to look at this. I am not anti-parcel tax, I am anti rushing into something that everyone knew was coming. The AUSD took no measures to fix this.
Comment by Sideline — March 18, 2008 @ 4:14 pm
Roberto (#14),
You are absolutely correct that the pain of the parcel tax will not be shared by everyone who will benefit from the tax. In a perfect world, the pain would be shared, but as we all know, this is not a perfect world. Under current California law, school districts who want to raise more funds for operating expenses are prettymuch limited to using parcel taxes as a means of raising those revenues. And again, I’m not going to defend the senior exemption. I just don’t think that the inequities caused by the exemption trump the need for the parcel tax.
With respect to your question about who says that “so much is at stake?” Well, I guess the answer to that is: Says me and the other citizens of Alameda who value school athletics, small class sizes, music education and advanced placement classes. Don’t you value them too?
Comment by Page — March 18, 2008 @ 4:17 pm
# 7
“’A NEW TAX ON ALAMEDANS WILL STOP STATE LEGISLATORS FROM ELIMINATING FUNDING DISPARITIES.’”
“- No it won’t.”
You’re right, Mr. Siltanen, the Legislators have no desire to eliminate school district funding disparities and neither should parcel owners have any desire to tax themselves and no one else who benefits from public education. We just do the parcel tax shuffle each crisis time, no matter how unfair it is, because that’s the way we always do it.
Comment by Jack Richard — March 18, 2008 @ 5:03 pm
Some of these posts are beginning to sound silly because there are really no bumper sticker length answers to these complex problems.
We could just as easily say that we want our streets to be safe, to keep criminals from abusing our free society. Can’t we all agree on that too? But clearly we do not want to be spending more on our prison system. It costs more to house an average prisoner in CA than I earn. What % of the CA population is behind bars?
We obviously need to find cheaper ways to do things in CA, as well as “balancing the pain of taxation”. (However that is to be defined.) Part of the goal of Charter Schools is to find improved teaching methods, but many here want to deny charter schools, even though they can be more efficient per student.
I was really glad to see only 15 teachers were sent layoff notices. BUSD had 55, and they have a smaller student population. I think the reason for this is AUSD was already bare-bones.
Comment by David Kirwin — March 18, 2008 @ 5:09 pm
The bigger issue of public school funding never gets addressed — and it won’t until we stop adding new local parcel taxes. I understand why proponents want the additional tax, but all it does is dig us deeper into the hole.
I saw lots of garbage cans and kids and parents in Alameda today. There seems to be lots of money for trash cans and lawn signs. The middle class has the resources to fight for the programs that is wants; but what about the poor who will see cuts in lifeline services like Medi-Cal? Certainly, the lack of needed medical and dental care is just as important as music in the lower grades???
I also find the constant repetition of, “The parcel tax will increase your property values” disturbing. What if it didn’t? Should we only fund programs that benefit the middle class and raise property values? There were lots of cute kids yelling,”Save our schools” today — but what if those in the most dire need are not cute? What if there are some who are willing to place the most vulnerable in our society in those garbage cans and leave them there? If we give more of our money to the schools, then who will have to make do with less of our money?
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 18, 2008 @ 6:32 pm
“For Schrag, the fall from grace began in earnest with the 1978 passage of Proposition 13….”
-Yet another person who clearly sees the connection between California’s mounting problems and Prop 13, which though gets dragged through this blog until nobody wants to hear about it, is in fact the problem, and will remain so until it is finally repealed and done away with.
I had an interesting conversation with my Father today. This is more in line with my week’s TN vacation theme in order to draw comparisons.This example has a direct correlation between prop 13 and a law in TN passed in the 90’s called Tennecare.
In the 90’s, TN enacted a health plan called Tenncare, which was at the time deemed a revolutionary plan to help lower income or disabled citizens have health care. Things went great for a few years until massive amounts of “disabled” and “poor” people began abusing the law, which in turn nearly bankrupted the state. This occurred in the summer of 2000, or about the same time that I moved to California. The effect was dramatic: Summer school was canceled. Libraries closed. Even rest stops were shuttered. Obviously something had to be done.
The solution was fairly straightforward. Tenncare was repealed gradually and replaced with measures that helped alleviate the problems it caused for the state budget. Employers and businesses now have an option to use lower income insurance for employees that qualify. The average contribution for a lower income employee is roughly $10. This is partially state subsidized, but ultimately, Tenncare was completely done away with but replaced with a more reasonable system that didn’t drain the budget. I think many of you are probably getting my connection here: A law passed that clearly benefited one group of people but ultimately caused damage to the entire system. This isn’t at all unlike Prop 13.The difference is that CA does nothing about it.
Again- I ask why is it that We here cannot also do the same. Everybody here knows precisely why CA is having a non-stop decline in the quality of life, and that comes from the state’s inability to correct the budget. I think it’s about time for our state politicians to have some balls, start talking about making changes to or gradually doing away with Prop 13 and all the other silly laws that only increasingly hurt future citizens and their families.
If other states can commit and repeal laws and regulations in a somewhat timely manner if those decisions become a determent as in the example I mentioned above, THEN WE CAN TOO.
You want your kids to have better schools? Do you want a better quality of life? Then get rid of Prop 13. Plain and simple.
Comment by edvard — March 18, 2008 @ 6:46 pm
I’ve said repeatedly that I will likely vote for the parcel tax but only because I want to support my friends and acquaintances who send their children to public schools in Alameda. My post #10 is trying to get people to re-focus on the long term so that we are not here four years hence dealing with the same set of problems. I agree with ANT that parcel taxes probably enable the continuation of an unfair situation, so efforts to fix the long term problem will need to take that into consideration, too. What is frustrating is that between the last parcel tax measure and today the long term funding problem hasn’t been a focus; I do hope that regardless what happens with this latest measure that people don’t go back to sleep and wait until the next crisis before looking at the long term.
Comment by Michael Rich — March 18, 2008 @ 7:28 pm
The Alameda Education Foundation (among many other things, the group that organized today’s “trash-in” media event) has recently updated its website. You can find it at: http://alamedaeducationfoundation.org/
For those interested, the site does summarize a strategic plan involving both the short term AND the long term. You can find an overview of the strategic plan at: http://alamedaeducationfoundation.org/strategic-plan/
Comment by Rob Siltanen — March 18, 2008 @ 7:49 pm
“Then get rid of Prop 13. Plain and simple”
-Nope it is neither.
From what you have posted about TN - CA is simply over spending their budget. That is very different than not having enough money.
Prop 13 protects all of us equally from the insanity of the housing market. Working for a school district I have cash flow problems. We certainly would have lost our home due to the housing bubble if not for prop 13.
It’s that simple.
Comment by David Kirwin — March 18, 2008 @ 7:52 pm
David Thomas,
My comment #1 was a total echo, but because a lot of people who post here agree with Lauren is no justification for hyperbolic claims the blog is an echo chamber. David Thomas is not an echo, nor any of a long list of other people who post here. Look at this thread.
But by contrast Don Roberts is the voice of truth? Give me a break! Robert’s web site is by any comparison a carefully edited echo chamber of Don. I wouldn’t waste time even repeating the guy’s name, but I think David Thomas’s claim is a perfect example of the intellectual dishonesty from a lot of people who are critical of our schools’ need for money. They yowl about fat at the administration, but never come up with comparison of other districts or any other specifics to prove their point.
I have to respond to Nay Tiff who is generally not at all intellectually dishonest to say that such garbage cans cost $5 each at Home Depot. Generous donations to AEF from my family and others paid for them. Donations which cannot go to offset recurring funds like many of the items marked for cuts.
As for spending money on signage and cans, it takes money to make money. It takes an investment to launch a campaign to pass a parcel tax. A calculated investment. No apology for any of that. A parcel tax won’t raise your property value, but lousy schools will surly depreciate their value and eventually lead to decreased public safety if kids aren’t getting educated.
#19, I don’t want to restart the charter debate, but the idea that entrenched interests are out to quash a more efficient and better system, is not some iron clad fact. Again, plain old Alameda High got the US News Silver Star award, while the *highly innovative* ACLC charter got the Bronze Star and good test scores, by taking advantage of plain old Encinal. It’s not like you can lay open a set of accounting books and claim unequivocally that ACLC educates better for less, so it would be nice when debating the parcel tax not to muddy the waters by dragging us back through dubious claims about charter schools.
I have an analogy for people who feel so strongly about parcel taxes being a bad solution which lets the state off the hook, and who think in this particularly devastating year of cuts we should not turn to such a tax. That analogy is a righteous protester going on a hunger strike which emphasizes their righteousness while also causing irreversible and massive organ damage or death.
Comment by Mark I — March 18, 2008 @ 7:59 pm
#16 Someone who hasn’t drank the Koolaid yet. Refreshing.
Comment by poguemahone — March 18, 2008 @ 8:26 pm
We ate at the McDonald’s on Central today, and there was a young lady sitting across from us, diligently studying Algebra as she ate. The state of her textbook was appalling; It looked like a post nuclear apocalypse relic. -Battered, bruised, the front cover dangerously close to breaking away. -I know how we will be voting.
Comment by Susan — March 18, 2008 @ 8:39 pm
#25
“…such garbage cans cost $5 each at Home Depot. Generous donations to AEF from my family and others paid for them.”
All of the labor and materials used in the Step Up campaign (including the design, the signs,the garbage cans, the stickers, and the printing processes) were very generously donated to AEF. No existing AEF funds –funds that could have been used for programs — were used.
That’s one of the very wonderful and very inspiring aspects of the campaign. Committed, talented, and generous folks stepped forward to help our children and our community.
Comment by Susan Davis — March 18, 2008 @ 8:44 pm
And yes, as Rob points out in #23, AEF has developed a six-point strategic plan to address both the short-term and long-term funding challenges faced by the district.
That plan includes private fundraising and support for the parcel tax (short-term) and getting the legislature to address the inequities and inadequacies in public school funding (long-term).
(Disclaimer: I work with AEF.)
Comment by Susan Davis — March 18, 2008 @ 8:55 pm
Medi-Cal cuts will affect everybody
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_8294002
Right behind the cost of education is the cost of healthcare. Those who are most at risk — including children — will suffer from increased disease and pain. Untreated mental disorders and the extreme pain caused by the lack of dental care will hurt the most vulnerable. These are people who cannot afford to buy hundreds of garbage cans and print lawn sign and posters. The middle-class will take care of its interest because it has the ability to do so. Those who are less able will see their children suffer far worse than the loss of a sport’s program.
In the scheme of things, which is more important, funding sports or funding healthcare? If it were you own family, how would you allocate those dollars?
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 18, 2008 @ 9:13 pm
#30 That’s poppycock. Plenty of poor and disadvantaged kids go to public schools and they, their families, and we all as a community shall benifit.
Comment by poguemahone — March 18, 2008 @ 9:28 pm
This should boost the prospects of the Yes on H Committee:
=========
PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN AND VOTE NO ON MEASURE H.
Signed,
CURT CORNELL, Chair, Libertarian Party of Alameda County
TOM PAVLETIC, Business Owner
NERISSA RAMOS, Resident
BARBARA THOMAS, Former City of Alameda Vice-Mayor/Councilmember
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 18, 2008 @ 9:28 pm
Anything TOM PAVLETIC or a member of the Libertarian Party advocates is usualy safe indicator to do the exact opposite
Comment by poguemahone — March 18, 2008 @ 9:46 pm
Sorry about typos.
Comment by poguemahone — March 18, 2008 @ 9:48 pm
This should boost the prospects of the Republican party:
Please protect this year’s huge profit of our oil exploitation companies. It should not be further taxed by the State to support education or any other damned public need. The oil companies have fought terribly hard in recent years and deserve all the benefits of the financial risks they have been taken to protect their interests.
To show your support of oil profits not being misused to benefit people’s lives, please stick a yellow ribbon on your SUV and vote republican.
Comment by David Kirwin — March 18, 2008 @ 10:01 pm
I totally disagree. Countless former politicians, economists, activists, and everyday people like myself have been saying the same thing for years, which is hat prop 13 is a protective law that over time has effectively put a huge damper on California’s ability to manage it’s finances.
Secondly, it doesn’t “protect us all” It only protects people like you, who if it were repealed would have to pay more property taxes… which wouldn’t be any different than we who came afterwards and have to pay more for housing as a result. I fail to see the difference here. The law clearly only benifits one group of people.
Lastly, the point of my post was to show that in my opinion, California is incredibly regressive when it comes to making changes to it’s laws even when those laws starts damaging the state’s finance structures when compared to other states.
But I’m sure that none of that I or anyone else who has been stating the obvious will ever really get heard. Instead, we’ll keep right on passing pointless, utterly non-beneficial laws like allowing people with $30,000 hybrids to cross the bridges for free, or providing free public healthcare for illegal immigrants while the rest of us who are legal ad work have to pay.
Passing a parcel tax is a band aid on this problem. Sure- it might save the schools for a few more years. But unless the state does something to address these problems like prop 13, this problem will crop up once more. It is your choice. Either lose the schools and subsequently lose a lot of value on your homes in the process, or make the changes that foster healthy state economics.
Comment by edvard — March 19, 2008 @ 5:39 am
Normally I refrain from making any statements and simply provide information to help facilitate better understanding of Alameda educational issues. However, since I took this position at the last Board meeting, I will repeat here.
In its simplest terms, a Board of Education needs to approve budget that match ongoing revenues with ongoing expenses. Starting around 2000 when enrollment began to decline the District began the process of reducing expenses to match declining revenues due to declining enrollment. The state budget crisis of 2003 (that was a $30+ billion deficit) led the State under funding AUSD and the need for a local parcel tax. Since the parcel tax had a sunset date, AUSD needed to continue to reduce/maintain expenses while State and Federal revenues increase to cover the amount of revenue from the parcel tax.
By the end of 2006/07, AUSD had continued to reduce/maintain expenses while ongoing State revenues recovered to a certain degree. For 2008/09, we projected about 50% of the parcel tax revenue could be replaced by State funding. We were well on our way to having ongoing State revenue fund replace the $3 million of parcel revenue. Then the Governor’s budget changed all of that.
So now we have a $4 million parcel tax on the ballot to replace the projected $4 million reduction in State funding. Therefore in my opinion any improvements in State funding should be placed in a Rainy Day fund so that by 2011, the community can decide on a local parcel tax that funds additional levels of service while the State funds core educational services. Then whenever the State mismanages its budget we can use the Rainy Day fund to wait out the State.
Comment by Mike McMahon — March 19, 2008 @ 7:21 am
poguemahone, Pavletic was also against the hospital tax … a position that many on this blog now seem to agree with!
So much for your grand theory in #33.
Comment by not poguemahone — March 19, 2008 @ 7:57 am
I know I will get blasted for this. However, as a homeowner and one who just recently bought and sold a home, I am acutely aware of the importance of school quality upon home values. Why can we not put together a proper parcel tax similar to Piedmont’s that will ensure the financial well being of our schools for years to come? Why mess with an additional $129? That makes no sense. Let’s make it $900 or $2500, I don’t care. It would be much much cheaper than sending kids to private school.
Here’s a link to what Piedmont voters approved a couple of years ago…
http://www.piedmont.k12.ca.us/aboutpusd/parcelfaqs.html
Comment by castromjc — March 19, 2008 @ 8:28 am
# 33
Careful P-man, your head is again inserting itself where you’d rather be kissed.
Comment by wing-nut — March 19, 2008 @ 8:36 am
Post #35 David Sometimes I really like what you say. John P.
Comment by john piziali — March 19, 2008 @ 8:56 am
#38 Conventional wisdom is oft overrated.
#33 Well now what did you expect? It became so dim in here with the mention of those in post #32- I was trying hard to find light.
Comment by poguemahone — March 19, 2008 @ 9:27 am
Re #42
#33 should have been/meant #40
Comment by poguemahone — March 19, 2008 @ 9:30 am
#39, my parents just bought a house in Pinole and I think the school parcel tax there is $500 per year. The problem with what you are suggesting (at least from my perspective) is that people won’t vote for it if they think they are being treated unfairly relative to the state funding. A bigger parcel tax increase would only fly in the context of reform relative to the state funding Alameda receives.
Comment by Michael Rich — March 19, 2008 @ 9:47 am
Hey, Lauren (and anyone else interested)–
You can find full-text (including .pdf) of Harper’s Magazine articles going back to 1993 for the price of an Alameda Free Library card!. On the Alamedafree website, click on Databases and select InfoTrak. Do a Publication Search for Harper’s and there you have it.
Comment by nemo — March 20, 2008 @ 11:08 am
Has anyone seen this article today?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/21/BAKNVNFHN.DTL
It relates to how charter schools are being handled in San Francisco, which appears to be completely the opposite of how they are handled in Alameda.
Comment by Mike Rich — March 21, 2008 @ 1:27 pm
I received the mailing today from AUSD about the parcel tax. Why is the school district using public funds to mail out campaign literature to every household in Alameda?
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 22, 2008 @ 1:38 pm
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that they feel the minor cost of the mailing is well worth saving the programs and classrooms that passing the parcel tax will save.
The tax vote was authorized by the elected board. I’d say that the district is acting in support of the board’s direction which emphasized the need for this parcel tax to pass in order to maintain core programs.
Comment by John Knox White — March 22, 2008 @ 2:32 pm
JKW- I believe you are correct in post #48 except for the last line.
Core programs are currently protected, that is why the parcel tax is needed for athletics, art, music, CSR etc.
Comment by David Kirwin — March 22, 2008 @ 3:09 pm
#49 class size inflation is a direct detriment to all core programs.
Comment by Mark I — March 22, 2008 @ 4:19 pm
#48
“I’m going to go out on a limb and say that they feel the minor cost of the mailing is well worth saving the programs and classrooms that passing the parcel tax will save.
The tax vote was authorized by the elected board. I’d say that the district is acting in support of the board’s direction which emphasized the need for this parcel tax to pass in order to maintain core programs.”
The District cannot use public funds to campaign for a ballot measure regardless if it is a “good” cause or not. This is a blatant and illegal use of public money. Those responsible need to be immediately terminated. This is extremely serious and calls into question the judgment of the District’s leadership and administration. What were they thinking? How could they possibly be so misinformed? That money needs to be reimbursed to the District. As noted below, there is the possibility that criminal charges could be filed. One wonders how much campaign activity is taking place in the schools and how much District money is being used to pass the parcel tax. Simply put, how many of our tax dollars are being used by the District to campaign for more taxes? Are District computers, photocopies, telephones, postage meters and staff time being used to campaign for a measure that would benefit the District?
Office of the California Attorney General
http://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/misuse.php
The Supreme Court wrote in Stanson: “A fundamental precept of this nation’s democratic electoral process is that the government may not ‘take sides’ in election contests or bestow an unfair advantage on one of several competing factions. A principal danger feared by our country’s founders lay in the possibility that the holders of governmental authority would use official power improperly to perpetuate themselves, or their allies, in office….”
The Supreme Court further wrote in Stanson “…The selective use of public funds in election campaigns, of course, raises the specter of just such an improper distortion of the democratic electoral process.”
Endorsements and Informational Materials: Subsequently, court cases have said that a government agency may endorse a measure that is related to its expertise so long as it does not expend funds to promote its passage.
Similarly, a government agency may draft legislation or a ballot measure related to its expertise, but may not promote the passage of the measure in an election campaign.
Here is Jose Lopez discussing the findings in the Stanson case in regard to the agency participation in ballot measure elections.
1. “The Stanson Court also noted that if a state agency or department has authority to disseminate information relating to its activities, it may spend funds to provide the public with a fair presentation of relevant information.”
2. “The Court found that it would be contrary to the public interest to bar knowledgeable public agencies from disclosing relevant information to the public, so long as such disclosure is full and impartial and does not amount to improper campaign activity.”
3. “To be fair, a presentation must consider all important points and provide equal treatment to both sides of the issue.”
Improperly Using Public Funds may Trigger Fines: Improper use of public funds also may trigger fines from the Fair Political Practices Commission for failing to report campaign contributions. In 1996, Sacramento County paid a $10,000 fine to the Commission in connection with a utility bill insert explaining the effect on the county of several ballot measures. The Commission ruled that the insert advocated a position on the ballot measures and was not a neutral and fair presentation of the facts.
Let’s Review
TRUE or FALSE: Expenditures made to benefit the public are permissible.
* Answer: False. The expenditure must also be authorized to be permissible.
Evelyn is an agency secretary. She has just completed a long day and she wishes to make a few telephone calls before she leaves her office to invite potential contributors to the incumbent Governor’s campaign fundraising dinner. Since the people she will be calling frequently have dealings with the state government on a variety of issues, may she charge these calls to the state? Yes or No.
* Answer: No. Evelyn may not charge the calls to the state as they are for personal political purposes rather than for a public purpose.
Let’s Review
Ramon is the director of a state department. He wishes to produce informational materials to answer questions about the impact of a ballot measure. Select the situation in which it is permissible to expend funds for this purpose.
1. The materials stop short of advocating a vote for or against the measure.
2. The materials do not make false statements.
3. The materials present a balanced description of the favorable and unfavorable impacts of the measure.
* Answer: c. The materials must present a balanced description of the favorable and unfavorable impacts of the measure.
Remember These Points
* Expenditures must be for a public purpose
* Expenditures must be authorized
* Public funds may not be expended for personal use
* Information must be fairly presented
* Violations bring criminal, civil and administrative sanctions
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 22, 2008 @ 9:55 pm
re #51: Re-read the letter you received. It is an informational letter, not a campaign letter. As such, it is completely legal. In fact, an important part of the district’s responsibility is to do what the letter does: inform the public what it the district is doing, including sharing accurate information about the proposed parcel tax.
Nowhere does the letter call for anyone to vote for the parcel tax. The letter describes the financial impact of the proposed state budget cuts and explains that the school board put Measure H on the June ballot to offset those cuts. It describes the amount of revenue Measure H is expected to generate, the uses to which those funds are to be put (and not put), and describes the exemptions for senior citizens and people on SSI that seem to drive several commentators here so batty. (i.e., Those who assert they’d vote for a more fair tax but won’t vote for this parcel tax because of its exemptions should be happy to see the exemptions set forth in the letter.) The letter concludes with an invitation for comments, not a call to action on the parcel tax. The letter is in the same category as the many other informational letters you receive from government officials (e.g., Pete Stark announcing upcoming town hall meetings/explaining recent goings on in Congress). The letter you received presents information fairly and was not a campaign letter.
You are correct that district employees are not to use district funds, services, supplies or equipment to urge passage (or defeat) of the measure. But please do your homework more carefully before throwing such rhetorical bombs and making such extremely serious charges like “blatant and illegal use of public money,” “ immediately terminated,” and “criminal charges.”
Comment by Rob Siltanen — March 23, 2008 @ 7:08 am
The letter is one-sided. It fails to even mention the cost of the parcel tax for homeowners. It uses words like, “fair” that express opinion and not fact. I’ve showed the letter to others who also believe that it is a campaign piece. Read John Knox White’s comment in #48. He believes that the District was correct in sending the letter because, “I’m going to go out on a limb and say that they feel the minor cost of the mailing is well worth saving the programs and classrooms that passing the parcel tax will save.
The tax vote was authorized by the elected board. I’d say that the district is acting in support of the board’s direction which emphasized the need for this parcel tax to pass in order to maintain core programs.”
This is not a neutral letter. The letter does not present a balanced description of the favorable and unfavorable impacts of the measure. I’ve done my homework; the District has not.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 23, 2008 @ 8:29 am
I suspect you (and the “others who also believe the letter is a campaign piece”) would be upset by virtually any letter the district sent out. The district has the legal right (and I’d submit the duty) to inform people about the proposed parcel tax.
For the reasons I set forth in #52, I think this letter fits squarely in the “informational” rather than “campaign” category. One or two adjectives in the letter don’t change it from information to something “blatant and illegal” or “criminal” as you suggested.
If the letter also said non-commercial property owners would pay $10/month, would it then be ok? If it said people don’t like paying taxes, especially in uncertain economic times, would it then be ok? Were the authors supposed to include the false and misleading statements Mr. Roberts posted on ADN? What should have been included in a one-page overview of the proposal aside from what’s there?
Comment by Rob Siltanen — March 23, 2008 @ 8:51 am
Along with JKW, in my view the letter is clearly an endorsement for the parcel tax.
There is no corresponding “other side” information such as the amount of the tax, as ANT said, nor is there any specific information describing what the funding cuts would cause. The Protect, Preserve, Prevent and Minimize list are general fear mongering beliefs that mean nothing. Mentioning the tax exemptions is also an attempt to eliminate the “no” votes of fixed income or senior citizens.
This letter should not have been paid for by tax money.
Comment by Jack Richard — March 23, 2008 @ 9:34 am
Why was the letter sent? What benefit did the District expect to obtain from sending the letter?
To whom was the letter sent? Was it mailed to all households? Registered voters? Property owners? Democrats? Were different versions of the letter sent to different groups?
Who wrote the letter? Who reviewed the letter? Who supporting the parcel tax reviewed the letter for fairness and balance? Who opposed to the parcel tax reviewed the letter for fair ness and balance?
If the letter was fair and balanced, then those who support the parcel tax and those who oppose the parcel tax would have to agree on the letter’s neutrality.
If the letter was sent to all households (and if not, why not?) then the cost of the mailing would be in the neighborhood of $15,000. The parcel tax has been front page news for weeks. There are active political campaigns and numerous blogs and letters to the editor on the measure. Why spend tax money on a mailing if the District is truly in such a dire financial condition? Who made the decision on this expenditure?
I used to have a lot of respect for the District. I no longer trust the leadership’s judgment.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 23, 2008 @ 9:57 am
I’m about to go off-line for a few days, so please don’t mistake my future silence for acquiescence on the issue of “the letter.” Before I go, I’d like to point out in response to #55 that
(1) The total amount of the tax (“approximately 4 million annually”) is listed in the letter. I think most people know that a tax that generates $4 million dollars annually means that someone has to pay the tax. If this letter really were a “campaign letter,” I would have expected the authors to emphasize that this amounts to just $10/month for most homeowners. I think the more that people understand the relatively small cost and the relatively large benefits of the proposal, the more would support it.
(2) The items that Measure H would protect listed in the letter were all voted to be cut in 08-09 and/or 09-10 by the school board at its March 4 meeting. So the list in the letter is fat from “fear mongering beliefs that mean nothing.” It is what will happen if the district doesn’t generate more revenue.
(3) For better or worse, the exemptions for seniors and SSI are part of the proposal we’ll all be voting on in June. Accordingly, they should have been in the letter because they are an important part of the proposal.
Comment by Rob Siltanen — March 23, 2008 @ 10:14 am
Regardless of whether the letter was appropriate or legal, I bet more of my domestic ink and paper is used for public education than school ink and paper for this campaign. To my knowledge, the employees are acutely aware of where the line is drawn on that issue. I’d rather we not nit pick each other to death over unsubstantiated and grumpy innuendo. Stick to what you know and can prove.
Comment by Mark I — March 23, 2008 @ 10:24 am
Here are additional statements of fact:
Owners of residential property will pay $480 over the next four years. If a parcel is a 100 unit apartment building, a five-bedroom Victorian or a studio condominium, the tax is the same. The tax is paid by homeowners, but not renters.
The Governor’s proposed budget cuts have not been passed. The final amount of the cuts, if any, are not known at this time. Regardless of the final outcome of the legislative process, the parcel tax will be imposed if passed.
This $120 a year parcel tax is in addition to the $189 parcel tax that you already pay.
All of the above are statements of fact, but none were included in the letter. The District does not have a monopoly on the truth.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 23, 2008 @ 10:30 am
# 57
(3) Why is the senior/ssi exemption an important part of the proposal? Isn’t the fact that renters don’t pay the tax an important part of the proposal?
(2) The letter’s Protect, Preserve, Prevent and Minimize list offers no reference to specific information for the reader to research.
(1) “…the relatively small cost…” I showed the letter to my neighbor who hadn’t read it and who is a retired widow 63 years old living on social security in her own home. I explained that the parcel tax would increase her property tax around ten dollars a month. Oh, she said, I don’t pay my property tax monthly, they just send me a bill once a year and I have to set aside $150 every month to pay the bill. She told me that the cost of living increase she received from social security this year was a little less than $20 a month. Are the schools going to take half of that, she asked.
Comment by Jack Richard — March 23, 2008 @ 3:23 pm
Did the Board authorize the letter? I cannot believe that the majority of the board would agree to this being sent out. Whoever wrote it and sent it wasted a lot of public money and put the District at legal risk.
Whoever is responsible needs to be shown the door. What sort of civics lessons are our children receiving if the District believes that this is acceptable behavior? First of all, there was no need to spend public money on the mailing. There is no shortage of information in the community about the parcel tax. But even if there were, what is sent must present a balanced description of the favorable and unfavorable impacts of the measure. Failing to tell the public who pays the tax and how much the tax will be does not fit that description.
“Let’s Review
Ramon is the director of a state department. He wishes to produce informational materials to answer questions about the impact of a ballot measure. Select the situation in which it is permissible to expend funds for this purpose.
1. The materials stop short of advocating a vote for or against the measure.
2. The materials do not make false statements.
3. The materials present a balanced description of the favorable and unfavorable impacts of the measure.
* Answer: c. The materials must present a balanced description of the favorable and unfavorable impacts of the measure.
Remember These Points
* Expenditures must be for a public purpose
* Expenditures must be authorized
* Public funds may not be expended for personal use
* Information must be fairly presented
* Violations bring criminal, civil and administrative sanctions”
http://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/misuse.php
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 23, 2008 @ 3:47 pm
[...] week, on Lauren Do’s site, AUSD Boardmember Mike McMahon broke his customary “just the facts” veneer to reiterate a point he had made at a recent board [...]
Pingback by Stop, Drop and Roll » Saving for the future — March 24, 2008 @ 9:21 am