The best part of the No on Measure A campaign have been the unintentionally hilarious campaign tactics that have been used. From the “32 to 1 ain’t fair” tagline which uses grammatically incorrect conjunctions to further their cause AGAINST funding education for kids (but it’s folksy!) to a few more recent posts on the No on Measure A Facebook account.
Here are two that I particularly enjoyed, the first:
I mean, seriously, likening the No on A lawn sign to a flag remaining amidst cannon fire as though the anti-parcel tax folks are patriotic revolutionaries, you cannot make this stuff up.
But this, this was the cream of the crop and I think deserves special recognition in some special place in Alameda of the greatest overwrought campaign tactics ever:
You can’t get much better than hysterical zombies (is that hysterical as in funny or hysterical as in doctor slap that person because he is hysterical?) either way, funny! Besides, everyone knows what zombies really want and it’s certainly not a really hard to read campaign lawn signs. And, while no one — no one — condones smearing dog poop on anything the lack of photo evidence is actually kind of surprising given that the Facebook feed must have a photo of every single No on A lawn sign that exists in Alameda. I have to say though, anyone who is taking the time and the possible residual stink palm to actually go through the trouble of picking up dog poop, carrying it around, and the proceeding to smear it all over someone’s lawn sign probably is a few cards short of a full deck anyway and to try to generalize all supporters of Measure A as supporting — or worse, doing that — is completely absurd.
And finally:
Actually, I received the email from the Yes on A campaign (Alameda SOS) and they did not accuse the high school student of “malfeasance.” The email clarified that Alameda SOS was not invited to participate and that they would be unable to participate anyway. It did not pass judgement about the motivations of the student and why they were not invited, but instead clarified that anyone speaking in favor of Measure A would be speaking as an individual and not as a representative of the campaign itself. But, you know it sounds so much more ominous when you frame it the way that the Committee Against Measure A framed it, rather than what actually happened.
Well, less than 2 weeks to go…
Comment by SFB — February 24, 2011 @ 6:58 am
It will be interesting to see if A passes. If it does, it may indicate that the economy is improving. When it comes down to it, most people will be voting with an eye toward the family budget. Two factors: 1. What’s your square footage? 2. Do you own more home than you can comfortably afford? Behind all the “No on A” grandstanding, is a lot of frightened people whose homes or businesses are at risk and they just can’t tolerate another increase. I voted yes because I think it’s time we compromised and moved forward, but also, I must admit, in part because my house is small and it won’t cost me much.
Comment by Denise Shelton — February 24, 2011 @ 7:03 am
I actually have not heard as much hype about this as the last one. Am wary about its chances.
Comment by E — February 24, 2011 @ 7:43 am
My “YES” ballot is in the mail. I just read the “battle of the press releases” posted by Michelle E – the No on A people are certainly clever at making things up – the “secret information” which isn’t, the “refusal to debate” which was their hijinks, the “my campaign sign was desecrated” which “proves” that all the Yes on A people are nasty rotten folks, even though it could have been done by an errant teen or a lone crazy. I do hope that people look at the whole thing – the reason the measure is on the ballot, the reasons for need to support the schools, and the kind of community we want to be.
Comment by Kate Quick — February 24, 2011 @ 7:44 am
Many of the Alameda homeowners you call NIMBYs bought so long ago that they got large houses for under $200K. They may be in their forties or fifties now, have lived in those homes for twenty years or more, are putting kids through college, and despite Prop. 13, pay hefty property taxes, and several layers of Alameda parcel taxes on top.
With the unrest in the Middle East, and gas prices heading toward four dollars a gallon again, our economy is very uncertain. They are unlikely to vote for Measure A.
The Newbies who bought their homes in Alameda since 2002 probably paid closer to half a million dollars in the Alameda market, even more between 2004–2008. They are more affluent, have kids in the public schools, and take hospital/library/school parcel taxes, on top of huge property taxes, mde larger by Prop. 13, for granted. They will probably vote yes.
Make fun of No On A folks all you want. “Ain’t fair” merely mocks Alameda students’ vast proficiency in the English language, and doesn’t require all your parsing. Likewise, dog owners pick up after their pups all the time, or not, and often vandalize or litter their neighbors’ lawns. Small step to smearing the crap on those signs they hate.
But all this is irrelevant, no matter how far Lauren stretches to make some point. The election will come down mostly to the NIMBYs Vs. NEWBIEs, as other elections have, where the NEWBIEs have been far outnumbered. 85/15 with Measure B, 35% of eligible voters with Measure E, etc. Alameda hasn’t changed that much, and we Old Timers have had enough when it comes to more, and higher, and longer-lasting parcel taxes. Bet on it.
Comment by Dennis Green — February 24, 2011 @ 8:00 am
Ever notice how the people who pay the least seem to bitch the most?
Comment by dave — February 24, 2011 @ 8:31 am
I checked my Funk and Wagnalls, 1957 edition, and ain’t is in the dictionary, making it fair game for written and spoken communication. So stop being so snarky.
Comment by ed hirshberg — February 24, 2011 @ 8:55 am
With just a fortnight to go let’s work hard and stop this unlawful, unfair, immoral and regressive tax!!!
Comment by ed hirshberg — February 24, 2011 @ 8:58 am
My dog Griffin is outraged at the misuse and abuse of dog excrement by both sides on the measure A issue. “When we dogs don’t like something, we PISS on it. People are so lame,” says Griffin.
Comment by Denise Shelton — February 24, 2011 @ 9:04 am
Ever notice how people who pay the most seem to bitch the most about the least?
Comment by Jack Richard — February 24, 2011 @ 9:09 am
Gee, Jack and Dennis, my husband and I own two sizeable properties, have lived in Alameda since 1973 (not newbies) will not be taking the Sr. exemption, are retired, but do not feel we are being put upon by being asked to ante up for our schools. I do not think this vote will equate to any way to the 85-15 split on the Alameda Point question so it mystifies me how that can be offered as a parallel – different interests, waaay different issues.
And for Mr. Hirshberg, I very much disagree with your characterization of support for the schools as immmoral, illegal, etc. Seems to me you have lost so far in your assertions in court so portraying the measure as illegal is somewhat disingenuous and misleading. You own a lot of property: you don’t want to pay the money to support the schools: be honest, that is your basis for opposing this measure. It is your absolute right to your opinion and stance, but please be forthright about it.
Comment by Kate Quick — February 24, 2011 @ 9:43 am
Sure, some people like Kate will do what tbey think is right no matter what it costs. The question is, are there enough exceptions to the rule to sway the vote?
Comment by Denise Shelton — February 24, 2011 @ 9:52 am
Why, Kate, did you address your little self aggrandizing pat-on-the-back in #11 to me? I didn’t offer any parallel between the Point and the school district. Nor do I care about your number or size of properties. Nor do I care that you blindly support anything someone else calls education. Nor do I care that you are an oldie (actually a newbie) by my standards.
Besides, I’ve already won the a-hole campaign so I don’t have to explain anything. Everybody already knows.
Comment by Jack Richard — February 24, 2011 @ 10:27 am
http://www.alameda-no-on-a.com/ausd-parcel-tax-no-on-a-how-much-will-i-have-to-pay.pdf
Was there a FPPC complaint in Nov when the calls were coming in thick and fast against the SunCal slate? I didn’t think so.
Comment by AlaCAMA — February 24, 2011 @ 10:32 am
Holy smokes!!!! Looks like there is another tax (?) that is scheduled for the June ballot?
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/inalameda/detail?entry_id=83531#ixzz1Eu2N5iKm
Comment by AlaCAMA — February 24, 2011 @ 10:37 am
15
The “tax extension” Ms. Sherrat refers to is a state issue, and it’s only potential at this point. It could very well affect AUSD’s budget but it’s out of AUSD’s hands.
Comment by dave — February 24, 2011 @ 10:59 am
@16. Thanks for clarifying.
More reasons(s) to vote No on A. We might have to pony up more $ for another tax in June!!!
Comment by AlaCAMA — February 24, 2011 @ 11:29 am
#17 — It wouldn’t be “more taxes.” It would be an extension of existing taxes — if, indeed, it even gets on the ballot.
This has been pretty well covered in the news lately.
Comment by Susan Davis — February 24, 2011 @ 11:35 am
15
Here’s June ballot issues, the $13.5 billion in additional cuts the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office proposed to solve the state budget deficit if tax extensions proposed by Gov. Jerry Brown are not approved (savings in parentheses):
K-12 SCHOOLS ($4.6 BILLION TOTAL)
• Eliminate K-3 class size reduction ($1.275 billion)
• Require that kindergartners be 5 years old at enrollment in 2011-12 ($700 million)
Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/02/15/3403228/californias-legislative-analyst.html#ixzz1EuH3HQhF
Comment by Jack Richard — February 24, 2011 @ 11:36 am
Since the state tax cuts have been on the table for some time, and the new/old gov just recently decided to ballotize an extension of the tax, I assume AUSD had formed their budget scenarios with the cut in their calculations
If the June ballot passes and the tax is not decreased, the school district budget will have more $s than what they planned on, regardless of how A turns out.
Is that correct? dave
Comment by Jack Richard — February 24, 2011 @ 11:46 am
Lauren – I enjoy your blog even though I disagree with some of your opinions; you are a great writer.
Ran some numbers from this doc: http://reason.org/files/a2ec7caccc5d660e870c4a21526ef5f8.pdf. State spending on K 12 education has grown 36% in real terms (adjusted for population growth and inflation) since 1990, with little attendant improvement in quality (Test scores haven’t budged – I appreciate that they are of limited value but they the only benchmark we have got.) Don’t think more money is the answer.
State revenue and spending have growth 35% and 43% respectively in real terms since 1990. The state (including education) is a ravenous beast that we need to put on a diet.
I appreciate that the AUSD has a tough job: we parents always want more but expect someone else to pay for it (Some of Measure A has the feeling of “Tax the other guy.” about it.). But, at some point, the board is going to have downsize itself to better map to a community with declining household school age population and a more limited budget. This will not make parents happy.
In any event, Prop A does not seem well structured, leaving out as it does large retailers and funding charter schools at 1/3 the rate of other schools.
I don’t have much say or in or influence on how our state legislature acts, but I can act locally, which is why I will vote No on A.
The good news is that if Measure A fails, all the Pro on A people can immediately call their school PTA and write a check for what they would have paid in taxes. Much more efficient – the PTA will get every get every dollar.
Comment by hughmorgan — February 24, 2011 @ 11:59 am
I wonder why sustaining teachers’ current system of generous pensions (a la Wisconsin) is never a part of Measure A discussions?
Comment by Neal_J — February 24, 2011 @ 12:01 pm
Hugh Morgan:
We recently had a chat about long term spending trends and the numbers were lower than yours. Have a look and see what you think.
As for structure, while imperfect, this one comes a lot closer to uniformity than the past two did. And charter students are already funded several hundred dollars per student more than than standard schools.
http://laurendo.wordpress.com/2011/02/01/ask-and-ye-shall-receive-the-measure-a-edition/#comments
Comment by Hugh Jorgan — February 24, 2011 @ 12:10 pm
21/23
And now we juxtapose:
From Page 5 from the Libertarian Reason Foundation
“A good rule of thumb in government budgeting is that the rate of spending increases should not exceed the rate of population growth plus inflation.”
From the summary of the Progressive Social and Economic Justice “deficit reduction ideas”
Rather, the U.S. budget deficit is largely a result of massive tax cuts for the wealthy, two prolonged wars, an ever-expanding Pentagon budget, and a recession caused by Wall Street. It is only fair that those who caused the problem are those who have to pay to fix it.
Comment by Jack Richard — February 24, 2011 @ 12:29 pm
http://www.californiapensionreform.com/database.asp?vtsearchname=&vtsearchemploy=alameda+city+unified&vtquery=1&vttable=calstrs
Comment by smart voter — February 24, 2011 @ 12:38 pm
#22 — Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that public school teacher pensions are set at the state level, not the district level.
Comment by Susan Davis — February 24, 2011 @ 1:00 pm
They might be set at the state level but they’re paid for at the local level.
“CalSTRS is funded by school districts contributing 8.25 percent of its payroll. The state general fund pays 2 percent and a further 8 percent comes from the members’ salaries.”
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jan2009/calp-j30.shtml
Comment by Jack Richard — February 24, 2011 @ 1:47 pm
Jack’s pension = good
Teacher’s pension = bad
Comment by dave — February 24, 2011 @ 2:40 pm
“CalSTRS is funded by school districts contributing 8.25 percent of its payroll”
While it may be the norm now, public entities (States, Citys & school districts alike) cannot continue this generous giveaway. That’s exactly what killed GM & the audo industry.
Measure A serves to perpetuate this unsustainable reality. Give the teachers 401(k) accounts like the rest of America.
Comment by Neal_J — February 24, 2011 @ 3:22 pm
Since the district cannot change that, it’s not really accurate to say it perpetuates it. It’s not applicable to the local level. And in any case, a person concerned with financial viability, as it appears you are, should be in favor of more local control of finances. The state controls ~85% of AUSD’s funding. The sooner the state’s grip on finance is lifted the sooner the district can reform.
Comment by dave — February 24, 2011 @ 3:32 pm
28.
Jack’s pension = good
Teacher’s pension = bad
And that’s unlikely to change.
Comment by Jack Richard — February 24, 2011 @ 5:42 pm
22. There has been a lot of discussion of those pensions on this site. They are unsustainable, but the teachers. Unions are the most powerful in then nation, (after the AMA), and their members are not going to complain.
Most of the money from Measure A would go into teacher’s wallets and purses. “Closing the achievement gap,” and “Recruiting and retaining excellent teachers” are code words for teacher’s salaries and benefits. Instead, they could create a virtual classroom sharing the very best teacher’s performances, and institute merit pay for the best teacher’s outcomes, complete with evaluation and transparency, as well as parent choice — all reforms long overdue.
But it will simply go to maintaining the status quo.
Comment by Dennis Green — February 24, 2011 @ 5:49 pm
#24 – at the state level,the deficit is the result of spending outstripping rising revenues. At the Federal level, we should all be concerned about unfunded liabilities (Which Bush’s medicare prescription drug plan and Obama’s health reform have helped balloon).
Funny about tax breaks for the wealthy – the U.S. has some of the most progressive tax rates in the world. In 2007 the wealthiest 1% of Americans generated 37% of tax revenue. In 2010, about 47% of households will pay no federal tax. It think we should all have a little skin in the game: rates likely need to be increased on that 47% and reduced on the wealthy.
Comment by hughmorgan — February 24, 2011 @ 5:56 pm
#23 – Thanks, I do recall your numbers, which indicate a 22% increase in spending per pupil in real terms in the 16 years from 1993 to 2009. That seems like a pretty significant increase in spending, if it generated results (e.g. higher test scores) then I’m all for it.
Actually, I don’t think the charter schools receive more funding per pupil (at least not the ones I am involved with). I know that our funding levels are well below the $8,100 per student in your calculations.
Comment by hughmorgan — February 24, 2011 @ 6:05 pm
Re Hugh Morgan
I was initially puzzled by your comment “You are a great writer.” But then you confirmed that you are, in fact, batshit insane, when you concluded that taxes need to be reduced on the wealthy.
Please refer to http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph and send us a postcard if you ever decide to visit earth again.
Comment by Adam Gillitt — February 24, 2011 @ 6:08 pm
#24 BTW, our massive federal deficit (separate from unfunded liabilities) is largely a result of Bush and Obama spending like drunken sailors. According to this article (in the centrist/liberal WaPo), the recession has had a lot more deleterioius effect on the deficit than Bush’s tax cuts. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/30/AR2010073002671.html
Comment by hughmorgan — February 24, 2011 @ 6:10 pm
35
There are several studies that show regardless how high the tax rate is on the wealthy, the net income from income taxes remain the same. However, that’s not the case when raising taxes on the non-wealthy.
Primarily because of the sheltering of income and/or contracting expansion of wealth making enterprises by the
wealth generating group. For the most part, middle class workers depend on expansion of wealth generating enterprises in order to maintain employment. Lower income groups have no recourse but to pay taxes if they are required. Hugh Morgan has it right.
Comment by Jack Richard — February 24, 2011 @ 6:26 pm
#35….I never thought I’d agree with you (must be the school thing) but if you read Mother Jones and think Hugh is crazy…I say, Great. Rolling Stone is also a must read.
Comment by J.E.A. — February 24, 2011 @ 6:29 pm
Rolling Stone is the only rag worth reading these days. Did you all read Matt T’s latest about ZERO banksters being prosecuted for their trillion dollar crimes?
The truly sad thing is that we are left to fight for the crumbs and we have a 1/3 of the island buying into the B.S. that teachers and public workers are to blame. And as they press their blame, the entire next generation gets screwed.
The banksters are laughing at us.
Comment by Jack B. — February 24, 2011 @ 6:43 pm
#39. Yes, Matt is the best….another good publication is Harper’s.
Comment by J.E.A. — February 24, 2011 @ 7:13 pm
39. well said, you saved me a lot of key strokes.
29. I think we will be seeing lots of reform of pensions and public employee benefits everywhere, because it has to occur, but I don’t think the place to start is by voting no on this parcel tax.
We have huge systemic problems all around, especially at state and national levels, but this measure is not about funding pensions, it’s about keeping the classrooms solvent so a couple generations of kids don’t lose their opportunity while we hash it out.
Comment by M.I. — February 24, 2011 @ 7:48 pm
It has been another long hard day, but I will attempt to respond to Ms. Quick’s assertions. I stated that the tax is unlawful because the enabling statute only allows parcel taxes on structures for libraries and community colleges. In addition the enabling statute requires that the tax be uniform. I do not know how anyone can call this tax uniform. It cannot be a case that it is imperfect but necessary. It is either lawful or it is not. If the tax is necessary, than it is necessary to get it right. As it is now, Svendsen will pay 40percent less for enormous holdings on the North shore than we will pay for 3 modest sized parcels. This is certainly unjust, and this kind of taxation is immoral.
Comment by ed hirshberg — February 24, 2011 @ 8:56 pm
1516 Oak and 1150 HB Pkway will be capped on Measure A. Cap is designed to help medium sized local businesses, as in businesses like YOURS. And it does. You’re way too hung up on South Shore and a couple of other exceptions. Life has exceptions.
For the most part, it’s very equitable with a protection for guys like you.
Also, you could have had a tax cut with Measure E, but you fought it. That’s was mighty short sighted.
Comment by Hugh Jorgan — February 24, 2011 @ 9:05 pm
And if you really want uniform, fight prop13.
Comment by Hugh Jorgan — February 24, 2011 @ 9:07 pm
Just remember the teachers are not part of Social Security system. Therefor a school district’s contribution for teacher retirement benefits is the same as a private company who contributes to their employees’ Social Security.
Comment by Mike McMahon — February 24, 2011 @ 9:32 pm
What would be the result financially if we paid the teachers DOUBLE what we pay our substitute teachers now without benefits and extras till we get out of this financial mess. Assuming subs make 135.00 a day times 180 days equals 24,300. Pay the Teachers DOUBLE that and give them 270.00 a day or 48,600 for 180 days. That would equal 70,470 a year if Teachers worked year round. So still a pretty good wage in this economy. 33.75 an hour. Even with no Benes.
How would that effect the Budget of AUSD,?
Comment by John — February 24, 2011 @ 10:31 pm
Mike do you have a total breakdown of AUSD Employees Salary and Total Compensation like the one done on the City of Alameda Employees 2008 Compensation spreadsheet ?
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=rIFilGsbA6fE5wj_cvRIP_Q
I don’t need names just job title.. Salary ..Overtime… Benefits.. Pensions… Total Compensation… line item by Job Title. We all might learn something.
Comment by John — February 24, 2011 @ 10:34 pm
How will the passage or failure of Measure A affect Alameda renters?
Comment by Reginald James — February 25, 2011 @ 12:01 am
48: If Measure A passes, landlords will have the option of passing on their increased parcel tax burden (costs) to those of us paying the rent.
I expect to pay higher rent if Measure A passes, just like I would have paid higher property taxes if we still owned our Alameda home, which we sold in 12/2009….
Comment by Jon Spangler — February 25, 2011 @ 12:25 am
What Would Create More Value in a Community and School District than controlling Costs that have ran rampant or buckling under to Teachers and Teacher Unions trying to shove more taxes down the citizens throats Under the Disguise Its For The Kids …..This issue is all about Teachers and Administrators and Staff Making More $$$$$. Otherwise this would be a Bond Issue.
It’s all I’m asking is Show me the Numbers that prove this wrong. Please Don’t try to compare Salaries to Other Broke and Broken Districts. It’s Like Comparing Enron To Lehmans.
Comment by John — February 25, 2011 @ 1:01 am
It’s an inflation Hand grenade Jon…Business rent goes up…They have to Raise their Prices to Stay in Business. Lose Lose Situation for Everyone But Teachers Staff and Administrators. Plus it will make Real Estate Prices Drop being more highly Taxed.
Comment by John — February 25, 2011 @ 1:34 am
How many Business Will Have to Close with this New Rent Increase If This Measure A passes. Alot of Small Business’s in Alameda are hanging by a thread thru this recession already. Just Drive thru the business parks now.
Comment by John — February 25, 2011 @ 1:41 am
@22 and @45:
Don’t forget there is NO merit pay and it is impossible to fire the underperformers. Talk about a cushy job … especially if you are counting on taxpayers to bail you out EVERYTIME.
Comment by AlaCama — February 25, 2011 @ 5:16 am
@45. Now this is the time to take a stand on the pension reforms/employee benefits. We need a Gov Walker here in CA (esp for the teachers unions).
Comment by AlaCama — February 25, 2011 @ 5:17 am
CEOs rank Calif. worst for business
the negative factors for business in California mentioned by the magazine:
Among the highest state income and sales taxes in the nation
Unemployment statewide of 12.6%, one of the highest in the nation
State politics seem consumed with how to divide a shrinking pie rather than how to expand it
Union density is increasing, contrary to national trend, from 16.1% of workers in 1998 to 17.8% in 2002
Unfunded pension and health care liabilities for state workers top $500 billion and the annual pension contribution has climbed from $320 million to $7.3 billion in less than a decade.
CEOs said about California as a place to run a company:
“Texas is pro-business with reasonable regulations while California is anti-business with anti-business regulations.”
“California is terrible. Even when we’ve paid their high taxes in full, they still treat every conversation as adversarial. It’s the most difficult state in the nation. We have actually walked away from business rather than deal with the government in Sacramento.”
“The leadership of California has done everything in its power to kill manufacturing jobs in this state. If we could grow our crops in Reno, we’d move our plants tomorrow.”
California is the only state to receive a failing grade in the magazine’s “tax and regulation” category. Its workforce quality and living environment received “B” grades, but the worst grade given in those categories was “C-” so California didn’t improve its standing much with those higher grades. Click here to see each state’s grade in each category.
http://jan.ocregister.com/2010/05/04/ceos-rank-calif-worst-for-business/36609/
Comment by John — February 25, 2011 @ 6:13 am
#35 Adam. Thanks for the insight. 1. I like the way Lauren writes – I guess that it is all in the eye of the reader. 2. Batshit…. hmmmm, maybe you should call me Guano http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guano
Comment by hughmorgan — February 25, 2011 @ 6:22 am
List names 100 companies leaving California
“It’s no mystery what causes companies to leave California: High taxes, undue regulation, workers’ comp costs, a legal environment stacked against businesses and lengthy and costly construction permitting requirements,”
Keep in mind that these departures are on top natural business attrition (closures, mergers and acquistions) and bankruptcy filings: Orange County has the 5th highest in the nation, according to Equifax and eight of the 14 top metropolitan areas are in California.
http://jan.ocregister.com/2010/02/24/list-names-100-companies-leaving-california/31805/
Comment by John — February 25, 2011 @ 6:26 am
#50 – “Shove more taxes down our throats”. Ridiculous! 2/3 of the voters have to approve this tax. If the voters vote for it how is it being put upon them by some nefarious schemers? Are you suggesting that the voters are so easily duped? 2/3 of them? Whenever the Tea Partiers talk about taxation as being “imposed” on the people of California I think, “Wow, they think we are so stupid to vote to tax ourselves.” In California particularly, with such a high threshold for taxation approval, any tax we vote for is supported by most of us. The 1/3 minority can complain, but they can’t say that we were somehow led astray.
Comment by Kate Quick — February 25, 2011 @ 6:49 am
Finish the sentence Kate…You can do it..
Under the Disguise Its For The Kids …..This issue is all about Teachers and Administrators and Staff Making More $$$$$. Otherwise this would be a Bond Issue.
Comment by John — February 25, 2011 @ 7:12 am
Wow. California sucks. Wonder why we live here? Oh, yeah. The weather. The “storm of the century” is raging outside and I have roses and daffodils blooming in my garden. Maybe we should turn the whole state into a senioropolis. No kids, no schools, no industry, just blue hairs and rocking chairs. It’s a thought.
Comment by Denise Shelton — February 25, 2011 @ 7:13 am
You’re right John, it has nothing to do with the kids. Nothing at all.
Comment by Jack B. — February 25, 2011 @ 7:17 am
Believe it or not Kate I believed most of this HS as a Democrat til there is a Tipping Point. But the Drivers of the California Bus has taken us over the Cliff.
Comment by John — February 25, 2011 @ 7:25 am
Robert Cruickshank had a good piece in December about the Texas/California myth: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/12/22/931035/-Debunking-the-Anti-California-Lies
In it, he points to PPIC’s survey of business and job losses:
Comment by John Knox White — February 25, 2011 @ 7:40 am
What about the real issue .
What would be the result financially if we paid the teachers DOUBLE what we pay our substitute teachers now without benefits and extras till we get out of this financial mess. Assuming subs make 135.00 a day times 180 days equals 24,300. Pay the Teachers DOUBLE that and give them 270.00 a day or 48,600 for 180 days. That would equal 70,470 a year if Teachers worked year round. So still a pretty good wage in this economy. 33.75 an hour. Even with no Benes.
How would that effect the Budget of AUSD,?
Comment by John — February 25, 2011 @ 7:49 am
John do you have a total breakdown of AUSD Employees Salary and Total Compensation like the one done on the City of Alameda Employees 2008 Compensation spreadsheet ?
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=rIFilGsbA6fE5wj_cvRIP_Q
I don’t need names just job title.. Salary ..Overtime… Benefits.. Pensions… Total Compensation… line item by Job Title. We all might learn something.
Comment by John — February 25, 2011 @ 7:50 am
63
Whether businesses go under or to Texas is beside the point, California is not business friendly.
Comment by Jack Richard — February 25, 2011 @ 9:42 am
65. I don’t really want to talk wages at this juncture because it misdirects the debate away from the main purpose of the ballot measure which is to stabilize and maintain the level of education in the classroom so generations of kids are not robbed of their opportunity for education.
46. Mike makes a great point in 45. about 7.5% contribution made by all private employers to SSI, but you conveniently ignored it.
In the City spread sheet I noted that a salary of $48,000 is matched by $6,300 to PERS. Most teachers pay more than that for their health care premium.
I look forward to further scrutiny of salary and benefit issues after the election, no matter the outcome. We can discuss in detail how what you propose in #46 is ridiculous and insulting.
Comment by M.I. — February 25, 2011 @ 4:25 pm
#35 Adam – just looked at your comment again and realized you insulted not just me – Batshit – but Lauren Do (can’t write) a twofer. Think we will name you Dickwad.
- Mr. Guano.
Comment by hughmorgan — February 25, 2011 @ 6:54 pm
Just like Dennis says, we are seeing our properties valus go tax, but property taxes going up. At least in Texas one can secure a property tax loan to assist if needed.
Comment by Tax Lender — February 25, 2011 @ 7:20 pm
68 Actually I think you two have a lot in common. I would suggest forgetting the insults and get down to business.
Comment by Jack Richard — February 25, 2011 @ 7:29 pm
67. Have You ever worked in the Private Sector. Have you ever seen business actually look at Employee costs and look for solutions so you Don’t BK company. Thats what I did. If Someone is Broke like the CITY STATE COUNTY AUSD believe it or not you have to make changes. Insulting as they are.
How many jobs are there that they pay a Regular worker 4-5 times what a relacement (SUB) costs.
I now find out going rate for a sub is about 100 a day…And Our Cost for our Teachers with Total Compensation is in Excess 500 a Day… Some More some less…
What’s Insulting is how did it ever get this lopsided. If Supply is at 100 a day and your Paying 500 a day who is the fool?
In this case the Taxpayer. Who should be insulted and are.
67.What would be the result financially if we paid the teachers DOUBLE what we pay our substitute teachers now without benefits and extras till we get out of this financial mess. Assuming subs make 135.00 a day times 180 days equals 24,300. Pay the Teachers DOUBLE that and give them 270.00 a day or 48,600 for 180 days. That would equal 70,470 a year if Teachers worked year round. So still a pretty good wage in this economy. 33.75 an hour. Even with no Benes.
67.How would that effect the Budget of AUSD,?
Or Pay 200 a day and 70 in Benies…alot ways to cut it up.
Comment by John — February 26, 2011 @ 1:10 am
67 What Would Create More Value in a Community and School District than controlling Costs that have ran rampant or buckling under to Teachers and Teacher Unions trying to shove more taxes down the citizens throats Under the Disguise Its For The Kids …..This issue is all about Teachers and Administrators and Staff Making More $$$$$. Otherwise this would be a Bond Issue.
It’s all I’m asking is Show me the Numbers that prove this wrong. Please Don’t try to compare Salaries to Other Broke and Broken Districts. It’s Like Comparing Enron To Lehmans.
Comment by John — February 26, 2011 @ 1:21 am
67 How Long would it take the Taxpayers to Find 1000 VERY Qualified People to Fill Teachers Job at 1350.00 Per week if all the Teachers now think this offer is an Insult. Whats Insulting to me is Teachers and Teacher Unions trying to shove more taxes down the citizens throats Under the Disguise Its For The Kids.
Comment by John — February 26, 2011 @ 7:48 am
Looks like the Anti-Schools crowd is getting desperate.
Comment by Jack B. — February 26, 2011 @ 8:10 am
USUAL WEEKLY EARNINGS OF WAGE AND SALARY WORKERS
FOURTH QUARTER 2010
Median weekly earnings of the nation’s 100.1 million full-time wage and salary
workers were $752 in the fourth quarter of 2010 (not seasonally adjusted), the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. This was 0.5 percent higher than a year
earlier, compared with a gain of 1.3 percent in the Consumer Price Index for All
Urban Consumers (CPI-U) over the same period.
Comment by John — February 26, 2011 @ 8:17 am
#70 Jack Richard – You’re right, I overreached. Let’s keep things civil.
Comment by hughmorgan — February 26, 2011 @ 11:53 am
Once we pass this parcel tax, can we then amend it to get rid of the cap?
Comment by Schoolsupporter — February 26, 2011 @ 6:07 pm
77
You’re overreaching.
Comment by Jack Richard — February 26, 2011 @ 6:43 pm
77. I thought the sfgate post by Jeff Cambra in last couple days was a pretty level headed and reasoned explanation of why the cap was incorporated. You can take it or leave it, but if you are a school supporter, take it.
Comment by M.I. — February 26, 2011 @ 7:14 pm
Hi M.I.,
That post by Jeff Cambra actually appeared on The Island, not SFGate.
(The Island ran all his mediator reports.)
http://www.theislandofalameda.com/2011/02/island-talkback-parcel-tax-mediators-final-report/
Comment by Susan Davis — February 26, 2011 @ 8:03 pm
The SF Gate is where you go for the biased propaganda.
Comment by Adam Gillitt — February 26, 2011 @ 9:10 pm
We have 9000 students……We have 800 Employess….So the ratio of Students to Teachers admistrators and Staff Is What about 11 to 1………………at what an Average Pay of 100,000.00 A CLIP . Guess what Were Open less than Half the Year. 365 Days a Year and Schools open 175-180……… I guess you need half the days off a year to spend the Tax Payers of Alameda’s Money and a few Holidays to think up more ways to lay away the people…While they average about 38,000 to 42,000 a Person.
What Would Create More Value in a Community and School District than controlling Costs that have ran rampant or buckling under to Teachers and Teacher Unions trying to shove more taxes down the citizens throats Under the Disguise Its For The Kids .
Comment by John — February 27, 2011 @ 2:35 am
How many jobs are there that they pay a Regular worker 4-5 times what a relacement (SUB) costs.
I now find out going rate for a sub is about 100 a day…And Our Cost for our Teachers with Total Compensation is in Excess 500 a Day… Some More some less…
What’s Insulting is how did it ever get this lopsided. If Supply is at 100 a day and your Paying 500 a day who is the fool?
So you don’t keep putting gas on a fire thats totally out of control. Which is what Measure A Does.
Comment by John — February 27, 2011 @ 2:36 am
You can keep rolling the Dice with More Taxes on the people til they Finally say F U…..I think were pretty much there……I know some of you are very well read……. Read Tipping Point by Malcom Gladwell..
Whats Really Sad About all this is the Parents of Students and Business in Alameda who can’t say anything Negative about this due to it might hurt their student in school if the teachers got wind of it and if a Business stood up against it ..It Might Hurt their Business…And alot of Business are on the Edge due to economy and might cause them to close…. So for all those I will take the Bullets ………So Please Don’t Say this is for the Kids…This issue is all about Teachers and Administrators and Staff Making More $$$$$. Please Don’t Insult the peoples intelligence.
Comment by John — February 27, 2011 @ 2:38 am
Some of the Best People in this Town are Teachers and Retired Teachers and I hold them in Very High Regards. They are Caught in a Real Catch 22. They know as well as I do that we need to make some Drastic Changes or Everone will get Hosed. But to try and shove another TAX down the peoples throat on a Disguise of this is for the Kids is TOTAL HS. We need to get Our House in Order . We need to really see what PUBLIC SERVANTS can come up with versus SELF SERVING SERVANTS We have seen the Last 25 Years .
Comment by John — February 27, 2011 @ 2:39 am
But in the public sector, no such healthy tension exists because unions can use campaign contributions to gain control of “management,” which in California’s state government means the 120 legislators and the governor who together determine employee compensation and benefits. As a result of the focused power of the unionized public-sector workforce, management (i.e., legislators and governors) can end up being more responsive to public employees than to “shareholders,” that is, citizens benefiting from public services (e.g., students paying tuition at state colleges, parents taking kids to state parks, private-sector union workers building bridges, etc.) and taxpayers paying the bills.
According to the Fair Political Practices Commission, by far the largest contributors to state political campaigns are public-employee unions. Just two of the unions – the California Teachers Association and the California State Council of Service Employees – spent more than $300 million on political activities over the last 10 years. And not coincidentally, since collective bargaining went into effect for state employees, state spending on employee retirement benefits has nearly doubled as a percentage of total state spending and now even exceeds state spending on the University of California and California State University by 40 percent.
Comment by John — February 27, 2011 @ 3:24 am
During the same period, state general fund spending on employee compensation and benefits grew at nearly three times the rate of state revenues, while general fund spending on higher education, parks and environmental protection was flat or lower, and student tuition costs rose.
In short, the more state revenues are directed to employee compensation and benefits for public employees, the less those revenues are available for private-sector union workers building infrastructure, students paying tuition and families using parks and recreation facilities, and the more burden on taxpayers.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/02/26/IN5N1HUAMS.DTL#ixzz1F9phCvgV
Comment by John — February 27, 2011 @ 3:26 am
I think John needs to get some sleep. Or is he the graveyard shift for no on A.
Comment by John piziali — February 27, 2011 @ 11:09 am
88. I know it might be insulting for some but I have to work for a living and did not get home from work til 1AM.
Comment by John — February 27, 2011 @ 11:16 am
“John”. John? David? H? K? who knows. Hardly matters anyway, even if you actually are John.
I get a little suspicious when there is a new voice (or at least name) popping up which is also suddenly prolific, especially at a critical time like right before an election.
Getting on to the issue at hand,
most jobs don’t have “replacement” employees. When they do they are usually referred to as scabs. Remember the air traffic controllers? Wisconsin, dare I mention it, is the continuation of systematic Reagan assault on organized labor.
Wisconsin is actually a great example of one side being flexible and reasonable and the other side having a whole additional agenda they are trying to shove down people’s throats. No on A people like to invoke the image of themselves on the receiving end of that down their throats image because they see themselves as victims rather than part of a community which has to come together to build something, or keep something from eroding.
Anyway, in Wisconsin the unions have given everything economically, but that isn’t enough for the agenda driven governor and the Republicans who want to take away collective bargaining and bust unions as part of a more basic budget discussion.
This parcel tax is not primarily about unions, whose members have already given up 4% salary this year and have not had raises in several more, though passage should prevent the learning calendar from being shortened even more. Nor is Measure A about any of the other points you try to make it about. If A fails at the ballot, that will NOT resolve ANY of the larger funding issues. A ballot failure absolutely will not improve quality of education or move us toward better delivery of same. But a loss WILL subvert the quality of education of a whole generation of Alameda public school kids.
But when A passes it will give us a hope of sustaining the decent level of education my kids enjoyed, which those younger than them also deserve. And then we will still face all the same ongoing and systemic problems, which because of the economy we are going to have to resolve rather than continue to defer. As a community we can commit to that or we can continue to be divisive by playing each others victims.
Nobody should be allowed to frame this election as a referendum on unions, or any of this other crap, because that’s not what it’s about. It IS about the children and it IS about bridging their right to a decent education during a period of historic upheaval and realignments.
Comment by M.I. — February 27, 2011 @ 12:32 pm
Whats Really Sad About all this is the Parents of Students and Business in Alameda who can’t say anything Negative about this due to it might hurt their student in school if the teachers got wind of it and if a Business stood up against it ..It Might Hurt their Business…And alot of Business are on the Edge due to economy and might cause them to close…. So for all those I will take the Bullets ………So Please Don’t Say this is for the Kids…This issue is all about Teachers and Administrators and Staff Making More $$$$$. Please Don’t Insult the peoples intelligence.
Comment by John — February 27, 2011 @ 12:56 pm
46. I was resisting responding about salary because I think the emphasis is wrong for what this election is about, but you have been so incessant I have relented.
Is $48,000 your “happy number”? The starting salary for teachers in Alameda happens to be about $40,270 for a teacher with standard BA degree. If we were to make $48K THE salary, with NO benefits, who do you think would go in to teaching? Nationally, new teachers currently average under five years before leaving the profession. With step increases that staring salary would be at a whopping $42,122 after those five years. Trying to conflate your $48,000 as equivalent to $70,000 because teachers are somehow part time is utter crap.
I did some math for Marshal Cromer in a letter responding to his rant about salaries. Here is part of it: The average hours worked by Americans working average full time 48 weeks a year is 1632. If you divide 1632 by 175 teaching days it comes to 9.3 hours a day. While teachers may have students from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. which is seven hours, they have pre-class preparation, time grading papers, and after class tutoring. While five 9.3 hour days totals 46.5 hours a week, most teachers work even more hours per week including on weekends and grading papers over holiday breaks. Teachers can regularly pack the same or more hours into a 40 week work year as the average American. No over time.
My son’s calculus teachers meets kids at school on Saturday. Teachers also don’t stamp out widgets, and in upper levels they often minister to as many as 175 different kids each day and must try to keep them all engaged in the subject matter.
Along with being “business friendly” Texas also happens to have terrible school drop out rates and an awful environmental record, so what’s keeping you from doing your business there?
Comment by M.I. — February 27, 2011 @ 12:58 pm
California Teachers Association and the California State Council of Service Employees – spent more than $300 million on political activities over the last 10 years. And not coincidentally, since collective bargaining went into effect for state employees, state spending on employee retirement benefits has nearly doubled as a percentage of total state spending and now even exceeds state spending on the University of California and California State University by 40 percent.
Comment by John — February 27, 2011 @ 12:58 pm
There’s a very interesting series of graphs in the paper today comparing California’s budget with those of the other most populous states, Texas, Illinois, New York, and Florida. The educational pieces are especially interesting. http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_17483052?nclick_check=1
Comment by Denise Shelton — February 27, 2011 @ 1:13 pm
Ask your Sons calculus Teacher teacher what 365(Days) divided by 175(Days Teachers Teach) equals.
Then Ask him what 365 (Days)Divided by 251(Days Fulltime Workers work) Equals.
Then ask Him if those are Same Numbers
175 = 251
Comment by John — February 27, 2011 @ 1:24 pm
That they are all Broke Denise?
Comment by John — February 27, 2011 @ 1:26 pm
93.California Teachers Association and the California State Council of Service Employees – spent more than $300 million on political activities over the last 10 years.
You think the average Citizen has money to burn like this just to watch over not being Screwed by these Unions. No they are working Fulltime just trying to make ends meet.
Comment by John — February 27, 2011 @ 1:43 pm
MI …the way you spin your numbers trying to justify 175 days a year as working fulltime is laughable. Your kind of Mindset has buried us in this financial mess were in right now. If you were to say the Teachers are working 302 Days a Year and making 40K including all Pensions and Benefits you would have a case.
Comment by John — February 27, 2011 @ 1:58 pm
John’s teachers forgot to teach him proper capitalization, or maybe it is just his lack of sleep.
Comment by Kevis Brownson — February 27, 2011 @ 2:08 pm
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_8M4A38LyBBs/SmAq4EnOBaI/AAAAAAAAMLY/dMGatWUvyHY/s400/literal+photos11.jpg
Just Tired From Looking at the Financial’s of AUSD And YES on A Building Base Structure above.
Comment by John — February 27, 2011 @ 2:21 pm
John, your post #91 “so for all those I will take the bullets”.
what bullets are you taking if you don’t stand up and use your own name. It seems to me that you are doing the same thing that you say others are doing by not standing up and making it known who you are and how you feel. Example, Dennis Green or Jack Richard. At least we know who we are debating with when they are on line. Yes I include you also Denise.
Comment by John piziali — February 27, 2011 @ 2:34 pm
John I have never Posted on these Boards til about a week ago when I was trying to get some information on Measure A to get some answers on how I was going to vote. I had to contact all the School Board Members and the Kirsten to try and get a simple report. The hurdles and dodgeballs I encountered led me start to start to smell a fish.
And the smell was not too good. The more I had to research it has progressively gotten worse. I have known you for many years 40+ I’m sure. Believe it or not I need to run to Work…..Will finish this later. Hope your family is doing fabulous.
Comment by John — February 27, 2011 @ 2:47 pm
90
“Remember the air traffic controllers? Wisconsin, dare I mention it, is the continuation of systematic Reagan assault on organized labor.”
But wasn’t that strike illegal? I don’t think the Wisconsin Assembly is breaking the law.
“As federal employees the controllers were violating the no-strike clause of their employment contracts. In 1955 Congress had made such strikes a crime punishable by a fine or one year of incarceration — a law upheld by the Supreme Court in 1971.”
Surely you don’t support breaking the law, do you Mark? Or does the law mean nothing?
http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id296.htm
Comment by Jack Richard — February 27, 2011 @ 4:54 pm
Marks’ #90
“…,is the continuation of systematic Reagan assault on organized labor.”
Got your Presidents mixed up, Mark?
In a little-known letter he wrote to the president of the National Federation of Federal Employees in 1937, Roosevelt (FDR) reasoned:
“… Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the government. All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations … The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for … officials … to bind the employer … The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives …
“Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees. Upon employees in the federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people … This obligation is paramount … A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent … to prevent or obstruct … Government … Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government … is unthinkable and intolerable.”
Comment by Jack Richard — February 27, 2011 @ 5:01 pm
My problem, and I’ve stated it before, is not with unions per se, but with public sector unions.
There is a very real blurring of the difference between the two in Mark’s and the Unions’ rhetoric in Wisconsin. FDR put it very eloquently. It’s revealing that the hero of the working stiff, and an icon of the left could put it so.
I have yet to hear a cogent argument and defense for collective bargaining rights for public employees.
Comment by Jack Richard — February 27, 2011 @ 7:03 pm
I think John has 11 reasons to vote no on Measure A that is on “those” blogs. John’s real reason why he has been checking out AUSD finances is because of Lesson 9. His interest in labor unions is also well documented when you search the Internet.
Comment by Mike McMahon — February 27, 2011 @ 10:34 pm
Mike is there any reason as a member of the Board of Education you couldnt give me the reports I asked for?
And give me an answer to my question?
Here is copy of Email I sent you.
Does anyone have a total breakdown of AUSD Employees Salary and Total Compensation like the one done on the City of Alameda Employees 2008 Compensation spreadsheet ?
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=rIFilGsbA6fE5wj_cvRIP_Q
What would be the result financially if we just paid the teachers double what we pay our substitute teachers now without benefits and extras till we get out of this financial mess. Assuming subs make 135.00 a day times 180 days equals 24,300. Pay the Teachers Double that and give them 270.00 a day or 48,600 for 180 days. That would equal 70,470 a year if Teachers worked year round. So still a pretty good wage in this economy. 33.75 an hour. Even with no Benes.
How would that effect the Budget of AUSD,?
Thanks for your service
In Highest Regards
John
Comment by John — February 28, 2011 @ 12:30 am
Very Simple Question and a Very Simple report to run.
Comment by John — February 28, 2011 @ 12:31 am
John: that spreadsheet was compiled by Michele Ellson at the Island. It actually required her to manually type in the data she received via a public records request from the City of Alameda.
If you are interested, you could also make a public records request of the School District and compile it, since you have expressed an interest in it.
Comment by Lauren Do — February 28, 2011 @ 6:18 am
Jack, your position has been clear but I’ve never been clear on your rational that public employees should have curtailed rights.
The quotes from FDR are fascinating, but I am not getting my presidents mixed up and even the legality of the air traffic controller’s strike does not alter my point. While I’m interested to study the history of FDR, the current movement I refer is rooted directly to Reagan, who was out to bust unions. As a liberal I have no investment to rewrite history or attempt to deify FDR, but as somebody who lived through Reagan I am certainly not comfortable with him being elevated to sainthood on his centennial. This is s big digression away from parcel tax debate, which may be a good thing for this thread at this point. Considering the arming of mujahideen started under Carter, maybe he deserves the credit as the person who brought down the Soviet Union and ended the cold war. I’ve always thought Gorbachev deserved tons more credit that President “Rawhide”.
Comment by M.I. — February 28, 2011 @ 8:26 am
110
“…but I’ve never been clear on your rational that public employees should have curtailed rights.”
There is nothing in the Constitution that bestows fundamental rights on employees enabling them to bargain collectively so there were no “rights” being curtailed until those rights were legislated. And, it wasn’t until the 20th century that federal legislation was passed that gave private workers those rights.
Frankly, considering your activism in union issues, it surprises me you’re not aware that the ‘right’ to bargain collectively in the United States stems from The National Labor Relations Act passed in 1935 which gave private employees the legal right to unionize and bargain collectively. The law left it up to individual states as to whether they wanted to extend the right to public employees.
You may not be aware of it, but laws passed by one legislature can be abrogated by another. That’s what is occurring in Wisconsin.
As far as my own rational for opposing public employee unions, it’s simple.
First, private companies can bargain themselves into bankruptcy then leave the country and dissolve or re-establish themselves offshore. States and Municipal governments can bargain themselves into bankruptcy but doing so extends undue hardship on the citizens of that state or municipality. Those entities cannot leave the country. They could dissolve but that would wreak havoc on all citizens, union members included.
Second, I don’t trust politicians, who require votes to stay in office, to place the welfare of citizens over their own re-election welfare. I think, if one cares to look, vote seeking politicians bestowing extraordinary monetary and governance rights on public sector unions have been, overall, very harmful to the body politic.
There are other reasons but who cares…
Comment by Jack Richard — February 28, 2011 @ 9:53 am
California Teachers Association and the California State Council of Service Employees – spent more than $300 million on political activities over the last 10 years.
Just Enough To put every City School District Deeply Underwater.
This issue is all about Teachers and Administrators and Staff Making More $$$$$. Please Don’t Insult the peoples intelligence.
Comment by John — February 28, 2011 @ 11:30 pm
Lauren Regarding your 109.
Why wouldn’t a member of the Schoolboard just have the Report run without anyone having to have to manually type in the data she received via a public records request from the City of Alameda.
This is a simple report that kirsten said she already looks when doing budgets.
Why not just post what I asked for up on website.
Comment by John — March 1, 2011 @ 12:37 am
The website may not meet your demand but DOES have significant financial data; its’ clear that you haven’t bothered to look at it.
You could get a lot of your questions answered by reading, UNDERSTANDING and doing our own calcs on the numbers the district posts. But nah, that would require you to read a document & think about it.
Comment by dave — March 1, 2011 @ 6:34 am
I know its a real stretch to Ask an employee or a puplic elected official who represents the citizens of Alameda to create a report that would be paramount in the people making a decision on a issue asking for 17 Million Dollars over next 7 years coming from myself and other Alameda residents directly. I know that takes alot of nerve.
To generate the report I’m asking for takes about 10 minutes. It’s not like I’m asking them to handwrite thousands of pages and go through hundreds of files. It’s something that is very simple and might take about another two minutes to print to either send in email or post on the website.
Comment by John — March 1, 2011 @ 8:54 am
I’m going to take a wild stab Dave and guess you either work for AUSD or have. Just give me money and don’t ask any questions. It’s amazing the mindset of some.
Comment by John — March 1, 2011 @ 9:00 am
John: You asked if there existed a spreadsheet like the one listing out City Employees. I answered that the list was not auto generated by the City, but rather Michele Ellson painstakingly typed it into an easy to sort datasheet.
If you believe that the report is that easy to generate, I would suggest putting in a Public Records Request through the school district. They cannot ignore your request but will give it to you in whatever format they have available. The time you have taken to post and repost the same questions on every single website possible you could have easily put in a formal CPRA request for the information you are looking for.
Comment by Lauren Do — March 1, 2011 @ 9:01 am
Go to a bank and ask for 17,000,000 with most being spent on employees and see what they might ask you for.
Comment by John — March 1, 2011 @ 9:11 am
The BOE or Kirsten can have this type of spreadsheet generated.They just seem to dodge. They have all the information in their database.
What Michele did was world class and very admirable. But she or any Alameda resident shouldn’t have to spend endless hours to create something they could do in minutes.
Comment by John — March 1, 2011 @ 9:18 am
Kirsten in an Email said she even looks at reports like this in looking at the budget.
Comment by John — March 1, 2011 @ 9:20 am
John
The inconvenient truth….
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/02/27
/INOK1HS1NS.DTL
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/01/16/INVK1H7F9A.DTL
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/02/20/INP11HNB9F.DTL
Comment by M.I. — March 1, 2011 @ 9:25 am
here is the first URL again
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/02/27/INOK1HS1NS.DTL
Comment by M.I. — March 1, 2011 @ 9:27 am
Like I told Kirsten. The time she has spent just answering my emails she could have had the report generated in the format I requested and posted on website.
Comment by John — March 1, 2011 @ 9:27 am
The REAL TRUTH
California Teachers Association and the California State Council of Service Employees – spent more than $300 million on political activities over the last 10 years.
Just Enough To put every City School District Deeply Underwater.
This issue is all about Teachers and Administrators and Staff Making More $$$$$. Please Don’t Insult the peoples intelligence.
Comment by John — March 1, 2011 @ 9:31 am
I’m a Democrat with a frkn Brain MI who is just fed up with the BS being shoved down my throat on this Measure A. Sorry for my honesty. To lie to the citizens that this is for the KIDS is an insult to all.
Comment by John — March 1, 2011 @ 9:37 am
124. wow you read those articles really fast.
How much do corporations spend on political influence? Does that not matter because they are private sector?
You are calling all the teachers and administrators greedy and saying $$$ is their primary motive for all their actions. You insult the intelligence of everybody else who doesn’t swallow your knee jerk delusional free market propaganda, which is most of us.
Comment by M.I. — March 1, 2011 @ 9:40 am
I’m saying Framing MEASURE A as something for the kids is BS. To lie to the citizens that this is for the KIDS is an insult to all.This issue is all about Teachers and Administrators and Staff Making More Money .
Comment by John — March 1, 2011 @ 10:13 am
Getting back to the point.
I know its a real stretch to Ask an employee or a puplic elected official who represents the citizens of Alameda to create a report that would be paramount in the people making a decision on a issue asking for 17 Million Dollars over next 7 years coming from myself and other Alameda residents directly. I know that takes alot of nerve.
To generate the report I’m asking for takes about 10 minutes. It’s not like I’m asking them to handwrite thousands of pages and go through hundreds of files. It’s something that is very simple and might take about another two minutes to print to either send in email or post on the website.
Comment by John — March 1, 2011 @ 11:06 am
118
Though of course it depends on the sitution, that could well be a very easy loan to secure. In almost 20 years in the bond business I’ve placed many such. And in any case it’s 12MM, not 17MM.
127
It’s not about teachers making more money, it’s about more teachers making money. Keep class sizes smaller means more teachers, ipso facto. And most us are voting that way for the kids. We want them to grow up with critical thinking and document search skills.
Comment by dave — March 1, 2011 @ 11:14 am
Mike McMahon Per your your campaign stating that you pledge to maintain an open dialog with all of our community one of the reasons I voted for you why can’t I get this report I requested?
Mike is there any reason as a member of the Board of Education you couldnt give me the reports I asked for?
And give me an answer to my question?
Here is copy of Email I sent you.
Does anyone have a total breakdown of AUSD Employees Salary and Total Compensation like the one done on the City of Alameda Employees 2008 Compensation spreadsheet ?
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=rIFilGsbA6fE5wj_cvRIP_Q
What would be the result financially if we just paid the teachers double what we pay our substitute teachers now without benefits and extras till we get out of this financial mess. Assuming subs make 135.00 a day times 180 days equals 24,300. Pay the Teachers Double that and give them 270.00 a day or 48,600 for 180 days. That would equal 70,470 a year if Teachers worked year round. So still a pretty good wage in this economy. 33.75 an hour. Even with no Benes.
How would that effect the Budget of AUSD,?
Thanks for your service
In Highest Regards
John
Comment by John — March 1, 2011 @ 11:16 am
We have 800 Staff Administrators aand teachers. We have 9000 students.. That is about
11 To 1
Students to Admistrators Teachers and Staff.
Comment by John — March 1, 2011 @ 11:26 am
John: Your data is incorrect. According to Ed Data:
There is 1 Administrator per 332.4 pupils.
There is 1 Pupil Services Staff per 291.7 pupils.
There is 1 teacher per 20.3 pupils.
Comment by Lauren Do — March 1, 2011 @ 11:36 am
we have approx 800 employees – no breakdown on website – I will inquire.
Best, Kirsten M. Vital
Superintendent
Alameda Unified School
Comment by John — March 1, 2011 @ 11:39 am
Plus How many world class parent Volunteers… How many outside consultants.. I’m sure that’s a pretty large # also.
Comment by John — March 1, 2011 @ 11:47 am
#132
You might pass that info to the Chamber or does anybody know how many people the school district employs?
Alameda Unified School District
Alameda’s public schools enjoy a long tradition of well-located neighborhood schools that are vital centers of the Alameda community, and benefit from active parent and community support. Fifty-seven percent of our 1,200 employees live in Alameda.
http://www.alamedachamber.com/quality-of-education
Comment by Jack Richard — March 1, 2011 @ 12:02 pm
131
Or , put another way, AUSD has one employee per 7.5 students.
Comment by Jack Richard — March 1, 2011 @ 12:14 pm
How many Students are attending AUSD schools that come from outside the city?
What would the ratio be if AUSD Schools just used Alameda Residents as Students?
Comment by John — March 1, 2011 @ 12:30 pm
135
This directly from the Superintendent last week
we have approx 800 employees – no breakdown on website – I will inquire.
Best, Kirsten M. Vital
Superintendent
Alameda Unified School
Comment by John — March 1, 2011 @ 2:49 pm
129
your statement regarding asking for 12 million is easy depending on situation.
The situation is the City and State are in process of going broke do to trying to fund these pensions and salarys. Plus this is not a BOND Issue.bond money cannot be used to pay for programs or teacher and staff salaries and benefits.
Comment by John — March 1, 2011 @ 3:09 pm
New Sales of Municipal Bonds Dropped to 11-Year Low
The Muni Bond Market Signals Danger Ahead
The mortgage-backed security market froze up in a similar way prior to the finance crisis.
I don’t think that the muni market is transparent enough to allow for accurate forecasting—which is why I’m not predicting a surge of defaults. But I do think it makes sense to watch for potential warning signs in the market—and the dramatic drop in issuance could well be flashing: DANGER AHEAD.
Comment by John — March 1, 2011 @ 3:30 pm
Lauren, your data only covers certificate staff – Ed Data is also showing some 300 classified staff (clerical, etc.)Still though, the numbers are on the low side when compared to other districts.
John, you have repeatedly asked for data from everyone except the people that can provide it to you. There is a handy dandy public information request button on the AUSD website. Learn how to use it.
Comment by notadave — March 1, 2011 @ 3:31 pm
A quick correction, and I now see what Lauren was saying – John is trying to state that every single staff member is either an administrator or teacher, and is using 800 as the magic number. Ed Data clearly shows that there are only 600 staff that qualify as administrators or teachers, of that 600, about 500 are teachers. John needs to take remedial math. And I need to take remedial reading comprehension.
Comment by notadave — March 1, 2011 @ 3:34 pm
142
This what I said
131.We have 800 Staff. Administrators and teachers. We have 9000 students.. That is about
11 To 1
Students to Admistrators Teachers and Staff.
Comment by John — March 1, 2011 @ 3:56 pm
140
I feel pretty confident stating that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Comment by dave — March 1, 2011 @ 3:56 pm
Or as 136 Said according to other numbers out there
Or , put another way, AUSD has one employee per 7.5 students.
Comment by John — March 1, 2011 @ 4:00 pm
140
The Muni Bond Market Signals Danger Ahead
The mortgage-backed security market froze up in a similar way prior to the finance crisis. Take a look at the chart above, which shows the decline of private label mortgage backed securities that began in mid-2006. That decline, as it turned out, anticipated a huge jump in mortgage defaults.
It might make sense to take another look at the effect of the BABs. Instead of seeing the end of the program as an explanation for this decline, I can look at the beginning of the program as an artificial boost to the market. Without BAB, the evidence of trouble in the muni market may have been apparent even earlier.
I don’t think that the muni market is transparent enough to allow for accurate forecasting—which is why I’m not predicting a surge of defaults. But I do think it makes sense to watch for potential warning signs in the market—and the dramatic drop in issuance could well be flashing: DANGER AHEAD.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/41780371
Comment by John — March 1, 2011 @ 4:06 pm
I repeat 144.
Comment by dave — March 1, 2011 @ 4:11 pm
Bernie Madoff repeated alot..LOL
Comment by John — March 1, 2011 @ 4:13 pm
People didn’t ask to see the books til it was too Late. Never questioned where the money was going. Who was profiting. Could it have been prevented.
Just like Companies going broke and Cities and State and Schools heading there now.
Comment by John — March 1, 2011 @ 4:25 pm
Hey, anybody getting the feeling that “John” is not voting for the school parcel tax….
Comment by J.E.A. — March 1, 2011 @ 4:33 pm
Munis lost 4.2 per cent in the fourth quarter, the worst quarterly performance since 1994.
Municipal finance is one of the murkier, duller, backwaters of the financial system, much as subprime mortgages once were. It is also notoriously corrupt, perhaps especially in small towns where a few “good ol’ boys” can steer the financing goodies. So it amazes how deeply “creative” financing has wormed its way into an already suspect system.
Comment by John — March 1, 2011 @ 4:47 pm
If you don’t think it effects you
Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. executives and underwriters were sued by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System over claims they hid Lehman’s exposure to subprime loans when they sold the pension fund about $700 million in bonds.
James G. Lasher, a senior portfolio manager for real estate, resigned from CalPERS.
He is the third senior portfolio manager to resign this month from the $226.5 billion California Public Employees’ Retirement System, Sacramento.
Comment by John — March 1, 2011 @ 5:15 pm
144
I know these sentence probably strikes pretty close to home in article.
Municipal finance is one of the murkier, duller, backwaters of the financial system, much as subprime mortgages once were. It is also notoriously corrupt, perhaps especially in small towns where a few “good ol’ boys” can steer the financing goodies.
Comment by John — March 1, 2011 @ 5:24 pm
California teachers’ pension system headed toward insolvency
As California school districts anticipate possibly the worst budget crisis in a generation, many will try to lighten their burden by enticing older teachers into retirement.
But as more and more teachers retire – with a pension averaging 55 percent to 60 percent of salary – they will be straining a system that already can’t meet its obligations.
The California State Teachers’ Retirement System is sliding down a steep slope toward insolvency.
http://www.redlandsdailyfacts.com/news/ci_17498276
Comment by John — March 1, 2011 @ 5:58 pm
Crisis in Dairyland – Message for Teachers
Comment by John Knox White — March 1, 2011 @ 6:48 pm
I am now 200% sure of 144.
Comment by dave — March 1, 2011 @ 8:28 pm
Dave I am 200% sure now also.
I have asked for help twice in my life from the Schools and School Department AUSD CALsters Teachers union Don Perata Ect and Every Group Associated With the Teachers of Alameda. The First for a fellow Teacher of yours Mark Mckee and a Best friend of Mine. His family was in financial Peril from huge medical bills and he was in grave health. I said I would try and do everything I could to help.
The response from the teaching community was astonishing. Everyone said they couldn’t help but would try. The results Nothing. Regreteful emails and pointing at other people who I contacted still Nothing.
So to try and get an honest answer and effort on something so simple as a report is nothing that surprises me now.
It certainly is not as disappointing as going in to face Mark and his Family everyday fore the best part of a year and telling them I am still trying but No One is stepping up from the schools.
I guess that makes me 200% sure
On That Note I’m Outta Here.
BTW
There is the Second Annual Mark Mckee Memorial Golf Tournament that benefits youth sports in Alameda May 20th.
Comment by John — March 1, 2011 @ 9:24 pm
I have been wondering throughout this thread why “John” would so desperately want to take away medical benefits from AUSD teachers and their families. Throughout this thread he has vociferously argued to deny medical benefits for AUSD teachers. It really didn’t make sense to me, and quite frankly, after his last post, it makes even less sense to me.
“John” now tells a story of a teacher who was bankrupted by medical bills, and his dedication to this teacher and his family. What a bizarre tribute to Mark Mckee that John would dedicate himself to pulling the rug out from under all AUSD teachers and their families by trying to deny them medical coverage.
I guess the real question in my mind is would Mark Mckee want what happened to him to happen to the families of other teachers in Alameda? Somehow, I sincerely doubt it.
Comment by John B. — March 2, 2011 @ 8:44 am
155
JKW, the other John got it right. Outsource teaching!
Comment by Jack Richard — March 2, 2011 @ 9:15 am
I was asking a Hypothetical Question.
Never ONCE did I say DENY
deny medical benefits for AUSD teachers
130.Mike McMahon Per your your campaign stating that you pledge to maintain an open dialog with all of our community one of the reasons I voted for you why can’t I get this report I requested?
Mike is there any reason as a member of the Board of Education you couldnt give me the reports I asked for?
And give me an answer to my question?
Here is copy of Email I sent you.
Does anyone have a total breakdown of AUSD Employees Salary and Total Compensation like the one done on the City of Alameda Employees 2008 Compensation spreadsheet ?
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=rIFilGsbA6fE5wj_cvRIP_Q
What would be the result financially if we just paid the teachers double what we pay our substitute teachers now without benefits and extras till we get out of this financial mess. Assuming subs make 135.00 a day times 180 days equals 24,300. Pay the Teachers Double that and give them 270.00 a day or 48,600 for 180 days. That would equal 70,470 a year if Teachers worked year round. So still a pretty good wage in this economy. 33.75 an hour. Even with no Benes.
How would that effect the Budget of AUSD,?
Thanks for your service
In Highest Regards
John
Comment by John — March 2, 2011 @ 9:27 am
Yep this is very BIzarre. .Sickening if you really think about.
The response from the teaching community was astonishing. Everyone said they couldn’t help but would try. The results Nothing. Regretful emails and pointing at other people who I contacted still Nothing.
So to try and get an honest answer and effort on something so simple as a report is nothing that surprises me now.
It certainly is not as disappointing as going in to face Mark and his Family everyday for the best part of a year and telling them I am still trying but No One is stepping up from the schools.
Comment by John — March 2, 2011 @ 9:40 am
70.00 a Day in Benies Not enough John B?
How about 120 a day in benies 150 a day in wages.
Maybe its 225 a day or 350 a day
White or wheat
Read my posts before attacking
Plus these were all hypothetical questions looking at trying to solve the financial mess were in.
67.How would that effect the Budget of AUSD,?
Or Pay 200 a day and 70 in Benies…alot ways to cut it up.
Comment by John — February 26, 2011 @ 1:10 am
Comment by John — March 2, 2011 @ 2:03 pm