600 classrooms
Tomorrow’s doctors, teachers, mechanics, physicists, inventors, musicians, farmers, scientists, entrepreneurs, authors, leaders …
On Tuesday, November 6, voters in the Davis Joint Unified School District will be asked to renew the District’s instructional program parcel tax. Your YES vote for Measure Q is an investment in the future for 8,400 Davis school children and for Davis. As a community, we are defined in large part by our commitment to our schools and to education. The outstanding quality of Davis schools makes Davis a special place to live, whether or not you have children in the school system.
The local funding generated by Measure Q is vital to preserve and maintain the many classroom programs cherished by our community. We are speaking to friends, neighbors, and fellow Davis residents at every opportunity to explain the critical importance of Measure Q. Without Measure Q, Davis schools will not have the funds to support many current educational programs that make our District unique. Your support of Measure Q will make a difference at every school across Davis, Kindergarten through high school.
Renewal of the parcel tax will allow the District to continue to fund:
• Class size reduction at elementary schools
• Reading programs that form the basis for future academic achievement
• Class periods and teachers so our secondary schools can offer music, art, foreign language, additional AP courses, and career/technical classes
• School counselors, nurses, and student support
• Additional library hours for greater access
• School-based technology support
• classroom materials
• Training for our teachers and staff
A modest increase of $34 per homeowner will not only maintain these vital, ongoing programs over the next four years but will additionally fund:
• Improvements in school lunch nutrition with more farm fresh produce
• Math specialists for grades 4-6 to prepare students to reach their highest math potential in Junior High and High School and as they enter college or career
In very real terms, Measure Q is about having 20 young students per class in grades K-3 instead of 30 crowded together. Measure Q is about continuing a 7th period at secondary schools (unusual in surrounding areas) to allow students to take both foreign language and art, or to be a part of the world class Madrigals, Orchestra, or Band. Measure Q is about being able to offer a class in agricultural biology or mechanics or biotechnology. Measure Q is about academic counselors to help students find a path to college and a crisis counselor to help students find a path away from harm. Measure Q is about support for our English Learners and at-risk students. Measure Q is about reading and math specialists to ensure academic and lifelong success for all of our students.
Measure Q is specifically designed to increase these classroom resources, and for just 55 cents per day per homeowner, we can deliver the difference for our students. This is not a new tax–Measure Q simply asks voters to renew a commitment to educational excellence they first made in 1983 – and which they have renewed every four years since.
There are two new features to this renewal of the parcel tax. First, a Citizen’s Oversight Committee will oversee every penny to ensure the community can see and understand that Measure Q funding directly supports the classroom and funds exactly what is delineated in the ballot measure. We’re excited to offer our community and business members a way to participate in the oversight along with the citizen-elected school board. Second, a senior exemption is available. We are appreciative of the generosity and support of many of our seniors, and understand the difficulties of a limited income. Therefore, a full exemption is available to those 65 and older who request it at the business office at DJUSD.
The Davis community has built a wonderful environment for student learning and the Davis Joint Unified School District continues to advance the goals we share for student success. Our students are thriving by many measures including graduation rates, college and career placements, as well as API and Exit Exam scores. As School Board Trustees, Davis residents, and Moms, we are grateful for the generous investment the community has made in our children by passing a local parcel tax measure every four years since 1983. This is a remarkable accomplishment achieved by only a handful of school districts in California, and, in fact, Davis led the way as one of the first in the State. It is, perhaps, not surprising that districts that have the support of their communities through local parcel tax measures also are among the highest performing districts in the state. And in Davis, we are doing as much with much less, even with our parcel tax for our instructional program. DJUSD has $7,392 to spend per pupil, while comparison districts such as Palo Alto spend $12, 461. Look at the results, think of our children and our town, and step forward to be counted in support of our future: the children of Davis.
We seek your help once again on November 6 to continue this “quintessentially Davis” tradition with the passage of Measure Q. Please join us in maintaining the high quality of a Davis public school education. Our quality of life depends on the quality of our Davis schools. Vote Yes on Measure Q!
Sheila Allen and Gina Daleiden
Co-Coordinators of Measure Q campaign
DJUSD Trustees
Sheila Allen and Gina Daleiden are elected members of the Davis Joint Unified School District’s Board of Education.
“In very real terms, Measure Q is about having 20 young students per class in grades K-3 instead of 30 crowded together.”
Doesn’t state law require all K-3 classrooms to have no more than 20 students? If this is true, then your claim that “Measure Q is about having 20 young students per class” is empty rhetoric, if not a lie.
“In very real terms, Measure Q is about having 20 young students per class in grades K-3 instead of 30 crowded together.”
Doesn’t state law require all K-3 classrooms to have no more than 20 students? If this is true, then your claim that “Measure Q is about having 20 young students per class” is empty rhetoric, if not a lie.
“In very real terms, Measure Q is about having 20 young students per class in grades K-3 instead of 30 crowded together.”
Doesn’t state law require all K-3 classrooms to have no more than 20 students? If this is true, then your claim that “Measure Q is about having 20 young students per class” is empty rhetoric, if not a lie.
“In very real terms, Measure Q is about having 20 young students per class in grades K-3 instead of 30 crowded together.”
Doesn’t state law require all K-3 classrooms to have no more than 20 students? If this is true, then your claim that “Measure Q is about having 20 young students per class” is empty rhetoric, if not a lie.
I believe there is some explaining to do.
1. I think the School Board went overboard a little bit in reducing class size at Valley Oak, don’t you think? Taxpayers faithfully voted for increases to the parcel tax again and again – yet a school was closed while we are paying for two Superintendents at astronomical salaries, one of whom will not even be working.
2. How do we know the Citizen Oversight Committee is not peppered with friends of the School Board? How were they chosen? Citizen Oversight Committees are only as good as the people on them. And how much power do they have? If they are anything like the city commissions, they can only advise the School Board, not make any substantive changes to School Board policy. How about a truly independent Oversight Committee with some teeth to it that the School Board CANNOT IGNORE?
3. Seniors on fixed incomes who qualify can get a tax exemption. How about families with young children who cannot afford this tax either? Remember, there is a school tax, library tax, water and sewer increases, lighting and landscaping tax, etc., etc., etc.
4. The School Board claims lack of funding for basic programs as the need for an increase in the parcel tax; then claims the need is for new programs; then claims the need is to save music and art programs…Sounds to me like the School Board isn’t quite clear on what it wants the money for. It just knows it wants more money. Don’t we all. The only thing is, its our money.
5. Why are we closing Valley Oak, at the same time we are building a new elementary school in South Davis? Could it be there is only so much funding for 9 elementary schools, so one was closed to make way for the other? Could that be because we are paying ridiculous amounts of money for administrative salaries – including for one Superintendent that will be doing nothing – while letting our teachers suffer the consequences of inadequate salaries?
6. How about if the School Board gets its fiscal house in order before we taxpayers shell out any more money that is just going to go down the rat hole into oblivion? I mean really, paying a superintendent $240,000 a year to not work; forcing teachers to pay a third of their salary for medical insurance; building a new school while closing another; failing to send a grant application for $4.5 million in on time; forgetting to set aside the necessary funding to build King High; and the list goes on.
7. These same scare tactics have been used year after year (if you don’t vote for a tax increase your children will suffer, basic services will have to be cut) to extort money from the taxpayer. And what was the result? Bad fiscal management because we keep giving the School Board a blank check.
I for one have had enough. I was willing to wait and see what the School Board gave as reasons to vote for Measure Q before I decided, to show they would be more fiscally responsible. All I have seen is the same old tactics used, with nothing to guarantee we won’t get more of the same. As far as I can see, its business as usual. The only way anything will change is if Valley Oak survives as a charter school, and citizens rise up and vote no on Measure Q. Then the School Board can come back with a better attitude, and maybe citizens will rethink things.
Better yet, burn the midnight oil now, convince me the School Board is going to be more responsible because systems are in place to make sure, and maybe you will change my mind.
I believe there is some explaining to do.
1. I think the School Board went overboard a little bit in reducing class size at Valley Oak, don’t you think? Taxpayers faithfully voted for increases to the parcel tax again and again – yet a school was closed while we are paying for two Superintendents at astronomical salaries, one of whom will not even be working.
2. How do we know the Citizen Oversight Committee is not peppered with friends of the School Board? How were they chosen? Citizen Oversight Committees are only as good as the people on them. And how much power do they have? If they are anything like the city commissions, they can only advise the School Board, not make any substantive changes to School Board policy. How about a truly independent Oversight Committee with some teeth to it that the School Board CANNOT IGNORE?
3. Seniors on fixed incomes who qualify can get a tax exemption. How about families with young children who cannot afford this tax either? Remember, there is a school tax, library tax, water and sewer increases, lighting and landscaping tax, etc., etc., etc.
4. The School Board claims lack of funding for basic programs as the need for an increase in the parcel tax; then claims the need is for new programs; then claims the need is to save music and art programs…Sounds to me like the School Board isn’t quite clear on what it wants the money for. It just knows it wants more money. Don’t we all. The only thing is, its our money.
5. Why are we closing Valley Oak, at the same time we are building a new elementary school in South Davis? Could it be there is only so much funding for 9 elementary schools, so one was closed to make way for the other? Could that be because we are paying ridiculous amounts of money for administrative salaries – including for one Superintendent that will be doing nothing – while letting our teachers suffer the consequences of inadequate salaries?
6. How about if the School Board gets its fiscal house in order before we taxpayers shell out any more money that is just going to go down the rat hole into oblivion? I mean really, paying a superintendent $240,000 a year to not work; forcing teachers to pay a third of their salary for medical insurance; building a new school while closing another; failing to send a grant application for $4.5 million in on time; forgetting to set aside the necessary funding to build King High; and the list goes on.
7. These same scare tactics have been used year after year (if you don’t vote for a tax increase your children will suffer, basic services will have to be cut) to extort money from the taxpayer. And what was the result? Bad fiscal management because we keep giving the School Board a blank check.
I for one have had enough. I was willing to wait and see what the School Board gave as reasons to vote for Measure Q before I decided, to show they would be more fiscally responsible. All I have seen is the same old tactics used, with nothing to guarantee we won’t get more of the same. As far as I can see, its business as usual. The only way anything will change is if Valley Oak survives as a charter school, and citizens rise up and vote no on Measure Q. Then the School Board can come back with a better attitude, and maybe citizens will rethink things.
Better yet, burn the midnight oil now, convince me the School Board is going to be more responsible because systems are in place to make sure, and maybe you will change my mind.
I believe there is some explaining to do.
1. I think the School Board went overboard a little bit in reducing class size at Valley Oak, don’t you think? Taxpayers faithfully voted for increases to the parcel tax again and again – yet a school was closed while we are paying for two Superintendents at astronomical salaries, one of whom will not even be working.
2. How do we know the Citizen Oversight Committee is not peppered with friends of the School Board? How were they chosen? Citizen Oversight Committees are only as good as the people on them. And how much power do they have? If they are anything like the city commissions, they can only advise the School Board, not make any substantive changes to School Board policy. How about a truly independent Oversight Committee with some teeth to it that the School Board CANNOT IGNORE?
3. Seniors on fixed incomes who qualify can get a tax exemption. How about families with young children who cannot afford this tax either? Remember, there is a school tax, library tax, water and sewer increases, lighting and landscaping tax, etc., etc., etc.
4. The School Board claims lack of funding for basic programs as the need for an increase in the parcel tax; then claims the need is for new programs; then claims the need is to save music and art programs…Sounds to me like the School Board isn’t quite clear on what it wants the money for. It just knows it wants more money. Don’t we all. The only thing is, its our money.
5. Why are we closing Valley Oak, at the same time we are building a new elementary school in South Davis? Could it be there is only so much funding for 9 elementary schools, so one was closed to make way for the other? Could that be because we are paying ridiculous amounts of money for administrative salaries – including for one Superintendent that will be doing nothing – while letting our teachers suffer the consequences of inadequate salaries?
6. How about if the School Board gets its fiscal house in order before we taxpayers shell out any more money that is just going to go down the rat hole into oblivion? I mean really, paying a superintendent $240,000 a year to not work; forcing teachers to pay a third of their salary for medical insurance; building a new school while closing another; failing to send a grant application for $4.5 million in on time; forgetting to set aside the necessary funding to build King High; and the list goes on.
7. These same scare tactics have been used year after year (if you don’t vote for a tax increase your children will suffer, basic services will have to be cut) to extort money from the taxpayer. And what was the result? Bad fiscal management because we keep giving the School Board a blank check.
I for one have had enough. I was willing to wait and see what the School Board gave as reasons to vote for Measure Q before I decided, to show they would be more fiscally responsible. All I have seen is the same old tactics used, with nothing to guarantee we won’t get more of the same. As far as I can see, its business as usual. The only way anything will change is if Valley Oak survives as a charter school, and citizens rise up and vote no on Measure Q. Then the School Board can come back with a better attitude, and maybe citizens will rethink things.
Better yet, burn the midnight oil now, convince me the School Board is going to be more responsible because systems are in place to make sure, and maybe you will change my mind.
I believe there is some explaining to do.
1. I think the School Board went overboard a little bit in reducing class size at Valley Oak, don’t you think? Taxpayers faithfully voted for increases to the parcel tax again and again – yet a school was closed while we are paying for two Superintendents at astronomical salaries, one of whom will not even be working.
2. How do we know the Citizen Oversight Committee is not peppered with friends of the School Board? How were they chosen? Citizen Oversight Committees are only as good as the people on them. And how much power do they have? If they are anything like the city commissions, they can only advise the School Board, not make any substantive changes to School Board policy. How about a truly independent Oversight Committee with some teeth to it that the School Board CANNOT IGNORE?
3. Seniors on fixed incomes who qualify can get a tax exemption. How about families with young children who cannot afford this tax either? Remember, there is a school tax, library tax, water and sewer increases, lighting and landscaping tax, etc., etc., etc.
4. The School Board claims lack of funding for basic programs as the need for an increase in the parcel tax; then claims the need is for new programs; then claims the need is to save music and art programs…Sounds to me like the School Board isn’t quite clear on what it wants the money for. It just knows it wants more money. Don’t we all. The only thing is, its our money.
5. Why are we closing Valley Oak, at the same time we are building a new elementary school in South Davis? Could it be there is only so much funding for 9 elementary schools, so one was closed to make way for the other? Could that be because we are paying ridiculous amounts of money for administrative salaries – including for one Superintendent that will be doing nothing – while letting our teachers suffer the consequences of inadequate salaries?
6. How about if the School Board gets its fiscal house in order before we taxpayers shell out any more money that is just going to go down the rat hole into oblivion? I mean really, paying a superintendent $240,000 a year to not work; forcing teachers to pay a third of their salary for medical insurance; building a new school while closing another; failing to send a grant application for $4.5 million in on time; forgetting to set aside the necessary funding to build King High; and the list goes on.
7. These same scare tactics have been used year after year (if you don’t vote for a tax increase your children will suffer, basic services will have to be cut) to extort money from the taxpayer. And what was the result? Bad fiscal management because we keep giving the School Board a blank check.
I for one have had enough. I was willing to wait and see what the School Board gave as reasons to vote for Measure Q before I decided, to show they would be more fiscally responsible. All I have seen is the same old tactics used, with nothing to guarantee we won’t get more of the same. As far as I can see, its business as usual. The only way anything will change is if Valley Oak survives as a charter school, and citizens rise up and vote no on Measure Q. Then the School Board can come back with a better attitude, and maybe citizens will rethink things.
Better yet, burn the midnight oil now, convince me the School Board is going to be more responsible because systems are in place to make sure, and maybe you will change my mind.
There is no state mandate to reduce class size to 20 students at K-3. This is a local decision.
Finding a new Superintendent was needed in order to be able to get the $4.5 million for Montgomery Elementary.
Valley Oak was not closed while a new elementary school in South Davis was built. Korematsu is farther east Davis.
Measure Q allows Davis to offer the programming that other neighboring Districts cannot. If families with young children don’t want the enrichment opportunities that Measure Q supports, then they can vote the measure down. But don’t come back later and complain about the disparity in education programming after all the cuts are made.
There is no state mandate to reduce class size to 20 students at K-3. This is a local decision.
Finding a new Superintendent was needed in order to be able to get the $4.5 million for Montgomery Elementary.
Valley Oak was not closed while a new elementary school in South Davis was built. Korematsu is farther east Davis.
Measure Q allows Davis to offer the programming that other neighboring Districts cannot. If families with young children don’t want the enrichment opportunities that Measure Q supports, then they can vote the measure down. But don’t come back later and complain about the disparity in education programming after all the cuts are made.
There is no state mandate to reduce class size to 20 students at K-3. This is a local decision.
Finding a new Superintendent was needed in order to be able to get the $4.5 million for Montgomery Elementary.
Valley Oak was not closed while a new elementary school in South Davis was built. Korematsu is farther east Davis.
Measure Q allows Davis to offer the programming that other neighboring Districts cannot. If families with young children don’t want the enrichment opportunities that Measure Q supports, then they can vote the measure down. But don’t come back later and complain about the disparity in education programming after all the cuts are made.
There is no state mandate to reduce class size to 20 students at K-3. This is a local decision.
Finding a new Superintendent was needed in order to be able to get the $4.5 million for Montgomery Elementary.
Valley Oak was not closed while a new elementary school in South Davis was built. Korematsu is farther east Davis.
Measure Q allows Davis to offer the programming that other neighboring Districts cannot. If families with young children don’t want the enrichment opportunities that Measure Q supports, then they can vote the measure down. But don’t come back later and complain about the disparity in education programming after all the cuts are made.
From the Ca State PTA:
“Class Size Reduction in California is not a mandate: it does not require school districts to reduce class size. Rather, it uses financial incentives to encourage them to do so.
The CSR Program is a voluntary incentive program. The state provides per pupil funding for each child in grades K-3 who receives instruction in a class of 20 or fewer pupils. Although classes may occasionally exceed 20 pupils without penalty, in order to receive funding, each class must maintain an average of 20.4 pupils or less.”
IIRC, the financial incentives are pretty substantial. Someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that allowing class sizes to increase would result in a loss of funds to the schools.
From the Ca State PTA:
“Class Size Reduction in California is not a mandate: it does not require school districts to reduce class size. Rather, it uses financial incentives to encourage them to do so.
The CSR Program is a voluntary incentive program. The state provides per pupil funding for each child in grades K-3 who receives instruction in a class of 20 or fewer pupils. Although classes may occasionally exceed 20 pupils without penalty, in order to receive funding, each class must maintain an average of 20.4 pupils or less.”
IIRC, the financial incentives are pretty substantial. Someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that allowing class sizes to increase would result in a loss of funds to the schools.
From the Ca State PTA:
“Class Size Reduction in California is not a mandate: it does not require school districts to reduce class size. Rather, it uses financial incentives to encourage them to do so.
The CSR Program is a voluntary incentive program. The state provides per pupil funding for each child in grades K-3 who receives instruction in a class of 20 or fewer pupils. Although classes may occasionally exceed 20 pupils without penalty, in order to receive funding, each class must maintain an average of 20.4 pupils or less.”
IIRC, the financial incentives are pretty substantial. Someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that allowing class sizes to increase would result in a loss of funds to the schools.
From the Ca State PTA:
“Class Size Reduction in California is not a mandate: it does not require school districts to reduce class size. Rather, it uses financial incentives to encourage them to do so.
The CSR Program is a voluntary incentive program. The state provides per pupil funding for each child in grades K-3 who receives instruction in a class of 20 or fewer pupils. Although classes may occasionally exceed 20 pupils without penalty, in order to receive funding, each class must maintain an average of 20.4 pupils or less.”
IIRC, the financial incentives are pretty substantial. Someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that allowing class sizes to increase would result in a loss of funds to the schools.
It is my understanding that allowing primary ed classrooms to exceed twenty students triggers a loss of state funds. At the same time, state funds do not fully support primary classes of only 20 students. Other districts that do not have parcel taxes are then forced to used general funds to make up the difference or lose state funding.
While I too am upset about the fiscal irresponsibility of our school district, I feel that it would be very irresponsible of us to reject Measure Q. School finance is very complicated, and I do not pretend to understand it all; but I do know that there are different pots of monies that can only be used to fund certain things. For instance, the money that we did or did not get over Marguerite Montgomery and King High was all building funds– which can not be used for programs nor can program money be used for building projects.
If you have never been in a district that does not tax itself to pay for school programs as Davis does, then please go visit one or talk to your friends because they look very different than ours. Look at certain Bay Area cities where the difference in programs offered from one school to another comes down to how much money the PTA can raise to buy the computer labs, pay music and art teachers, pay reading and math specialists etc etc.
A few weeks ago the administrator of this blog said it best– I am not quoting–when he said if you are angry with the school board have a protest– sit in or picket, but please do not take away from our children.
It is my understanding that allowing primary ed classrooms to exceed twenty students triggers a loss of state funds. At the same time, state funds do not fully support primary classes of only 20 students. Other districts that do not have parcel taxes are then forced to used general funds to make up the difference or lose state funding.
While I too am upset about the fiscal irresponsibility of our school district, I feel that it would be very irresponsible of us to reject Measure Q. School finance is very complicated, and I do not pretend to understand it all; but I do know that there are different pots of monies that can only be used to fund certain things. For instance, the money that we did or did not get over Marguerite Montgomery and King High was all building funds– which can not be used for programs nor can program money be used for building projects.
If you have never been in a district that does not tax itself to pay for school programs as Davis does, then please go visit one or talk to your friends because they look very different than ours. Look at certain Bay Area cities where the difference in programs offered from one school to another comes down to how much money the PTA can raise to buy the computer labs, pay music and art teachers, pay reading and math specialists etc etc.
A few weeks ago the administrator of this blog said it best– I am not quoting–when he said if you are angry with the school board have a protest– sit in or picket, but please do not take away from our children.
It is my understanding that allowing primary ed classrooms to exceed twenty students triggers a loss of state funds. At the same time, state funds do not fully support primary classes of only 20 students. Other districts that do not have parcel taxes are then forced to used general funds to make up the difference or lose state funding.
While I too am upset about the fiscal irresponsibility of our school district, I feel that it would be very irresponsible of us to reject Measure Q. School finance is very complicated, and I do not pretend to understand it all; but I do know that there are different pots of monies that can only be used to fund certain things. For instance, the money that we did or did not get over Marguerite Montgomery and King High was all building funds– which can not be used for programs nor can program money be used for building projects.
If you have never been in a district that does not tax itself to pay for school programs as Davis does, then please go visit one or talk to your friends because they look very different than ours. Look at certain Bay Area cities where the difference in programs offered from one school to another comes down to how much money the PTA can raise to buy the computer labs, pay music and art teachers, pay reading and math specialists etc etc.
A few weeks ago the administrator of this blog said it best– I am not quoting–when he said if you are angry with the school board have a protest– sit in or picket, but please do not take away from our children.
It is my understanding that allowing primary ed classrooms to exceed twenty students triggers a loss of state funds. At the same time, state funds do not fully support primary classes of only 20 students. Other districts that do not have parcel taxes are then forced to used general funds to make up the difference or lose state funding.
While I too am upset about the fiscal irresponsibility of our school district, I feel that it would be very irresponsible of us to reject Measure Q. School finance is very complicated, and I do not pretend to understand it all; but I do know that there are different pots of monies that can only be used to fund certain things. For instance, the money that we did or did not get over Marguerite Montgomery and King High was all building funds– which can not be used for programs nor can program money be used for building projects.
If you have never been in a district that does not tax itself to pay for school programs as Davis does, then please go visit one or talk to your friends because they look very different than ours. Look at certain Bay Area cities where the difference in programs offered from one school to another comes down to how much money the PTA can raise to buy the computer labs, pay music and art teachers, pay reading and math specialists etc etc.
A few weeks ago the administrator of this blog said it best– I am not quoting–when he said if you are angry with the school board have a protest– sit in or picket, but please do not take away from our children.
From a simply selfish perspective, the value of living in Davis, and the value of property we own, is tied to things such as quality schools, parks, and the like.
Investing in the schools, in addition to the very real needs of our kids, has a very real impact in the value of our homes.
So voting for any school or park funds is a no-brainer, since the yearly cost is vastly less than the subsequent increased value to our wallets in house values.
People move here for the schools, and that drives up our property values.
From a simply selfish perspective, the value of living in Davis, and the value of property we own, is tied to things such as quality schools, parks, and the like.
Investing in the schools, in addition to the very real needs of our kids, has a very real impact in the value of our homes.
So voting for any school or park funds is a no-brainer, since the yearly cost is vastly less than the subsequent increased value to our wallets in house values.
People move here for the schools, and that drives up our property values.
From a simply selfish perspective, the value of living in Davis, and the value of property we own, is tied to things such as quality schools, parks, and the like.
Investing in the schools, in addition to the very real needs of our kids, has a very real impact in the value of our homes.
So voting for any school or park funds is a no-brainer, since the yearly cost is vastly less than the subsequent increased value to our wallets in house values.
People move here for the schools, and that drives up our property values.
From a simply selfish perspective, the value of living in Davis, and the value of property we own, is tied to things such as quality schools, parks, and the like.
Investing in the schools, in addition to the very real needs of our kids, has a very real impact in the value of our homes.
So voting for any school or park funds is a no-brainer, since the yearly cost is vastly less than the subsequent increased value to our wallets in house values.
People move here for the schools, and that drives up our property values.
I agree with “skeptical” and feel much the same about Measure Q as I did about Measure G. Taxpayers paying for poor spending decisions and scare tactics used to get us to approve more money. I’m no on Q.
I agree with “skeptical” and feel much the same about Measure Q as I did about Measure G. Taxpayers paying for poor spending decisions and scare tactics used to get us to approve more money. I’m no on Q.
I agree with “skeptical” and feel much the same about Measure Q as I did about Measure G. Taxpayers paying for poor spending decisions and scare tactics used to get us to approve more money. I’m no on Q.
I agree with “skeptical” and feel much the same about Measure Q as I did about Measure G. Taxpayers paying for poor spending decisions and scare tactics used to get us to approve more money. I’m no on Q.
Unfortunately, I believe the majority of the school board, at least the co-chairs of Measure Q are not aware of how many of us are angry and disappointed in their various fiscal blunders. They do not seem tuned in to the city. They may be in for a surprise on Tuesday.
Unfortunately, I believe the majority of the school board, at least the co-chairs of Measure Q are not aware of how many of us are angry and disappointed in their various fiscal blunders. They do not seem tuned in to the city. They may be in for a surprise on Tuesday.
Unfortunately, I believe the majority of the school board, at least the co-chairs of Measure Q are not aware of how many of us are angry and disappointed in their various fiscal blunders. They do not seem tuned in to the city. They may be in for a surprise on Tuesday.
Unfortunately, I believe the majority of the school board, at least the co-chairs of Measure Q are not aware of how many of us are angry and disappointed in their various fiscal blunders. They do not seem tuned in to the city. They may be in for a surprise on Tuesday.
I don’t it, there is no organized resistance, no one signed an opposed ballot statement and none of the polling seems to indicate there is a problem.
I don’t it, there is no organized resistance, no one signed an opposed ballot statement and none of the polling seems to indicate there is a problem.
I don’t it, there is no organized resistance, no one signed an opposed ballot statement and none of the polling seems to indicate there is a problem.
I don’t it, there is no organized resistance, no one signed an opposed ballot statement and none of the polling seems to indicate there is a problem.
As a former student in the district and I student who gained from the passing of perviouse parcel taxes. Please support the students by voting for this parcel tax.
VOTE YES ON Q
As a former student in the district and I student who gained from the passing of perviouse parcel taxes. Please support the students by voting for this parcel tax.
VOTE YES ON Q
As a former student in the district and I student who gained from the passing of perviouse parcel taxes. Please support the students by voting for this parcel tax.
VOTE YES ON Q
As a former student in the district and I student who gained from the passing of perviouse parcel taxes. Please support the students by voting for this parcel tax.
VOTE YES ON Q
Poor spending habits? Fiscal irresponsibility? The current school board fixed that by replacing the people responsible, and restoring fiscal integrity. Thank them; don’t blame them.
Don’t take one’s frustrations out on the kids. Talk to the adults – the school administrators and trustees.
The previous school board extended the former superintendent’s contract just before the current board was seated. That’s why they are contractually bound to pay until the end of his contract.
Yes on Q
Poor spending habits? Fiscal irresponsibility? The current school board fixed that by replacing the people responsible, and restoring fiscal integrity. Thank them; don’t blame them.
Don’t take one’s frustrations out on the kids. Talk to the adults – the school administrators and trustees.
The previous school board extended the former superintendent’s contract just before the current board was seated. That’s why they are contractually bound to pay until the end of his contract.
Yes on Q
Poor spending habits? Fiscal irresponsibility? The current school board fixed that by replacing the people responsible, and restoring fiscal integrity. Thank them; don’t blame them.
Don’t take one’s frustrations out on the kids. Talk to the adults – the school administrators and trustees.
The previous school board extended the former superintendent’s contract just before the current board was seated. That’s why they are contractually bound to pay until the end of his contract.
Yes on Q
Poor spending habits? Fiscal irresponsibility? The current school board fixed that by replacing the people responsible, and restoring fiscal integrity. Thank them; don’t blame them.
Don’t take one’s frustrations out on the kids. Talk to the adults – the school administrators and trustees.
The previous school board extended the former superintendent’s contract just before the current board was seated. That’s why they are contractually bound to pay until the end of his contract.
Yes on Q
Vincente said…
I don’t it, there is no organized resistance, no one signed an opposed ballot statement and none of the polling seems to indicate there is a problem.
Vincente: A vote against Q is not necessarily a vote not to support our kids. Our Congress is trying to use their power of the purse to bring our troops home and they are attacked with a similar refrain..Support our troops! A failure of Measure Q which is described as absolutely essential will necessitate the new and old School Board members taking into account the critical minority that always was part of the 2/3 needed for passage but this time says NO. Another request for a school parcel tax could undoubtedly be presented at the next election opportunity.
Vincente said…
I don’t it, there is no organized resistance, no one signed an opposed ballot statement and none of the polling seems to indicate there is a problem.
Vincente: A vote against Q is not necessarily a vote not to support our kids. Our Congress is trying to use their power of the purse to bring our troops home and they are attacked with a similar refrain..Support our troops! A failure of Measure Q which is described as absolutely essential will necessitate the new and old School Board members taking into account the critical minority that always was part of the 2/3 needed for passage but this time says NO. Another request for a school parcel tax could undoubtedly be presented at the next election opportunity.
Vincente said…
I don’t it, there is no organized resistance, no one signed an opposed ballot statement and none of the polling seems to indicate there is a problem.
Vincente: A vote against Q is not necessarily a vote not to support our kids. Our Congress is trying to use their power of the purse to bring our troops home and they are attacked with a similar refrain..Support our troops! A failure of Measure Q which is described as absolutely essential will necessitate the new and old School Board members taking into account the critical minority that always was part of the 2/3 needed for passage but this time says NO. Another request for a school parcel tax could undoubtedly be presented at the next election opportunity.
Vincente said…
I don’t it, there is no organized resistance, no one signed an opposed ballot statement and none of the polling seems to indicate there is a problem.
Vincente: A vote against Q is not necessarily a vote not to support our kids. Our Congress is trying to use their power of the purse to bring our troops home and they are attacked with a similar refrain..Support our troops! A failure of Measure Q which is described as absolutely essential will necessitate the new and old School Board members taking into account the critical minority that always was part of the 2/3 needed for passage but this time says NO. Another request for a school parcel tax could undoubtedly be presented at the next election opportunity.
Facts straight said:
Don’t take one’s frustrations out on the kids. Talk to the adults – the school administrators and trustees.
Money talks
Facts straight said:
Don’t take one’s frustrations out on the kids. Talk to the adults – the school administrators and trustees.
Money talks
Facts straight said:
Don’t take one’s frustrations out on the kids. Talk to the adults – the school administrators and trustees.
Money talks
Facts straight said:
Don’t take one’s frustrations out on the kids. Talk to the adults – the school administrators and trustees.
Money talks
I don’t see the parellel between voting to remove our troops as a way of supporting them–obviously taking them out of harms way is a positive step–and removing a huge chunk of money from the district’s already stressed general fund. That would be a disaster.
I don’t see the parellel between voting to remove our troops as a way of supporting them–obviously taking them out of harms way is a positive step–and removing a huge chunk of money from the district’s already stressed general fund. That would be a disaster.
I don’t see the parellel between voting to remove our troops as a way of supporting them–obviously taking them out of harms way is a positive step–and removing a huge chunk of money from the district’s already stressed general fund. That would be a disaster.
I don’t see the parellel between voting to remove our troops as a way of supporting them–obviously taking them out of harms way is a positive step–and removing a huge chunk of money from the district’s already stressed general fund. That would be a disaster.
Vincente… the parallel is fairly obvious. Using the power of the purse to change the direction of an unresponsive administration.
Vincente… the parallel is fairly obvious. Using the power of the purse to change the direction of an unresponsive administration.
Vincente… the parallel is fairly obvious. Using the power of the purse to change the direction of an unresponsive administration.
Vincente… the parallel is fairly obvious. Using the power of the purse to change the direction of an unresponsive administration.
Right. Because true support for the troops means getting rid of the war and bringing them home. Just like true support for the kids means getting rid of their elective offerings, reading teachers, nutrition programs and other support.
Makes sense to me.
Right. Because true support for the troops means getting rid of the war and bringing them home. Just like true support for the kids means getting rid of their elective offerings, reading teachers, nutrition programs and other support.
Makes sense to me.
Right. Because true support for the troops means getting rid of the war and bringing them home. Just like true support for the kids means getting rid of their elective offerings, reading teachers, nutrition programs and other support.
Makes sense to me.
Right. Because true support for the troops means getting rid of the war and bringing them home. Just like true support for the kids means getting rid of their elective offerings, reading teachers, nutrition programs and other support.
Makes sense to me.
Sorry, but using the excuse that the money for facilities represents a different pot of money than the one delegated for personnel matters is in no way convincing. Valley Oak was slated to close at the same time a new elementary school will be built. Both are facilities, and funding to run them would come from the same pot of money. It was woefully bad fiscal planning to close one school while opening another, especially because Valley Oak serves a large portion of our minority students; had the BEST ELS program in the city; and people are angry enough to take matters into their own hands to make it a charter school to keep its doors open.
Valley Oak was supposed to close – despite all the tax increases we paid over the years. A bad Superintendent is still being paid even though he will not be working for an entire year – despite all the tax increases we paid over the years to obtain the best qualified administrators. Teachers are being paid less in our county than neighboring ones, a third of their salary going to health insurance – despite all the tax increases we paid over the years to obtain the best teachers. Truancy sweeps are being instituted to capture money lost through a decrease in average daily attendance – despite all the tax increases we paid over the years for programs to cut down on kids playing hooky from school. Kids are not eating properly, especially those on the free lunch program, necessitating the development of a new nutrition program – despite all the tax increases we paid for over the years…
So you explain to me how I can have confidence that if I vote for Measure Q, the new Superintendent won’t screw up; the School Board will do everything it can to support Valley Oak as a charter school, even though it will be to their financial detriment; existing successful programs like the the ELS program at Valley Oak won’t be scrapped to pay for huge administrative salaries; kids will start being served better food that they want to eat, especially those on the free lunch program; etc., etc., etc.???
All we are getting from the proponents of Measure Q is the same old rhetoric – “sit in or picket, but please do not take away from our children; don’t come back later and complain about the disparity in education programming after all the cuts are made; there are different pots of monies that can only be used to fund certain things; voting for any school or park funds is a no-brainer, since the yearly cost is vastly less than the subsequent increased value to our wallets in house values; please support the students by voting for this parcel tax; don’t take one’s frustrations out on the kids. Talk to the adults – the school administrators and trustees.”
Yet we have repeatedly voted for school tax increases over the years, and our children have SUFFERED in consequence – because we are not holding our School Board fiscally accountable, not to mention our School Administration. Good golly – our School Board could not even remember if they had set aside funding for King High after they had flattened it for reconstruction. School Board members had to actually go back and look at past video tapes of School Board meetings, only to discover OOPS, THEY FORGOT!!!
WE are not talking minor mistakes here, but ones of huge proportion, that may take the life of a neighborhood elementary school serving some of our most at-risk children. I am still waiting to be convinced to vote for Measure Q – I want solid evidence, not lip service, that things are going to change for the better. Where is reassurance from the new Superintendant? What systems are in place that will require compliance with sound fiscal policy no matter what stupid choice the School Board makes? The Oversight Committee – where are they in all this to reassure citizens? Hiding under their desks (pardon the pun) because either they were hand picked by the School Board or School Administration, or can only act in an advisory capacity, or a bit of both? WE NEED CHANGE FOR THE BETTER – and if that takes voting NO ON MEASURE Q to get the School Board to wake up and smell the rot, then so be it. The School Board/Administration needs to grow a backbone. If they won’t, then perhaps the taxpayers will have to do it for them.
My fear is that if citizens vote for Measure Q, it sends the School Board a clear message that BUSINESS AS USUAL IS OK…
Sorry, but using the excuse that the money for facilities represents a different pot of money than the one delegated for personnel matters is in no way convincing. Valley Oak was slated to close at the same time a new elementary school will be built. Both are facilities, and funding to run them would come from the same pot of money. It was woefully bad fiscal planning to close one school while opening another, especially because Valley Oak serves a large portion of our minority students; had the BEST ELS program in the city; and people are angry enough to take matters into their own hands to make it a charter school to keep its doors open.
Valley Oak was supposed to close – despite all the tax increases we paid over the years. A bad Superintendent is still being paid even though he will not be working for an entire year – despite all the tax increases we paid over the years to obtain the best qualified administrators. Teachers are being paid less in our county than neighboring ones, a third of their salary going to health insurance – despite all the tax increases we paid over the years to obtain the best teachers. Truancy sweeps are being instituted to capture money lost through a decrease in average daily attendance – despite all the tax increases we paid over the years for programs to cut down on kids playing hooky from school. Kids are not eating properly, especially those on the free lunch program, necessitating the development of a new nutrition program – despite all the tax increases we paid for over the years…
So you explain to me how I can have confidence that if I vote for Measure Q, the new Superintendent won’t screw up; the School Board will do everything it can to support Valley Oak as a charter school, even though it will be to their financial detriment; existing successful programs like the the ELS program at Valley Oak won’t be scrapped to pay for huge administrative salaries; kids will start being served better food that they want to eat, especially those on the free lunch program; etc., etc., etc.???
All we are getting from the proponents of Measure Q is the same old rhetoric – “sit in or picket, but please do not take away from our children; don’t come back later and complain about the disparity in education programming after all the cuts are made; there are different pots of monies that can only be used to fund certain things; voting for any school or park funds is a no-brainer, since the yearly cost is vastly less than the subsequent increased value to our wallets in house values; please support the students by voting for this parcel tax; don’t take one’s frustrations out on the kids. Talk to the adults – the school administrators and trustees.”
Yet we have repeatedly voted for school tax increases over the years, and our children have SUFFERED in consequence – because we are not holding our School Board fiscally accountable, not to mention our School Administration. Good golly – our School Board could not even remember if they had set aside funding for King High after they had flattened it for reconstruction. School Board members had to actually go back and look at past video tapes of School Board meetings, only to discover OOPS, THEY FORGOT!!!
WE are not talking minor mistakes here, but ones of huge proportion, that may take the life of a neighborhood elementary school serving some of our most at-risk children. I am still waiting to be convinced to vote for Measure Q – I want solid evidence, not lip service, that things are going to change for the better. Where is reassurance from the new Superintendant? What systems are in place that will require compliance with sound fiscal policy no matter what stupid choice the School Board makes? The Oversight Committee – where are they in all this to reassure citizens? Hiding under their desks (pardon the pun) because either they were hand picked by the School Board or School Administration, or can only act in an advisory capacity, or a bit of both? WE NEED CHANGE FOR THE BETTER – and if that takes voting NO ON MEASURE Q to get the School Board to wake up and smell the rot, then so be it. The School Board/Administration needs to grow a backbone. If they won’t, then perhaps the taxpayers will have to do it for them.
My fear is that if citizens vote for Measure Q, it sends the School Board a clear message that BUSINESS AS USUAL IS OK…
Sorry, but using the excuse that the money for facilities represents a different pot of money than the one delegated for personnel matters is in no way convincing. Valley Oak was slated to close at the same time a new elementary school will be built. Both are facilities, and funding to run them would come from the same pot of money. It was woefully bad fiscal planning to close one school while opening another, especially because Valley Oak serves a large portion of our minority students; had the BEST ELS program in the city; and people are angry enough to take matters into their own hands to make it a charter school to keep its doors open.
Valley Oak was supposed to close – despite all the tax increases we paid over the years. A bad Superintendent is still being paid even though he will not be working for an entire year – despite all the tax increases we paid over the years to obtain the best qualified administrators. Teachers are being paid less in our county than neighboring ones, a third of their salary going to health insurance – despite all the tax increases we paid over the years to obtain the best teachers. Truancy sweeps are being instituted to capture money lost through a decrease in average daily attendance – despite all the tax increases we paid over the years for programs to cut down on kids playing hooky from school. Kids are not eating properly, especially those on the free lunch program, necessitating the development of a new nutrition program – despite all the tax increases we paid for over the years…
So you explain to me how I can have confidence that if I vote for Measure Q, the new Superintendent won’t screw up; the School Board will do everything it can to support Valley Oak as a charter school, even though it will be to their financial detriment; existing successful programs like the the ELS program at Valley Oak won’t be scrapped to pay for huge administrative salaries; kids will start being served better food that they want to eat, especially those on the free lunch program; etc., etc., etc.???
All we are getting from the proponents of Measure Q is the same old rhetoric – “sit in or picket, but please do not take away from our children; don’t come back later and complain about the disparity in education programming after all the cuts are made; there are different pots of monies that can only be used to fund certain things; voting for any school or park funds is a no-brainer, since the yearly cost is vastly less than the subsequent increased value to our wallets in house values; please support the students by voting for this parcel tax; don’t take one’s frustrations out on the kids. Talk to the adults – the school administrators and trustees.”
Yet we have repeatedly voted for school tax increases over the years, and our children have SUFFERED in consequence – because we are not holding our School Board fiscally accountable, not to mention our School Administration. Good golly – our School Board could not even remember if they had set aside funding for King High after they had flattened it for reconstruction. School Board members had to actually go back and look at past video tapes of School Board meetings, only to discover OOPS, THEY FORGOT!!!
WE are not talking minor mistakes here, but ones of huge proportion, that may take the life of a neighborhood elementary school serving some of our most at-risk children. I am still waiting to be convinced to vote for Measure Q – I want solid evidence, not lip service, that things are going to change for the better. Where is reassurance from the new Superintendant? What systems are in place that will require compliance with sound fiscal policy no matter what stupid choice the School Board makes? The Oversight Committee – where are they in all this to reassure citizens? Hiding under their desks (pardon the pun) because either they were hand picked by the School Board or School Administration, or can only act in an advisory capacity, or a bit of both? WE NEED CHANGE FOR THE BETTER – and if that takes voting NO ON MEASURE Q to get the School Board to wake up and smell the rot, then so be it. The School Board/Administration needs to grow a backbone. If they won’t, then perhaps the taxpayers will have to do it for them.
My fear is that if citizens vote for Measure Q, it sends the School Board a clear message that BUSINESS AS USUAL IS OK…
Sorry, but using the excuse that the money for facilities represents a different pot of money than the one delegated for personnel matters is in no way convincing. Valley Oak was slated to close at the same time a new elementary school will be built. Both are facilities, and funding to run them would come from the same pot of money. It was woefully bad fiscal planning to close one school while opening another, especially because Valley Oak serves a large portion of our minority students; had the BEST ELS program in the city; and people are angry enough to take matters into their own hands to make it a charter school to keep its doors open.
Valley Oak was supposed to close – despite all the tax increases we paid over the years. A bad Superintendent is still being paid even though he will not be working for an entire year – despite all the tax increases we paid over the years to obtain the best qualified administrators. Teachers are being paid less in our county than neighboring ones, a third of their salary going to health insurance – despite all the tax increases we paid over the years to obtain the best teachers. Truancy sweeps are being instituted to capture money lost through a decrease in average daily attendance – despite all the tax increases we paid over the years for programs to cut down on kids playing hooky from school. Kids are not eating properly, especially those on the free lunch program, necessitating the development of a new nutrition program – despite all the tax increases we paid for over the years…
So you explain to me how I can have confidence that if I vote for Measure Q, the new Superintendent won’t screw up; the School Board will do everything it can to support Valley Oak as a charter school, even though it will be to their financial detriment; existing successful programs like the the ELS program at Valley Oak won’t be scrapped to pay for huge administrative salaries; kids will start being served better food that they want to eat, especially those on the free lunch program; etc., etc., etc.???
All we are getting from the proponents of Measure Q is the same old rhetoric – “sit in or picket, but please do not take away from our children; don’t come back later and complain about the disparity in education programming after all the cuts are made; there are different pots of monies that can only be used to fund certain things; voting for any school or park funds is a no-brainer, since the yearly cost is vastly less than the subsequent increased value to our wallets in house values; please support the students by voting for this parcel tax; don’t take one’s frustrations out on the kids. Talk to the adults – the school administrators and trustees.”
Yet we have repeatedly voted for school tax increases over the years, and our children have SUFFERED in consequence – because we are not holding our School Board fiscally accountable, not to mention our School Administration. Good golly – our School Board could not even remember if they had set aside funding for King High after they had flattened it for reconstruction. School Board members had to actually go back and look at past video tapes of School Board meetings, only to discover OOPS, THEY FORGOT!!!
WE are not talking minor mistakes here, but ones of huge proportion, that may take the life of a neighborhood elementary school serving some of our most at-risk children. I am still waiting to be convinced to vote for Measure Q – I want solid evidence, not lip service, that things are going to change for the better. Where is reassurance from the new Superintendant? What systems are in place that will require compliance with sound fiscal policy no matter what stupid choice the School Board makes? The Oversight Committee – where are they in all this to reassure citizens? Hiding under their desks (pardon the pun) because either they were hand picked by the School Board or School Administration, or can only act in an advisory capacity, or a bit of both? WE NEED CHANGE FOR THE BETTER – and if that takes voting NO ON MEASURE Q to get the School Board to wake up and smell the rot, then so be it. The School Board/Administration needs to grow a backbone. If they won’t, then perhaps the taxpayers will have to do it for them.
My fear is that if citizens vote for Measure Q, it sends the School Board a clear message that BUSINESS AS USUAL IS OK…
Skeptical:
We have the best rated schools in the region. ALL CHILDREN do better in davis than other communitys in our area.
Your argument is a bad one. I’m voting YES ON Q!
Skeptical:
We have the best rated schools in the region. ALL CHILDREN do better in davis than other communitys in our area.
Your argument is a bad one. I’m voting YES ON Q!
Skeptical:
We have the best rated schools in the region. ALL CHILDREN do better in davis than other communitys in our area.
Your argument is a bad one. I’m voting YES ON Q!
Skeptical:
We have the best rated schools in the region. ALL CHILDREN do better in davis than other communitys in our area.
Your argument is a bad one. I’m voting YES ON Q!
“We have the best rated schools in the region. ALL CHILDREN do better in davis than other communitys in our area.
Your argument is a bad one. I’m voting YES ON Q!”
Maybe you don’t mind paying for a Superintendent that does not work, and don’t mind if a neighborhood school is closed to make room for a new one elsewhere. Perhaps you could give a rip about the successful ELS program at Valley Oak that the School Board had no problem cancelling while paying exhorbitant salaries to administrators.
If we have the best rated schools in the area, it is in spite of the School Board and because a good number of the parents hold PHDs and are professors at UCD. College towns typically have better rated schools. So does that give a fiscal pass to irresponsible School Boards??? Apparently you seem to think so, but some of us cannot afford to waste our tax dollars in this way. And we do not want to see another school close as Valley Oak was slated to, nor tax dollars squandered. We also believe teachers should be getting better salaries, to ensure our children are getting the best education possible.
Don’t call my arguments bad, when you can’t come back with a decent answer for my concerns that holds any water. Empty rhetoric is just that, empty – and the very thing we are getting from the School Board.
If you want me to vote for Measure Q, then get the School Board to put systems in place to ensure more fiscal responsibility. So far I have not heard one good argument about any of my justified criticisms. Many other citizens are asking the same questions. In a meeting recently the question was raised as to why we are paying for two superintendents, with only one working. Citizens of Davis are fed up…
You go ahead and vote for Measure Q as is your right, and I will vote against unless I hear something to change my mind. That results in a 50/50 split – not the 2/3 majority needed to pass Measure Q.
“We have the best rated schools in the region. ALL CHILDREN do better in davis than other communitys in our area.
Your argument is a bad one. I’m voting YES ON Q!”
Maybe you don’t mind paying for a Superintendent that does not work, and don’t mind if a neighborhood school is closed to make room for a new one elsewhere. Perhaps you could give a rip about the successful ELS program at Valley Oak that the School Board had no problem cancelling while paying exhorbitant salaries to administrators.
If we have the best rated schools in the area, it is in spite of the School Board and because a good number of the parents hold PHDs and are professors at UCD. College towns typically have better rated schools. So does that give a fiscal pass to irresponsible School Boards??? Apparently you seem to think so, but some of us cannot afford to waste our tax dollars in this way. And we do not want to see another school close as Valley Oak was slated to, nor tax dollars squandered. We also believe teachers should be getting better salaries, to ensure our children are getting the best education possible.
Don’t call my arguments bad, when you can’t come back with a decent answer for my concerns that holds any water. Empty rhetoric is just that, empty – and the very thing we are getting from the School Board.
If you want me to vote for Measure Q, then get the School Board to put systems in place to ensure more fiscal responsibility. So far I have not heard one good argument about any of my justified criticisms. Many other citizens are asking the same questions. In a meeting recently the question was raised as to why we are paying for two superintendents, with only one working. Citizens of Davis are fed up…
You go ahead and vote for Measure Q as is your right, and I will vote against unless I hear something to change my mind. That results in a 50/50 split – not the 2/3 majority needed to pass Measure Q.
“We have the best rated schools in the region. ALL CHILDREN do better in davis than other communitys in our area.
Your argument is a bad one. I’m voting YES ON Q!”
Maybe you don’t mind paying for a Superintendent that does not work, and don’t mind if a neighborhood school is closed to make room for a new one elsewhere. Perhaps you could give a rip about the successful ELS program at Valley Oak that the School Board had no problem cancelling while paying exhorbitant salaries to administrators.
If we have the best rated schools in the area, it is in spite of the School Board and because a good number of the parents hold PHDs and are professors at UCD. College towns typically have better rated schools. So does that give a fiscal pass to irresponsible School Boards??? Apparently you seem to think so, but some of us cannot afford to waste our tax dollars in this way. And we do not want to see another school close as Valley Oak was slated to, nor tax dollars squandered. We also believe teachers should be getting better salaries, to ensure our children are getting the best education possible.
Don’t call my arguments bad, when you can’t come back with a decent answer for my concerns that holds any water. Empty rhetoric is just that, empty – and the very thing we are getting from the School Board.
If you want me to vote for Measure Q, then get the School Board to put systems in place to ensure more fiscal responsibility. So far I have not heard one good argument about any of my justified criticisms. Many other citizens are asking the same questions. In a meeting recently the question was raised as to why we are paying for two superintendents, with only one working. Citizens of Davis are fed up…
You go ahead and vote for Measure Q as is your right, and I will vote against unless I hear something to change my mind. That results in a 50/50 split – not the 2/3 majority needed to pass Measure Q.
“We have the best rated schools in the region. ALL CHILDREN do better in davis than other communitys in our area.
Your argument is a bad one. I’m voting YES ON Q!”
Maybe you don’t mind paying for a Superintendent that does not work, and don’t mind if a neighborhood school is closed to make room for a new one elsewhere. Perhaps you could give a rip about the successful ELS program at Valley Oak that the School Board had no problem cancelling while paying exhorbitant salaries to administrators.
If we have the best rated schools in the area, it is in spite of the School Board and because a good number of the parents hold PHDs and are professors at UCD. College towns typically have better rated schools. So does that give a fiscal pass to irresponsible School Boards??? Apparently you seem to think so, but some of us cannot afford to waste our tax dollars in this way. And we do not want to see another school close as Valley Oak was slated to, nor tax dollars squandered. We also believe teachers should be getting better salaries, to ensure our children are getting the best education possible.
Don’t call my arguments bad, when you can’t come back with a decent answer for my concerns that holds any water. Empty rhetoric is just that, empty – and the very thing we are getting from the School Board.
If you want me to vote for Measure Q, then get the School Board to put systems in place to ensure more fiscal responsibility. So far I have not heard one good argument about any of my justified criticisms. Many other citizens are asking the same questions. In a meeting recently the question was raised as to why we are paying for two superintendents, with only one working. Citizens of Davis are fed up…
You go ahead and vote for Measure Q as is your right, and I will vote against unless I hear something to change my mind. That results in a 50/50 split – not the 2/3 majority needed to pass Measure Q.
I do not think people will take a financial hit to improved the schools in the district AND save valley oak, maybe one but not both. I do not know all the details involved in a charter school but valley oak should come before all other school improvments.
Could the board have focused on valley oak and a measure to save it that the voters actually would vote for instead of measure Q.?
Anyone know?
just wondering–Would measure Q have any effect on the outcome of valley oak?
I do not think people will take a financial hit to improved the schools in the district AND save valley oak, maybe one but not both. I do not know all the details involved in a charter school but valley oak should come before all other school improvments.
Could the board have focused on valley oak and a measure to save it that the voters actually would vote for instead of measure Q.?
Anyone know?
just wondering–Would measure Q have any effect on the outcome of valley oak?
I do not think people will take a financial hit to improved the schools in the district AND save valley oak, maybe one but not both. I do not know all the details involved in a charter school but valley oak should come before all other school improvments.
Could the board have focused on valley oak and a measure to save it that the voters actually would vote for instead of measure Q.?
Anyone know?
just wondering–Would measure Q have any effect on the outcome of valley oak?
I do not think people will take a financial hit to improved the schools in the district AND save valley oak, maybe one but not both. I do not know all the details involved in a charter school but valley oak should come before all other school improvments.
Could the board have focused on valley oak and a measure to save it that the voters actually would vote for instead of measure Q.?
Anyone know?
just wondering–Would measure Q have any effect on the outcome of valley oak?
I am a parent of children at Valley Oak. Please vote yes on Q.
Of course it is frustrating that my kids will be forced to change schools and I have no idea where they will be next year.
However, don’t punish my kids, and all the other 8,400 kids in the district, because you are mad at the school board and administrators.
I already have one kid who is in danger of being held back this year. How is it going to help him and other kids if you vote against Q and class size increases from 20 to 30, and reading and math specialists and aids are no longer funded? Voting no on Q hurts kids!
If you disagree politically with the adults, deal with them. Campaign to get them fired or recalled. Don’t vote to make our education system worse (which is what a no on Q vote is). Many of you claim to care about the students at Valley Oak and the EL and other “at-risk” students, and claim to support Valley Oak kids. If it is true that you care about the kids, and it is not just cheep talk, than you should be voting and campaigning for Q.
The two administrators primarily responsible for recent terrible financial decisions are gone (thank goodness! But to get rid of the superintendent, the district had to buy out his contract. That is why they are paying two superintendants). Only 2 of the school board members who voted to build and open Korematsu are still on the school board, and they will be gone after this election because neither of them is even running for reelection.
Vote yes on Q.
Valley Oak parent
I am a parent of children at Valley Oak. Please vote yes on Q.
Of course it is frustrating that my kids will be forced to change schools and I have no idea where they will be next year.
However, don’t punish my kids, and all the other 8,400 kids in the district, because you are mad at the school board and administrators.
I already have one kid who is in danger of being held back this year. How is it going to help him and other kids if you vote against Q and class size increases from 20 to 30, and reading and math specialists and aids are no longer funded? Voting no on Q hurts kids!
If you disagree politically with the adults, deal with them. Campaign to get them fired or recalled. Don’t vote to make our education system worse (which is what a no on Q vote is). Many of you claim to care about the students at Valley Oak and the EL and other “at-risk” students, and claim to support Valley Oak kids. If it is true that you care about the kids, and it is not just cheep talk, than you should be voting and campaigning for Q.
The two administrators primarily responsible for recent terrible financial decisions are gone (thank goodness! But to get rid of the superintendent, the district had to buy out his contract. That is why they are paying two superintendants). Only 2 of the school board members who voted to build and open Korematsu are still on the school board, and they will be gone after this election because neither of them is even running for reelection.
Vote yes on Q.
Valley Oak parent
I am a parent of children at Valley Oak. Please vote yes on Q.
Of course it is frustrating that my kids will be forced to change schools and I have no idea where they will be next year.
However, don’t punish my kids, and all the other 8,400 kids in the district, because you are mad at the school board and administrators.
I already have one kid who is in danger of being held back this year. How is it going to help him and other kids if you vote against Q and class size increases from 20 to 30, and reading and math specialists and aids are no longer funded? Voting no on Q hurts kids!
If you disagree politically with the adults, deal with them. Campaign to get them fired or recalled. Don’t vote to make our education system worse (which is what a no on Q vote is). Many of you claim to care about the students at Valley Oak and the EL and other “at-risk” students, and claim to support Valley Oak kids. If it is true that you care about the kids, and it is not just cheep talk, than you should be voting and campaigning for Q.
The two administrators primarily responsible for recent terrible financial decisions are gone (thank goodness! But to get rid of the superintendent, the district had to buy out his contract. That is why they are paying two superintendants). Only 2 of the school board members who voted to build and open Korematsu are still on the school board, and they will be gone after this election because neither of them is even running for reelection.
Vote yes on Q.
Valley Oak parent
I am a parent of children at Valley Oak. Please vote yes on Q.
Of course it is frustrating that my kids will be forced to change schools and I have no idea where they will be next year.
However, don’t punish my kids, and all the other 8,400 kids in the district, because you are mad at the school board and administrators.
I already have one kid who is in danger of being held back this year. How is it going to help him and other kids if you vote against Q and class size increases from 20 to 30, and reading and math specialists and aids are no longer funded? Voting no on Q hurts kids!
If you disagree politically with the adults, deal with them. Campaign to get them fired or recalled. Don’t vote to make our education system worse (which is what a no on Q vote is). Many of you claim to care about the students at Valley Oak and the EL and other “at-risk” students, and claim to support Valley Oak kids. If it is true that you care about the kids, and it is not just cheep talk, than you should be voting and campaigning for Q.
The two administrators primarily responsible for recent terrible financial decisions are gone (thank goodness! But to get rid of the superintendent, the district had to buy out his contract. That is why they are paying two superintendants). Only 2 of the school board members who voted to build and open Korematsu are still on the school board, and they will be gone after this election because neither of them is even running for reelection.
Vote yes on Q.
Valley Oak parent
In a meeting recently the question was raised as to why we are paying for two superintendents, with only one working.
The answer to that question is simple. The Board was unhappy with the performance of the current one, so bought out his contract. I don’t know the details, but perhaps the district’s lawyers thought that would be cheaper than getting sued for breach of contract.
Few are 100% happy with all decisions of the Board, but cutting District funds is not going to solve those concerns, particularly the concerns about teachers being paid less than in neighboring districts.
I know I won’t convince you, anyway, but hopefully other readers will see the bigger picture.
In a meeting recently the question was raised as to why we are paying for two superintendents, with only one working.
The answer to that question is simple. The Board was unhappy with the performance of the current one, so bought out his contract. I don’t know the details, but perhaps the district’s lawyers thought that would be cheaper than getting sued for breach of contract.
Few are 100% happy with all decisions of the Board, but cutting District funds is not going to solve those concerns, particularly the concerns about teachers being paid less than in neighboring districts.
I know I won’t convince you, anyway, but hopefully other readers will see the bigger picture.
In a meeting recently the question was raised as to why we are paying for two superintendents, with only one working.
The answer to that question is simple. The Board was unhappy with the performance of the current one, so bought out his contract. I don’t know the details, but perhaps the district’s lawyers thought that would be cheaper than getting sued for breach of contract.
Few are 100% happy with all decisions of the Board, but cutting District funds is not going to solve those concerns, particularly the concerns about teachers being paid less than in neighboring districts.
I know I won’t convince you, anyway, but hopefully other readers will see the bigger picture.
In a meeting recently the question was raised as to why we are paying for two superintendents, with only one working.
The answer to that question is simple. The Board was unhappy with the performance of the current one, so bought out his contract. I don’t know the details, but perhaps the district’s lawyers thought that would be cheaper than getting sued for breach of contract.
Few are 100% happy with all decisions of the Board, but cutting District funds is not going to solve those concerns, particularly the concerns about teachers being paid less than in neighboring districts.
I know I won’t convince you, anyway, but hopefully other readers will see the bigger picture.
We have repeatedly paid tax increases for schools – but received fiscal irresponsibility for our troubles. If we repeatedly keep paying tax increases, we will keep receiving fiscal irresponsibility – because we send the message we will keep writing blank checks no matter what the School Board does.
The old mantra “don’t hurt our kids” doesn’t work anymore. It rings hollow. Despite tax increases paid over and over again, Valley Oak was slated for closure and those kids were hurt deeply. It has taken brave and courageous parents and teachers to circumvent the School Board’s bad decision, with the hope of making Valley Oak a charter school, that has truly made a difference. Tax increases did not do that!!!
If Measure Q were all about helping Valley Oak become an independent charter school, I would vote for it in a heartbeat!!!
We have repeatedly paid tax increases for schools – but received fiscal irresponsibility for our troubles. If we repeatedly keep paying tax increases, we will keep receiving fiscal irresponsibility – because we send the message we will keep writing blank checks no matter what the School Board does.
The old mantra “don’t hurt our kids” doesn’t work anymore. It rings hollow. Despite tax increases paid over and over again, Valley Oak was slated for closure and those kids were hurt deeply. It has taken brave and courageous parents and teachers to circumvent the School Board’s bad decision, with the hope of making Valley Oak a charter school, that has truly made a difference. Tax increases did not do that!!!
If Measure Q were all about helping Valley Oak become an independent charter school, I would vote for it in a heartbeat!!!
We have repeatedly paid tax increases for schools – but received fiscal irresponsibility for our troubles. If we repeatedly keep paying tax increases, we will keep receiving fiscal irresponsibility – because we send the message we will keep writing blank checks no matter what the School Board does.
The old mantra “don’t hurt our kids” doesn’t work anymore. It rings hollow. Despite tax increases paid over and over again, Valley Oak was slated for closure and those kids were hurt deeply. It has taken brave and courageous parents and teachers to circumvent the School Board’s bad decision, with the hope of making Valley Oak a charter school, that has truly made a difference. Tax increases did not do that!!!
If Measure Q were all about helping Valley Oak become an independent charter school, I would vote for it in a heartbeat!!!
We have repeatedly paid tax increases for schools – but received fiscal irresponsibility for our troubles. If we repeatedly keep paying tax increases, we will keep receiving fiscal irresponsibility – because we send the message we will keep writing blank checks no matter what the School Board does.
The old mantra “don’t hurt our kids” doesn’t work anymore. It rings hollow. Despite tax increases paid over and over again, Valley Oak was slated for closure and those kids were hurt deeply. It has taken brave and courageous parents and teachers to circumvent the School Board’s bad decision, with the hope of making Valley Oak a charter school, that has truly made a difference. Tax increases did not do that!!!
If Measure Q were all about helping Valley Oak become an independent charter school, I would vote for it in a heartbeat!!!
Economics 101 question: If you were an evil dictator and wanted to destroy a society, and but you could only impose one policy on one industry, what would you do?
Answer: Take the most important industry (education), and use police power to place it in the most inefficient model imaginable, i.e. a unionized government monopoly.
This is exactly what you people support!
Nice Job! You get an “A”!
Economics 101 question: If you were an evil dictator and wanted to destroy a society, and but you could only impose one policy on one industry, what would you do?
Answer: Take the most important industry (education), and use police power to place it in the most inefficient model imaginable, i.e. a unionized government monopoly.
This is exactly what you people support!
Nice Job! You get an “A”!
Economics 101 question: If you were an evil dictator and wanted to destroy a society, and but you could only impose one policy on one industry, what would you do?
Answer: Take the most important industry (education), and use police power to place it in the most inefficient model imaginable, i.e. a unionized government monopoly.
This is exactly what you people support!
Nice Job! You get an “A”!
Economics 101 question: If you were an evil dictator and wanted to destroy a society, and but you could only impose one policy on one industry, what would you do?
Answer: Take the most important industry (education), and use police power to place it in the most inefficient model imaginable, i.e. a unionized government monopoly.
This is exactly what you people support!
Nice Job! You get an “A”!
Interesting but way short of explanatory details.
Interesting but way short of explanatory details.
Interesting but way short of explanatory details.
Interesting but way short of explanatory details.
In the interest of public information:
The school superintendent’s contract is always renewed in the spring. It is ” hard item” that comes up on the agenda, yearly.
Every board votes to extend the current superintendent’s contract. If the board is dissatisfied with the superintendent, his contract is extended a mere one year. This time frame gives the district time to find a replacement, and for the current superintendent time to find another job.
It was not “a dirty trick” the former board played on the incoming board; Mr. Murphy’s contract was extended by majority vote.
Similarly, Mr. Hammond has been given a three year contract, even though two members of this current board are leaving. The new board will be no more “saddled” with the old board’s choice than the following board will be “saddled” with the incoming board’s pick.
In the spring of his second year on this contract, Mr.Hammond’s contract will come up for renewal, as usual.
A superintendent’s job is to advise the board. How the board votes, what they want to happen, is up to a majority board vote. The superintendent serves at the pleasure of the board.
Mr. Murphy is currently receiving $16006/mo. for doing nothing because this particular board felt they couldn’t trust him, and preferred to fire him, (buy him out) rather than work with him for a year.
The loss of M. Montgomery funds had nothing to do with Mr. Murphy’s departure. The lawsuit filed on behalf of Davis, and the sixty-six other districts who suffered similar denials of funds, was filed well in advance of this board’s tenure. Even without those funds, the district finished a ten year building plan in six years, and is still in the black. That is a direct result of previous board’s and superintendents’ financial prudence. Good thing considering the extensive renovations Emerson will need. Let’s hope these new board members are as conscientious stewards.
In the interest of public information:
The school superintendent’s contract is always renewed in the spring. It is ” hard item” that comes up on the agenda, yearly.
Every board votes to extend the current superintendent’s contract. If the board is dissatisfied with the superintendent, his contract is extended a mere one year. This time frame gives the district time to find a replacement, and for the current superintendent time to find another job.
It was not “a dirty trick” the former board played on the incoming board; Mr. Murphy’s contract was extended by majority vote.
Similarly, Mr. Hammond has been given a three year contract, even though two members of this current board are leaving. The new board will be no more “saddled” with the old board’s choice than the following board will be “saddled” with the incoming board’s pick.
In the spring of his second year on this contract, Mr.Hammond’s contract will come up for renewal, as usual.
A superintendent’s job is to advise the board. How the board votes, what they want to happen, is up to a majority board vote. The superintendent serves at the pleasure of the board.
Mr. Murphy is currently receiving $16006/mo. for doing nothing because this particular board felt they couldn’t trust him, and preferred to fire him, (buy him out) rather than work with him for a year.
The loss of M. Montgomery funds had nothing to do with Mr. Murphy’s departure. The lawsuit filed on behalf of Davis, and the sixty-six other districts who suffered similar denials of funds, was filed well in advance of this board’s tenure. Even without those funds, the district finished a ten year building plan in six years, and is still in the black. That is a direct result of previous board’s and superintendents’ financial prudence. Good thing considering the extensive renovations Emerson will need. Let’s hope these new board members are as conscientious stewards.
In the interest of public information:
The school superintendent’s contract is always renewed in the spring. It is ” hard item” that comes up on the agenda, yearly.
Every board votes to extend the current superintendent’s contract. If the board is dissatisfied with the superintendent, his contract is extended a mere one year. This time frame gives the district time to find a replacement, and for the current superintendent time to find another job.
It was not “a dirty trick” the former board played on the incoming board; Mr. Murphy’s contract was extended by majority vote.
Similarly, Mr. Hammond has been given a three year contract, even though two members of this current board are leaving. The new board will be no more “saddled” with the old board’s choice than the following board will be “saddled” with the incoming board’s pick.
In the spring of his second year on this contract, Mr.Hammond’s contract will come up for renewal, as usual.
A superintendent’s job is to advise the board. How the board votes, what they want to happen, is up to a majority board vote. The superintendent serves at the pleasure of the board.
Mr. Murphy is currently receiving $16006/mo. for doing nothing because this particular board felt they couldn’t trust him, and preferred to fire him, (buy him out) rather than work with him for a year.
The loss of M. Montgomery funds had nothing to do with Mr. Murphy’s departure. The lawsuit filed on behalf of Davis, and the sixty-six other districts who suffered similar denials of funds, was filed well in advance of this board’s tenure. Even without those funds, the district finished a ten year building plan in six years, and is still in the black. That is a direct result of previous board’s and superintendents’ financial prudence. Good thing considering the extensive renovations Emerson will need. Let’s hope these new board members are as conscientious stewards.
In the interest of public information:
The school superintendent’s contract is always renewed in the spring. It is ” hard item” that comes up on the agenda, yearly.
Every board votes to extend the current superintendent’s contract. If the board is dissatisfied with the superintendent, his contract is extended a mere one year. This time frame gives the district time to find a replacement, and for the current superintendent time to find another job.
It was not “a dirty trick” the former board played on the incoming board; Mr. Murphy’s contract was extended by majority vote.
Similarly, Mr. Hammond has been given a three year contract, even though two members of this current board are leaving. The new board will be no more “saddled” with the old board’s choice than the following board will be “saddled” with the incoming board’s pick.
In the spring of his second year on this contract, Mr.Hammond’s contract will come up for renewal, as usual.
A superintendent’s job is to advise the board. How the board votes, what they want to happen, is up to a majority board vote. The superintendent serves at the pleasure of the board.
Mr. Murphy is currently receiving $16006/mo. for doing nothing because this particular board felt they couldn’t trust him, and preferred to fire him, (buy him out) rather than work with him for a year.
The loss of M. Montgomery funds had nothing to do with Mr. Murphy’s departure. The lawsuit filed on behalf of Davis, and the sixty-six other districts who suffered similar denials of funds, was filed well in advance of this board’s tenure. Even without those funds, the district finished a ten year building plan in six years, and is still in the black. That is a direct result of previous board’s and superintendents’ financial prudence. Good thing considering the extensive renovations Emerson will need. Let’s hope these new board members are as conscientious stewards.
“It is ” hard item” that comes up on the agenda, yearly. “
That’s not true, they signed him to a three year contract, not a one year contract.
“Similarly, Mr. Hammond has been given a three year contract, even though two members of this current board are leaving. The new board will be no more “saddled” with the old board’s choice than the following board will be “saddled” with the incoming board’s pick.”
That’s not true either. In order for them to terminate his contract, they would have to buy him out. In essence they have been saddled with the pick. The difference between then and now is that Murphy was extended with a 4-1 vote, three of whom would no longer be on the board. Hammond was hired with a 5-0 vote, the majority of whom will remain on the board. That is a substantial difference, although BJ Kline admittedly had no way of knowing that he would lose.
“The loss of M. Montgomery funds had nothing to do with Mr. Murphy’s departure. “
The lose had much to do with eventual firing, his reliance and trust in Tahir even as Tahir was working a private ed consulting business on the side and thus missed key deadlines.
The recoup may have had something to do with his firing as the board had to show they had put the district in financial order in order to recoup the money.
“It is ” hard item” that comes up on the agenda, yearly. “
That’s not true, they signed him to a three year contract, not a one year contract.
“Similarly, Mr. Hammond has been given a three year contract, even though two members of this current board are leaving. The new board will be no more “saddled” with the old board’s choice than the following board will be “saddled” with the incoming board’s pick.”
That’s not true either. In order for them to terminate his contract, they would have to buy him out. In essence they have been saddled with the pick. The difference between then and now is that Murphy was extended with a 4-1 vote, three of whom would no longer be on the board. Hammond was hired with a 5-0 vote, the majority of whom will remain on the board. That is a substantial difference, although BJ Kline admittedly had no way of knowing that he would lose.
“The loss of M. Montgomery funds had nothing to do with Mr. Murphy’s departure. “
The lose had much to do with eventual firing, his reliance and trust in Tahir even as Tahir was working a private ed consulting business on the side and thus missed key deadlines.
The recoup may have had something to do with his firing as the board had to show they had put the district in financial order in order to recoup the money.
“It is ” hard item” that comes up on the agenda, yearly. “
That’s not true, they signed him to a three year contract, not a one year contract.
“Similarly, Mr. Hammond has been given a three year contract, even though two members of this current board are leaving. The new board will be no more “saddled” with the old board’s choice than the following board will be “saddled” with the incoming board’s pick.”
That’s not true either. In order for them to terminate his contract, they would have to buy him out. In essence they have been saddled with the pick. The difference between then and now is that Murphy was extended with a 4-1 vote, three of whom would no longer be on the board. Hammond was hired with a 5-0 vote, the majority of whom will remain on the board. That is a substantial difference, although BJ Kline admittedly had no way of knowing that he would lose.
“The loss of M. Montgomery funds had nothing to do with Mr. Murphy’s departure. “
The lose had much to do with eventual firing, his reliance and trust in Tahir even as Tahir was working a private ed consulting business on the side and thus missed key deadlines.
The recoup may have had something to do with his firing as the board had to show they had put the district in financial order in order to recoup the money.
“It is ” hard item” that comes up on the agenda, yearly. “
That’s not true, they signed him to a three year contract, not a one year contract.
“Similarly, Mr. Hammond has been given a three year contract, even though two members of this current board are leaving. The new board will be no more “saddled” with the old board’s choice than the following board will be “saddled” with the incoming board’s pick.”
That’s not true either. In order for them to terminate his contract, they would have to buy him out. In essence they have been saddled with the pick. The difference between then and now is that Murphy was extended with a 4-1 vote, three of whom would no longer be on the board. Hammond was hired with a 5-0 vote, the majority of whom will remain on the board. That is a substantial difference, although BJ Kline admittedly had no way of knowing that he would lose.
“The loss of M. Montgomery funds had nothing to do with Mr. Murphy’s departure. “
The lose had much to do with eventual firing, his reliance and trust in Tahir even as Tahir was working a private ed consulting business on the side and thus missed key deadlines.
The recoup may have had something to do with his firing as the board had to show they had put the district in financial order in order to recoup the money.
a little background:
The district did not “miss” a key deadline in filing for matching funds for MME. The application was turned in on time and sent back with a request for information under an obscure, little-used regulation. All of our other matching funds applications were processed without this information. (Patwin, Harper, and $4.2 million invested in Valley Oak upgrades for example.) Sixty plus districts across the state had their applications returned for the same reason.
When the application was resubmitted, with the requested information, the Davis demographics had changed, making DJUSD ineligible for as much funding as originally requested. The DJUSD, and the sixty odd other districts around the state, sued the state and eventually won in a state supreme court decision.
In the meantime, MME and FTKE were completed without those funds. The DJUSD now has a $4.5 million building fund to work with. This “recoup” was a legal decision by the civil courts and not contingent on any district departmental house cleaning.
BTW: I believe the Enterprise reported the district is showing a surplus in it’s general operating expenses after the previous board/administration’s conservative financial planning. There does seem to be an awful lot of unallocated operating funds for new personnel positoons, no? Additionslly, within the last six years of state budget cuts, Davis has not laid off one teacher. Most of our neighboring districts can’t same the same. DJUSD “kept it from affecting the classroom.” I think those priorities in hard times are to be commended, and imitated.
Mr. Ahad was hired by the district, part-time, with the stipulation that he would continue to operate his private educational consulting firm. Many of the state’s best educators joined DJUSD on contract because of him.
The current board didn’t care to work with Mr. Ahad and he tendered his resigation in Jan. 2006 for that June. This board had six months to find a replacement and didn’t. They didn’t trust Murphy’s advice and decided to do it on their own. Hence the DJUSD had no official financial superintendent for almost nine months. Mr. Ahad, using his accrued earned time off, was rarely in the office the last few months of his tenure with the district and left in June. Mr. Colby wasn’t hired until Sept.
The current board (short-sightedly)fired Mr. Ahad in a four to one vote the day before he was scheduled to leave. Unfortunately, they failed to get his books and final reports BEFORE firing him. The district was left adrift.
Calling in the state to sort out the books was a result of the board’s intemperate actions, not any financial malfeasance or shoddy accounting. All of the money was where it should have been. (King High’s 2.2 million is a good example.)
Many of the district’s personnel were contract workers who chose not to renew their contracts without Mr. Ahad on board.
I apologize for the mis statement.Mr. Murphy’s contract was extended for a three year term. (I cut and patsed and left out a paragraph.) It has been my experience that the hubris of an elected oficial is that he or she, knows what’s best for their public. Rarely do they hold off voting their best judgement, aaffecting posterity as far into the future as possible.
It remains to be seen for how long this current board will extend Mr. Hammond’s contract immediately before the next election. Ms. Allen, Ms. Daleiden, and Mr. Taylor may be the exceptions.
a little background:
The district did not “miss” a key deadline in filing for matching funds for MME. The application was turned in on time and sent back with a request for information under an obscure, little-used regulation. All of our other matching funds applications were processed without this information. (Patwin, Harper, and $4.2 million invested in Valley Oak upgrades for example.) Sixty plus districts across the state had their applications returned for the same reason.
When the application was resubmitted, with the requested information, the Davis demographics had changed, making DJUSD ineligible for as much funding as originally requested. The DJUSD, and the sixty odd other districts around the state, sued the state and eventually won in a state supreme court decision.
In the meantime, MME and FTKE were completed without those funds. The DJUSD now has a $4.5 million building fund to work with. This “recoup” was a legal decision by the civil courts and not contingent on any district departmental house cleaning.
BTW: I believe the Enterprise reported the district is showing a surplus in it’s general operating expenses after the previous board/administration’s conservative financial planning. There does seem to be an awful lot of unallocated operating funds for new personnel positoons, no? Additionslly, within the last six years of state budget cuts, Davis has not laid off one teacher. Most of our neighboring districts can’t same the same. DJUSD “kept it from affecting the classroom.” I think those priorities in hard times are to be commended, and imitated.
Mr. Ahad was hired by the district, part-time, with the stipulation that he would continue to operate his private educational consulting firm. Many of the state’s best educators joined DJUSD on contract because of him.
The current board didn’t care to work with Mr. Ahad and he tendered his resigation in Jan. 2006 for that June. This board had six months to find a replacement and didn’t. They didn’t trust Murphy’s advice and decided to do it on their own. Hence the DJUSD had no official financial superintendent for almost nine months. Mr. Ahad, using his accrued earned time off, was rarely in the office the last few months of his tenure with the district and left in June. Mr. Colby wasn’t hired until Sept.
The current board (short-sightedly)fired Mr. Ahad in a four to one vote the day before he was scheduled to leave. Unfortunately, they failed to get his books and final reports BEFORE firing him. The district was left adrift.
Calling in the state to sort out the books was a result of the board’s intemperate actions, not any financial malfeasance or shoddy accounting. All of the money was where it should have been. (King High’s 2.2 million is a good example.)
Many of the district’s personnel were contract workers who chose not to renew their contracts without Mr. Ahad on board.
I apologize for the mis statement.Mr. Murphy’s contract was extended for a three year term. (I cut and patsed and left out a paragraph.) It has been my experience that the hubris of an elected oficial is that he or she, knows what’s best for their public. Rarely do they hold off voting their best judgement, aaffecting posterity as far into the future as possible.
It remains to be seen for how long this current board will extend Mr. Hammond’s contract immediately before the next election. Ms. Allen, Ms. Daleiden, and Mr. Taylor may be the exceptions.
a little background:
The district did not “miss” a key deadline in filing for matching funds for MME. The application was turned in on time and sent back with a request for information under an obscure, little-used regulation. All of our other matching funds applications were processed without this information. (Patwin, Harper, and $4.2 million invested in Valley Oak upgrades for example.) Sixty plus districts across the state had their applications returned for the same reason.
When the application was resubmitted, with the requested information, the Davis demographics had changed, making DJUSD ineligible for as much funding as originally requested. The DJUSD, and the sixty odd other districts around the state, sued the state and eventually won in a state supreme court decision.
In the meantime, MME and FTKE were completed without those funds. The DJUSD now has a $4.5 million building fund to work with. This “recoup” was a legal decision by the civil courts and not contingent on any district departmental house cleaning.
BTW: I believe the Enterprise reported the district is showing a surplus in it’s general operating expenses after the previous board/administration’s conservative financial planning. There does seem to be an awful lot of unallocated operating funds for new personnel positoons, no? Additionslly, within the last six years of state budget cuts, Davis has not laid off one teacher. Most of our neighboring districts can’t same the same. DJUSD “kept it from affecting the classroom.” I think those priorities in hard times are to be commended, and imitated.
Mr. Ahad was hired by the district, part-time, with the stipulation that he would continue to operate his private educational consulting firm. Many of the state’s best educators joined DJUSD on contract because of him.
The current board didn’t care to work with Mr. Ahad and he tendered his resigation in Jan. 2006 for that June. This board had six months to find a replacement and didn’t. They didn’t trust Murphy’s advice and decided to do it on their own. Hence the DJUSD had no official financial superintendent for almost nine months. Mr. Ahad, using his accrued earned time off, was rarely in the office the last few months of his tenure with the district and left in June. Mr. Colby wasn’t hired until Sept.
The current board (short-sightedly)fired Mr. Ahad in a four to one vote the day before he was scheduled to leave. Unfortunately, they failed to get his books and final reports BEFORE firing him. The district was left adrift.
Calling in the state to sort out the books was a result of the board’s intemperate actions, not any financial malfeasance or shoddy accounting. All of the money was where it should have been. (King High’s 2.2 million is a good example.)
Many of the district’s personnel were contract workers who chose not to renew their contracts without Mr. Ahad on board.
I apologize for the mis statement.Mr. Murphy’s contract was extended for a three year term. (I cut and patsed and left out a paragraph.) It has been my experience that the hubris of an elected oficial is that he or she, knows what’s best for their public. Rarely do they hold off voting their best judgement, aaffecting posterity as far into the future as possible.
It remains to be seen for how long this current board will extend Mr. Hammond’s contract immediately before the next election. Ms. Allen, Ms. Daleiden, and Mr. Taylor may be the exceptions.
a little background:
The district did not “miss” a key deadline in filing for matching funds for MME. The application was turned in on time and sent back with a request for information under an obscure, little-used regulation. All of our other matching funds applications were processed without this information. (Patwin, Harper, and $4.2 million invested in Valley Oak upgrades for example.) Sixty plus districts across the state had their applications returned for the same reason.
When the application was resubmitted, with the requested information, the Davis demographics had changed, making DJUSD ineligible for as much funding as originally requested. The DJUSD, and the sixty odd other districts around the state, sued the state and eventually won in a state supreme court decision.
In the meantime, MME and FTKE were completed without those funds. The DJUSD now has a $4.5 million building fund to work with. This “recoup” was a legal decision by the civil courts and not contingent on any district departmental house cleaning.
BTW: I believe the Enterprise reported the district is showing a surplus in it’s general operating expenses after the previous board/administration’s conservative financial planning. There does seem to be an awful lot of unallocated operating funds for new personnel positoons, no? Additionslly, within the last six years of state budget cuts, Davis has not laid off one teacher. Most of our neighboring districts can’t same the same. DJUSD “kept it from affecting the classroom.” I think those priorities in hard times are to be commended, and imitated.
Mr. Ahad was hired by the district, part-time, with the stipulation that he would continue to operate his private educational consulting firm. Many of the state’s best educators joined DJUSD on contract because of him.
The current board didn’t care to work with Mr. Ahad and he tendered his resigation in Jan. 2006 for that June. This board had six months to find a replacement and didn’t. They didn’t trust Murphy’s advice and decided to do it on their own. Hence the DJUSD had no official financial superintendent for almost nine months. Mr. Ahad, using his accrued earned time off, was rarely in the office the last few months of his tenure with the district and left in June. Mr. Colby wasn’t hired until Sept.
The current board (short-sightedly)fired Mr. Ahad in a four to one vote the day before he was scheduled to leave. Unfortunately, they failed to get his books and final reports BEFORE firing him. The district was left adrift.
Calling in the state to sort out the books was a result of the board’s intemperate actions, not any financial malfeasance or shoddy accounting. All of the money was where it should have been. (King High’s 2.2 million is a good example.)
Many of the district’s personnel were contract workers who chose not to renew their contracts without Mr. Ahad on board.
I apologize for the mis statement.Mr. Murphy’s contract was extended for a three year term. (I cut and patsed and left out a paragraph.) It has been my experience that the hubris of an elected oficial is that he or she, knows what’s best for their public. Rarely do they hold off voting their best judgement, aaffecting posterity as far into the future as possible.
It remains to be seen for how long this current board will extend Mr. Hammond’s contract immediately before the next election. Ms. Allen, Ms. Daleiden, and Mr. Taylor may be the exceptions.