In the coming days, I will speak to what this means and what it does not mean. Right now, let us just say that the people of Davis have spoken in a way that the few on the blog who have been dissenters all along cannot speak. Just as the people stepped up last spring to prevent disaster, the voters have stepped up to do the same. There will not be teacher layoffs, not this year, not in this school district.
Meanwhile, I would be loathe to mention that the Charter City concept rightly went down to defeat and back to the drawing board. The solace that backers of a better charter might take is that it was a narrow defeat, at least in comparison to the victory of W. Just 2000 votes separated yay from nay. And so, if Councilmember Lamar Heystek and Stephen Souza are so inclined, we can have a real public process this time and put a good measure on the ballot, that all of us can get behind. Measure N was not that measure.
But this morning belongs to Measure W and its backers. The Vanguard spoke by phone last night when it was not certain that W had passed, but it looked like it would.
Janet Berry has twice saved this schools district. First as the head of the Davis Schools Foundation and then as the Co-Chair of the Yes on Measure W committee.
“I am encouraged by the early returns and the fact that the community is really coming together and showing that it values education.”
School board member Gina Daleiden who called me around 5 pm to tell me that they had won this election, but she did not want that said at the time with three hours to go before the ballots even closed. She told me at midnight last night:
“I’m thankful that we live in a community that truly values education. When times are difficult our community steps up and supports our children and our schools. “
She then added:
“This one of the broadest coalitions I’ve ever seen behind a campaign. I think that that’s quite a testament to the school support that our community gives to education and our schools. “
She pointed out the support of the Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Business, Yolo Taxpayers Association, all of the PTAs, the Realitors, the Aggie, the Sacramento Bee, the Enterprise, the Vanguard, you name it.
Finally after 1 pm last night, the Vanguard spoke with District Superintendent James Hammond.
First, the Vanguard asked the Superintendent how he felt at this time:
“With the preliminary numbers, I’m obviously encouraged. I am definitely feeling good about our ability to weather the financial instability of the state and try to at least protect certain programs and protect any significant cuts that would affect the district in the future. Obviously there are no guarantees, because we now have to wait to see what the January budget from the governor states. But we’re definitely in the position to take local control of the programs that our community is accustomed to having. “
The Vanguard then asked him what the future held with the prospects for the state budget looking very bleak in the foreseeable future:
“We obviously are going to have to keep a very close eye on how the state’s budget is going to create a local impact for us here in the district. We definitely want to make sure that we have a good understanding of the revenues that the state is following short on in its projections if any midyear cuts are forced upon us. Also at the same time, try to build a reserve to try to be able to spread it over a multiyear budget we are required to submit.”
Finally, the Vanguard asked him if there was a possibility with a bad budget forecast of future parcel taxes, a possibility he immediately and clear discounted.
“You know, I don’t see that being a realistic meaneuver any time in the very near future. We’ve already gone to our community two years in a row , but obviously that’s ultimately a board decision. In the near foreseeable future, I don’t see that being a consideration.”
The people of the district have shown overwhelming support once again for the district and for education. However, it should not be viewed as any kind of blank check. More than a year ago, many people eventually voted for this measure because they believe in education and have always voted to support education. But there seemed from so many I talked to, mixed feelings about a number of topics.
We will talk about this later in the week. In the meantime, the district deserves not so much to celebrate but to take a collective breath. It has indeed been a very long year for the district and the district with this vote survives though it will not prosper, not with the governor already threatening additional cuts and the people of Davis about tapped out.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The people of Davis have been tapped out for a long while. Only credit has been keeping them afloat and we know how well that is going to hold up going forward.
The people of Davis have been tapped out for a long while. Only credit has been keeping them afloat and we know how well that is going to hold up going forward.
The people of Davis have been tapped out for a long while. Only credit has been keeping them afloat and we know how well that is going to hold up going forward.
The people of Davis have been tapped out for a long while. Only credit has been keeping them afloat and we know how well that is going to hold up going forward.
Not sure where you are getting that idea, pred old timer, because if the people feel tapped out they sure didn’t show it at the ballot box yesterday.
This was a better result than I expected. Measure Q failed in four (consolidated) precincts last year. Measure W failed only in two precincts.
I agree that passage of Measure W is the limit of what the community can be asked to do at this point.
But I still fear that the state mid-year cuts and next year’s budget will still affect the district. But with the passage of Measure W, Davis is in a much better position than most other districts in the state.
Not sure where you are getting that idea, pred old timer, because if the people feel tapped out they sure didn’t show it at the ballot box yesterday.
This was a better result than I expected. Measure Q failed in four (consolidated) precincts last year. Measure W failed only in two precincts.
I agree that passage of Measure W is the limit of what the community can be asked to do at this point.
But I still fear that the state mid-year cuts and next year’s budget will still affect the district. But with the passage of Measure W, Davis is in a much better position than most other districts in the state.
Not sure where you are getting that idea, pred old timer, because if the people feel tapped out they sure didn’t show it at the ballot box yesterday.
This was a better result than I expected. Measure Q failed in four (consolidated) precincts last year. Measure W failed only in two precincts.
I agree that passage of Measure W is the limit of what the community can be asked to do at this point.
But I still fear that the state mid-year cuts and next year’s budget will still affect the district. But with the passage of Measure W, Davis is in a much better position than most other districts in the state.
Not sure where you are getting that idea, pred old timer, because if the people feel tapped out they sure didn’t show it at the ballot box yesterday.
This was a better result than I expected. Measure Q failed in four (consolidated) precincts last year. Measure W failed only in two precincts.
I agree that passage of Measure W is the limit of what the community can be asked to do at this point.
But I still fear that the state mid-year cuts and next year’s budget will still affect the district. But with the passage of Measure W, Davis is in a much better position than most other districts in the state.
Measure W did pass by a huge margin, but taxpayers are tapped out. If the DJUSD asks for more money over the next several years, after this most recent bailout, I predict a resounding NO vote.
Additionally, voters will be keeping a close eye on whether the DJUSD wisely spends the extra money we just granted them.
We have many DJUSD add-ons on our property tax bills and, as each one comes up for renewal,voters will consider them within the framework of how Measure W funds are spent. Spend it wisely, folks!
Measure W did pass by a huge margin, but taxpayers are tapped out. If the DJUSD asks for more money over the next several years, after this most recent bailout, I predict a resounding NO vote.
Additionally, voters will be keeping a close eye on whether the DJUSD wisely spends the extra money we just granted them.
We have many DJUSD add-ons on our property tax bills and, as each one comes up for renewal,voters will consider them within the framework of how Measure W funds are spent. Spend it wisely, folks!
Measure W did pass by a huge margin, but taxpayers are tapped out. If the DJUSD asks for more money over the next several years, after this most recent bailout, I predict a resounding NO vote.
Additionally, voters will be keeping a close eye on whether the DJUSD wisely spends the extra money we just granted them.
We have many DJUSD add-ons on our property tax bills and, as each one comes up for renewal,voters will consider them within the framework of how Measure W funds are spent. Spend it wisely, folks!
Measure W did pass by a huge margin, but taxpayers are tapped out. If the DJUSD asks for more money over the next several years, after this most recent bailout, I predict a resounding NO vote.
Additionally, voters will be keeping a close eye on whether the DJUSD wisely spends the extra money we just granted them.
We have many DJUSD add-ons on our property tax bills and, as each one comes up for renewal,voters will consider them within the framework of how Measure W funds are spent. Spend it wisely, folks!
Once again the concept of a parcel tax seems to escape you, namely that the funds for a parcel tax are already spent and were already spent as soon as the item was placed on the ballot. The district has no leeway.
Once again the concept of a parcel tax seems to escape you, namely that the funds for a parcel tax are already spent and were already spent as soon as the item was placed on the ballot. The district has no leeway.
Once again the concept of a parcel tax seems to escape you, namely that the funds for a parcel tax are already spent and were already spent as soon as the item was placed on the ballot. The district has no leeway.
Once again the concept of a parcel tax seems to escape you, namely that the funds for a parcel tax are already spent and were already spent as soon as the item was placed on the ballot. The district has no leeway.
David: Did you party too long last night? Blurred vision?
A narrow defeat for Measure N? Give me a break. The NO on N folks were so surprised by the late, vague wording of Measure N that they didn't even have time to submit a ballot argument against.
Tell me the last time any city ballot measure was defeated without a ballot argument against. (Futile search: never happened.)
A "narrow" victory for NO on N? Are you on the 4th or 5th rock from the Sun? Even with Lamar & Souza catering to student voters, and a record student turn-out "N" lost by nearly 2,000 votes. Not your best call, David.
David: Did you party too long last night? Blurred vision?
A narrow defeat for Measure N? Give me a break. The NO on N folks were so surprised by the late, vague wording of Measure N that they didn't even have time to submit a ballot argument against.
Tell me the last time any city ballot measure was defeated without a ballot argument against. (Futile search: never happened.)
A "narrow" victory for NO on N? Are you on the 4th or 5th rock from the Sun? Even with Lamar & Souza catering to student voters, and a record student turn-out "N" lost by nearly 2,000 votes. Not your best call, David.
David: Did you party too long last night? Blurred vision?
A narrow defeat for Measure N? Give me a break. The NO on N folks were so surprised by the late, vague wording of Measure N that they didn't even have time to submit a ballot argument against.
Tell me the last time any city ballot measure was defeated without a ballot argument against. (Futile search: never happened.)
A "narrow" victory for NO on N? Are you on the 4th or 5th rock from the Sun? Even with Lamar & Souza catering to student voters, and a record student turn-out "N" lost by nearly 2,000 votes. Not your best call, David.
David: Did you party too long last night? Blurred vision?
A narrow defeat for Measure N? Give me a break. The NO on N folks were so surprised by the late, vague wording of Measure N that they didn't even have time to submit a ballot argument against.
Tell me the last time any city ballot measure was defeated without a ballot argument against. (Futile search: never happened.)
A "narrow" victory for NO on N? Are you on the 4th or 5th rock from the Sun? Even with Lamar & Souza catering to student voters, and a record student turn-out "N" lost by nearly 2,000 votes. Not your best call, David.
This is not my final word on N, but 2000 votes compared to the 14,000 vote triumph for W looks narrow after three hours of sleep.
This is not my final word on N, but 2000 votes compared to the 14,000 vote triumph for W looks narrow after three hours of sleep.
This is not my final word on N, but 2000 votes compared to the 14,000 vote triumph for W looks narrow after three hours of sleep.
This is not my final word on N, but 2000 votes compared to the 14,000 vote triumph for W looks narrow after three hours of sleep.
“If the DJUSD asks for more money over the next several years, after this most recent bailout, I predict a resounding NO vote.”
Both Measure Q and W expire at the same time in 2011. There will probably be a request for a renewal of some sort, as there has been at 4 year intervals for the past 24 years. I don’t think the district/board will ask for anything before then.
If you are predicting a resounding NO vote for the renewal, I would just point out that there were some very confident predictions for a resound defeat of Measure W made here. A school parcel tax has never been defeated in Davis, although at least one school bond issue did in ~1999.
It would be very smart if the district were able to get its finances in order so that a renewal parcel tax were notably less than the sum of both Q and W.
“Additionally, voters will be keeping a close eye on whether the DJUSD wisely spends the extra money we just granted them.
We have many DJUSD add-ons on our property tax bills and, as each one comes up for renewal,voters will consider them within the framework of how Measure W funds are spent. Spend it wisely, folks!”
Apart from what “tired of explaining…” said, I would add that in three years Davis voters will be able to see if continued funding of the specified programs added value to the district. By that point, there may also be plenty of comparisons available to other districts that were not as able to prepare for the pending budget storm.
“If the DJUSD asks for more money over the next several years, after this most recent bailout, I predict a resounding NO vote.”
Both Measure Q and W expire at the same time in 2011. There will probably be a request for a renewal of some sort, as there has been at 4 year intervals for the past 24 years. I don’t think the district/board will ask for anything before then.
If you are predicting a resounding NO vote for the renewal, I would just point out that there were some very confident predictions for a resound defeat of Measure W made here. A school parcel tax has never been defeated in Davis, although at least one school bond issue did in ~1999.
It would be very smart if the district were able to get its finances in order so that a renewal parcel tax were notably less than the sum of both Q and W.
“Additionally, voters will be keeping a close eye on whether the DJUSD wisely spends the extra money we just granted them.
We have many DJUSD add-ons on our property tax bills and, as each one comes up for renewal,voters will consider them within the framework of how Measure W funds are spent. Spend it wisely, folks!”
Apart from what “tired of explaining…” said, I would add that in three years Davis voters will be able to see if continued funding of the specified programs added value to the district. By that point, there may also be plenty of comparisons available to other districts that were not as able to prepare for the pending budget storm.
“If the DJUSD asks for more money over the next several years, after this most recent bailout, I predict a resounding NO vote.”
Both Measure Q and W expire at the same time in 2011. There will probably be a request for a renewal of some sort, as there has been at 4 year intervals for the past 24 years. I don’t think the district/board will ask for anything before then.
If you are predicting a resounding NO vote for the renewal, I would just point out that there were some very confident predictions for a resound defeat of Measure W made here. A school parcel tax has never been defeated in Davis, although at least one school bond issue did in ~1999.
It would be very smart if the district were able to get its finances in order so that a renewal parcel tax were notably less than the sum of both Q and W.
“Additionally, voters will be keeping a close eye on whether the DJUSD wisely spends the extra money we just granted them.
We have many DJUSD add-ons on our property tax bills and, as each one comes up for renewal,voters will consider them within the framework of how Measure W funds are spent. Spend it wisely, folks!”
Apart from what “tired of explaining…” said, I would add that in three years Davis voters will be able to see if continued funding of the specified programs added value to the district. By that point, there may also be plenty of comparisons available to other districts that were not as able to prepare for the pending budget storm.
“If the DJUSD asks for more money over the next several years, after this most recent bailout, I predict a resounding NO vote.”
Both Measure Q and W expire at the same time in 2011. There will probably be a request for a renewal of some sort, as there has been at 4 year intervals for the past 24 years. I don’t think the district/board will ask for anything before then.
If you are predicting a resounding NO vote for the renewal, I would just point out that there were some very confident predictions for a resound defeat of Measure W made here. A school parcel tax has never been defeated in Davis, although at least one school bond issue did in ~1999.
It would be very smart if the district were able to get its finances in order so that a renewal parcel tax were notably less than the sum of both Q and W.
“Additionally, voters will be keeping a close eye on whether the DJUSD wisely spends the extra money we just granted them.
We have many DJUSD add-ons on our property tax bills and, as each one comes up for renewal,voters will consider them within the framework of how Measure W funds are spent. Spend it wisely, folks!”
Apart from what “tired of explaining…” said, I would add that in three years Davis voters will be able to see if continued funding of the specified programs added value to the district. By that point, there may also be plenty of comparisons available to other districts that were not as able to prepare for the pending budget storm.
… if Councilmember Lamar Heystek and Stephen Souza are so inclined, we can have a real public process this time and put a good measure on the ballot, that all of us can get behind.
I hope that this blog can become a forum for what such a “real public process” should look like. If that happens here, I have some thoughts I’d like to contribute.
Davis had a public process in 1996 in the form of a Governance Committee chosen by the city council, which recommended the sort of “broad” charter proposed in Measure N. Again in 2004-2005 Davis had a public process in the form of a Governance Task Force, appointed by the city council. Again, it recommended a “broad” charter if a charter proved necessary to implement its other recommendations. Since its other recommendations included choice voting, and in November 2006 the voters concurred with the Task Force on that issue, a charter proposal proved necessary.
In spite of this history, throughout the campaign opponents of Measure N insisted, among other things, that there hadn’t been a good enough public process to shape the proposed charter. They didn’t say much (if anything) about what sort of process they thought would be good enough. But they also didn’t criticize the composition or procedures of the 1996 and 2005 task forces, or say that anyone’s point of view had been ignored, or describe what was wrong with those efforts to have a public process.
How about it, Measure N opponents. What is your ideal public process for designing a charter proposal to put in front of the voters? The slate is empty. Let’s get started.
… if Councilmember Lamar Heystek and Stephen Souza are so inclined, we can have a real public process this time and put a good measure on the ballot, that all of us can get behind.
I hope that this blog can become a forum for what such a “real public process” should look like. If that happens here, I have some thoughts I’d like to contribute.
Davis had a public process in 1996 in the form of a Governance Committee chosen by the city council, which recommended the sort of “broad” charter proposed in Measure N. Again in 2004-2005 Davis had a public process in the form of a Governance Task Force, appointed by the city council. Again, it recommended a “broad” charter if a charter proved necessary to implement its other recommendations. Since its other recommendations included choice voting, and in November 2006 the voters concurred with the Task Force on that issue, a charter proposal proved necessary.
In spite of this history, throughout the campaign opponents of Measure N insisted, among other things, that there hadn’t been a good enough public process to shape the proposed charter. They didn’t say much (if anything) about what sort of process they thought would be good enough. But they also didn’t criticize the composition or procedures of the 1996 and 2005 task forces, or say that anyone’s point of view had been ignored, or describe what was wrong with those efforts to have a public process.
How about it, Measure N opponents. What is your ideal public process for designing a charter proposal to put in front of the voters? The slate is empty. Let’s get started.
… if Councilmember Lamar Heystek and Stephen Souza are so inclined, we can have a real public process this time and put a good measure on the ballot, that all of us can get behind.
I hope that this blog can become a forum for what such a “real public process” should look like. If that happens here, I have some thoughts I’d like to contribute.
Davis had a public process in 1996 in the form of a Governance Committee chosen by the city council, which recommended the sort of “broad” charter proposed in Measure N. Again in 2004-2005 Davis had a public process in the form of a Governance Task Force, appointed by the city council. Again, it recommended a “broad” charter if a charter proved necessary to implement its other recommendations. Since its other recommendations included choice voting, and in November 2006 the voters concurred with the Task Force on that issue, a charter proposal proved necessary.
In spite of this history, throughout the campaign opponents of Measure N insisted, among other things, that there hadn’t been a good enough public process to shape the proposed charter. They didn’t say much (if anything) about what sort of process they thought would be good enough. But they also didn’t criticize the composition or procedures of the 1996 and 2005 task forces, or say that anyone’s point of view had been ignored, or describe what was wrong with those efforts to have a public process.
How about it, Measure N opponents. What is your ideal public process for designing a charter proposal to put in front of the voters? The slate is empty. Let’s get started.
… if Councilmember Lamar Heystek and Stephen Souza are so inclined, we can have a real public process this time and put a good measure on the ballot, that all of us can get behind.
I hope that this blog can become a forum for what such a “real public process” should look like. If that happens here, I have some thoughts I’d like to contribute.
Davis had a public process in 1996 in the form of a Governance Committee chosen by the city council, which recommended the sort of “broad” charter proposed in Measure N. Again in 2004-2005 Davis had a public process in the form of a Governance Task Force, appointed by the city council. Again, it recommended a “broad” charter if a charter proved necessary to implement its other recommendations. Since its other recommendations included choice voting, and in November 2006 the voters concurred with the Task Force on that issue, a charter proposal proved necessary.
In spite of this history, throughout the campaign opponents of Measure N insisted, among other things, that there hadn’t been a good enough public process to shape the proposed charter. They didn’t say much (if anything) about what sort of process they thought would be good enough. But they also didn’t criticize the composition or procedures of the 1996 and 2005 task forces, or say that anyone’s point of view had been ignored, or describe what was wrong with those efforts to have a public process.
How about it, Measure N opponents. What is your ideal public process for designing a charter proposal to put in front of the voters? The slate is empty. Let’s get started.
“Let’s get started.”
What’s the hurry?
I’m also curious: apparently you live in Marin County and are sufficiently passionate about choice voting that you head some group that promotes it nationwide. Do you have a home or business in Davis? How are you familiar with what went on in Davis in 1996 and 2005 at those task force meetings? I’d refer you to Jon Li’s letter to the Enterprise last week on that subject.
In short, why do you care so much about how the city of Davis is governed?
“Let’s get started.”
What’s the hurry?
I’m also curious: apparently you live in Marin County and are sufficiently passionate about choice voting that you head some group that promotes it nationwide. Do you have a home or business in Davis? How are you familiar with what went on in Davis in 1996 and 2005 at those task force meetings? I’d refer you to Jon Li’s letter to the Enterprise last week on that subject.
In short, why do you care so much about how the city of Davis is governed?
“Let’s get started.”
What’s the hurry?
I’m also curious: apparently you live in Marin County and are sufficiently passionate about choice voting that you head some group that promotes it nationwide. Do you have a home or business in Davis? How are you familiar with what went on in Davis in 1996 and 2005 at those task force meetings? I’d refer you to Jon Li’s letter to the Enterprise last week on that subject.
In short, why do you care so much about how the city of Davis is governed?
“Let’s get started.”
What’s the hurry?
I’m also curious: apparently you live in Marin County and are sufficiently passionate about choice voting that you head some group that promotes it nationwide. Do you have a home or business in Davis? How are you familiar with what went on in Davis in 1996 and 2005 at those task force meetings? I’d refer you to Jon Li’s letter to the Enterprise last week on that subject.
In short, why do you care so much about how the city of Davis is governed?
This blog gave voice to every anti-tax cheapskate in town including the reactionary Lexicon Artist who had the audacity of dope to write an op-ed against W. All of these people have been repudiated by the voters of Davis.
This blog gave voice to every anti-tax cheapskate in town including the reactionary Lexicon Artist who had the audacity of dope to write an op-ed against W. All of these people have been repudiated by the voters of Davis.
This blog gave voice to every anti-tax cheapskate in town including the reactionary Lexicon Artist who had the audacity of dope to write an op-ed against W. All of these people have been repudiated by the voters of Davis.
This blog gave voice to every anti-tax cheapskate in town including the reactionary Lexicon Artist who had the audacity of dope to write an op-ed against W. All of these people have been repudiated by the voters of Davis.
Dweezil’s endorsement was what put Measure W over the top.
Dweezil’s endorsement was what put Measure W over the top.
Dweezil’s endorsement was what put Measure W over the top.
Dweezil’s endorsement was what put Measure W over the top.
Now I’m waiting for Ms. Crunch Lunch to give us some additional research and transparency on the scandal of offering fresh salad for school lunches!
Now I’m waiting for Ms. Crunch Lunch to give us some additional research and transparency on the scandal of offering fresh salad for school lunches!
Now I’m waiting for Ms. Crunch Lunch to give us some additional research and transparency on the scandal of offering fresh salad for school lunches!
Now I’m waiting for Ms. Crunch Lunch to give us some additional research and transparency on the scandal of offering fresh salad for school lunches!
Ms. Crunch Lunch wants to see if Emerson stays open. She is waiting to see…
And by the way, I was right on the money (pardon the pun) that the schools were paying a Davis author to give cooking lessons to cafeteria staff. IMHO, that is a colossal waste of money in tight budetary times. But more to the point, indicative of a system that thinks up new programs that then become “core” programs we must save at all costs (translation – another parcel tax).
I have no problem with parcel taxes wisely spent. I think every citizen will be much more aware of what budgeting problems are occurring, and how our school district/board is addressing them. If the school district tried to close Emerson now, I think they would have a town mutiny on their hands – which gives citizens a measure of power over what happens to its schools, no? I see that as a very positive outcome…
Furthermore, no one knows how I voted on Measure W. I see tough budgetary times ahead for our schools. But I also don’t think parcel taxes will pass muster as easily as before, IF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IS NOT MORE CAREFUL WITH ITS BUDGETING PROCESS.
Ms. Crunch Lunch wants to see if Emerson stays open. She is waiting to see…
And by the way, I was right on the money (pardon the pun) that the schools were paying a Davis author to give cooking lessons to cafeteria staff. IMHO, that is a colossal waste of money in tight budetary times. But more to the point, indicative of a system that thinks up new programs that then become “core” programs we must save at all costs (translation – another parcel tax).
I have no problem with parcel taxes wisely spent. I think every citizen will be much more aware of what budgeting problems are occurring, and how our school district/board is addressing them. If the school district tried to close Emerson now, I think they would have a town mutiny on their hands – which gives citizens a measure of power over what happens to its schools, no? I see that as a very positive outcome…
Furthermore, no one knows how I voted on Measure W. I see tough budgetary times ahead for our schools. But I also don’t think parcel taxes will pass muster as easily as before, IF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IS NOT MORE CAREFUL WITH ITS BUDGETING PROCESS.
Ms. Crunch Lunch wants to see if Emerson stays open. She is waiting to see…
And by the way, I was right on the money (pardon the pun) that the schools were paying a Davis author to give cooking lessons to cafeteria staff. IMHO, that is a colossal waste of money in tight budetary times. But more to the point, indicative of a system that thinks up new programs that then become “core” programs we must save at all costs (translation – another parcel tax).
I have no problem with parcel taxes wisely spent. I think every citizen will be much more aware of what budgeting problems are occurring, and how our school district/board is addressing them. If the school district tried to close Emerson now, I think they would have a town mutiny on their hands – which gives citizens a measure of power over what happens to its schools, no? I see that as a very positive outcome…
Furthermore, no one knows how I voted on Measure W. I see tough budgetary times ahead for our schools. But I also don’t think parcel taxes will pass muster as easily as before, IF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IS NOT MORE CAREFUL WITH ITS BUDGETING PROCESS.
Ms. Crunch Lunch wants to see if Emerson stays open. She is waiting to see…
And by the way, I was right on the money (pardon the pun) that the schools were paying a Davis author to give cooking lessons to cafeteria staff. IMHO, that is a colossal waste of money in tight budetary times. But more to the point, indicative of a system that thinks up new programs that then become “core” programs we must save at all costs (translation – another parcel tax).
I have no problem with parcel taxes wisely spent. I think every citizen will be much more aware of what budgeting problems are occurring, and how our school district/board is addressing them. If the school district tried to close Emerson now, I think they would have a town mutiny on their hands – which gives citizens a measure of power over what happens to its schools, no? I see that as a very positive outcome…
Furthermore, no one knows how I voted on Measure W. I see tough budgetary times ahead for our schools. But I also don’t think parcel taxes will pass muster as easily as before, IF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IS NOT MORE CAREFUL WITH ITS BUDGETING PROCESS.
“I was right on the money (pardon the pun) that the schools were paying a Davis author to give cooking lessons to cafeteria staff.”
You were not. The schools are not paying a Davis author to give cooking lessons to cafeteria staff.
“IMHO, that is a colossal waste of money in tight budetary times.”
Actually it is not a waste of money because the crunch lunch program was authorized through Measure Q, the money comes from measure Q and it cannot be spent in any other way.
Moreover, all evidence suggests that the crunch lunch program is a net money saver and that money would be available to other programs.
So you were incorrect on all three accounts.
“I was right on the money (pardon the pun) that the schools were paying a Davis author to give cooking lessons to cafeteria staff.”
You were not. The schools are not paying a Davis author to give cooking lessons to cafeteria staff.
“IMHO, that is a colossal waste of money in tight budetary times.”
Actually it is not a waste of money because the crunch lunch program was authorized through Measure Q, the money comes from measure Q and it cannot be spent in any other way.
Moreover, all evidence suggests that the crunch lunch program is a net money saver and that money would be available to other programs.
So you were incorrect on all three accounts.
“I was right on the money (pardon the pun) that the schools were paying a Davis author to give cooking lessons to cafeteria staff.”
You were not. The schools are not paying a Davis author to give cooking lessons to cafeteria staff.
“IMHO, that is a colossal waste of money in tight budetary times.”
Actually it is not a waste of money because the crunch lunch program was authorized through Measure Q, the money comes from measure Q and it cannot be spent in any other way.
Moreover, all evidence suggests that the crunch lunch program is a net money saver and that money would be available to other programs.
So you were incorrect on all three accounts.
“I was right on the money (pardon the pun) that the schools were paying a Davis author to give cooking lessons to cafeteria staff.”
You were not. The schools are not paying a Davis author to give cooking lessons to cafeteria staff.
“IMHO, that is a colossal waste of money in tight budetary times.”
Actually it is not a waste of money because the crunch lunch program was authorized through Measure Q, the money comes from measure Q and it cannot be spent in any other way.
Moreover, all evidence suggests that the crunch lunch program is a net money saver and that money would be available to other programs.
So you were incorrect on all three accounts.
IMHO, that is a colossal waste of money in tight budetary times.
How much is colossal? $500? $5000?
There will be a parcel tax oversight committee meeting tomorrow, by the way, 11 a.m., district office. It’s a public meeting. Info can be found here.
You can ask this specific question (“how much money has been spent to train cafeteria staff for this program”) at that meeting. If you find out anything, please let us all know. I think David G. said he would be there as well, so if you prove him wrong, you might have the personal pleasure of seeing “egg on his face” in person.
IMHO, that is a colossal waste of money in tight budetary times.
How much is colossal? $500? $5000?
There will be a parcel tax oversight committee meeting tomorrow, by the way, 11 a.m., district office. It’s a public meeting. Info can be found here.
You can ask this specific question (“how much money has been spent to train cafeteria staff for this program”) at that meeting. If you find out anything, please let us all know. I think David G. said he would be there as well, so if you prove him wrong, you might have the personal pleasure of seeing “egg on his face” in person.
IMHO, that is a colossal waste of money in tight budetary times.
How much is colossal? $500? $5000?
There will be a parcel tax oversight committee meeting tomorrow, by the way, 11 a.m., district office. It’s a public meeting. Info can be found here.
You can ask this specific question (“how much money has been spent to train cafeteria staff for this program”) at that meeting. If you find out anything, please let us all know. I think David G. said he would be there as well, so if you prove him wrong, you might have the personal pleasure of seeing “egg on his face” in person.
IMHO, that is a colossal waste of money in tight budetary times.
How much is colossal? $500? $5000?
There will be a parcel tax oversight committee meeting tomorrow, by the way, 11 a.m., district office. It’s a public meeting. Info can be found here.
You can ask this specific question (“how much money has been spent to train cafeteria staff for this program”) at that meeting. If you find out anything, please let us all know. I think David G. said he would be there as well, so if you prove him wrong, you might have the personal pleasure of seeing “egg on his face” in person.
“Ms. Crunch Lunch wants to see if Emerson stays open. She is waiting to see…”
If the state gives the district the same funding it gave last year (or better), I would presume it stays open.
If the state cuts back much further on education in next year’s budget, then I would presume that Emerson (or possibly another school) is in jeopardy).
And that all may depend on whether legislature will pass tax/revenue increases or not.
“Ms. Crunch Lunch wants to see if Emerson stays open. She is waiting to see…”
If the state gives the district the same funding it gave last year (or better), I would presume it stays open.
If the state cuts back much further on education in next year’s budget, then I would presume that Emerson (or possibly another school) is in jeopardy).
And that all may depend on whether legislature will pass tax/revenue increases or not.
“Ms. Crunch Lunch wants to see if Emerson stays open. She is waiting to see…”
If the state gives the district the same funding it gave last year (or better), I would presume it stays open.
If the state cuts back much further on education in next year’s budget, then I would presume that Emerson (or possibly another school) is in jeopardy).
And that all may depend on whether legislature will pass tax/revenue increases or not.
“Ms. Crunch Lunch wants to see if Emerson stays open. She is waiting to see…”
If the state gives the district the same funding it gave last year (or better), I would presume it stays open.
If the state cuts back much further on education in next year’s budget, then I would presume that Emerson (or possibly another school) is in jeopardy).
And that all may depend on whether legislature will pass tax/revenue increases or not.
In response to Don Shor, I need to clarify that I do not “head some group that promotes [choice voting] nationwide”. That group would be FairVote (http://www.fairvote.org). I am not formally affiliated with FairVote, I can’t speak for them, and they have zero responsibility for anything I say or do. Don’s choice of words makes it imperative that I make this understood. I am, however, active in Californians for Electoral Reform (http://www.cfer.org), with which the local organization in Marin, whose website I maintain, is affiliated. But I’m not speaking for CfER here, either.
Don notes that I appear to care deeply about choice voting. Yes, and that answers his question about why I’m so interested in how Davis is governed.
What’s the hurry? Well, if one were opposed to charters of any sort, then there wouldn’t be any hurry at all, would there? But it appears that many folks involved in discussions here would have liked a different charter proposal, just not this one. For them, I think it makes sense to start a discussion about process soon. First, because Measure N is fresh in everyone’s mind. Second, because a worthwhile effort to involve more citizens in the development of a new proposal would take quite a while to implement.
I had not seen Jon Li’s letter in the Enterprise — thanks for the lead. I attended the Task Force meeting in 2005 at which an authority on city charters in California, Peter Detwiler, gave a lengthy presentation and responded to questions. I also attended some of the subsequent meetings at which votes were taken on the recommendations. My recollection of these meetings differs from Jon’s.
Having participated in the Governance Task Force, perhaps Jon would like to share his thoughts on better ways to structure the “serious public discussion about a charter” that is needed if voters are to feel involved in process and well-informed about the issues. In another letter in the Enterprise, Measure N opponent Nancy Price refers us to something in Spokane, Washington called “Envision Spokane”. I haven’t looked it up yet, but I will. Suggesting models to study is a constructive step.
In response to Don Shor, I need to clarify that I do not “head some group that promotes [choice voting] nationwide”. That group would be FairVote (http://www.fairvote.org). I am not formally affiliated with FairVote, I can’t speak for them, and they have zero responsibility for anything I say or do. Don’s choice of words makes it imperative that I make this understood. I am, however, active in Californians for Electoral Reform (http://www.cfer.org), with which the local organization in Marin, whose website I maintain, is affiliated. But I’m not speaking for CfER here, either.
Don notes that I appear to care deeply about choice voting. Yes, and that answers his question about why I’m so interested in how Davis is governed.
What’s the hurry? Well, if one were opposed to charters of any sort, then there wouldn’t be any hurry at all, would there? But it appears that many folks involved in discussions here would have liked a different charter proposal, just not this one. For them, I think it makes sense to start a discussion about process soon. First, because Measure N is fresh in everyone’s mind. Second, because a worthwhile effort to involve more citizens in the development of a new proposal would take quite a while to implement.
I had not seen Jon Li’s letter in the Enterprise — thanks for the lead. I attended the Task Force meeting in 2005 at which an authority on city charters in California, Peter Detwiler, gave a lengthy presentation and responded to questions. I also attended some of the subsequent meetings at which votes were taken on the recommendations. My recollection of these meetings differs from Jon’s.
Having participated in the Governance Task Force, perhaps Jon would like to share his thoughts on better ways to structure the “serious public discussion about a charter” that is needed if voters are to feel involved in process and well-informed about the issues. In another letter in the Enterprise, Measure N opponent Nancy Price refers us to something in Spokane, Washington called “Envision Spokane”. I haven’t looked it up yet, but I will. Suggesting models to study is a constructive step.
In response to Don Shor, I need to clarify that I do not “head some group that promotes [choice voting] nationwide”. That group would be FairVote (http://www.fairvote.org). I am not formally affiliated with FairVote, I can’t speak for them, and they have zero responsibility for anything I say or do. Don’s choice of words makes it imperative that I make this understood. I am, however, active in Californians for Electoral Reform (http://www.cfer.org), with which the local organization in Marin, whose website I maintain, is affiliated. But I’m not speaking for CfER here, either.
Don notes that I appear to care deeply about choice voting. Yes, and that answers his question about why I’m so interested in how Davis is governed.
What’s the hurry? Well, if one were opposed to charters of any sort, then there wouldn’t be any hurry at all, would there? But it appears that many folks involved in discussions here would have liked a different charter proposal, just not this one. For them, I think it makes sense to start a discussion about process soon. First, because Measure N is fresh in everyone’s mind. Second, because a worthwhile effort to involve more citizens in the development of a new proposal would take quite a while to implement.
I had not seen Jon Li’s letter in the Enterprise — thanks for the lead. I attended the Task Force meeting in 2005 at which an authority on city charters in California, Peter Detwiler, gave a lengthy presentation and responded to questions. I also attended some of the subsequent meetings at which votes were taken on the recommendations. My recollection of these meetings differs from Jon’s.
Having participated in the Governance Task Force, perhaps Jon would like to share his thoughts on better ways to structure the “serious public discussion about a charter” that is needed if voters are to feel involved in process and well-informed about the issues. In another letter in the Enterprise, Measure N opponent Nancy Price refers us to something in Spokane, Washington called “Envision Spokane”. I haven’t looked it up yet, but I will. Suggesting models to study is a constructive step.
In response to Don Shor, I need to clarify that I do not “head some group that promotes [choice voting] nationwide”. That group would be FairVote (http://www.fairvote.org). I am not formally affiliated with FairVote, I can’t speak for them, and they have zero responsibility for anything I say or do. Don’s choice of words makes it imperative that I make this understood. I am, however, active in Californians for Electoral Reform (http://www.cfer.org), with which the local organization in Marin, whose website I maintain, is affiliated. But I’m not speaking for CfER here, either.
Don notes that I appear to care deeply about choice voting. Yes, and that answers his question about why I’m so interested in how Davis is governed.
What’s the hurry? Well, if one were opposed to charters of any sort, then there wouldn’t be any hurry at all, would there? But it appears that many folks involved in discussions here would have liked a different charter proposal, just not this one. For them, I think it makes sense to start a discussion about process soon. First, because Measure N is fresh in everyone’s mind. Second, because a worthwhile effort to involve more citizens in the development of a new proposal would take quite a while to implement.
I had not seen Jon Li’s letter in the Enterprise — thanks for the lead. I attended the Task Force meeting in 2005 at which an authority on city charters in California, Peter Detwiler, gave a lengthy presentation and responded to questions. I also attended some of the subsequent meetings at which votes were taken on the recommendations. My recollection of these meetings differs from Jon’s.
Having participated in the Governance Task Force, perhaps Jon would like to share his thoughts on better ways to structure the “serious public discussion about a charter” that is needed if voters are to feel involved in process and well-informed about the issues. In another letter in the Enterprise, Measure N opponent Nancy Price refers us to something in Spokane, Washington called “Envision Spokane”. I haven’t looked it up yet, but I will. Suggesting models to study is a constructive step.
Davis Enterprise says differently. Colby weasel-worded his reponse, but did not say no. Sorry, but that is a “yes” in my book. Let’s see if Emerson closes. Bet it will…
Davis Enterprise says differently. Colby weasel-worded his reponse, but did not say no. Sorry, but that is a “yes” in my book. Let’s see if Emerson closes. Bet it will…
Davis Enterprise says differently. Colby weasel-worded his reponse, but did not say no. Sorry, but that is a “yes” in my book. Let’s see if Emerson closes. Bet it will…
Davis Enterprise says differently. Colby weasel-worded his reponse, but did not say no. Sorry, but that is a “yes” in my book. Let’s see if Emerson closes. Bet it will…
“Davis Enterprise says differently.”
As I pointed out to you last week, that is incorrect. The Davis Enterprise never said any such thing.
This is the portion of the Enterprise article that you refer to:
“”Helping with the upgrades to the school lunch program is Georgeanne Brennan, a food writer and cookbook author who lives in Yolo County. (Evans and Brennan write a monthly food column in The Enterprise.)
Brennan is giving the district’s student nutrition staff monthly cooking lessons using fresh local produce in hot and cold offerings. This has allowed the district to cut down on the use of manufactured and refined foods. “
There is zero mention that the district is paying Brennan. In fact, the district is not paying Brennan.
So the Enterprise does not say otherwise. You haven’t gotten a fact right yet.
“Davis Enterprise says differently.”
As I pointed out to you last week, that is incorrect. The Davis Enterprise never said any such thing.
This is the portion of the Enterprise article that you refer to:
“”Helping with the upgrades to the school lunch program is Georgeanne Brennan, a food writer and cookbook author who lives in Yolo County. (Evans and Brennan write a monthly food column in The Enterprise.)
Brennan is giving the district’s student nutrition staff monthly cooking lessons using fresh local produce in hot and cold offerings. This has allowed the district to cut down on the use of manufactured and refined foods. “
There is zero mention that the district is paying Brennan. In fact, the district is not paying Brennan.
So the Enterprise does not say otherwise. You haven’t gotten a fact right yet.
“Davis Enterprise says differently.”
As I pointed out to you last week, that is incorrect. The Davis Enterprise never said any such thing.
This is the portion of the Enterprise article that you refer to:
“”Helping with the upgrades to the school lunch program is Georgeanne Brennan, a food writer and cookbook author who lives in Yolo County. (Evans and Brennan write a monthly food column in The Enterprise.)
Brennan is giving the district’s student nutrition staff monthly cooking lessons using fresh local produce in hot and cold offerings. This has allowed the district to cut down on the use of manufactured and refined foods. “
There is zero mention that the district is paying Brennan. In fact, the district is not paying Brennan.
So the Enterprise does not say otherwise. You haven’t gotten a fact right yet.
“Davis Enterprise says differently.”
As I pointed out to you last week, that is incorrect. The Davis Enterprise never said any such thing.
This is the portion of the Enterprise article that you refer to:
“”Helping with the upgrades to the school lunch program is Georgeanne Brennan, a food writer and cookbook author who lives in Yolo County. (Evans and Brennan write a monthly food column in The Enterprise.)
Brennan is giving the district’s student nutrition staff monthly cooking lessons using fresh local produce in hot and cold offerings. This has allowed the district to cut down on the use of manufactured and refined foods. “
There is zero mention that the district is paying Brennan. In fact, the district is not paying Brennan.
So the Enterprise does not say otherwise. You haven’t gotten a fact right yet.
This is all fine and dandy to you affluent folks, but I'm a staff employee and single parent and this is just another extra burden on top of the other ridiculous taxes this city has. But what angered me even more is the email I got from my child's school that they have started their fund drive! You know, asking me for more money and just two weeks following the passage of this scam! Well, they can kiss my &#$! I will be sending them a piece of paper that says "please accept my measure W tax as my donation.
This is all fine and dandy to you affluent folks, but I'm a staff employee and single parent and this is just another extra burden on top of the other ridiculous taxes this city has. But what angered me even more is the email I got from my child's school that they have started their fund drive! You know, asking me for more money and just two weeks following the passage of this scam! Well, they can kiss my &#$! I will be sending them a piece of paper that says "please accept my measure W tax as my donation.
This is all fine and dandy to you affluent folks, but I'm a staff employee and single parent and this is just another extra burden on top of the other ridiculous taxes this city has. But what angered me even more is the email I got from my child's school that they have started their fund drive! You know, asking me for more money and just two weeks following the passage of this scam! Well, they can kiss my &#$! I will be sending them a piece of paper that says "please accept my measure W tax as my donation.
This is all fine and dandy to you affluent folks, but I'm a staff employee and single parent and this is just another extra burden on top of the other ridiculous taxes this city has. But what angered me even more is the email I got from my child's school that they have started their fund drive! You know, asking me for more money and just two weeks following the passage of this scam! Well, they can kiss my &#$! I will be sending them a piece of paper that says "please accept my measure W tax as my donation.