In this morning’s Davis Enterprise, Bob Dunning makes a pretty sweeping charge that the Superintendent is “Politicking on the public’s dime,” apparently without checking facts or without a lot of accuracy.
Writes Mr. Dunning, “Our superintendent of schools has decided to take matters into his own hands by sending out a letter on official district letterhead to this town’s senior citizens, urging a “Yes” vote on this critical school funding measure.”
He writes, “On the flip side of the superintendent’s letter is a formal application for the senior tax exemption that allows people 65 and over to avoid paying the very tax the superintendent is recommending a ‘Yes’ vote on.”
And he adds, “The application has already been filled out with the homeowner’s assessor parcel number and the property’s address. All that’s missing is the senior homeowner’s signature and an ‘X’ in the box signifying that the senior in question is indeed over the age of 65.”
Amazingly, the columnist writes this without asking for clarification and without fully quoting it.
The first thing to note is that this did not go out to all seniors. In fact, in only went out to all to all seniors that hold a current senior exemption. Mr. Dunning implies that it went out to all seniors in his opening paragraph when he says “this town’s senior citizens.” Nowhere does he qualify that.
Our sources in the school district have confirmed that this piece only went out to those who currently hold a senior exemption.
Moreover, the first sentence of the letter reads, “Our records, show you as a current senior exemption holder.”
It is a fine line between an information piece and advocacy.
The law permits government bodies to send out information about taxes as long as they never expressly advocate for the voter to vote one way or another. Nowhere in the letter does the Superintendent advocate that an individual actually vote one way or another.
They do however, explain what the parcel tax does and what will happen if the tax measure is not passed.
Here is the full text that is unedited:
“Our records show you as a current senior exemption holder. We are writing to you to provide you with some information about the senior citizen exemption in the District’s currently proposed parcel tax Measure A. The week of April 4th you will receive a ballot in the mail and be asked to approve Measure A. The elections office must receive your ballot by May 3, 2011 to be counted. Please refer to your mail ballot materials for a more detailed explanation of how to complete and mail in the ballot.
Measure A seeks voter approval of a parcel tax on all parcels of real estate located within the school district. If approved, the amount of the tax will be $200 per parcel or $20 per mobile home or multi·unit dwelling per tax year. The parcel tax will be levied for the 2011 and 2012 tax years.
The District is seeking voter approval for a parcel tax in order to make up for funding shortfalls that have arisen due to the current State budget situation. As you may be aware, the State has been cutting funding for schools for several years, and further school funding cuts are anticipated. If the District is not able to secure additional funding, a number of District programs will have to be curtailed or eliminated. The programs in question may include reduced class sizes, sufficient numbers of core subject classe, foreign language programs, music, Career Technical programs, counseling, site safety and support services.
As a senior citizen who owns a parcel of land within the District on which their primary residence is located, you will not be subject to the Measure A parcel tax if you file for an exemption. In order to be eligible for a senior citizen parcel tax exemption, please complete the exemption application form on the reverse side and submit to the District Office by June 30th.
Please call the District office at (530) 7S7-53O0 x 122 if you have any questions about how the senior citizen exemption process works. Thank you for considering the above information, and your involvement as a District voter.”
From this we see a few things. First very clearly this is only addressed to those with an existing senior citizen exemption.
Second they provide information about the tax, what the district is seeking, and what will happen if the measure is not approved.
Third, they never advocate for the voter to vote either way.
As far as my non-legal eye can see, this is perfectly legal. Whether it should be or not is beside the point.
Writes Mr. Dunning, “To be sure, the superintendent hasn’t given up his First Amendment rights simply because he works for the district. Like everyone else, he’s entitled to have his say, publicly, on the issues of the day. But again, like everyone else, when he starts advocating, he has to do it on his own dime, not the district’s.”
He goes on to charge, “The letter he sent out to the seniors in this town is advocacy, pure and simple.”
Not according to the law, Mr. Dunning. Unfortunately Mr. Dunning, who has legal training, never bothers to look up the law in this regard. He is making a very serious accusation without checking his facts. He never called the school district, the county elections office or the Political Fair Practices Commission to see what is and is not allowed under the law. That is completely irresponsible on his part.
Mr. Dunning does raise two points in support of his contention, but neither one rises to advocacy.
First he quotes the letter, “The week of April 4th you will receive a ballot in the mail and be asked to approve Measure A.”
He writes, “It’s a nice head fake, but the ballot does not ask anyone to ‘approve’ Measure A. It simply asks if the district shall be authorized to ‘levy an emergency special tax for a period of two years’ and asks us to vote ‘Yes’ or ‘No.’ The ballot most definitely does not seek approval of the measure as the superintendent claims.”
Actually the term for voting yes or no is to “seek approval.” The ballot asks the voter to determine whether or not to approve the tax. The district was more sloppy in their wording than one would like, but they did not tell the voter what to do, which is advocacy. They only stated a fact, that they will be asked “whether” to approve – omitting whether.
The second point, “Undeterred, the superintendent continues his advocacy by telling seniors that ‘The District is seeking voter approval for a parcel tax in order to make up for funding shortfalls that have arisen due to the current State budget situation.’ “
Now, that is a purely factual statement, the district is “seeking voter approval for a parcel tax,” pure and simple. That is a fact. That does not mean that the voters will grant it.
There is nothing illegal in either of those statements.
There are questions about why seniors should get a waiver. The answer is that the California law is rather limited in terms of parcel taxes. It is a regressive tax in that everyone pays the same regardless of income.
The closest the district can come to dealing with low income people and fixed income people is to have a senior exemption. Many seniors are, in fact, on a fixed income and make a lower amount than other residents. There are, of course, wealthy seniors that can have a free ride here. There may be some poor non-seniors who own a home that could suffer, but this was the best that the district could do.
The district only sent to those who had in the past requested exemptions. They did not send it to the general senior population.
In summary, this is not the nefarious activity that the Davis Enterprise columnist implies. I would agree that the first sentence that Dunning cites, where it says voters will “be asked to approve Measure A” is unnecessarily sloppy. But it still is not “express advocacy,” forbidden by the law.
Moreover, if Mr. Dunning is going to make accusations of the school district, he ought to at least have his facts right and he does not. Nowhere does he note that this was only sent to a small group of seniors and nowhere does he refer to the law which is very clear on what is permissible by a government entity and what is not.
The rest could have been resolved by Mr. Dunning by doing a little homework and asking some questions. That was the first thing I did when I got a copy forwarded to me.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David, there’s a big difference between what you said “The ballot asks the voter to determine whether or not to approve the tax” and what they actually sent out:
“The week of April 4th you will receive a ballot in the mail and be asked to approve Measure A.”
You didn’t touch on Dunning’s other point. Dunning stated:
“And why, for heaven’s sake, would you send out a tax-exemption form for a tax that hasn’t even passed yet? Talk about a waste of taxpayer dollars.
If this were truly an attempt by the District to help seniors obtain a tax exemption while remain fiscally prudent, you would at least wait to see if the tax passes before wasting all the postage and staff preparation time it takes to send out a tax-exempt form.”
It may be legal as you say, but in my opinion it comes off as campaign mail and at the very least didn’t need to be sent out, especially before we even know the election results.
Bob Dunning is always correct and truthful , he’s a journalist !
Rusty:
“It may be legal as you say, but in my opinion it comes off as campaign mail and at the very least didn’t need to be sent out, especially before we even know the election results. “
Yes just like have a billion other information pieces, it is the loophole in the law. But it is legal.
“Yes just like have a billion other information pieces, it is the loophole in the law. But it is legal.”
David, let’s see how forgiving you are if you ever receive Government mail advocating for a vote that you’re against.
I think I’m pretty consistent on these types of issues. There are loopholes in the law that the government and also non-profit groups exploit. That’s the crux of the soft money problem. As long as they do not expressly say “vote for” then it is permissible. Would I prefer the law changed? Probably. Do I think the DJUSD piece is particularly egregious? No. Particularly when you realize how few people it actually went to. If they were really trying to bend laws they would have sent it to all seniors in town, they didn’t.
“Bob Dunning is always correct and truthful , he’s a journalist ! “
I’m hoping that’s sarcasm. Every journalist I know would have called the district before running this piece.
David, you still didn’t address why they would send it out before they know if Measure A even passed? Do you feel it’s ethical and fiscally prudent to do so? To me this stinks and makes makes the district look bad.
Given the short period of time between the election and the time to declare for an exemption, it makes sense. We are talking about a few hundred people at most receiving this letter and only those who have requested it in the past. We are talking about a group of senior citizens who are not that mobile and that savvy with technology. The district told me that the people who request an exemption do not appear to be angry non-tax paying people but elderly, concerned citizens who support the schools but are on a fixed income.
David:
I think this sort of thing is absolutely wrong. The timing of this mailing is an attempt to influence the campaign.
It may be legal — it is just wrong. The school district is spending taxpayer money to influence the campaign.
In 2003 I attempted to put a 90 day black out” period on such communications from the City of Woodland to residents on topics that were the subject of a ballot measure but could not even get a second on my motion.
If this same mailing were to be put out the day after the election the School District staff and Board of Trustees would likely consider it to be a waste of money. The people running the campaign will say this is a public service. Great. It will be excellent to see this service provided right AFTER the election — but it won’t be.
You can pick Dunning apart on this one — but the overall sentiment is right on.
It is an abuse of taxpayer money that the school district is in the process of trying to get more of.
Matt Rexroad
662-5184
Matt: I’m still trying to get the exact number it went out to, but it’s very small. It’s not going to influence anything.
“The district told me that the people who request an exemption do not appear to be angry non-tax paying people but elderly, concerned citizens who support the schools but are on a fixed income.”
From what you’re saying here isn’t it likely that the district figured they were all mostly yes votes? So why not send out mailers before the election as a friendly little reminder to get out and vote. Like I said, this stinks.
“Matt: I’m still trying to get the exact number it went out to, but it’s very small. It’s not going to influence anything.”
If it influenced one vote it’s too many.
[quote]Yes just like have a billion other information pieces, it is the loophole in the law. But it is legal. [/quote]Let’s find out. Please send a copy to the State Fair Political Processes office. That would go towards ‘transparency’.
Legal vs. ethically/morally right… David, do you use the same metric for the judicial system?
I suspect the mailer was NOT financed by DJUSD, but DTA/CTA.
It’s on DJUSD stationary, so not DTA/ CTA.
But where did the money come from? Are you going to send a copy to the State? For verification?
I believe it is DJUSD money from everything I was told.
I think your parsing of the letter is rather disingenuous. This was a clearly political letter sent by the district superintendent on official stationery, appealing to a specific sub-set of voters for clearly political reasons. Clumsy, and well-deserving of disdain. I think it will backfire.
Statement from Sheila Allen submitted for attribution:
[quote]I had many questions about the senior exemption myself and I am comfortable with our process and outreach.
According to the woman who works with the public (Bruce’s assistant) the people who request an exemption do not appear to be angry non-tax paying people but elderly, concerned citizens who support the schools but are on a fixed income. The district staff works carefully and patiently with them to assure they understand the exemption. By law each separate parcel tax must have a separate exemption. The factual letter (that was checked by our lawyer to assure its neutrality) provided the information on the Measure A tax and the exemption form only to those that already have an existing exemption. The number of people who request an exemption is a small percentage of those age 65 and older in Davis.
As someone who works with Senior Citizens I am proud that the school board includes senior exemptions as a option for those who request it. By law we are not allowed to needs test our senior exemptions or have a general exemption for low income individuals. [/quote]
I agree wholeheartedly with both Matt Rexroad’s sentiments and Don Shor’s. It it walks like a duck, waddles like a duck, sounds like a duck, it’s a duck…
The standard is not whether it looks political, it’s whether they expressly advocated passage and they do not.
A general question: What is the rationale for the law that prohibits means testing for seniors and low income individuals ?
The informational letter could just as readily have been sent out after the election, in the event the tax passes. Then there is no question about the intent.
Medwoman: It’s prop 13’s provision that allows an exemption for seniors, but not low income or means testing for seniors.
Don: Why wouldn’t you want to send our your reminder before the election? Second, there is a limited time between the election and the deadline to file for exemptions, when dealing with seniors, it’s probably best to air on the side of caution.
There has also been misinformation going out that there is an automatic exemption for seniors, ignoring the fact that you do have to fill out the exemption. The positive side of this controversy is that I think that voters who care about that part of the issue will better understand what one has to do to get a senior exemption.
Most voters in Davis know when they’re being pandered to, and will vote accordingly. After all, we’re supposed to be the second most educated city in America according to someone.
The way I read the original letter and Dunning’s interpretation of the letter in his column, Dunning parsed the flyer in such a way so as to appear as campaign literature. The letter is very bland and neutral by comparison. I think Dunning was just a little short on interesting material as the deadline was approaching, and this was the most engaging thing he could come up with.
[i]Why wouldn’t you want to send our your reminder before the election?
[/i]
For the rather obvious reason that it appears to be political rather than informational when it is sent before the election.
[i]”The week of April 4th you will receive a ballot in the mail and be asked to approve Measure A.”[/i]
Sheila: “The factual letter (that was checked by our lawyer to assure its neutrality)”
A neutral letter would have said “approve or reject.” Perhaps they should have asked for a second opinion from a non-district lawyer. Or an English major.
[i] there is a limited time between the election and the deadline to file for exemptions, when dealing with seniors, it’s probably best to air on the side of caution.[/i]
The election is May 3. They have until June 30 to submit their request for exemption.
You really don’t think this letter has the appearance of an attempt to influence the votes of a specific group of voters?
“According to the woman who works with the public (Bruce’s assistant) the people who request an exemption do not appear to be angry non-tax paying people but elderly, concerned citizens who support the schools but are on a fixed income.”
“Angry non-tax paying people”? That is so laughable. Why couldn’t they have been concerned no votes who feel they’re budgets are already stressed too far people, or concerned that the school district needs to budget they’re funds better people?
dmg: “The standard is not whether it looks political, it’s whether they expressly advocated passage and they do not.”
1) We don’t know whether this mailer is legal or not; just bc the school district says it is legal doesn’t make it so.
2) This letter at the very least has all the appearance of impropriety.
3) The letter cost the school district money to mail out, at a time when it is insisting it doesn’t have any money – which looks hypocritical/disingenous.
4) The letter is singling out certain seniors for disparate treatment.
5) Nowhere in the letter does it so much as mention that the voter can reject Measure A, which clearly places this letter in the category of advocating for Measure A any way you slice it.
Probably most who care have already seen it, but here’s the link to Dunning’s piece in question:
[url]http://digital.davisenterprise.com/opinion/dunning/politicking-on-the-publics-dime/[/url]
wdf1:
Agreed. However I think there is far too much being made here about the impact of Dunning’s column. Whether or not you happen to agree with his point of view, I think that most would agree that Dunning’s role is not that of a journalist. He is a writer of an opinion column and has staked out his position as a provocative writer which he seems to relish. While his views are frequently entertaining, I would hope that any one who is seriously considering the merits of an issue would not use the Dunning column as a source of factual information.
ERM: [i]4) The letter is singling out certain seniors for disparate treatment.
[/i]
The parcel tax already singles out (legally) a certain group for disparate treatment. Other literature on the measure is less specific about how the exemption works. This information is directed specifically at seniors who might like to know more about that specific aspect.
ERM: [i]5) Nowhere in the letter does it so much as mention that the voter can reject Measure A, which clearly places this letter in the category of advocating for Measure A any way you slice it.[/i]
I think most voters in the U.S. understand this phrase —
[i]The District is seeking voter approval for a parcel tax[/i] and [i]If approved,[/i]
— to mean that the voter(s) can accept or reject it.
“You really don’t think this letter has the appearance of an attempt to influence the votes of a specific group of voters? “
I don’t think that was the intent, but I can see the appearance from the comments above. My only beef is with the one line which should have read “whether to approve” rather than “approve.” I think that was sloppy. I still think if this were intended to be a political mailer, they would have sent to all seniors rather than a very small percentage of the senior population.
“1) We don’t know whether this mailer is legal or not; just bc the school district says it is legal doesn’t make it so.”
I’m willing to bet it’s legal based on my non-lawyerly knowledge of election law. It does not expressly advocate that people vote for it, that is sufficient with regard to the law. Look it up, Ms. Lawyer.
“2) This letter at the very least has all the appearance of impropriety.”
That’s an opinion.
“3) The letter cost the school district money to mail out, at a time when it is insisting it doesn’t have any money – which looks hypocritical/disingenous.”
I doubt it cost very much and they probably have a fund for communications to the public.
“4) The letter is singling out certain seniors for disparate treatment.”
I’m not following you here. It is reminding people who filled out an exemption in the past that they can do so here and showing them how to do that.
“5) Nowhere in the letter does it so much as mention that the voter can reject Measure A, which clearly places this letter in the category of advocating for Measure A any way you slice it. “
They are not required to do that. The only legal requirement is that they not advocate for passage. They cannot say vote for X. It’s just like the soft money loophole, non-profits can provide information so long as they do not expressly advocate. There are creative efforts to mix the two. This is not even that elaborate.
medwoman:
Agreed. However I think there is far too much being made here about the impact of David’s blog. Whether or not you happen to agree with his point of view, I think that most would agree that David’s role is not that of a journalist. He is a writer of an opinion blog and has staked out his position as a provocative writer which he seems to relish. While his views are frequently entertaining, I would hope that any one who is seriously considering the merits of an issue would not use the Vanguard as a source of factual information.
I try to provide as accurate an information as possible. Do I have an opinion that I share? Yes. But I try to separate that from the facts.
one other thing that hacks me off on this issue every tie it is brought up….
Who gets sent the letter?
I will bet it happens to be registered voters only. Why? Because they are voting in the upcoming election.
If this really is outreach to people to inform the residents then all elderly property owners (voting status would not matter) should get the information.
I am willing to bet a Diet Coke this only went to registered voters.