Yesterday, Davis Enterprise Columnist Bob Dunning issued forth a missive aimed at the school district’s efforts to pass another parcel tax that would help bridge what is now a six million dollar budget gap.
Mr. Dunning accused Superintendent Winfred Roberson of “Politicking on the public’s dime.” Wrote the columnist, “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.”
Our concern from the start was the apparent lack of communication and homework by the columnist. For instance, it was obvious from the start that this was not a generalized notice to all seniors, but rather sent only to those seniors that had requested a past exemption.
The first sentence of the letter read, “Our records, show you as a current senior exemption holder.” And this was confirmed by multiple sources in the school district and on the school board.
Mr. Dunning charged advocacy, but according to the law, which apparently Mr. Dunning never looked up, the letter was completely in bounds, never expressly advocating that the recipient vote a particular way.
School Boardmember Gina Daleiden was out of town and directed the Vanguard to speak with other board members to clarify the purpose and intent of the letter.
Boardmember Sheila Allen, in response to the controversy told the Vanguard, “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.”
She added, “The district staff works carefully and patiently with them to assure they understand the exemption.”
The letter was checked by district lawyers to assure neutrality and that it followed the law.
According to Ms. Allen, “The factual letter 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,” she added.
Boardmember Susan Lovenburg declined comment last night and is awaiting the district’s formal response.
Superintendent Winfred Roberson declined comment at this time but said, “The District will respond appropriately.”
Several issues that became paramount during the day were some admittedly sloppy wording, where the letter writes, “The week of April 4th you will receive a ballot in the mail and be asked to approve Measure A.”
This is not advocacy either, however, it is less clean than had the district added one word, asking “whether” to approve Measure A.
Another question that arose was why the district would send this out before the election. Part of the issue is that senior citizens were already asking about the exemption. According to Chief Bufget Officer Bruce Colby, there were so many seniors asking about the exemption it was overwhelming their resources.
He told the Vanguard early Sunday afternoon that there were roughly 1000 people who had previously received senior exemptions. Three hundred of these people are low income seniors in Rancho Yolo.
Mr. Colby told the Vanguard that they were already very nervous about the tax increase and were beginning to panic.
“They are nervous about additional taxes of any type. We work very hard to ease seniors’ anxiety. The Rancho Yolo taxpayers share their information about being on fixed incomes,” he told the Vanguard via email on Sunday.
The district has no fulltime public service person at the front desk, in part due to cutbacks in the budget. The number of people was simply overwhelming the resources of the district.
“A temporary person at the front desk can only channel the people to the business office,” Bruce Colby told the Vanguard.
He added, “The tax process is administered by one person in my office. Each person that comes in takes at least 5 minutes to process. Many take much longer, they bring in their tax bills and question every tax line including city and county taxes.”
“Many are confused and spend a lot of time getting empathy and support from my patient assistant,” he further elaborated.
The District’s legal counsel helped to draft the letter at the behest of Bruce Colby. District Leadership cleared it. The source of the letter and the impetus for the letter did not come from the campaign at all.
“The mailing was done at the requests of seniors who swamp our offices before, during and after the elections. It was sent to current exemption holders only,” Mr. Colby told the Vanguard Sunday. “From our experience, once a senior gets one exemption, they want them all.”
He continued, “This effort will save the district time and money in processing applications.”
The school board played no formal role in the process, Bruce Colby told the Vanguard. “The mailing was operational and does not require board approval,” he said.
This is not the first time the District has had difficulties with handling publics’ demands.
Bruce Colby said this is the third time the district has offered a senior exemption.
“We have been inundated during the previous two,” he said. “We are trying to be efficient and pro-active. 1,000 applications processed by one staff member is not a small task. The letter that went out was bar-coded, as well, so they can be scanned into a database.”
The question has arisen, if people are confused, why only send it to the small number of seniors who already knew all about the process since every one of them had gone through it before?
According to Bruce Colby, “It seemed that the people who had applied in the past were the ones concerned about making sure that they were able to get the waiver again.”
He added that this was an effort to be responsive to seniors.
“Seniors have asked if we can make the process easier,” he said. “This process allows current exemption holders to have a simple easy process that does not require them to come into the office personally.”
He continued, “If they do come in, all they need to do is drop off the form. The previous process required us to get copies of their tax bills and proof of age. This was time consuming and took up staff time. The mailing went to all property owners who have the exemption.”
“It is not about understanding the process, it is about getting through the process in the most efficient, effective manner,” Bruce Colby added.
One of the final questions that arose is why the district is allowing seniors to have an exemption at all. The reason for that is complicated. However, under Proposition 13, it is the only legally allowable exemption to a parcel tax.
As Sheila Allen told the Vanguard, “By law we are not allowed to needs test our senior exemptions or have a general exemption for low income individuals.”
A senior exemption is not perfect. There are wealthy seniors that can receive the exemption and poor non-seniors who will not. But of the low income people, those most likely to own their own home and be impacted by the parcel tax are probably seniors.
There was a general sense that the district did not have to issue the letter until after the election. However, given the fact that the district’s offices were innundated and the small turnover between the end of the election and the June 30, 2011 deadline for filing an exemption, Bruce Colby felt like they had little choice and that there was simply not enough time after May 4.
Perhaps the letter could have been a little cleaner. However, almost certainly Mr. Dunning should have asked questions and done his homework first.
I spent a number of hours on Sunday trying to get in touch with people, on a Sunday following spring break with the two board members who are on the elections subcommittee being out of town. Certainly, Bob Dunning could have asked those questions and at least had a more balanced take on what happened.
Finally, it is clear from the response that there were a variety of mixed views about how the district handled this. That is understandable. However, some suggested that they had been on the fence and now were inclined to vote against this.
I remind those people this district is facing a $6 million deficit. It is not the students’ fault or the district employees’ fault that this happened and they should not be the ones punished for whatever perceived mistakes the district may have made.
From my perspective however, there was no law violation, and my only preference would have been to add the word “whether” to make it more clear that this was an informational piece rather than an advocacy piece. From the law’s perspective, as long as they never tell the voter to vote a particular way, they are in the clear.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Again why is it Bruce Volby and not Superinfentent Roberston who is doing the explaining??
Colby, sorry. Type is minute on iPhone. David. This was not the case in the past. Can it be fixed?
I have a droid but the appears normal. Dont know the answer but suspect colby was more faniliar with it.
David, thanks for these two columns on “The Letter”. After the 70 or so comments of the previous, and this soon-to-be heavily commented commentary the end result will be? No change.
Dunning’s vastly overstated importance, and the reach of the Vanguard notwithstanding, there is not enough ‘here’ there to make a substantial difference in whether voters will agree to spend another four hundred bucks over two years.
dmg: “Several issues that became paramount during the day were some admittedly sloppy wording, where the letter writes, “The week of April 4th you will receive a ballot in the mail and be asked to approve Measure A.” This is not advocacy either, however, it is less clean than had the district added one word, asking “whether” to approve Measure A.”
The letter, if sent at all (and I would argue it was not wise to send), should have said “…be asked to approve OR REJECT Measure A”. Rewording the letter to say “…WHETHER to approve Measure A” does not clear up the advocacy/appearance of impropriety problem. And the letter, if it was sent at all, should have been sent AFTER THE ELECTION – again to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
IMHO, the lawyer for the school district gave bad advice. This letter has all the appearance of impropriety – and it is highly questionable as to whether it is even legal. Someone would have to take it to the Committee that passes judgment on that sort of thing, to see what they would determine as to the actual legality of this letter.
However, what is clear is supposedly scarce school dollars were used for this letter – an action that speaks for itself. It tends to make the claim the school has no money disingenuous at best. If the school district wanted to hand an excuse to those who are waffling on Measure A to vote “no”, they just did. Sorry, but I have to agree w Bob Dunning on this one. I think he is being more objective on the matter than the Vanguard…
If you are explaining, you are losing!
can we say, damage control?
the trouble DMG, is in politics, people run into trouble when they treat any entity, be it democrat, republican, a school board as a sacred cow, you will have problems when it does wrong. I’m not going to argue the points dunning made because I think it is clear to most readers the stunt the school board pulled here. they just need to cut the crap and own up to it.
I just wonder though. Suppose the exemption was 180 degrees the opposite, and only seniors were required to pay the tax. wouldn’t that be considered discriminatory? Does it strike anyone else but me that to exempt seniors, by the same token is also age discrimination?
ERM
I agree with everything you said. To me the letter either was or came very close to being campaign mail. It wasn’t just the “…be asked to approve Measure A” line. This statement also “(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) showed advocacy.
If the letter was all about helping the seniors with the exemption then why all campaign material? It should’ve simply just been a cut and dried here’s how you file for your exemption instructions.
I also agree that Bob Dunning was more objective. I can’t wait to read his follow-up.
It should’ve read:
“why all of the campaign material?”
Elaine:
“I would argue it was not wise to send”
Easy for you to say given that you did not have to deal with the ramifications of not sending it out.
Steve:
“If you are explaining, you are losing! “
Are they not entitled to give their side of the story? Dunning never afforded them that.
David Musser:
“can we say, damage control? “
I echo the comment I made to Steve Hayes. They aren’t entitled to give their side of the story? Especially when the original story teller was wrong on several accounts.
“I’m not going to argue the points dunning made because I think it is clear to most readers the stunt the school board pulled here. they just need to cut the crap and own up to it.”
I talked to a lot of people yesterday who did not post here who are of a very different opinion.
“Suppose the exemption was 180 degrees the opposite, and only seniors were required to pay the tax. wouldn’t that be considered discriminatory? “
Take it up with your legislature.
Rusty:
“I also agree that Bob Dunning was more objective”
In what way? He got key facts wrong, never talked to the district, and made a mountain out of a molehill.
The law is very clear about what is permissible here and the district followed the law.
dmg: “I talked to a lot of people yesterday who did not post here who are of a very different opinion. All I see if a group of people who are complaining on this site tend to be the more conservative elements of the site. You have opposed every tax I have seen proposed, I don’t know how your mother votes, but she is certainly critical of every tax, Rusty will vote no regardless. You all probably voted against W which passed by a 3-1 margin. I don’t see a lot of the core district voters complaining. When that happens, I’ll agree that there is cause for concern.”
Being dismissive of the opinions of your own readers/commenters does not make your case any stronger…
dmg: “…I don’t know how your mother votes, but she is certainly critical of every tax”
And this is just plain incorrect…
dmg: “I talked to a lot of people yesterday who did not post here who are of a very different opinion.”
The “unnamed sources” card is patently disingenous…
To dmg: We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one 🙂
SH: “If you are explaining, you are losing!”
Very wise observation!
To rusty49: Your description of other troubling language in the letter that appears to be advocating for Measure A is spot on!
DMG” All I see if a group of people who are complaining on this site tend to be the more conservative elements of the site. “You have opposed every tax I have seen proposed, I don’t know how your mother votes, but she is certainly critical of every tax, Rusty will vote no regardless. You all probably voted against W which passed by a 3-1 margin.”
lol, and you have supported every one. so we are no less agenda driven than you are.
DMG”I don’t see a lot of the core district voters complaining. When that happens, I’ll agree that there is cause for concern.”
in other words, as long as the voters let the district get away with it, its okay.
DMG”I talked to a lot of people yesterday who did not post here who are of a very different opinion.”
and I talked to a 10,000 voters yesterday who agreed with me. two can play the unnamed sources game.
DMG: They aren’t entitled to give their side of the story? Especially when the original story teller was wrong on several accounts.
of course someone who is caught with their pants down can give their own side. it is just really difficult to do.
“Suppose the exemption was 180 degrees the opposite, and only seniors were required to pay the tax. wouldn’t that be considered discriminatory? ”
DMG: Take it up with your legislature.
lol, did’t want to argue that one, did you. like I said, when you have sacred cows, you will be blind to their deficiencies.
“And this is just plain incorrect… “
Show one to the contrary.
“The “unnamed sources” card is patently disingenous… “
I think I have cited enough named sources.
David and Elaine: I don’t have time to go through the long litany of posts, but I have one question that neither of you answered – do you believe that the district was entitled to have their side of the story told on this (when Dunning didn’t bother to even talk to them)?
Maybe the Measure A campaign can reimburse the District for the cost of the mailing, since the mailing is campaign related and does not have an educational purpose. Reassuring citizens about their property taxes does not fit into the District’s responsibilities. The money needs to be replaced by the campaign.
[i]”do you believe that the district was entitled to have [s]their[/s] [b]its[/b] side of the story told on this (when Dunning didn’t bother to even talk to them)?”[/i]
David, I think your entire argument is off base. Dunning and many of your readers (and others who posted on the Davis Enterprise website) contend that Mr. Roberson’s letter was inappropriate, given its timing and language. Your response is a non-response, saying “it was legal.”
No one has questioned its legality. They are questioning the judgment and propriety of Mr. Roberson’s decision.
You ask if the district is entitled to telling its side of the story on Measure A? I think the answer is the district officially should be neutral, providing only facts and not having “a side” during an election. The district’s opinion should be the byproduct of the voters’ choices. The voters’ decision on Measure A ought not be the byproduct of the superintendent’s politicking.
[i]lol, did’t want to argue that one, did you. like I said, when you have sacred cows, you will be blind to their deficiencies.[/i]
But there is also a point there that you’re ignoring. Education is a “sacred cow” because a lot of people want it. In past articles, DMG has discussed how K-12 education is the most publicly supported part of the state budget, often in excess of 60% saying don’t cut there.
Ryan: I don’t think that’s an accurate description based on Bruce Colby’s account. The purpose was to alleviate a logjam in his office and streamline a process.
Rich: My response in part is that it was legal but based on what Colby told me, it seems the timing makes a lot of sense assuming he’s accurate which I have no reason to doubt. As for the language, I think one sentence needed to be tightened up, but other than it was alright.
“You ask if the district is entitled to telling its side of the story on Measure A? “
Actually that was not what I asked. What I asked was whether they were entitled to tell their side of the story as to the sending of the letter in part that was in response to the first couple of comments on here.
DMG: “David and Elaine: I don’t have time to go through the long litany of posts, but I have one question that neither of you answered – do you believe that the district was entitled to have their side of the story told on this (when Dunning didn’t bother to even talk to them)?”
lol, of course they dare entitled, but considering they were caught red-handed, it would probably be wise for them to keep their collective mouths shut before they get themselves into more trouble.
DM: So you believe that Mr. Colby is lying about the influx of seniors asking staff about the senior exemption?
[i]”Rich: My response in part is that it was legal but based on what Colby told me, it seems the timing makes a lot of sense assuming he’s accurate which I have no reason to doubt.”[/i]
Staff person should say:[i] In the event the tax passes, we will have information for you about the senior exemption at that time.[/i] They can say that as many times as necessary.
They can even have a handout on the subject at the desk. The pre-emptive letter was a bad idea, as I’m sure they now realize.
Lesson to public officials: ask yourselves WWBDS — What Will Bob Dunning Say?
Don: Honestly that last line is about the last thing they should be worrying about. I don’t think the letter was a bad idea. Unfortunately Dunning decided to off half-cocked and didn’t bother to check with anyone about it. I think that’s completely irresponsible.
Dunning had it right, I think any ‘fair minded’ person would agree that the letter was a bad idea and came across as campaign material that was paid for on the public dime. As far as WWBDS, Dunning pulls a lot of weight in this town and his column is capable of making an issue sink or swim whether David likes it or not. It sounds like someone is a little envious.
4/11/2011: Superintendent, school board president apologize for letter to seniors
[url]http://digital.davisenterprise.com/news/superintendent-school-board-president-apologize-for-letter-to-seniors/[/url]
The original letter in question:
[url]https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SDQxzIUh0qZIT8XrAo_mLtxffYSpAoTzDE4Fn-0-kPk/edit?hl=en&pli=1#[/url]
WDF: I had posted the text of the letter yesterday, fyi.
Also I think this needs to be emphasized:
[quote]
Richard Harris added that he is “confident that the letter meets the standards of the law. It’s clearly not a campaign piece. It’s clearly information for people that wanted it, information that is very helpful to them.”
“Nobody’s trying to pull a fast one. The district’s just trying to get information to seniors,” Harris said, adding that “I think Dunning blew it out of proportion.”[/quote]
It seems like the only advocate for Measure A who is still defending Mr. Roberson’s advocacy for Measure A is the Vanguard. Oh, wait. The Vanguard does not advocate on election issues.
The only apology left to unsaid should be from David Greenwald for his untrue Vanguard headline: [i]”Dunning Falsely Charges School District With Election Violations.”[/i] That charge was never supported in the [s]Vanguard’s advocacy for Measure A[/s], urr, David Greenwald’s original article on this topic.
Why did Greenwald fail to support his “elections violations” headline? Probably because, if you read Dunning’s column ([url]http://digital.davisenterprise.com/opinion/dunning/politicking-on-the-publics-dime/[/url]), you will notice that Dunning never charged the school district with election violations. What he charged was what Roberson now has admitted and apologized for ([url]http://digital.davisenterprise.com/news/superintendent-school-board-president-apologize-for-letter-to-seniors/[/url]): His letter on district stationery came across as an advocacy piece during the period in which Davis residents are voting on Measure A.
[i] “I’m sorry that the senior exemption letter was mailed in close proximity to Davis voters receiving the Measure A ballot. This timing gives the appearance that my office has campaigned to senior citizen voters. For this I am regretful.”[/i] [b]—Winfred Roberson[/b]
He should be sorry with a few more things in that letter, too.
“DM: So you believe that Mr. Colby is lying about the influx of seniors asking staff about the senior exemption?”
you take what Colby says at face value?
Musser: [i]”you take what Colby says at face value?” [/i]
I do.
Yes David, now answer my question please.
“Oh, wait. The Vanguard does not advocate on election issues.
…..since when!! The difference here is the “tortured” manner in which the advocacy was presented in this Vanguard article. Open advocacy in the past,e.g. the measure J vote on the Wildhorse development,is the preogative of the Vanguard’s author. I agree totally with Don Shor’s observation that this should have been handled simply with a handout that informed seniors that they could file for an exemption if Measure A passed. What is described is an attempt to advocate for Measure A to seniors under the ruse that it was just informational. Its effect will ,IMO, probably be a net negative to the Measure A cause.
Don’t forget to vote Yes on A. You can deal with the district administration and the Trustees at election time but starving the schools won’t hurt the people with whom you are angry. It will hurt the teachers, staff and the students through lay offs and increased class sizes.
[quote]4/11/2011: Superintendent, school board president apologize for letter to seniors[/quote]Yes… in the one edition that is not available in print… only on-line… this is interesting…
hpierce, the Superintendent apologized on the first business day after this became an issue. I think you are being churlish.
Mr. Toad,
Thank you for getting back to the basics of what this is all about, public education. I would put fforth the question of how many of the contributors on this blog were educated in the public schools. I was, and managed to use that education to build a wonderful career.
My children came through the public schools and are continuing in public colleges and universities. We who have benefited from the public education system, either directly or indirectly, have an obligation to support the students who are in this system now. it is their education, not the relative wisdom of the actions of the superintendent, or the relative strenghth of the arguments of two commentators of differing opinion that is at issue. I hope that the majority will see through the anger, frustration and distractions and vote Yes on A.
hpierce: The way I see the Enterprise run their stories, it will likely show up in the Tuesday print edition. I think you’re looking too hard for a conspiracy.
Mr. Greenwald:
I am admittedly not a frequent reader of your site but found myself reading your posts via links from the Enterprise online comments. I want you to know that there are at least a few of us out here who are not anti-tax conservatives who nevertheless find themselves questioning the judgment of the Superintendent and Board members (and their counsel) in sending The Letter.
I’m the mother of 2 kids, one who is currently in the Davis school system. I am admittedly biased in favor of teachers (have several in my family) and I want and am willing to pay for an excellent school system for admittedly selfish reasons (for my kids’ sake and because I do believe it helps sustain the desirability/economic value of Davis homes). While not the only reason, the excellent public schools were a huge reason our family moved here 3 years ago from the Bay Area. I voted Yes on Measure W and contribute regularly to the Davis Schools Foundation, PTA, etc.
With this as my background, my knee-jerk reaction is to vote Yes on Measure A because I want to continue to support our schools (we can afford extra classes etc for our kids, but we want all Davis kids to have an amazing education). However, like many others posting here and on the Enterprise site, I find myself wondering exactly who is running the show when it comes to our schools after learning of the types of judgment calls these top administrators are making. It is the same type of second-guessing as i did when I’d learned the Board decided to re-do the high school stadium rather than MPR, and then again with the firing of the girls’ basketball coach (regardless if the firing was legit, the Superintendent and Board’s handling of it has left a bad taste, eg, the ridiculous time limits for public comment).
Regardless your opinion that the Letter itself was legal (I’m an attorney but don’t practice in the area of elections law so I can’t make that judgment), it clearly went beyond giving info to a small group of seniors who were begging for clarification on their exempt status. Even inserting the word “whether” as you suggest, it still smacks of campaign literature. As I think rusty suggested above, why didn’t the district just make a note saying if Measure A is approved seniors can obtain an exemption by doing x, y, z? There was no need to advise when ballots needed to be received in order to be counted (only the exemption application deadline needed mentioning). There was no need to discuss in detail the scary cuts that would have to be made if the measure failed. And after telling the seniors all this, there was no need for the Superintendent to close his letter by thanking them “for considering the above information, and your involvement as a District voter,” unless he in fact was seeking their votes. As others have said, if it didn’t violate the letter of the law, it sure did something to its spirit.
In the end, I will likely vote in favor of Measure A because I don’t want the threatened cuts to happen. Like many others, I will continue to keep a suspicious eye on the actions of these decision-makers. I voted against the Board members in their last re-election, and am so far inclined to do the same in the future.
“Probably because, if you read Dunning’s column, you will notice that Dunning never charged the school district with election violations.”
I have to respond to this.
He may never have used the term “election violation” but he most certainly accused the district of it, he accused them of “politicking on the public’s dime” which would be an election violation if true.
He writes, “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, [b]he has to do it on his own dime, not the district’s[/b].”
Doesn’t “has to” imply legally has to? Again, does not state election violation but certainly charges it. How else do you interpret the term “has to.”
Moreover, he writes, “Undeterred, the superintendent continues his advocacy…”
Again if he were engaging in “advocacy” that would be an election law violation.
He continues, “You can call this letter “informational” if you wish, but the proper word to describe it, plain and simple, is that it’s an “endorsement.” It is, without question, a “Yes on A” campaign piece.”
If it is a campaign piece, again it would be an election violation.
So you are parsing terms here, technically speaking he never used the term election violation, but he sure as hell accused the Superintendent of them.
Chris K: I appreciate your thoughtful comments and your perspective. Thank you for sharing them.
[i]”He may never have used the term “election violation” but he most certainly accused the district of it, he accused them of “politicking on the public’s dime” which would be an election violation if true.”[/i]
David,
You specifically wrote a headline that said Dunning charged ‘elections violations.’ That is a matter of law. Dunning never charged that. He never mentioned ‘election law.’ Like virtually everyone but you, he saw this as a matter of poor judgment by the superintendent. Your entire case has been built on the false notion that this is all a legal question. It’s not. It’s a question of whether the superintendent should have been politicking, which everyone but you can see he obviously was.
Rich: Your argument is completely disingenuous. You’re splitting semantic hairs. Of course he accused them of that even if he did not use the term.
“Rich: Your argument is completely disingenuous. You’re splitting semantic hairs. Of course he accused them of that even if he did not use the term.”
David, speaking of being disingenuous and splitting semantic hairs:
Of course the letter advocated for Measure A even if it didn’t actually ask the seniors to vote ‘yes’.
“Of course the letter advocated for Measure A even if it didn’t actually ask the seniors to vote ‘yes’.”
But under the law they are allowed to do that provided they don’t actually ask the seniors to vote yes. That’s been my point from the start. You want to go after the district, but really you need to change the law. The district acted within the law.