The Davis Enterprise is reporting this morning that Thomas Randall, one of the primary movers against Measure A, has filed an FPPC (Fair Political Policies Commission) complaint against the district on Measure A.
According to the Enterprise, Mr. Randall “said his committee has filed the complaint against the Davis Board of Education, and specifically board president Richard Harris and trustees Gina Daleiden and Sheila Allen.”
He adds that there has been “inappropriate use of the Davis school district’s website, PTA resources and children, including a photograph of a child holding a ‘thank you’ card in campaign literature.”
Furthermore, he charged that “Harris, Daleiden and Allen have a conflict of interest as members of the campaign committee supporting Measure A, known as Yes for Our Students. He questions the carryover of funds from past years by the Yes for Our Students committee, which also supported Measure Q and W.”
“The primary concern that I had in filing this FPPC complaint had to do with the apparent illegal use of taxpayer funded resources to conduct this campaign and apparent illegal conduct likewise by Davis School District Personnel and Davis School Board Members to support Measure A,” Mr. Randall wrote in a comment on the Enterprise website early this morning.
He added, “The complaint includes the specific objections of the other witnesses whom [sic] signed it as well as the objections to the mail ballot only process was primarily that of the other complaint witnesses and not specifically me although I do have objections about the full ballot text not being included in the ballot mailing though.”
In addition to these objections, Mr. Randall also seems to direct his complaint against Yolo County’s Election Office rather than the district. The Enterprise reports that he claims the text of Measure A was never mailed to the voters and he also objects to the vote-by-mail process, claiming that the secret ballot has disappeared.
He complained, “How can you have an election for a month when people will be campaigning at the same time others are voting? Ballots were mailed April 4, 2011. The campaigning is going on for a month until May 3, while people are voting. This is contrary to a fair election process.”
He failed to note that, in fact, what he just described is how it always works, that Davis has not had the first all-mail ballot in the state, and there are several states that have done this in whole or in part for years. The Enterprise article notes, “Several other school districts in California have conducted all-mail elections for parcel tax measures in recent years.”
The school district was authorized to do the election in this manner, and for the most part there have not been problems with all-mail ballots.
If he wants to question the carryover of funds from past years of parcel taxes, maybe he ought also to complain about the use of $600 his own campaign committee has made use of, from money raised to promote district elections.
The bottom line is that this is obviously a political statement, rather than an enforcement statement. Filing a complaint at the end of an election means that, at most, the FPPC, if it upheld the complaints, and it doesn’t appear most are even valid, would fine the campaign committee well after the fact.
The only value is to get the matter on the front page of the paper. It is interesting to note that the Enterprise never took up the matter of the illegal independent expenditure campaign in the last city council election, but has chosen to run this as a front page story two days before the election.
It is also interesting to note that the Enterprise did not contact the district or the people who were the subjects of the allegations before running the story.
We might note that, following the controversy over the letter, the district itself sent the matter to the FPPC for review. So why would Mr. Randall need to send the letter to complain largely about county election policies, over which the legislature has already ruled? And why is the Enterprise giving it credibility?
The No on Measure A campaign is a small number of people. Whether there is enough here to alter the outcome of the election is a big question that will be decided this week.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Nothing will happen with this complaint. This is a PR move if it just includes those items.
Matt Rexroad
662-5184
Please get over yourself, David…
[quote]Whether there is enough here to alter the outcome of the election is a big question that will be decided this week.
[/quote] Overly dramatic… the election has been decided, based on the # of ballots already received. We just won’t know the decision until late Tuesday night, early Wednesday morning. Of the ballots mailed out, many were sent to people (primarily students) who voted here for a time, but have moved on, and are no longer even in the community. There are a lot of folks (unfortunately) who just don’t care… they will not be sending in their ballots. There are those who meant to vote, lost their ballot, but don’t want to put the energy in to replace them. Can’t think of any reason (no postage necessary) why anyone who intends to vote has not already sent in their ballot. If it was measurable, I’d bet you a lunch (one guest and you choose the restaurant, if in Yolo County) that the ballots yet to be received by Elections will change the outcome based on the ballots already “in hand”.
Independent of how one feels about the merits of the measure, there were major, inappropriate gaffes committed by the DJUSD staff and board, the LWV, etc. THAT needs to be addressed. Those gaffes did not influence, one way or the other, my vote. They should not affect anyone’s vote on the measure. Rightfully, those gaffes [i]may[/i] appropriately influence votes for the next DJUSD board.
shoulda’ been ” will NOT change” the outcome…
“Please get over yourself, David…”
Huh? Why the need for the personal shot?
Blame the lack of coffee… my sincere apologies for the first line… it was, indeed, inappropriate. However, the crux of my message stands… it’s over. The FPPC filing will NOT affect the outcome.
I will ‘caffinate’ shortly and will try to behave more responsibly.
Thank you. I tend to agree with you and your point is well taken that the majority of the people have already voted anyway.
If Ms Oakley cant substantiate whether the remaining ballots in fact change the outcome, is the lunch bet “on”?
hpierce
“They should not affect anyone’s vote on the measure.”
Unfortunately, there have been a number of posts over the course of the last month that have suggested that these gaffes have had exactly that effect. After having watched the League of Women Voter’s so called educational forum yesterday to find out what the flap was all about, I was thoroughly disgusted by a process that completely ignored that there might be another point of view. I am equally appalled by the very simplistic representations put forth by the No on A faction which basically boil down to “vote no because we say we are overtaxed.” I have been and remain a strong and vocal supporter of Measure A. I feel that the issues here, support for our schools vs support for the school board decision makers should not be confused. I ultimately found myself agreeing with both Rifkin and Dunning. Yes on A. No to the oversimplified vote my way because I say so antics of both sides.o
[quote]Unfortunately, there have been a number of posts over the course of the last month that have suggested that these gaffes have had exactly that effect.[/quote]With all due respect, I think those posts, for the greatest part, were BS in that those were excuses made to justify decisions that were already made, or as in Dunning’s case, “saber-rattling”… along the lines of ‘don’t do that, or I’ll vote against it’, but at the end of the day, Dunning voted as he would have absent the gaffes. The gaffes were bad and wrong, but I suspect ‘at the end of the day’, less than 1% of the vote was swayed. Contributors to this blog are less than 1% of the voters… so, if half of the posters truly were “swayed” (which, as I’ve said, I seriously doubt), and if all posters voted, and if the general voting is ~ 35% of eligible (I, unfortunately think this will be on the high side), there will be no discernable effect on the outcome.
hpierce
I hope you are correct. My doubts however go back to the flap about the dismissal of the coach and comments not only here, but also in letters to the Enterprise which indicated an inability or unwillingness to differentiate the merits of the measure from the actions of the board?
Can we have a “lunch bet” that centers around this issue ; ) ?
Sure… if you add all the folks [u][b]influenced[/b][/u] by this blog AND the Enterprise [u]put together[/u], AND assuming there is no overlap, we’re talking 4-5% of people who will vote in this election (IMHO)… and yet, at the end of the day the ‘editorial board’ of both are recommending a yes on A. Zilch effect. As to lunch, as long as we can verify ‘measurement’, I like ‘tex-mex’ cuisine (since you’ll be buying).
dmg: “It continues, “The news release raises multiple issues, starting with a letter the school district sent to more than 900 senior citizens who claim the senior exemption under Measures Q and W, existing voter-approved parcel taxes supporting classroom programs.”
This one I get as a possible violation.
dmg: He adds that there has been “inappropriate use of the Davis school district’s website, PTA resources and children, including a photograph of a child holding a ‘thank you’ card in campaign literature.””
Use of the school’s website to campaign for Measure A would seem to be using school resources – unless I am missing something?
dmg: “Furthermore, he charged that “Harris, Daleiden and Allen have a conflict of interest as members of the campaign committee supporting Measure A, known as Yes for Our Students.”
I’m not sure what the “conflict of interest” is? Is Randall saying the School Board is not permitted to campaign for Measure A? What statute precludes it?
I agree w the above comments – the side issues of gaffes made by the proponents of Measure A are not likely to have effected the vote on Measure A one way or the other. Only if the vote is close will it be possible that the gaffes had any effect. But I do think the gaffes hurt the CREDIBILITY of the school district – an important concern when the next parcel tax issue comes up. Lets hope the school district/bd learned some lessons on how and how not to campaign…
hpierce
And what cuisine would you have preferred if you were buying ? Sorry, on an education related blog, I couldn’t resist.
Am I the only reader of this blog getting the new robo-calls by No on A?
To Rifkin: I never got any – but I eliminated my land line that was getting all those types of calls and the ones from survey companies, banks, etc ad nauseum. (I still have one other land line) It has been wonderful and really liberating not to have my phone ringing at least three times a day w these nuisance calls…
Medwoman: if I was buying, it would be your choice, not mine… if you chose sushi, I would honor the bet, but might not eat the fare…
Slightly “off subject” (Measure A, but not the FPPC filing)… there was an opinion piece from a Sacramento area superintendent Saturday, in the Bee. In his district there is a teacher who was in the finals for a national “teacher of the year” thing. Same teacher is pink-slipped, due to seniority… the supe says this is “wrong”… I wholeheartedly agree… however, his ‘solution’ is to increase funding for his district to retain this teacher, and as a result, protect the jobs of mediocre/marginal/substandard teachers who happen to have more seniority.
David says often, if you don’t like it, change the laws. We should. We should redo the education & other codes to make them consistent &/or less complex re: funding. We should modify civil service laws to move “seniority” down to a “tie-breaker” where someone has to go, but preserving the best/most effectual teachers. This applies to teachers, city, county employees, as well, IMHO.
Fom the NY Times
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
The High Cost of Low Teacher Salaries
By DAVE EGGERS and NÍNIVE CLEMENTS CALEGARI
Published: April 30, 2011
RECOMMEND
TWITTER
SIGN IN TO E-MAIL
PRINT
REPRINTS
SHARE
San Francisco
Enlarge This Image
Holly Gressley
Related in Opinion
Op-Ed Contributor: A New Measure for Classroom Quality (May 1, 2011)
WHEN we don’t get the results we want in our military endeavors, we don’t blame the soldiers. We don’t say, “It’s these lazy soldiers and their bloated benefits plans! That’s why we haven’t done better in Afghanistan!” No, if the results aren’t there, we blame the planners. We blame the generals, the secretary of defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff. No one contemplates blaming the men and women fighting every day in the trenches for little pay and scant recognition.
And yet in education we do just that. When we don’t like the way our students score on international standardized tests, we blame the teachers. When we don’t like the way particular schools perform, we blame the teachers and restrict their resources.
Compare this with our approach to our military: when results on the ground are not what we hoped, we think of ways to better support soldiers. We try to give them better tools, better weapons, better protection, better training. And when recruiting is down, we offer incentives.
We have a rare chance now, with many teachers near retirement, to prove we’re serious about education. The first step is to make the teaching profession more attractive to college graduates. This will take some doing.
Continued
At the moment, the average teacher’s pay is on par with that of a toll taker or bartender. Teachers make 14 percent less than professionals in other occupations that require similar levels of education. In real terms, teachers’ salaries have declined for 30 years. The average starting salary is $39,000; the average ending salary — after 25 years in the profession — is $67,000. This prices teachers out of home ownership in 32 metropolitan areas, and makes raising a family on one salary near impossible.
So how do teachers cope? Sixty-two percent work outside the classroom to make ends meet. For Erik Benner, an award-winning history teacher in Keller, Tex., money has been a constant struggle. He has two children, and for 15 years has been unable to support them on his salary. Every weekday, he goes directly from Trinity Springs Middle School to drive a forklift at Floor and Décor. He works until 11 every night, then gets up and starts all over again. Does this look like “A Plan,” either on the state or federal level?
We’ve been working with public school teachers for 10 years; every spring, we see many of the best teachers leave the profession. They’re mowed down by the long hours, low pay, the lack of support and respect.
Imagine a novice teacher, thrown into an urban school, told to teach five classes a day, with up to 40 students each. At the year’s end, if test scores haven’t risen enough, he or she is called a bad teacher. For college graduates who have other options, this kind of pressure, for such low pay, doesn’t make much sense. So every year 20 percent of teachers in urban districts quit. Nationwide, 46 percent of teachers quit before their fifth year. The turnover costs the United States $7.34 billion yearly. The effect within schools — especially those in urban communities where turnover is highest — is devastating.
But we can reverse course. In the next 10 years, over half of the nation’s nearly 3.2 million public school teachers will become eligible for retirement. Who will replace them? How do we attract and keep the best minds in the profession?
People talk about accountability, measurements, tenure, test scores and pay for performance. These questions are worthy of debate, but are secondary to recruiting and training teachers and treating them fairly. There is no silver bullet that will fix every last school in America, but until we solve the problem of teacher turnover, we don’t have a chance.
Can we do better? Can we generate “A Plan”? Of course.
The consulting firm McKinsey recently examined how we might attract and retain a talented teaching force. The study compared the treatment of teachers here and in the three countries that perform best on standardized tests: Finland, Singapore and South Korea.
Turns out these countries have an entirely different approach to the profession. First, the governments in these countries recruit top graduates to the profession. (We don’t.) In Finland and Singapore they pay for training. (We don’t.) In terms of purchasing power, South Korea pays teachers on average 250 percent of what we do.
And most of all, they trust their teachers. They are rightly seen as the solution, not the problem, and when improvement is needed, the school receives support and development, not punishment. Accordingly, turnover in these countries is startlingly low: In South Korea, it’s 1 percent per year. In Finland, it’s 2 percent. In Singapore, 3 percent.
McKinsey polled 900 top-tier American college students and found that 68 percent would consider teaching if salaries started at $65,000 and rose to a minimum of $150,000. Could we do this? If we’re committed to “winning the future,” we should. If any administration is capable of tackling this, it’s the current one. President Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan understand the centrality of teachers and have said that improving our education system begins and ends with great teachers. But world-class education costs money.
For those who say, “How do we pay for this?” — well, how are we paying for three concurrent wars? How did we pay for the interstate highway system? Or the bailout of the savings and loans in 1989 and that of the investment banks in 2008? How did we pay for the equally ambitious project of sending Americans to the moon? We had the vision and we had the will and we found a way.
Dave Eggers and Nínive Clements Calegari are founders of the 826 National tutoring centers and producers of the documentary “American Teacher.”
A version of this op-ed appeared in print on May 1, 2011, on page WK12
Great post, Mr.Toad !
Also found this this morning, but not sophisticated enough to post. Thank you for doing so Mr. Toad.
I also find it interesting to note that if the crime goes up in an area, then the police aren’t readily blamed for it; it’s due to poverty, unemployment, and other social factors. But if the crime rate goes down, then certainly the sheriff, police chief, or mayor would be willing to point out that the police probably had something to do with it.
Link for Mr. Toad’s post: [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/opinion/01eggers.html?_r=1&hp[/url]
Also from yesterday’s NYT, another piece on education, this one with some comments that ERM and Jeff B. might find at least some slight agreement with.
And that second link is here:
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/opinion/01bausell.html?ref=opinion[/url]
Rifkin: I also received a robo-call from the No on Measure A campaign. My call was on Friday night and appeared to be targeted to renters, with the message being something along the lines of “If you are a renter, you should vote NO on Measure A, because Measure A will increase your landlord’s property taxes by $200 per unit, and your landlord will be forced to pass that cost onto you.” Of course, I know that for my multi-unit complex it will in fact only be an increase of $20/unit, but such misinformation might sway less informed voters….
I was amused with the comparison between our military getting more resources when things are not going as planned while schools get punished and have resources removed when they fail to perform. Talk about comparing apples and oranges- the 2011 discretionary budget, sent by the Obama administration to Congress in January, calls for 59% to go to the military, while a measly 4% goes to education. Perhaps our prioritys are a bit lopsided. No wonder we need Proposition A to keep our kids in the game.
Re: Toad’s oped:
FWIW, Dave Eggers, Daniel Moulthrop and Nínive Clements Calegari wrote a book (which got mostly bad reviews) 6 years ago which included everything in this op-ed. It seems strange they are reprising it in an op-ed, today.
[i]”When we don’t like the way our students score on international standardized tests, we blame the teachers.”[/i]
No we don’t. This is just a stupid straw-man argument. Some teachers suck. We don’t ever hold them accountable, once they have tenure (which by law comes after just 2 years in California). We don’t suspend them, remove them from the classroom or cut their pay. Unless they are pressured out of their jobs by good administrators or by activist parents, they continue to make money as teachers, harming kids.
By contrast, many teachers are great. Those teachers usually have a god-given talent to get lessons across, to command respect, to inspire their kids to work hard. But we treat them the same as we treat the sh!tty teachers. We don’t give them a bonus for being good. Once they reach the top rung on the pay scale, they cannot even get a raise. If pink slips are handed out and they are not in a position of seniority, the best teachers can get laid off while the older bums stay on the job.
Our problem is so opposite what Eggers, et al. claim it is with regard to teacher accountability. Everyone knows this, too. It’s shocking for them to announce that they love the naked prince’s wardrobe.
[i]”When we don’t like the way particular schools perform, we blame the teachers and restrict their resources.”[/i]
This is untrue, too. We rarely blame the teachers for bad performance. As everyone knows (who knows this subject) we blame “the school.” That is the policy nationally under NCLB.
There can be two problems with NCLB in this regard: 1. Some schools with low performance are actually doing a great job. They are helping their kids progress. They are just overloaded with children who started out in bad situations; and 2. Some teachers in bad schools are very good; others are not. When you blame “the school” as we do, you fail to honor the good works of the good teachers within them.
[i]”Teachers make 14 percent less than professionals in other occupations that require similar levels of education.”[/i]
Not on a dollars per hour basis. Also, privately employed professionals don’t get tenure after 2 years on the job.
In most jobs, you are paid for your productivity over the long run. (There are exceptions, even in the private sector.) I would never argue that we pay good teachers enough. But until we set pay rates based on performance, good teachers will always make too little and bad ones too much.
[i]”For Erik Benner, an award-winning history teacher in Keller, Tex., money has been a constant struggle.”[/i]
Sounds like Mr. Benner is a good example for why we need to pay teachers based on performance.
[i]”We’ve been working with public school teachers for 10 years; every spring, we see many of the best teachers leave the profession.”[/i]
Another reason to pay the best teachers much more money and get rid of the louses.
[i]”In the next 10 years, over half of the nation’s nearly 3.2 million public school teachers will become eligible for retirement. How do we attract and keep the best minds in the profession?”[/i]
We pay them based on performance.
[i]”President Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan understand the centrality of teachers and have said that improving our education system begins and ends with great teachers.”[/i]
In fact, Arne Duncan has been a major advocate of paying teachers based on performance. He believes in “value-added” teacher evaluations. He has been the object of ridicule by the teachers unions.
[i]”For those who say, “How do we pay for this?” — well, how are we paying for three concurrent wars?”[/i]
We borrowed, borrowed and borrowed some more. We are now $14.26 trillion dollars in debt, largely to China.
[b]In fact, Arne Duncan has been a major advocate of paying teachers based on performance.[/b]
In a quick Google search, I found this union view of Arne Duncan ([url]http://www.schoolsmatter.info/2008/12/arne-duncan-privatizer-union-buster-and.html[/url]):
[i]To portray Arne Duncan as anything other than a privatizer, union buster, and corporate stooge is to simply lie.
Randi Weingarten knows that there is open rebellion within the Chicago Teachers Union because Randi’s local president, Marilyn Stewart, has allowed the union to go bankrupt (by corrupt spending on herself and her staff, rivalling that of the former leaders of the Washington, D.C. union) and become disgraced by collaboration with Arne Duncan. Last February, when Duncan moved to close a half dozen schools (on various pretexts, most to slip them to charter schools as part of Chicago’s privatization juggernaut) and fire all the teachers at a half dozen others in a reconstitution move called (this year) “turnaround”, more than 5,000 parents, teachers, students and community leaders protested as a series of community meetings and at several meetings of the Chicago Board of Education. Despite the fact that Marilyn Stewart had sold out the union’s
members at all the schools that were on what teachers called Arne Duncan’s “hit list,” the union tried to continue its collaboration with Duncan (and his master, Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley).
All of this has been reported, month after month, in the pages of Substance.
The material is available in great detail in our back issues (available both in print and PDF) at our new Website, http://www.substancenews.net.[/i%5D
(Continued)
[i]For now, anyone who believes Randi Weingarten — viz., that Arne Duncan has a “good relationship” with the Chicago Teachers Union — is delusional. But just in case there are doubters, the next three meetings of the Chicago Board of Education should tell the tale. Next Wednesday (December 17) there will be major protests by teachers and others against Duncan’s latest plans to close and “turnaround” so-called “underperforming” schools (Duncan’s a weasal; he never uses the word “failing” but lets the media touts who push his work use it later) and mess up dozens of others.
Anyone who is in Chicago is welcome to see how popular Arne Duncan is with rank-and-file union teachers next Wednesday at the Chicago Board of Education. The Board meetings in the (prohibitively expensive, because of privatized parking) Loop at its offices at 125 S. Clark St. in Chicago. The meeting will begin at 10:30 a.m.
For those who are unable to be at the meeting, there will be much available on line at the Substance Website
http://www.substancenews.net
At the “District299” blog (the meeting place for people who know the facts about Arne Duncan)
http://www.district299.com
and at some of the rank-and-file groups within the Chicago Teachers Union, especially the new CORE caucus
http://www.coreteachers.com
After you’ve read up about Chicago from the grass roots, then circulate nonsense about whether the “teachers” and the “union” support Arne Duncan.
Randi Weingarten is a lawyer who has less real teaching experience than the average veteran substitute teacher. Arne Duncan is an educational administrator who has as much teaching experience as Randi Weingarten.
It figures they would be scratching each others’ backs.
[b]George N. Schmidt[/b]
Editor, Substance[/i]
Rifkin,
The truth is more complicated. ” We” frequently do blame the schools, but there are multiple instances in which people making entries here have blamed teachers specifically. I completely agree with you that seniority is a very bad system for deciding who should continue teaching.
I personally would favor a much more rigorous teaching program for teachers including at the college level and ongoing proctoring and evaluation in their subject matter in the form of continuing education. If we can do this for doctors, I fail to see why we cant do it for teachers.
But then, of course, we would have to actually treat them like professionals in terms of compensation and a major change in societal attitudes demonstrating a genuine respect for educators.
[i]”I personally would favor a much more rigorous teaching program for teachers including at the college level and ongoing proctoring and evaluation in their subject matter in the form of continuing education.”[/i]
From my experience as a student (and somewhat as a TA, when I was a grad student and taught what we called “sections”), I don’t think what separates the best teachers from the worst is entirely teachable. No doubt the foundation for all is to know the subject matter cold. But I think great teachers have innate skills, not so much learned skills, to communicate, lead and command respect in the classroom.
Friends of mine who are teachers, nonetheless, tell me that teacher-mentoring programs are highly valuable. A friend of mine who was for many years an elementary school teacher and is now working in school administration (not in Davis), said she benefitted greatly when she was in her first few years by having older, experienced teachers mentor her, giving her (among other things) suggestions for dealing with some difficult children and so on. This same friend, after becoming a veteran teacher, mentored younger teachers.
I assume most schools have these sorts of mentoring programs. And certainly teachers, like most other professionals, get advanced (formal) training in continuing education programs.
But if Teacher A is motivated and is a natural, she will reach heights that an average teacher never could, regardless of exogenous training programs. And if Teacher B has a personality which just does not work in the classroom, his ceiling will be low, no matter how much help he gets.
[i]”If we can do this for doctors, I fail to see why we cant do it for teachers.”[/i]
As you surely know, there are doctors, no matter their scientific expertise, who are bad with patients. Fortunately, most can succeed in medicine by not dealing with (living) people.
I had a roommate at UCSD, who was a medical doctor (in Taiwan) who went to UCSD to get his PhD in immunology, because he had no patience for patients. Others go into radiology or pathology or some form of lab work or research. What works less well is when you have an MD who lacks personal skills but ends up in a field like internal medicine or oncology, and his patients suffer for his deficient bedside manner.
Ultimately, it’s impossible to train a doctor to have a winning personality. But in an important respect, most doctors need people skills as a part of the bag of tricks to help patients heal. (In my experience as a patient and relative of patients, the vast majority of doctors are excellent at helping their patients feel good about the course of care they are getting. In the rare instances where the doctor is a misfit for his field, it really comes through.)
Rifkin
All points appreciated. And up until about 10 years ago, I would have. agreed with the statement that “bedside manner”cannot be taught..
I would have been in error. We get regular input about our interaction with our patients and our patients satisfaction with those interactions
through patient surveys. While it is true that some folks are naturals and always score very highly, we had a group who were low performers on this metric who with intensive training with actors as patients and on going proctoring were able to dramatically improve their interactions.
While it is true that teachers do have “internship”years and mentoring, if my friends who are teachers are indicators, it is nowhere near as rigorous as what we go through. Also, unless things have changed significantly since I was in college ( ok,that does leave plenty of room for change) attempting to secure a spot in teaching was not nearly as competitive as securing a spot in medical school or lveterinary school or law school. A real shame in my opinion that the perceived benefits in terms of financial compensation, reputation,and other perceived benefits are not even close. I think this speaks a great deal about the priorities and values of our society, and not very favorably in my opinion.
[i]He complained, “How can you have an election for a month when people will be campaigning at the same time others are voting? Ballots were mailed April 4, 2011. The campaigning is going on for a month until May 3, while people are voting. This is contrary to a fair election process.”[/i]
This is a weird complaint. Even making the complaint undermines some of his credibility in understanding elections.
General elections these days have a significant number of absentee ballots. Part of campaign strategies is to ramp up the campaigning so as to appeal to absentee voters who may vote well in advance of the election date. This whole parcel tax election is really like everyone having an absentee ballot.
Just to clarify a few matters…
The FPPC Complaint included many concerns of other complainants (witnesses) as well in the complaint not just mine.
And Matt…this complaint was not intended to be a publicity stunt. There are some apparent possible illegal activities going on within the Davis School District regarding the Measure A campaign. Whether which side wins or loses the election those supportive of one side or another should not be above the law and this complaint seeks to insure that such illegal activities if they were found to occur get prosecuted. Let’s let the FPPC investigate the complaint and undertake what actions they deem necessary.