Normally about this time in an election, the comment would be that the matter is in the hands of the voters now. But the truth is, it has been in the hands of the voters for quite some time. 43,000 ballots were sent out a month ago, and it appears just over one-third have been returned already. The election is over, we just do not know the results until tonight.
Nevertheless, it is dismaying to see the amount of mud and accusations thrown in this election, at a time when the district is going to face a $6 million deficit, a time when teachers will be laid off, a time when class sizes will increased, and a time when the most vulnerable students in the school district will be at grave risk.
“What is truly important is that our community supports our Davis schools and our students,” Gina Daleiden told the Enterprise. “We should be focused on passing Measure A so our students at Davis High have access to quality courses from science to art, our junior high students are able to study music and foreign languages, and our youngest elementary students have reasonable class sizes.”
Sheila Allen said, “It deeply saddened me to see another unfounded and negative story about the school district in The Enterprise. It is truly unfortunate that even at the local school level, some people think mud-slinging is appropriate.
“I plan to continue my work along with other community members to assure that our most precious local resource — our children — receive the very best education and support we can offer them.”
Mr. Thomas Randall defended his late filing, that many have dismissed as a political maneuver aimed at perhaps a few fence sitters who have yet to vote.
He wrote, “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.”
He added, “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.”
The problem with his argument, of course, is that the Fair Political Practices Commission lacks real teeth to do much more than levy fines after an election. They will not overturn the outcome.
The vast majority of his complaints were not about illegal activities, but rather about matters over which the school district and the FPPC have no say, for example the pilot program for vote by mail.
The one item that people point to as a possible violation is the letter sent to 900 senior citizens who had previously claimed the senior exemption under Measures Q and W.
However, filing a complaint on that is at best redundant, since the district had already forwarded the matter to the FPPC and, from my understanding of the law, the complaint was rather futile.
First of all, as I have mentioned many times, there was no law violation because the law states it must be overt advocacy, and they never crossed that line.
Even detractors acknowledge this, as their response has more to do with the spirit of the law (a point I agree on, but think that loophole needs to be closed) and the appearance of propriety. The problem, they argue, was that the letter went beyond simply informing seniors about the parcel tax and how to get an exemption, to the point of advocacy.
However, none of this crosses legal lines.
He further argued that there has been an “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.”
The website http://www.djusd.net/district/measa strikes a balance similar to the letter. It reads, “Between April 4 and May 3, voters in the Davis Joint Unified School District will be asked via a mail-in ballot to preserve classroom and educational programs by authorizing a District parcel tax. This measure, if approved, will assess homeowners $200 per year and apartment owners $20 per unit per year. The tax will last for two years. Measure A requires the approval of two-thirds of voters residing in the Davis Joint Unified School District who vote in this election.”
I do not see any clear advocacy and they are certainly allowed to provide information on their website.
The PTA, as far as I know, is a private organization funded with private money which would preclude the issue. The PTA is allowed by law to endorse ballot measures that fund school programs.
And a picture of a child holding a thank you card in campaign literature is not a violation of any law, so long as the parent consents to the use of the child.
I fail to see anything where the FPPC would weigh in, other than possibly the original senior letter.
Public officials are allowed to speak as private citizens, that is not a conflict of interest, and public officials, on their own time, can be involved in any campaign activity.
Unfortunately, this is not how we should be spending the waning hours thinking about Measure A.
Ordinarily I would do a final analysis on the strengths and weaknesses of the Measure A argument, but with most people having already voted, I fail to see the point.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
School Board members have children in the District, are homeowners, and are essentially volunteers. Most are not what I would call professional “politicians.” I think that we should allow for mistakes to be made in these types of local ballot issues. Call ’em on it, yes, but is really petty to file an official complaint, since it will take many months (maybe even a year) for the FPPC to address it and everyone has already voted.
If this were a school board election, this kind of discussion (did those school board members behave acceptably) would be appropriate. As it is, this is a vote on what kind of budget you want the district to adopt under the current circumstances. Do we lay off those teachers or not? I say vote yes and keep them.
dmg: “The problem, they argue, was that the letter went beyond simply informing seniors about the parcel tax and how to get an exemption, to the point of advocacy. However, none of this crosses legal lines.”
You don’t know that for sure. Only the FPPC can make that determination…
dmg: “Sheila Allen said, “It deeply saddened me to see another unfounded and negative story about the school district in The Enterprise. It is truly unfortunate that even at the local school level, some people think mud-slinging is appropriate.”
Had the school district/board not engaged in questionable conduct (“informational” advocacy letter, “informational” LWV forum that completely excluded the No on Measure A side), there would have been no reason for any “mudslinging” (complaints to the FPPC). It doesn’t sound as if the school district/board have learned any lessons from their own missteps…
while I cannot say if the bulk of Randall’s legal complaints have any legal merit, the school board along with DLWV helped shut him out of the debate. So the school board sort of brought this on themselves using underhanded tactics.
“You don’t know that for sure” – I do. I’m pretty well versed in issue advocacy ads having studied them and the laws pertaining to them for several years in grad school.
I think both of you have to put the blame on the LWV forum on the LWV not the district. The district was not a sponsor. They were invited to participate. Were they even aware that Randall was shut out?
“I think both of you have to put the blame on the LWV forum on the LWV not the district. The district was not a sponsor. They were invited to participate. Were they even aware that Randall was shut out?”
it smells DMG. their footprint was all over the forum, the superintendent (who got in trouble for the letter) delaine eastin, sheila allen, come on. what the school district never thought to inquire about the nature of the format and how it would be presented? they were totally in the dark from start to finish? they never wondered amongst any in the group about why the NO ON P wasn’t there? and of course the district wasn’t an “official sponsor”! lol! they didn’t want it to appear as if they had a hand in it, exactly why they would not want to sponsor this. duh!!!
I circle this discussion back to a general comment I made earlier, about this investigative reporting that you do – be careful when you go digging, you may not like what you are going to find.
On your last point, I let the true come out no matter what I find, it is the only way to do things.
I agree it smells but I think the LWV is responsible for their event. I have no idea what they were or were not aware, have you talked to them about it? I think everyone agrees that both sides should have been represented and I think the LWV have severely damaged their credibility going forward. That is enough for me and hopefully another group will take up the slack in the future.
To dmg: You agree it “smells”. Don’t you think the school district had some responsbility to not be involved with a questionable situation in which it was clear the other side was not present at all? Some duty of inquiry, especially in light of the fact the school district knew there was opposition and specifically who was leading that opposition? Sorry, but I don’t think the school district passes the smell test here… I give them an F for their “Measure A campaign”. And I would add that if they don’t clean up their act, they might find future parcel taxes even more difficult to get approved by the voters…