In beginning my analysis of the Measure A vote, let me start with a bit of cold water for the critics who are rejoicing in the close call – the close call such that it was is an artifact of an archaic system that unfairly gives the opposition to taxes twice the voting power of proponents.
A candidate having received 67.2 percent of the vote would be said to have won overwhelmingly. Indeed the overwhelming majority of Davis voters supported the parcel tax.
Moreover, throughout the campaign, opposition lamented the fact that non-property owners, renters, were allowed to vote,and seniors who could get exemptions. A friend of mine emailed me yesterday and said they should do away with the senior exemption.
So, these people not only want their two-to-one vote requirement, but now they want to exclude whole categories of voters? The whole reason the two-thirds requirement was put into place was ostensibly to protect the property owners from the marauding voters.
And without a senior exemption, you would be exposing a large group of people, who do not bring in much income to begin with, to a huge increase in their tax burden overnight.
The Measure A campaign was imperfect. The school district is used to flying in below the radar. They are not accustomed to scrutiny. In a way, it was a good thing that they got scrutiny. In a democratic society, the more light the voters get the better.
But the light exposed glitches in their operation. Opponents tried to seize upon these glitches and, I think, make more of them than they were. The League of Women Voters has taken a huge hit, that frankly is much deserved and has been a long time coming.
However, I tend to believe that the opposition failed to gain even a third of the vote for several reasons.
First, schools have suffered more than any other area of government, with the possible exception of social services.
Support for schools is consistently at the top of the list among voters, in terms of spending priorities, and Davis in particular has a long history of supporting parcel taxes, fundraising drives and, in short, the schools.
Any opposition campaign was going to have to go against that grain.
However, the opposition campaign did not attempt to deal with those issues. Instead, they struck a very conservative tone, talking about taxes in liberal Davis. That may work in more conservative communities, but Davis is still largely the community that voted overwhelmingly for Obama in 2008 and has consistently been among the more liberal communities in the state.
Bottom line, the opposition, such that it was, would need to move beyond their conservative message, and they never did.
The problems in the campaign might have impacted people at the margins, but even among many who were angry at the LWV fiasco and the District Letter, ended up voting for the parcel tax.
Why? Because at the core, the school district will have about $10 to $12 million less in state money this year as opposed to 2007. People may not have been happy with the school district or the school board over this and the firing of the coach, and any number of issues, but when push came to shove, they decided they could not punish the students or the teachers.
But the final reason the opposition failed was that they never offered an alternative. They talked about taxation, some even tried to argue that the schools did not need the money, but no one came up with how the schools functionally were going to do with $6 million less.
I put it out there at least a handful of times, and the only person who tried to answer it suggested an all-cuts approach that would have led to a quarter of the teachers laid off and classroom sizes approaching 35.
Some argued it was not their responsibility, but they forgot they had the burden of selling it to the voters, most of whom are inclined to not want to see teachers laid off.
Wrote Bob Dunning, “So close, in fact, that despite Tuesday’s narrow victory, it’s clear if things don’t improve quickly, the school board would be ill-advised to bring another such measure before the voters anytime soon …”
In fact, the school district has little choice but to put the renewal of the parcel taxes Measures W and Q on the ballot next year as the $320 in taxes is set to expire. What choice do they have? We are talking about somewhere around $5 million.
School Board President Richard Harris does not agree, and he told me on Tuesday night he thinks it will pass.
He told the Sac Bee yesterday, “Yesterday’s results make me very confident that they will approve the renewal (tax extension) to maintain our comprehensive programs while we tread water waiting for the state to get its act together and fund its basic obligations.”
That leads me to my final point, it will be interesting to see how this all plays out. Privately the district, volunteers, and board members are livid at the Davis Enterprise and their coverage of the election.
The feeling was that the Enterprise was the voice of the opposition, that Dunning was one-sided and never talked to them to get clarification, so that it became the voice of the opposition.
Mr. Dunning tried to have it both ways, as he supported the Measure and the Enterprise endorsed it, but the damage was done and they felt overblown. Yes, the vocal minority cheered on the columnist, but the overwhelming feeling is that the Enterprise became the voice of a small and conservative minority and ignored the overwhelming majority of voters.
People have a tendency to get over their anger, but one thing I can say for the first time, a school issue was a net positive in terms of readership for the Vanguard.
The bottom line, at least for now, is that less than a third of those who voted opposed the parcel tax in Davis, despite everything that worked against it – the economy, tax fatigue, negative coverage in the paper. Until the economy turns around and the state budget rebounds, it will be very difficult for the district to survive at its current level of performance without the continued support of the community.
And at the end of the day, the words of Delaine Eastin struck a chord with me.
“I just want to remind you of what Thomas Paine said, he said when we talk about taxes we ought to recall that we lie down in peace and sleep in safety. That we are free to follow our farms, our stores, our other prosperous occupations and that these blessings of liberty are secured for us by the taxes that we pay.”
I think too often we think about freedom from taxation as freedom, but in fact, the very standard of life and our very security is secured to us through taxation.
She added, “I want to say that I live in Davis, California. I’m one of the unlucky people who didn’t have my own children, but I live here because I want to live in a town that cares about its children.”
For the first time this year I write not just as an interested observer who believes in investing in education, but as a parent. I have seen firsthand what the schools can do for the most vulnerable of the students.
In getting help for our nephew who we took in this year, we reached out to the county. The county worker is working with Patwin to help my nephew. She remarked to us a few weeks ago how amazing it is to work with Davis schools where the teachers and support staff and everyone are working together toward one goal – helping the child.
She deals with a lot of schools across the county, and most of them lack that commitment. I cannot imagine having survived this year without the supportive and caring people at that school. Fortunately, they will now be able to maintain funding for several of those positions.
School Board President Harris put it well when he said, “This was not about the school board, it was not about a coach, it was not about the League of Women Voters, it was not about senior exemptions, at the end of the day it’s only about the kids and once again Davis steps up to the plate.”
In the end, enough voters remembered that it was about the kids and nothing more.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“In beginning my analysis of the Measure A vote, let me start with a bit of cold water for the critics who are rejoicing in the close call – the close call such that it was is an artifact of an archaic system that unfairly gives the opposition to taxes twice the voting power of proponents.”
That’s so funny for you to write that now. Memory serves me that when you were confronted about how many people get to vote for the measure who don’t have to actually pay the tax your reply was that’s why there’s a 2/3 approval law.
I said that in this article as well if you read to the next paragraph.
“Moreover, throughout the campaign, opposition lamented the fact that non-property owners, renters, were allowed to vote,and seniors who could get exemptions. A friend of mine emailed me yesterday and said they should do away with the senior exemption.
So, these people not only want their two-to-one vote requirement, but now they want to exclude whole categories of voters? The whole reason the two-thirds requirement was put into place was ostensibly to protect the property owners from the marauding voters.”
So which is it?
“The whole reason the two-thirds requirement was put into place was ostensibly to protect the property owners from the marauding voters.”
or
“the close call such that it was is an artifact of an archaic system that unfairly gives the opposition to taxes twice the voting power of proponents.”
????????????
I’ll give you a hint, if you are reading the first as a support for the two-thirds system, you are misreading my point.
Here’s the Sac Bee article on Measure A. Very brief. Nothing much more than it passed. The comments sections to that article is a zoo, though. By comparison, Vanguard commentors bend over backwards to be courteous to each other. That’s because we have Don Shor enforcing good manners. 😉
[i]http://www.sacbee.com/2011/05/04/3601983/davis-residents-approve-another.html[/i]
The clickable link:
[url]http://www.sacbee.com/2011/05/04/3601983/davis-residents-approve-another.html[/url]
So you’re saying would like for it to be easier for the “marauding voters” to impose parcel taxes on homeowners.
The “marauding voter” reference is tongue in cheek as a description of the mind set of those who passed Prop 13 in order to prevent the non-property owners from having equal weight on property tax issues.
Only property owners should vote and only white males too. Just like the founding fathers intended. Is that it Rusty?
Shut up Mr. Toad. I never put race into it.
Less than two thirds I guess you don’t want majority rule you want super-minority rule.
“Despite the huge advantage, I read that some suggested the performance by opponents is amazing, considering there was no organized opposition. If getting less than a third of the vote is an amazing showing, then have at it.”
lol, yes I will. you also forgot to mention that the community is overwhelmingly by arguably larger than 2/3 liberal/democrat/green. one of the absolute most liberal communities in the country. And this is the lowest we have seen passage of the school tax. And I hardly think that it was merely conservatives that voted against this.
“And without a senior exemption, you would be exposing a large group of people, who do not bring in much income to begin with, to a huge increase in their tax burden overnight.”
lmao!! its only 200 a year, 20 a month, it isn’t a lot of money, remember? now you say the opposite to support the hypocritical senior exemption. I love this! love it, love it, love it. talking out of both sides of your mouth.
DMG: “The problems in the campaign might have impacted people at the margins, but even among many who were angry at the LWV fiasco and the District Letter, ended up voting for the parcel tax.”
you forgot to mention the DLWV fiasco blew up AFTER many people had already cast their ballots.
DMG: “That leads me to my final point, it will be interesting to see how this all plays out. Privately the district, volunteers, and board members are livid at the Davis Enterprise and their coverage of the election. The feeling was that the Enterprise was the voice of the opposition, that Dunning was one-sided and never talked to them to get clarification, so that it became the voice of the opposition.”
Excuse me, but dunning caught the district with its pants down, so cut the crap. now you blame him, because he exposed corruption. I’ll say it again, it appears you have not really gotten the message I gave you on the other school article. be careful when you go digging you may not like what you are going to find. And it appears you do not, because dunning did the digging, and he exposed the corruption. Now you turn on him like a pitbull because he embarrassed the school district, with whom you have clearly sided with which arguably led to some lost votes. Well tough crud.
I’m sorry DMG, but what the school district did with DLWV, was clearly wrong, and corrupt.
“Lmao!! its only 200 a year, 20 a month, it isn’t a lot of money, remember? now you say the opposite to support the hypocritical senior exemption. I love this! love it, love it, love it. talking out of both sides of your mouth.”
Musser, can you believe the hypocrisy? What happened to “it’s only a few cups of coffee a month” or “it’s only 56 cents a day”? Now it’s a huge increase in their tax burden.
I think in the end, your position is that dunning should have swept the whole fiasco under the rug to save measure A. Well if that is your position, it sucks.
[quote]That leads me to my final point, it will be interesting to see how this all plays out. Privately the district, volunteers, and board members are livid at the Davis Enterprise and their coverage of the election.
The feeling was that the Enterprise was the voice of the opposition, that Dunning was one-sided and never talked to them to get clarification, so that it became the voice of the opposition.
Mr. Dunning tried to have it both ways, as he supported the Measure and the Enterprise endorsed it, but the damage was done and they felt overblown. Yes, the vocal minority cheered on the columnist, but the overwhelming feeling is that the Enterprise became the voice of a small and conservative minority and ignored the overwhelming majority of voters.[/quote]
These comments miss the issue by a mile. Proper process was flouted by the school district. It was unseemly, certainly on the edge of, if not downright illegal. It was certainly downright undemocratic. Bob Dunning had EVERY RIGHT to point this out. Most bloggers on the Vanguard, including its author, did not agree with some of what transpired on the part of the school district and its supporters (LWV). Even Roberson had the grace to admit the school district made some missteps. And so now the proponents of Measure A want to unnecessarily and inappropriately gloat, despite Measure A just barely passing. Instead, proponents of Measure A “point the finger” of “sinfulness” at: the detractors of Measure A, the “conservatives”, anyone who voted against Measure A, anyone who was critical of what the school district did, etc. ad nauseum. That way the school district/Board don’t have to take a good long hard look at themselves and concede the mistakes they made. First, such an attitude is: arrogant, self-defeating, will not garner support for another parcel tax, undemocratic, and just plain wrong on so many levels.
Can we expect to get more of the same then, when the school parcel taxes come up for “renewal” (read that to mean “renewed with an increase included”?) Because it certainly doesn’t look as if the school district has learned any lessons from their patent mistakes. Intelligence does not come from an absence of mistakes, but comes by learning from mistakes. Those who don’t learn from their mistakes generally are “stuck on stupid” and tend to shoot themselves in the foot eventually. The school district would do well to remember that.
And by the way, the above comments are meant as CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM.
“I think in the end, your position is that dunning should have swept the whole fiasco under the rug to save measure A. Well if that is your position, it sucks. “
My position is the same as it was when his column came out, he needed to talk to the district before writing the column. At least then he would have had their perspective and could have formed his own opinion from there.
“Proper process was flouted by the school district.”
I’d like to know what proper process was, I assume you mean flaunted, by the school district? It seems like the district is getting blamed for the errors by the LWV.
I’ve been surprised by the characterizations of the Measure A campaign as a debacle and the opposing campaign as mudslinging. As campaigns generally go in Davis, this one was pretty benign – although I am cerain that those persons who have been criticized in the media feel otherwise.
The [i]Enterprise[/i] was not “the voice of the opposition” by any means. While they certainly reported the missteps of the campaign (as they should), they also endorsed Measure A. The same is true of columnist Bob Dunning. Both criticized certain actions while supporting the cause. That is not inconsistent, nor is it “trying to have it both ways.”
At the end of the day, nearly everyone behaved like adults (at least in public). For the most part, criticism was directed at actions rather than people. The Superintendant apologized for his apparent campaign letter on District letterhead. Despite early ill-advised rhetoric related to a District personnel action, there is no evidence of any effective movement to “punish” the District or the School Board. Although there may have been a few voters who cast their votes based on acrimony, I suspect that most voters either harbored no grievance with the District or School Board, or set aside their differences and voted on the merit of the central issue at hand and/or their ability to pay the tax.
The closeness of the election result was due, IMO, primarily to the tough economy and the prospect of other upcoming increases in taxes, city service fees and inflation. In short, many voters feel financially tapped out, but those who could afford it were still willing to support short-term emergency aid for DJUSD. If this parcel tax measure had been for any other purpose, I suspect that it would have failed in the current environment.
Volunteer service on any governing board is always frustrating. Criticism is frequent, while thanks are scarce. Unlike previous Boards that were often used as “starter positions” for political careers, nearly all of our current School Board members appear to be doing the job for the sole purpose of providing prudent guidance to the DJUSD. They’ve had to make some tough decisions that were certain to upset some people. [u]To the current School Board members, I offer my thanks, appreciation and congratulations.[/u] Now get back to work.
[quote]DMG: “I assume you mean flaunted, by the school district?”[/quote]
Flout: Openly disregard (a rule, law or convention).
Flaunt: Display (something) ostentatiously.
The commenter’s use of the word was consistent with the opinion she expressed.
Don’t let Rifkin catch you “correcting” incorrectly.
[quote]”(Richard Harris) told the Sac Bee yesterday, ‘Yesterday’s results make me very confident that they will approve the renewal (tax extension)….’ Privately the district, volunteers, and board members are livid at the Davis Enterprise and their coverage of the election.
The feeling was that the Enterprise was the voice of the opposition, that Dunning was one-sided and never talked to them to get clarification, so that it became the voice of the opposition.”[/quote]If this is DJSD’s take-away from the experience, they haven’t learned a thing. Too bad. [quote]”Mr. Dunning tried to have it both ways….”[/quote]Let me suggest an alternative to your view of Dunning’s malevolent inclinations: He reflected the views of many who always vote YES for education and who found themselves surprised by the district’s inept handling of several non-education issues.
Even Superintendent Roberson’s excellent first response to the “senior letter” controversy got immediately stepped on by Harris’ more incendiary comments. Back then, you observed that Dunning “put at risk the district’s prospects for gaining the passage of Measure A….”
If we hold you and Dunning to the same standard in your reporting and commentary, any criticism of existing power structures’ actions wouldn’t be permitted.[quote]”Yes, the vocal minority cheered on the columnist, but the overwhelming feeling is that the Enterprise became the voice of a small and conservative minority and ignored the overwhelming majority of voters.[/quote]Does this mean whenever I agree with you that “I’m cheering you on”? And, I fail to see how [u]Enterprise[/u] objective reporting, fair letter selection and support editorial on Measure A could have made the paper the “voice of the opposition.”
“In the end, enough voters remembered that it was about the kids and nothing more”
So protecting teachers unions had nothing to do with it?
Protecting a system that makes it impossible to fire incompetent teachers had nothing to do with it?
I think it is immoral to support an educational system which has so miserably failed our low income area students. Voting for higher fees in Davis to support our schools is fine, but we owe it to the students of Oakland and Hayward and LA to replace the failed public school system with something that provides opportunities for the future. California as a whole is heading in the direction of Detroit, where an article yesterday indicates 46% of the population is illiterate.
http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2011/05/04/report-nearly-half-of-detroiters-cant-read/
Our only hope as a nation to fix this is to radically change the structure of the schools, perhaps by closing down the teachers unions and/or by offering private school options to all students, through vouchers. By supporting our local schools through Measure A while ignoring the crisis elsewhere in the state, we are as guilty of immoral behavior as the citizens of the southern states who endorsed separate but equal.
[i]”Don’t let Rifkin catch you ‘correcting’ incorrectly.”[/i]
I am a sworn officer. See my badge:
[img]http://wesleying.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Grammar-Police.png[/img]
I don’t understand the anger directed toward renters who voted “yes” for Measure A. I’m assuming that the vast majority will be paying their fair share in increased rent. I know my rent is going up significantly this next year, partly because of Measure A.
[quote] I know my rent is going up significantly this next year, partly because of Measure A.[/quote]
If your rent is increasing by more than $20 [i]per year[/i], don’t let your landlord get away with telling you it is due to Measure A.
I have been gone for the past week. Was there ever a formal response from the LWV for the discussion about their ‘forum’??
[i]”If your rent is increasing by more than $20 per year, don’t let your landlord get away with telling you it is due to Measure A.”[/i]
I could be wrong, but it seems like the apartment vacancy rate in Davis is higher now than it was a year ago and a year ago it was higher than 2 years ago. It may still be a landlord’s market, but it seems–looking at the online listings for available units and the ubiquitous “now leasing” and “move in today” signs at apartment complexes all over town–that we are trending in the right direction for tenants.
The reason I mention that is because what a landlord typically charges for his apartment is the most he can get away with. If there are almost no units in town available, that will be more and more. If there are many units available, the most he can get away with will be less.
So unless you are renting from a landlord who has priced his rentals at a below market rate–and some do–it’s actually quite hard for a landlord in a soft market to pass on burdens like Measure A (though, of course, $20 a year is meaningless in light of a tenant paying $1,000 a month).
[quote]”And without a senior exemption, you would be exposing a large group of people, who do not bring in much income to begin with, to a huge increase in their tax burden overnight.”[/quote]Is there any basis for this oft-repeated description of Davis senior home-owners (living in our expensive homes, many paid-off and still under-taxed unfairly because of Prop. 13)? Seniors value quality K-12 education as much as any homeowner (for a variety of positive and/or self-serving reasons, in my opinion.[quote]”The more conservative parts of town did not support Measure A at the two to one level….”[/quote]David, I’m still wondering about your division of political thought in Davis. Please describe the conservative and liberal community geographic boundaries in our town. You’ve used the C-word so many times in your last two reports, this designation must play an important role in your analysis.
It could be that K Smith leases a single family home, and therefore, the landlord may try to pass through the additional 200.
K. Smith, I’m with you; I don’t understand all the anger on either side of this issue. It was a little school tax to tide us through a tough time. For it, or against it, it is not a big deal. Time to chill out and go back to finding a way to deal with the city’s deficit and the plastic bags.
“I don’t understand the anger directed toward renters who voted “yes” for Measure A. I’m assuming that the vast majority will be paying their fair share in increased rent. I know my rent is going up significantly this next year, partly because of Measure A.”
That’s the point. Many on here told renters that if the measure passed their landlords would most likely NOT raise the rents. In fact one bragged how his rent hadn’t been raised in many years and that was after several school measures had been passed. Therefore implying vote yes and the cost wouldn’t be passed onto them.
J.R.: [i]California as a whole is heading in the direction of Detroit, where an article yesterday indicates 46% of the population is illiterate.[/i]
You don’t mention this, but the situation in Detroit has all the markings of poverty. Their situation is consistent with the pattern of this recent/current recession, in which the auto industry (significantly based in Detroit) has been hit very hard. In 2000 (during better times), a third of the population was below poverty, and ~32% of families were headed by a single female (no husband).
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit#Demographics[/url]
I suspect that the 2010 census will show greater poverty.
You want to make the case that the high (functional) illiteracy rate is mostly due to those “greedy, lazy teachers” and the unions that they belong to, as if nothing else is a factor, here. And then argue that support for Measure A is as immoral as supporting segregation. Those are some serious non sequitors.
Poverty can overwhelm any education system (even if it were decent). This article discusses this:
Failure of U.S. Public Secondary Schools in Mathematics: Poverty is a More Important Cause than Teacher Quality
[url]http://uteachweb.cns.utexas.edu/sites/default/files/BrokenEducation2011.pdf[/url]
Instead of wanting to tear down the whole education system, I suggest that there are workable solutions already out there that can be duplicated in other places.
For instance, I’m impressed with one aspect of Geoffrey Canada’s Harlem Children’s Zone charter school — it’s Baby College. It is most targeted to lower income families. “The Baby College offers a nine-week parenting workshop to expectant parents and those raising a child up to three years old. Among other lessons, the workshops promote reading to children and verbal discipline over corporal punishment.” Such a program could be delivered through Head Start.
[url]http://www.hcz.org/programs/early-childhood[/url]
But before praising the Harlem Children’s Zone too much (it got lots of attention in the recent documentary, [u]Waiting for Superman[/u]), you should know that its costs are greater than those for neighboring public schools. This program won’t solve all the problems of educating lower income kids, but it will get some parents on a better track with their kids, and that will save money in other ways down the road. There are other appealing aspects to HCZ, if you’re willing to fund that kind of program.
But it doesn’t look like that kind of funding will come from the state, and it seems like Davis voters probably wouldn’t want to pay for it either, at the moment.
Wow, the Sac Bee comment section is a riot! It’s entertainment value is almost worth the $400 Measure A is costing me.
Thanks wdf! A true silver lining….
[quote]”Wow, the Sac Bee comment section is a riot! It’s entertainment value is almost worth the $400 Measure A is costing me.”[/quote] You and wdf1 are correct! What a hoot, starting with Hudson Sangree’s story (lede and wrapup):[quote]”Davis residents once again voted to tax themselves to support their elite public school system….Davis voters have passed every school tax put before them in the last quarter-century. Proponents credit the education-centered culture in the college town….”[/quote]Then, continuing with more than 200 comments in a day about Davis’ “elitist pigs,” etc. Haven’t had time to read them all yet, but they probably get better as one reads on.
[i]”Davis voters have passed every school tax put before them in the last quarter-century.”[/i]
Not so. I recall one which failed (to get 2/3rds) back in the late ’90s. It was a bond measure for new school construction. Perhaps others failed, as well, but I have no specific recollection of that occurring.
I wanted to address the renter issue.
First, the assessed value of the parcel tax on rental property is $20 per rental unit. That’s for multifamily dwellings. Thus as someone pointed out, if your rent is increasing by more than the $20 per year, your landlord has reason other than the parcel tax to increase it.
Second, just as I suspect few students voted, my guess is few renters voted.
I’m not sure what JustSaying is getting at in terms of this point, “Is there any basis for this oft-repeated description of Davis senior home-owners (living in our expensive homes, many paid-off and still under-taxed unfairly because of Prop. 13)? Seniors value quality K-12 education as much as any homeowner (for a variety of positive and/or self-serving reasons, in my opinion.” I made no value judgment of seniors on education, the concern that many have is their fixed income.
In terms of this, “David, I’m still wondering about your division of political thought in Davis. Please describe the conservative and liberal community geographic boundaries in our town. You’ve used the C-word so many times in your last two reports, this designation must play an important role in your analysis.”
My view is that the outlying and newer subdivisions as well as the rural areas outside of town but in the school district are marginally more conservative than the core of town and conservatives were more likely to oppose the parcel tax than liberals. Not a big deal but if you look at the results map, it’s a fairly clear distinction.
DMG: “My position is the same as it was when his column came out, he needed to talk to the district before writing the column. At least then he would have had their perspective and could have formed his own opinion from there.”
in other words, dunning should have allowed the district to do some damage control before writing the column. btw, since when is dunning required to talk to the school district before writing his column?
I also find this statement revealing, you appear to be more upset about how dunning broke a story on corruption, than the district for engaging in corrupt behavior.
Yes, I expect Mr. Dunning to adhere to journalistic principles of allowing an entity to explain and place their actions into context.
“you appear to be more upset about how dunning broke a story on corruption, than the district for engaging in corrupt behavior. “
See there’s the thing, I don’t agree with your premise that the district engaged in corrupt behavior. After talking to the district, my conclusion was that at worst it was sloppy writing and that the intent was a solid one based on the number of people making requests of the district’s time on the matter.
[quote]See there’s the thing, I don’t agree with your premise that the district engaged in corrupt behavior.[/quote]
Yet you conceded it “smelled”…
ERM: [i]Yet you conceded it “smelled”…[/i]
For many, perception is reality.
[quote]”I’m not sure what JustSaying is getting at in terms of this point, ‘Is there any basis for this oft-repeated description of Davis senior home-owners (as) ‘a large group of people, who do not bring in much income to begin with, to a huge increase in their tax burden overnight’ (if they weren’t exempt from paying the Measure A tax)….”[/quote]Just wondering what data you have to classify Davis senior home-owners this way? I don’t agree that our seniors would be hard-pressed to come up with $200 for a couple years–or that they wouldn’t be supportive of school tax measures–but I don’t have anything proof that Davis senior homeowners are better off than others.[quote]”You and wdf1 are correct! What a hoot….”[/quote] Upon additional reading, I have to withdraw my enthusiastic endorsement. The good stuff is interspersed with an overload of insults and racist rants.[quote]”Yes, I expect Mr. Dunning to adhere to journalistic principles of allowing an entity to explain and place their actions into context.”[/quote]You’re confusing the roles and journalistic standards of reporters and columnists. The fact that we first read about the letter in his column doesn’t qualify him as a reporter even for this one topic.
The division is clear: Reporters strive to report accurate, balanced, verified news. Columnists opine and offer up their opinions for our consideration. Some journalists serve both as reporters and columnists; Dunning does not.
Bruce Gallaudet bounces back and forth between the two. But, there’s no doubt which role he’s serving with any given article. The writing, placement, content and titling make it clear whether he’s acting as a reporter or as a columnist. The same distinctions place Dunning in the columnist camp day after day after day.[quote]”Dunning as a journalist…owed it to the district to get their explanation….”[/quote]Not so. Journalism first is obligated to deliver up truth to its readers, not to provide a forum for the powerful interests it covers. Furthermore, a columnist’s personal viewpoint doesn’t call for the same level of balance and verification that news reports require.
I don’t understand why you’re still beating the “Dunning’s Due Diligence Drum” after all that’s gone on since your first report. Many have called into question your own facts, legal opinions and conclusions during this episode. Within hours of Dunning’s column, you developed an accusatory report supporting the district and minimizing its action under the assumption that the letter went to a “very small…somewhere around 200” group of exemption holders.
Somehow, you also felt confident to charge that Dunning had failed to contact anyone at DUSD and have continued to do so ever since. I’m curious whether you contacted Dunning that Sunday and verified with him that your reporting (based on [u]?[/u] calls) was accurate? Do you really feel you did your own due diligence while rushing out your initial report on Dunning’s column?
I think you’ve taken an odd tack on this issue from the beginning. You’ve misread Dunning as the enemy, miscast those who agreed with him as personal cheerleaders trying to stop Measure A and still fail to acknowledge the district’s letter as the mistake that the Superintendent labeled it in the first days.
Dunning has been around long enough to satisfy readers and editors with his levels of transparency, accuracy, attribution and opinion. He could be a successful blogger-journalist. But, he’s just a successful columnist-journalist.
wdf1 responded to what I wrote with
“You want to make the case that the high (functional) illiteracy rate is mostly due to those “greedy, lazy teachers” and the unions that they belong to, as if nothing else is a factor, here. And then argue that support for Measure A is as immoral as supporting segregation. Those are some serious non sequitors. ”
I want to ask you, wdf1, do you know what it means when you put words in quotes? Ask yourself, is it honest to put your own words into other people’s mouths as quotes, and then attack them. Let me try it on you and see if you like it.
Why wdf1, do you think that anyone who takes a view that opposes yours is an “idiot who has no place in Davis and should be run out of town” Why, wdf1, do you think that “I am the smartest person in Davis” Why, wdf1, do you think that “teachers are members of a sacred profession of which no criticism can be tolerated”.
J.R.: I apologize for any perception that you suggest in your last paragraph, 11:42 AM. And for the implying that “greedy, lazy teachers” were your thoughts and words.
Your connecting the morality of supporting Measure A as equivalent to supporting segregation was a little much for me, and may have set me off.
J.R.: But I still disagree with your original premise that the schools have failed those communities. It isn’t a poor education system you’re looking at. You’re looking at naked poverty itself, and poor educational outcomes are the result.
wdf1
I appreciate your apology.
I still think you are missing what I am saying. I did not say that supporting Measure A is “equivalent to supporting segregation ‘. In fact I voted for Measure A.
What I am pointing out is that those of us who just look at the schools in our own community while supporting the system that fails those in poor communities are repeating the pattern of southern schools in the 50’s. In both cases there was an inferior school system available for the poor. Blaming the results on poverty is like blaming it on race.
There is plenty of evidence that private schools succeed where public schools fail, at lower cost. Moreover, the competition from private schools can lead to improvements in public schools, as the voucher experiments have shown. Please see the documentary “Waiting for superman”.
The main opposition to improvements in the schools comes from those who stand to lose financially if standards rise. Who do you think that is?
DMG: See there’s the thing, I don’t agree with your premise that the district engaged in corrupt behavior.
I know you don’t!! but see here’s the thing, most of your readers agree, the district was forced to apologize. I just don’t think you want to have to do some serious soul searching. instead you hang on to all of the district’s possible innocent explanations. but I will tell you, I have seen stories broken on corruption in just about every industry you can think of, from military, business, government, health care, and yes, even education.
DMG: After talking to the district, my conclusion was that at worst it was sloppy writing and that the intent was a solid one based on the number of people making requests of the district’s time on the matter.
yes, at worst it was “sloppy writing” – oops! did I write a pro yes on A campaign mailer? Ohh I didn’t mean to do that!! reminds me of the explanation someone gives when they are caught in bed with someone they shouldn’t be.
“most of your readers agree” – Actually 99% of my readers you have no idea how they think, because they don’t post. So you cannot make that statement. Several thousand people read these article and yet only maybe 10 to 20 on a given day and topic comment.
“You’re confusing the roles and journalistic standards of reporters and columnists. The fact that we first read about the letter in his column doesn’t qualify him as a reporter even for this one topic. “
I disagree on that point.
“Not so. Journalism first is obligated to deliver up truth to its readers, not to provide a forum for the powerful interests it covers. “
But part of the way that you do that is by giving the side you slam a chance to respond. It’s why people rightly get upset when I hit the DA’s office and don’t give the a chance to response. The difference is that I have attempted at least in the past to get responses and they refuse to respond. The district wouldn’t have done that. Sorry but you are never going to convince me that Dunning did not have an obligation to talk to the district before slamming them.
J.R.: [i]There is plenty of evidence that private schools succeed where public schools fail, at lower cost. Moreover, the competition from private schools can lead to improvements in public schools, as the voucher experiments have shown. Please see the documentary “Waiting for superman”.[/i]
I’ve seen it. What you’re looking at in that movie aren’t necessarily private schools. They’re charter schools, meaning they’re funded with tax money. What distinguishes charter schools from a neighborhood public school is that they run themselves (not the local school board), and they usually take students from wherever the family is willing to travel. Most charter schools don’t perform better than public schools. Also, when adjusted for family income, private schools don’t yield better results than public schools. The documentary focused on some better performing schools.
I don’t dispute their success. I cheer for them as much as the next guy. The documentary squarely blames the unions. Perhaps there are legitimate points of discussion, there, but to me it’s mostly a distraction from other more important factors. There has been, for too long, too small a pool of qualified teachers available. In many “dropout factory” schools, the teacher turnover is high. So I don’t quite buy that it’s exclusively an issue schools carrying bad teachers. What incentive is there currently to get into teaching? Money and jobs aren’t there; there isn’t much social honor in it these days, either.
Which voucher experiments do you have in mind?
J.R.: Some other differences between charter and public schools are that charter schools can limit their enrollment; that point was brought out poignantly in the documentary. They are also freer to seek outside funding.
The public schools still have to be there to serve everyone else.
By the way, charter schools were an idea that was initially embraced and promoted by Randi Weingarten’s predecesser, Albert Shanker (former AFT president):
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_school#History[/url]