Before the school board put the parcel tax on the ballot, they did something very unusual – they had a subcommittee meet for about six months to discuss the options, go over the finances, and understand fully the nature of the district’s fiscal reality.
That they ended up in the same place they began should not detract from that process.
When I read the ballot arguments against the parcel tax, I realized quickly something else – the opponents of the tax measure had not attended any of those meetings. I checked with some of the participants to make sure I hadn’t missed it but was told, as far as they knew, no one had.
This becomes glaringly obvious when they write: “Our district receives four times more voter-levied tax dollars/student than any other district in our region. The DJUSD currently receives funds from four separate parcel tax increases. Since 2010, the amount of parcel tax a Davis homeowner pays to support Davis schools has increased by more than 100%.”
That might be a strong argument if all else were equal. But the problem that we knew going into this process and which became glaringly obvious throughout was that all was not equal.
The average district received $12,228 per student. At DJUSD, even with the parcel tax, it was $11,582 or about 95% of state average. While that seems reasonable, without the parcel tax that amount drops to $10,333 (84.5%).
That means that the parcel tax that is higher than most up until now was still only getting DJUSD from 84.5% of the state average to 95% of state average.
But as Alan Fernandes and Joe DiNunzio learned during the course of their inquiry, even that is somewhat of an illusion. The parcel tax is not just general fund money. It has already been 
allocated to fund specific programs that other districts have decided not to fund.
Thus, arguing that we are paying more already in parcel taxes misses this fundamental point. Had the opponents attended these publicly available sessions, they would have at least understood the nature of this problem.
Nevertheless, they do ask the fundamental underlying question: “Might existing funds be better used to increase teacher salaries?”
Yes, the district has a choice here. The choice is about maintaining teacher salaries that are below average. In a way, they have already chosen to go away from that path. They agreed to an increase in compensation before they got the funding to fund it long term.
That leaves a choice between program cuts and a parcel tax.
In order to cut a lot of these programs, interestingly enough, the district would have to go back to the voters. That is because, while programs like libraries, sit-support services, 7th period and counseling could provide the type of cost savings the district is looking for, each of those are funded by the parcel tax – which would require the district to go back to the voters and remove those programs from the parcel tax and replace them with teacher compensation.
“The 7th period day allows for a breadth of programming that most schools don’t have,” Matt Best explained, noting that a key difference between Davis and Rocklin was that Davis had about 1/7th more offerings of electives because of the 7th period.
Alan Fernandes explained, “That means we’re cutting music and our foreign language offerings and we’re cutting art.”
Alan Fernandes: “In order to get to a place where we’re closing the compensation gap in a meaningful long term way, to do it based on this list, is to fundamentally change what our district is, which is to say that we’ll now become what other districts are and look like in order to pay them.”
Associate Superintendent Matt Best calculated that the compensation gap was between $2.8 and $3.2 million. By contrast, closing an elementary school saves a little over half-million, while going to two junior highs would save $700,000.
The concern expressed by the administration and board, as articulated by Matt Best, was: “Cost reductions will impact the quality and amount of educational programs and services.” He added, “If you want to maintain the quality while raising revenue, it needs to be revenue based.”
He pointed out that “cost reductions will limit budget flexibility in the face of an economic downturn or unexpected changes.”
In the end, the board had little interest in exploring program cuts.
For Boardmember Joe DiNunzio, he noted that last fall there was not a lot of appetite in this community for cutting programs.
He said, “We’re not suggesting any of these things – we want to have a comprehensive look at what our options are.” He stated, “This was done in the interest of putting everything out on the table.
“The analysis showed that we are already running an efficient operation,” he continued. “The options above bringing more revenue in is going to require cutting staff – and that means cutting programs. And we saw in all of these meetings, no appetite for that.”
Ultimately it is going to be the voters’ choice on these issues. For the new parcel tax to be implemented, two-thirds of the voters will need to approve it. If even 33.4 percent of the voters say no, the district will have to go back to the drawing board, either with a reduced parcel tax or a cuts-only plan.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
This action (as described) by the district sounds extremely irresponsible – akin to holding the community for “ransom”.
I disagree. They had little choice but to grant the pay increase. They would have faced a strike and they would have lost on it. At this point it limited the options to cuts or tax increase. They studied the options, put it on the ballot at the next possibly election, and have left the decision up to the voters. The voters have a choice. I see don’t see a problem.
Who says? Perhaps the voters should have been asked that question.
Also, doesn’t this negate the ballot arguments?
I had no idea that it was already a “fait accompli”.
They would have faced a strike and they would have lost.
The fait accompli is the pay increase not the funding of it. The election is a choice between cuts and tax increases, not between pay increase and no pay increase.
There’s no evidence that this would have been the outcome. Strikes do not always occur, and are not always “successful”.
Again, a different argument than the one presented up until this point. Due to the “fait accompli” of approving raises without funding.
Unfortunately, the ones being asked to fund such decisions are “different” than the ones approving such decisions. The “outcome” of that is apparently now the one presented.
A true professional, in a critical field, does not strike… if they do they identify themselves as a “unionist”, not a “professional”. One of the main reasons I’ve never belonged to a union.
If teachers went on strike, truly the only ones “hurt” are the kids… 180 degrees off of the slogan, “it’s for the kids”… if it was true that the teachers would strike, and if was sure of that, I’d vote against this measure, and take my senior exemptions on the other measures already in place.
Coercion is not the mark of a professional. Logical consequences, leaving the district to find employment elsewhere, would be the professional way to deal with an intolerable work condition, to improve one’s lot.
If all strikers were dismissed (fired), and others were found, at least the kids would be in school, even if the teachers were less experienced, or working on emergency credentials.
In a strike, there is no school. Serves no one.
Professionals, particularly in government, should be dismissed if they ‘strike’.
My opinion.
That’s an opinion, not a factual statement. Teachers rarely strike and only as a last resort. What would you suggest teachers do when all other options have been exhausted to address compensation issues, poor work conditions, bad faith negotiating? Simply accept things as they are and not complain? Smile and accept whatever is offered?
Had you read my next post, earlier, I had already answered your questions.
Well, this portion of the thread was started by David asserting that DTA would have…
I labelled my view as my opinion. Your view is not any more factually correct than my opinion.
Now, can we get back on topic as to options other than the parcel tax passing?
Since it’s already apparently a “done deal”, is there any summarized information regarding how the compensation will be distributed (e.g., among teachers at various levels, amounts, future increases, etc.?)
And just to confirm, this increase in compensation WILL occur, even if the parcel tax is rejected?
Actually, good questions… goes to “transparency”. Should be part of the public record as well as the political one.
Good luck with that, ‘tho…
“And just to confirm, this increase in compensation WILL occur, even if the parcel tax is rejected?”
As in, is it a confirmed contract obligation? No, that’s not my understanding. But they will have to consider other ways to increase compensation, for the mere fact that the district needs some stability in its teaching force. Some positions have gone unfilled, some filled with long-term substitutes. That’s not an ideal way to run a school district.
There’s a small pool of available teachers these days, and they’re inclined to seek jobs elsewhere besides Davis, mostly on account of compensation. So alternatives can likely mean increasing class sizes, and cutting staff and programs.
Thanks. So, it appears that David’s article and comments are factually incorrect.
Regarding your other statements, we could debate those (e.g., in reference to teachers who might be attempting to leave their own struggling districts – such as Sacramento’s). But, it’s a different point entirely, and not something I want to debate, today.
In any case, I’m glad to hear that David appears to be incorrect. And, that the district may be acting responsibly, after all (in regard to obtaining “approval” from voters for a compensation increase).
Now, if they would only provide details regarding that proposed increase . . .
But to be clear, I think there is a contingent agreement on a contract IF the school parcel tax were to pass.
Thanks. Have any details been publicly released, regarding that?
Correction:I said that the pay increase was granted irrespective of the parcel tax – that’s untrue. The pay increase is contingent upon the parcel tax passing.
That said the board did commit to finding the funds to increase employee compensation so cuts are a potential outcome if the parcel tax does not pass.
Thanks. Any explanation as to how you got this so wrong?
Was that an “informal” commitment? Or, a binding one?
(The “latter” would suggest that the pay increase WAS essentially granted – regardless of whether or not the parcel tax is approved.)
So – which is it?
Brainfart?
I think they said it at a board meeting, but it wasn’t acted upon in a formal actions.
That’s one heck of an error to downplay in that manner (in both the article, and in your subsequent comments). In a sense, your claim made the school district look bad.
And apparently, even the “commitment” isn’t really there. Nor should it be, under these circumstances.
“A true professional, in a critical field, does not strike…”
Perhaps you haven’t noticed but teachers all over the c country have been striking over the last few years.
I was in a teachers strike once. I didn’t want to do it and thought it could have been avoided. Teachers felt so abused by the school board and district for so long they chose to strike. At that point each individual had to make a choice whether to cross the line or not.
You say you have never been in a union but think you know how others should act. It is easier to judge others when not walking in their shoes.
My Dad was in a union. He had o go on strike when the union decreed it. Even when he didn’t want to. A union member crossing the picket line was subject to violence by other members of the union. your assertion,
is correct, yet the other person taking me to task wrote,
Are you both correct?
“Other people do it” is a pretty lame argument… particularly in ethical matters.
Now, the topic is, are there options other than the parcel tax…
Personally, I wouldn’t deprive teachers of their right to initiate a strike. In fact, I wouldn’t even categorize schools as a “critical field” – at least in the short term. (Unlike, say – police or fire services.) I’m sure that it would disrupt some “parent schedules”, though. (I suspect that a lot of the kids would be “overjoyed”, and would obtain a real-life lesson regarding how the world actually works.)
I think that the basic problem is an increasing “disconnect” between those being asked to pay the taxes, vs. those who use the service. (Perhaps a reason for the “senior discount”, for example. So that they don’t “scuttle” the effort on their own.)
Just my opinion.
Ron… if teachers are on strike, kids are not in class… loss of ADA… the financial hole is enlarged. Fact.
The topic is, are there options other than the proposed parcel tax…
So what? Are they paying teachers, during that time? Are they keeping the schools open with substitutes?
Yes, one of the options is a strike. Certainly not the end of the world, the end of kids’ educations, or even the end of the current system. Might not even be bad for teachers, themselves.
As far as the “topic” is concerned, it’s already been pointed out that there’s a glaring “error” in the one presented.
Incredible post. Speaks volumes…
To partially answer…
Teachers are salaried… they have individual contracts, as I understand it (somewhat unique in the public sector). Unless a strike was very prolonged, their compensation would remain the same. Depending on the contract.
Qualified substitutes, if available, would be additional costs. And those per diem costs vary depending on the time served.
Hiram or other teaching professionals are more than free to correct me. And I’ll respect more informed corrections.
Not even going to touch your last two ‘points’. Will leave that to others.
As does yours. You seem to advocate “taking away” the right to strike.
Uhm, then what would be the point of a strike? Also, doesn’t the state provide a majority of their compensation?
No support for that claim. But, perhaps you could explain why we should be concerned about that, if teachers themselves are not (e.g., as a result of a strike)?
Since the state provides the majority (if not “all”) of their compensation, perhaps that’s where teachers should pursue their goals regarding more compensation?
What points are you referring to? (I guess you’re referring to the “glaring error” that David put forth – as discussed throughout the comment section?)
[edited]
The answer as to whether they get paid varies, depending on whether the superintendent keeps the schools open or chooses to close them. Here is an FAQ from Fresno when a strike was threatened:
https://www.fresnounified.org/Pages/FAQs-for-Potential-Teacher-Strike.aspx
Teacher strikes are highly disruptive to students, families, and the teachers themselves. I suggest you not minimize their impacts so casually.
And again, are you claiming that “regular” teachers are paid – during a strike? Really?
If so, then a strike would essentially be the same as a fully-paid (but unscheduled) “vacation”. (Assuming that there are no “duties” expected of teachers, during that time.)
If they’re not paying regular teachers, then the substitutes would not necessarily be “extra cost”.
“And again, are you claiming that “regular” teachers are paid – during a strike? Really?”
I don’t know 100% on this, but I have the sense that teachers would probably be docked personal or medical leave for every day that they’re out, and that money would cover sub pay. I know of a couple of teachers who were out on extended medical leave and actually had to pay for their subs at a certain point because they ran out of medical and personal leave.
And related to my comment above, this article came out last May:
California Teachers Pay For Their Own Substitutes During Extended Sick Leave
The decision to pursue that option is up to teachers, regardless of whether or not someone thinks I’m “minimizing it”. But again, I suspect that it disrupts parents, far more than their children. (In regard to schools’ function as a free “baby-sitting” service.) 😉
(Yes, I realize that’s not their only “function.”)
The kids would likely be thrilled, and would learn how the world actually works. Maybe a few of them will join in, on the picket line?
They generally make the decision if they feel the district is not negotiating in good faith.
It is best if lesson plans are not disrupted. Anyone who has had schoolchildren is aware of the benefit of continuity in their school work.
I said no such thing.
Bad guess.
The other points you just raised are better dealt with by those within the educational system. I trust Hiram’s take, for example. Also, Don’s cite.
Should we go over each and every comment you made, or perhaps just list the following example?
I’d say that such a view certainly qualifies as an advocacy for “taking away” the right to strike:
Also, it seems that Hiram’s “take” regarding the “extra cost” of substitutes during a strike is quite different than yours:
Trust Hiram and others… I speculated, based on what I knew. I long ago acknowledged tht other may be better informed…
As to the other, that was an “if I was King” thought… even if I had the right to “strike” when I was working full-time, in my profession, my ethics as a government employee and as a professional would prevent me from doing so. Yeah, I sometimes expect others to have the same ethics. My bad. However, I would have considered any serious ethical breach of my employee or professional status to be cause for dismissal. A secondary reason why I’d never consider going on strike.
I always had the choice of ‘moving on’… almost did a few times. And retired early due to an intolerable situation. But turns out, I chose well.
[edited]