On Thursday, the Davis School Board, the California School Employees Association (Davis Chapter 572) and the Davis Teachers Association endorsed all six ballot initiatives, propositions 1A-1F on the May 19 Special Election Ballot.
According to the districts release signed by Cathy Haskell (DTA), Jim Herrington (CSEA), Ramon Cusi (Administrative Leadership Team) and Gina Daleiden (President of the Board of Education):
“Despite the undesirable reduction to public education funding it imposes, we believe the February 20, 2009 budget represents the best compromise of diverse ideologies within our government and among the people of California. Additional revenue cuts to Davis schools are very likely if this budget compromise is not enacted into law by California voters on May 19.
We believe passage of these propositions will help stabilize public school funding and reduce the likelihood of new cuts to the District’s educational program and workforce.
Therefore, our organizations endorse Propositions lA-IF so that we may continue to pursue our mission of providing a quality education for all students, so they may develop the knowledge, skills, abilities, and values to reach their full potential.”
Board President Gina Daleiden told the Vanguard late Friday:
“Though the proposition package is imperfect, DJUSD believes it is preferable to the devastating additional cuts we expect to education if the budget gets kicked back again to the legislature.”
The resolution passed by the board on May 7, 2009 acknowledges that DJUSD receives more than 80% of its funding from the state of California, a budget reduction of $3.7 million stemming from the state budget enacted on February 20, 2009.
However,
“despite these reductions to public education funding, the February budget represents the best compromise of diverse ideologies within our government and among the people of California.”
Thus,
“Passage of Propositions 1 A-I F will help stabilize public school funding and reduce the likelihood of additional cuts to the district’s educational program and workforce,
THEREFORE, the Board of Education endorses Propositions lA-IF as our best hope of continuing to fulfill our mission to provide a quality program for all students so they may develop the knowledge, skills, abilities, and values to reach their full potential.”
DTA President Cathy Haskell:
“The Davis Teachers Association is working hard to help pass Propositions 1A-1F on the May 19th Special Election. Passing the initiatives would help give Davis schools some stability to get through the coming year. DTA is working to see that the all the Propositions pass and we appreciate the CSEA and BOE endorsement. If these important propositions do not pass there will even more work to do.”
The resolution comes as the fiscal picture worsens. On Thursday night, the School Board had to make the tough decision to close its current $1.9 million gap by finalizing the layoff notices to teachers who they had notified back in March they would lose their job. The notices went to numerous staff members and 37 teachers including 15 elementary school teachers.
Unfortunately, given the state’s worsening fiscal picture, these may not be the last layoffs. On Thursday, the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) reported that the state of California facing a cash short fall of $17 billion by July 1 and that number will increase to $23 billion if the ballot initiatives do not pass.
“The General Fund’s “cash cushion”—the monies available to pay state bills at any given time—currently is projected to end 2008–09 at a much lower level than normal. Without additional legislative measures to address the state’s fiscal difficulties or unprecedented amounts of borrowing from the short–term credit markets, the state will not be able to pay many of its bills on time for much of its 2009–10 fiscal year. Deterioration of the state’s economic and revenue picture (such as the $8 billion revenue shortfall we forecasted in March) or failure of measures in the May 19 special election would increase the state’s cash flow pressures substantially—potentially increasing the short–term borrowing requirement to well over $20 billion. California is likely to have difficulty borrowing anywhere close to the needed amounts from the short–term bond markets based on the state government’s own credit.”
That leaves basically two possibilities. One is to increase revenues or decrease expenditures. That means either more tax increases or programmatic cuts. The other option is to take cash flow actions that would delay budgeted state payments or accelerate receipts from revenue.
While the LAO report considers the possibility of federal assistance, they nevertheless “recommend that the Legislature not proceed with the assumption that federal assistance will be available to help the state address its cash flow crisis.”
This morning in her radio address, California Speaker Karen Bass called for exactly that:
“To make that short term borrowing possible, the state purchases what are called “credit enhancements” from large commercial banks to insure our short term bonds and make them viable for investors. But due to the lingering struggles of commercial banks, they can no longer offer these credit enhancements at the level needed for California.
A cash crisis in which the state can’t make its payments to local governments, schools, health care providers and infrastructure contractors would be a devastating blow to the state’s and the nation’s economic recovery. To avoid this kind of crisis California needs the federal government to step in and provide the insurance that commercial banks cannot currently provide.
We’re not asking for a loan or a bailout, just a guarantee like the banks would normally provide if the country were not in the middle of this unprecedented financial situation.”
At the same time, it is increasingly unlikely that the voters will pass the ballot initiatives. On Friday, the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) found that five of the six propositions on the May special election ballot are trailing among likely voters. Interest in the election has increased since March, but so too has the opposition to the five major ballot measures. Those most likely to vote and most closely following the election are also those most inclined to say they’ll vote against the propositions.
Proposition 1A—the measure that could limit future deficits and spending through increasing the size of the state’s “rainy day” fund—has attracted the most interest from likely voters. But it is opposed by a majority of them (52% no, 35% yes, 13% don’t know). Among those who are following election news very closely, opposition is stronger (65% no, 29% yes).
Mark Baldassare, PPIC president, CEO, and survey director:
“The voters who are really tuned in are really turned off. They see the state’s budget situation as a big problem, but so far, they don’t like the solution.”
Bringing the big picture back to DJUSD, back in March, the Bruce Colby, the Associate Superintendent suggested that given the new budget deficit of $8 billion, if the ballot initiatives did not pass, the district was looking at an additional $3 million in deficit much of which would have to be closed with cuts to staff. We will face this in June, but it is possible it will be far worse than $3 million given the worsening fiscal climate in California.
We are facing an educational crisis in this state. Key programs will be cut to the bone. Class sizes will increase. Staff and teachers will be laid off. Voters who are crying for the state to live within their means need to contemplate what that picture will look like and whether we afford to do so.
There are actually two very separate groups of voters opposing the ballot initiatives, only part of them are these fiscal conservatives decrying additional taxation (of which these ballot initiatives are only marginally raising taxation by extending the tax increase two additional years). Others are actually progressive advocacy groups decrying the state’s efforts to balance the budget by cutting programs and shifting monies. The irony is what do they think will happen when these Propositions fail?
Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez two weeks ago warned of an all-cuts budget. That is precisely what we are facing. The very budget that liberal advocates will despise most, but the only budget that can pass given the state’s structural situation.
At the end of the day, Californians can decide what kind of state they want to live in and what their commitment is to the future, to the children of this state and also to the least of us in this state. Not one more penny will be taken out of California’s pocketbooks the next two years if this passes. But my guess is, far more will be taken out of your wallet if they fail. Think about that one for awhile.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
It’s ok, because we’ll have new athletic facilities at DHS, where Blue & White will siphon off donations that could be going towards operational costs for the district.
“Blue & White will siphon off donations that could be going towards operational costs for the district”
That’s certainly not true. The District has already said they will not be taking one-time monies to go toward ongoing expenses.
“It’s ok, because we’ll have new athletic facilities at DHS, where Blue & White will siphon off donations that could be going towards operational costs for the district.”
Amen to that one!!!
Many of us are against the propositions, except 1F, because the propositions are nothing more than political cover so politicians don’t have to take any responsibility for their actions. If things turn out badly, they can point the finger at the electorate – “well, this is what the voters wanted”. No way. I want the politicians to do what they are paid to do – make the hard decisions, whether it is to raise taxes, cut programs, or both. All they are trying to do is duck responsibility with these propositions.
And by the way, most of the propositions stink to boot.
1A creates a slush fund for politicians to dip into whenever they want to raise money for some pork barrel project. The just call it by a different name – “rainy day fund”, but a slush fund by any other name is a slush fund w no strings attached on where it is spent.
1B Where exactly are we going to get “supplemental payments to schools and community colleges”? There is no guarantee if 1A passes, that the slush fund will go to our schools. So I have to assume the “supplemental payments” will have to come from new taxes if not from the slush fund. How are fired teachers and laid off county and state workers going to pay higher taxes? How are the elderly on fixed incomes and young families w children going to pay higher taxes? HELLO, the taxpayers’ collective pockets are just about tapped out. You cannot get blood out of a turnip!
1C Borrow against future lottery revenue? What lottery revenue? Laid off workers will not have any money to gamble on the lottery. Neither will the elderly on fixed incomes or young families w children. Should we really be encouraging people to gamble at a time like this – then worse yet, divert the proceeds away from our schools, that are in desperate need? This one is crazy!
1D Taking away money from preventative programs for young children will be costlier in the long run. If we don’t take care of the health of our children when they are young, we will pay more in the long run when they grow up illiterate, w dental problems, addicted to tobacco, etc.
1E Prop 63 was specifically meant for Mental Health Programs, that are woefully inadequate as it is. Redirecting the funds elsewhere will mean increasing homelessness, result in more emergency room visits and hospitalizations for the mentally ill. Let’s face it, this is another preventative program that if decreased by taking away funding, will result in more expense in the long run.
1F This is about the only proposition that makes sense. Elected officials should not be getting a raise if they can’t come up w a balanced budget, or the budget is running in the red. Why reward them for doing a bad job?
So how would I solve the budget problem? Encourage everyone collectively to take paycuts/accept less benefits, so that as many people as possible will stay employed. Then over time, I would start gradually phasing out programs that are not necessary, but w enough thought and time so that the economy can absorb the hits without sending this country into a deep depression.
We also need major banking/Wall Street reform, better public education on financial matters. Fraud is a growing menace, and needs to be addressed – especially predatory lending, misrepresentation, fraud, bundling bad loans w good ones and selling it as an investment product.
Gradually we need to wean gov’t programs away from providing frills. Frills should be provided by private enterprise. Problem is, we have gotten so used to the gov’t providing frills, we now consider frills a necessity. High schools in my day did not necessarily have fancy stadiums – we ran around a grass field, period. And I don’t think I suffered from it unnecessarily. Let private enterprise fund stadiums, so that basic repairs to school buildings are the business of gov’t.
“That’s certainly not true. The District has already said they will not be taking one-time monies to go toward ongoing expenses.”
But they could if they wanted to! But the DJUSD does not want the financial assistance bc they would lose leverage in trying to force teachers to take a pay cut to balance the school budget.
“”That’s certainly not true. The District has already said they will not be taking one-time monies to go toward ongoing expenses.”
But they could if they wanted to! But the DJUSD does not want the financial assistance bc they would lose leverage in trying to force teachers to take a pay cut to balance the school budget.”
DJUSD will start off the 2010-2011 budgeting processes in January of 2010 with ~$1 million deficit because of currently guaranteed “step and column” increases to all of its employees (increased pay for longevity). That’s before the state comes in with its budget cuts.
Fundraising efforts have not been doing well for many organizations this year. For instance, the Mondavi Center is laying off staff because patron contributions are down. It’s easier to draw in more donations if it’s for a demonstrated one-time expense. That was the promise DSF made last year in its fundraising efforts for those programs. They can’t make that same promise this time around.
If you are the optimist that you portray in thinking that donors are out there to contribute for the next two and three years, then perhaps you have the leadership to lead such an effort?
“I want the politicians to do what they are paid to do – make the hard decisions, whether it is to raise taxes, cut programs, or both. All they are trying to do is duck responsibility with these propositions.”
I think you are naive. The electorate is enamored with promises wonderful government services and low taxes. They like it all and don’t want to pay for it. Republicans get elected on promises of low taxes. Dems on developing/sustaining programs, defined as “investments”, which they are in some key instances, and as “pork” by detractors. There is almost no middle ground represented among politicians. Any slight waivering means you get hung out to dry (see Cogdill, for instance). Until enough of the electorate develops a broad enough and consistent view, one way or another, we’re stuck with the current gridlock.
Unfortunataley for school districts, Ballot Measures 1A-1E are going down to defeat. Does the legislature or the governor have a plan B? Are any of them working on truly/honestly solving the massive discrepancy between expenditures and revenue at all levels of government, beginning with the state? The citizens of California are tired of the corruption, incompetence and diversionary tactics of our local, state and federal government over the past 20 years to avoid the “structural deficits” that legislators and governors have created with their financing mechanisms to essentially pass the buck. These measures are seen for what they are—gimmicks to again pass the buck and the people are tired of it. Local governments have adopted this same conduct and strategy as they approve unsustainable labor and retirement contracts (especially with fire, police and upper management), which they damn well know are unaffordable & unsustainable. Yet they do it anyway always passing the buck to their successors or future generations to solve. During the current severe economic crisis the disaster of fiscal irresponsibility is even more evident than in past years. I was listening to KGO 810 yesterday morning and State Treasurer Bill Lockyer was on the program and he acknowledged that the ballot measures were going to lose with the exception of 1F. He stated that there is literally no money left, tax revenues are way below expectations and California’s ability to borrow money is nearly at an end. He stated there is essentially no one left who is willing to loan money to the state and this is due to the practice by previous legislatures, the current legislature and governors including Deukmejian/Wilson/Davis/Schwarzenegger to pass irresponsible budgets and revenue light taxing mechanisms, which have bankrupted California. Folks the chickens are coming home to roost!
just a general comment. People are getting hit all over due to the economic downturn. Schools are going to get hit too. That can’t be avioded. I think one poster had it right. This rainy day slush fund is just a way of trying to stave off a problem, which can’t be avoided.
this:
Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez two weeks ago warned of an all-cuts budget.
would more accurately have been written as:
Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez two weeks ago threatened an all-cuts budget.
As a teacher, while I do not support an across-the-board pay cut in current salary, I DO think that it could be worthwhile to support a FREEZE on step and column increases for the current year, or even two. Everyone can remain where they currently are, but no increases should take place for the next year or two.
What does 1F have to do with public schools?
Matt Rexroad
662-5184
Slightly off-topic, but slightly relevant:
Top ten happiest places in the world courtesy of Forbes:
[url]http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/05/world-happiest-places-lifestyle-travel-world-happiest_slide_3.html?thisSpeed=15000[/url]
All those socialist, high-tax, universal health care countries in the top ten, but not the U.S.! Not Davis, not Woodland, not even Disneyland (“Happiest Place on Earth”) makes it into the top ten. For shame!
Every single person I know working in the private industry has taken paycuts over the past year. My income has dropped about 35%. The fact that DHS teacher above speaks of a “freeze” on increases for the current year is EXACTLY what the problem is.
It’s time to end that sense of entitlement. I realize the 2009-2010 budget will be ugly, but if this is what it takes to restore some common sense to California… then that’s the way it will have to be.
CUT CUT CUT.
I didn’t vote for any of the props, except the last one.
Maybe a big shock will wake up Sacramento state govt.
Whose “brilliant idea” was it to schedule this election just five weeks after our federal and state taxes were due? This incredibly poor timing will subtract at least ten percent from the positive votes for Propositions 1a-1e, and add at least ten percent to the positive vote for Proposition If. Way to go consultants!
I believe there are fixed dates for when elections can be held. I don’t think anyone gets to pick which dates to hold an election.
“Top ten happiest places in the world courtesy of Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/…peed=15000
All those socialist, high-tax, universal health care countries in the top ten, but not the U.S.! Not Davis, not Woodland, not even Disneyland (“Happiest Place on Earth”) makes it into the top ten. For shame!”
“happiest places” is very subjective. Who decided? What is happiness? Last time I looked “happiness is not a destination, but a byproduct of the journey along the way”. I suspect some socialistic Americans made the judgment call, bc it always looks greener on the other side of the fence – until you get there!
“I think you are naive. The electorate is enamored with promises wonderful government services and low taxes. They like it all and don’t want to pay for it.”
To a certain extent I agree w you. Expenditures on the DHS stadium is a good example, in the middle of an economic crisis. However, where is the LEADERSHIP at the state and federal level to give proper guidance? Because ultimately those ballot measures are placed on the ballot by politicians/special interest groups who own the politicians.
“Expenditures on the DHS stadium is a good example, in the middle of an economic crisis.”
First, the monies spent on DHS stadium cannot be used for the things you would ordinarily want to use them in the middle of an economic crisis.
Second, because of the dynamics of the marketing, the district is saving considerable money by going ahead at this time.
“”happiest places” is very subjective. Who decided? What is happiness? Last time I looked “happiness is not a destination, but a byproduct of the journey along the way”. I suspect some socialistic Americans made the judgment call, bc it always looks greener on the other side of the fence – until you get there!”
Yeah, I guess you’re right. Those damn socialistic Americans at Forbes also just made the judgement call to choose Davis as one of the top 25 towns to live well. What would they know!
[url]http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/04/towns-cities-real-estate-lifestyle-real-estate-top-towns_slide_8.html?thisSpeed=15000[/url]
This link has a variable scale map that shows changes in housing values nationwide. You can scale to the Sacramento area, as well.
[url]http://www.zillow.com/reports/RealEstateMarketReports.htm[/url]