Everything from the magnitude of the tax increase to the lack of accountability has been brought up. Some of these concerns have merit, some do not.
Dennis Lindsay makes this point in his letter to the editor from earlier this week. The idea is that the tax would be “reduced proportionately if the state (as required by law) begins to reinstate any of the funding due the school district.”
Writes Mr. Lindsay, “The school board argues that any sort of required reduction in the tax is unacceptable because of other uncertain potential needs of the district and that we should trust them to do the right thing.”
He continues, “I’ll trust the school board to do the right thing while the emergency lasts, but when the emergency is over, the tax is over. If there are other unforeseen needs, they can make their case at that time.”
He is not opposed to a higher tax so long as it has a shorter term or a deflator on it.
However, while I would prefer to see the deflator in there for the sake of accountability and voter trust, it should be noted that current projections may render that a moot point.
In a communication from Bruce Colby on the State Budget projection this week, he noted that in the state multi-year projects, “there is no projected restoration of the revenue limit deficit. This projection goes out until 2015-16.”
Even emergency funding through the proposed tax in June would only be a stopgap measure – that is a source of money that would be sufficient to stop further K-12 budget reductions, not to restore the previous cuts.
What that means is that there will probably never be a time in the next four years that the district would meet the threshold for the deflator. So on the one hand, the deflator would be moot, on the other, why not offer it as a good faith gesture?
The majority on the board argued that the sunset date on the tax provision is sufficient, but they would have to make that case to the voters, whereas the deflator would be strengthen their position.
There are concerns with the demands of teachers for increased compensation. One point that Bruce Colby made in an email to the Vanguard on Friday, is “The tax funds are not part of collective bargaining and CANNOT be used for employee increases. It pays for specific staff, staff development and classroom supplies that 100% supports student learning.”
As we know from previous parcel taxes, “The Parcel Tax revenues and expenditures are tracked in a separate sub-ledger and are tracked to specific programs and uses as spelled out in the tax ballot measure.”
The district has a 10-person Citizen Oversight Committee, and there have been some criticisms of that oversight, but for the most part the money seems to have gone to the right places.
Along these lines the district has added more transparency on top of the transparency they have used for tracking previous parcel taxes – Measures Q and W.
One of the things we desperately called for from the city during the MOU bargaining session was some sort of transparency, whether it was open negotiations or status reports. The city steadfastly refused to entertain those notions of transparency. They even refused to have a delay between the completed agreement and ratification of the agreement. They refused to allow the Finance and Budget Commission to review any contracts.
However, the DJUSD has created on their website a section for “Joint Communications from DJUSD and its bargaining units.”
It is probably the best level of transparency we have seen in local contract negotiations.
The most recent communication came from negotiations with CSEA (California School Employees Association), who represent the classified employees (non-teachers) in bargaining.
The district laid out their position, “In light of the current fiscal crisis, the District is focused on maintaining the current level of services (program) and employees providing those services. District decision-making is dependent on budget updates soon to be provided by the Governor and State Legislature.”
CSEA laid out their position, “CSEA explained their interest for a salary schedule adjustment and/or Health Benefits equity increases in the event of a COLA [Cost of Living Allowance] from the State. The District will bring Health Benefit data to the next session for review. CSEA shared interests for a new article that would provide representation at all Interactive Meetings. A second new article addressing complaint procedures was discussed. CSEA will be bringing sample language to the next meeting for review and discussion.”
The Davis Teachers Association’s last discussion was on January 7. One can see their discussions here. This would seem to a be a good approach towards transparency and we would encourage the City of Davis to follow suit.
Bottom line is that there are certainly concerns about the magnitude of the tax increase, particularly during this deep and prolonged economic slump.
As Rick Entrikin and Pam Nieberg wrote in a joint letter to the editor last night, “And now the school board is proposing to quadruple what was only four years ago a $120 ‘instructional’ tax to $495, while holding the teachers, students and taxpayers hostage.”
They add, “We support education, our teachers and students, but it is not right for longtime residents and senior citizens, who have supported our schools for so many years, to be ‘in the worst of times’ in the city we love.”
Bottom line is no issue of accountability will address those concerns, but in fairness to the district and the board, there is quite a bit of transparency and accountability built into the process already. Ultimately, the parcel tax will hinge on how many people feel they can no longer afford an increased parcel tax.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
dmg: “What that means is that there will probably never be a time in the next four years that the district would meet the threshold for the deflator. So on the one hand, the deflator would be moot, on the other, why not offer it as a good faith gesture?”
Without a deflator clause, the parcel tax increase becomes simply a “tax increase” during a grim economic recession, rather than an “emergency measure” to help our schools weather steep budget cuts.
“The district has a 10-person Citizen Oversight Committee”
… which apparently never met in 2010, unless I have the wrong committee name:
[url]http://www.djusd.net/district/committees/oversight/agenda[/url]
From the DJUSD Joint Communications link above ([url]http://www.djusd.net/district/hr/hrnegdocs/jtcomdta010711[/url]):
“For now, the teams were unable to bridge the District interest in “off-ramps” to ensure funding for future program restoration and the Association interest in maintaining funds for member compensation.”
It would be helpful to have somebody clarify what this means.
Actually, as far as I can tell none of the district’s advisory committees met in 2010. I know the one that I am nominally on didn’t. But it is possible that the agendas and minutes simply haven’t been updated on the DJUSD web site.
[quote]… and the Association interest in maintaining funds for member compensation.” [/quote]I may wrong, but I think the quote is “code” for ‘eliminate furloughs and increase salary AND other benefits’, irrespective of funding by the State or local initiatives.
It has been brought to my attention that the oversight committee has been meeting; it seems the web site hasn’t been updated. You can find the most recent report in the meeting minutes of the Jan. 5 board meeting. It is hard to post the links, but I’ll try: [url]http://davis.csbaagendaonline.net/cgi-bin/WebObjects/davis-eAgenda.woa/wo/7.0.7.1.3.0.0.7.2.0.40.4.0.19.3.2.3.1.13.1.1.0.0.3.1[/url]
The parcel tax oversight committee gave their report at the January 6 meeting. Don links to the agenda for that meeting. Minutes haven’t been approved for that meeting, but you can see the archived video of that meeting at
[url]http://djusd.davismedia.org/content/january-6th-2011-school-board-meeting[/url]
That item was early on the agenda. Immediately after that report was the discussion of the proposed parcel tax for May 2011, if you care to follow what the specific board discussion was.
Without a deflator clause, the parcel tax increase becomes simply a “tax increase” during a grim economic recession, rather than an “emergency measure” to help our schools weather steep budget cuts.
Unless 1) you think you can trust a majority of the school board to reduce the amount if enough additional state money comes in, or
2) the recovery from this “grim economic recession” lasts longer than the four years of the parcel tax.
If you’re a pessimist, it will be a long, long recovery. If you are a super-optimist, we’ll be out of this mess by spring.
From the Davis Teacher’s Association:
Included in the document is the Association’s position that the District has available or will have available funding beyond what is needed to maintain current employees’ jobs.
Why then are we talking about raising parcel taxes so dramatically?
I would suggest at least in part because the District finance director does not agree with the view of the DTA.
One would assume that before a large tax is implemented, the need would be established. I for one oppose inflicting additional property taxes for the purposes of education when even the teacher’s association does not think additional funding is necessary at this time.
I think the need here is pretty established. They have had to cut services and budget for the last three years corresponding to the economic downturn, now the voters can choose to retain current levels of funding or lay teachers off.
[quote]There are concerns with the demands of teachers for increased compensation.[/quote]
People, teachers are well paid. Look at the published salary schedule: It shows teachers paid as high as $75,845 + benefits for 10 months of work.
http://www.djusd.net/employment/Teachers 2010-11.pdf