With the passage of Measure A, the district gets to breathe not a single breath. Not a single one. The district knows that it closed about 3.2 million dollars in its current shortfall, which would be very helpful if it knew what its current shortfall was.
Our best guess, and the one that we will be operating on, is that it is about six million dollars. That assumes a lot, though. It assumes that the state’s budget deficit will remain at its current level and that the legislature will not reach a compromise on tax extensions and therefore, that it will have to cut additional money from the education budget.
“We’re trying to plan for 2011/12, but we still have not seen the final verdict from the state as to what the Governor’s budget is going to be and what level public education is going to be funded,” he added.
Right away, the district will have to cut the budget and lay off personnel. However, as the Superintendent also reminded the Vanguard that night, it will not be nearly as bad as it could have been.
That is the good news, the bad news is that within a year we need to do this all over again. Measure Q and Measure W are set to expire and the district will have to renew those parcel tax measures that total $320.
Is that problematic, given the fact that Measure A flirted a little too close for comfort with the two-thirds line?
Not for Richard Harris, who told the Bee earlier this week, “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.”
I have mixed thoughts on this question. On the one hand, Davis has a very strong core support for education and has demonstrated this on a frequent and repeated basis.
On the other hand, there was definitely more vigor behind the usual suspects’ usual opposition to taxes.
Some of that undoubtedly could be traced to what I will call “missteps” in the Measure A campaign. There was the letter to seniors, there was the coach, there was the League of Women Voters, etc.
Board President Richard Harris told the Vanguard, “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.”
But was he right?
We do not have exit polling so it is difficult to know how much of the closeness was due to voter anger with a number of issues and how much of it was actually due to the fact that the voters have had enough taxes.
And remember, the outcome was about in the margin for error of the polling that took place before any of this occurred, which may argue that the campaign had zero effect on the vote, and that voters just did as they intended to do going in, except for perhaps a few who were truly on the bubble and floated one way or the other.
The question then becomes whether the District and, more importantly, its team of campaign supporters merely needs to tighten up their performance next time or whether this outcome represents a bigger problem, such as that the voters in Davis are tapped out and are increasingly unwilling to bridge state cuts to education with local monies.
More problems exist on the horizon. First, we have the increasingly steep water hikes which will dwarf the impact of the parcel tax.
Second, the city wants to renew its parks tax, and perhaps other taxes as well.
All of this may come to a head in 2012.
What does strike home is that, while critics certainly tried to make the point that the district did not need the money or that they were taxed too heavily, there really was not much resonance to that argument. The bulk of the discussion focused on the missteps.
While there were a few vocal critics who attempted to question the district’s spending priorities, few did so with any real understanding of state law requirements for school funding, no one presented an alternative budget, and few addressed a fundamental point that the district is operating on $10 million less in state money than they were five years ago.
Some have suggested a leaner, meaner approach, but fewer suggested what that would look like. Is the suggestion that we cut out teachers? Cut salaries? Cut teacher benefits? Remove support staff? I would really love to have a good discussion on this stuff, but that requires critics to understand where money is going and why it is going there.
There is also a bottom line here. Without an extension of Measure Q and W, we are looking at somewhere around $5 million in spending cuts. The district cannot afford that. So I am curious as to whether people will support an extension of Q and W, and what they think the district needs to do in order to earn their trust, should they be floating on the bubble.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Richard Harris:
“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.”
Would that be the same “they” who will be asked to pay incredibly higher utility rates in the very near future also?
Allen and Taylor have already stated their position and will push for an even bigger Q&W, and my guess is they will be probably pushing for at least $400 if not $600, and making it permanent. In 2013 we will again be hit with the usual “do it for the children” plea for [i][b]temporary[/b][/i] renewal of measure A.
I doubt it Wesley. I think they’ll stick to $320 as my guess would be polling would show anything higher to be a problem and $320 may not work either.
[quote]And remember, the outcome was about in the margin for error of the polling that took place before any of this occurred, which may argue that the campaign had zero effect on the vote, and that voters just did as they intended to do going in, except for perhaps a few who were truly on the bubble and floated one way or the other.[/quote]
This is it in a nutshell. Voters were clear right from the start that $200 was the absolute limit of what they were willing to do. If the school district tries to increase school parcel taxes, I suspect the “extension w increases” won’t be approved. Let’s hope the school district got the message.
[quote]Some have suggested a leaner, meaner approach, but fewer suggested what that would look like. Is the suggestion that we cut out teachers? Cut salaries? Cut teacher benefits? Remove support staff? I would really love to have a good discussion on this stuff, but that requires critics to understand where money is going and why it is going there.[/quote]
Since every suggestion on how to make changes for improvement of our schools is generally met with extreme hostility from the teachers’ union and proponents of Measure A, how do you have a “good discussion”?
“Assemblyman Gilbert Cedillo, D-Los Angeles, proposed both AB 130 and a pending companion measure — Assembly Bill 131 — that would open the financial aid door even wider by allowing those illegal immigrants to qualify for Cal Grants and other publicly funded aid.”
We’re already underfunding our colleges and it’s harder for CA citizens to get grants and public aid so what do the CA democrats propose to put through, more grants and aid to illegals for college.
what you call “missteps” I call corruption. An organized effort between the District and DLWV to shut NO on A out of the disscussion altogether and thwart the democratic process. mob tactics. then deny the whole thing and claim amnesia.
DMG: While there were a few vocal critics who attempted to question the district’s spending priorities, few did so with any real understanding of state law requirements for school funding, no one presented an alternative budget, and few addressed a fundamental point that the district is operating on $10 million less in state money than they were five years ago.”
you did not present an alternative budget, and yet you supported the senior exemption because as you pointed out earlier, they simply cannot afford the tax. so, for the purposes of supporting the exemption you accepted the arguments of critics even whith the districts squealing about a “shortfall of 6 million.” well, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, and I too do not have to present an alternative budget for the argument to stand on a broader scale than merely seniors. seniors are not the only ones with financial hardships who also, as you said on the other article “simply cannot afford the tax.”
speaking of which, the goddmaned district is not the only party who is dealing with less money. As I stated earlier, many are losing their jobs, and their homes. the economic pain is not merely being concentrated in the district. if davis doesn’t watch itself, it will tax itself into the poor house to save it schools, it will bleed its tax generators dry, and then you’ll be left wth no schools at all. people complain about gaps between the rich and poor, just wait till the water and sewer increases hit. then you will really see that gap.
and while we’re on the subject of people who do not substantially address points made by others, I have as yet to see the substance of dunning’s articles refuted by something better than “dunning should have talked to the district first.”