Elections

Measure C this weekend has earned two major endorsements.  First, it earned the endorsement from the Davis Chamber of Commerce, demonstrating the continued commitment of the Davis business community to Davis Schools.

Then this morning it earned the endorsement of the Davis Enterprise, which continues its strong track record, at least on the editorial page, of supporting Davis schools.

Ballots arrived this week for the March 6 Davis Schools Parcel Tax all-mail special election.  As they did, there were a few more letters to the editor in the local paper in opposition to the parcel tax.

While each of four letters that we evaluate makes their own points, none of them come to reconcile how the district will manage next year with $10 million less in its operating budget, which would represent a cut of about 14% from this year’s budget.  The district is already having to make do with $3.5 million less due to ongoing structural issues, but if you add the $6.5 million that Measures Q and W currently fund, that number jumps to $10 million.

There are good reasons to oppose Measure C, that we can go on and list in detail.  If I were going to create an argument against Measure C, I would start by making the point that the school district has had a net decrease in funding every year for the last five years.

During that time, the school district has done primarily three things.  First, used one-time monies to temporarily get through the school year with minimal cuts and disruptions.  Second, they have cut programs, staff, and teachers.  Third, they have passed parcel taxes in 2007, 2008, 2011, and now are attempting another in 2012 as well.  That is four of the last six years.

Judge Samuel McAdam made a play at balancing the first amendment rights of Jose Granda and Tom Randall who oppose Measure C, the school parcel tax, with the need for accuracy in the ballot arguments.

The judge ordered several sentences deleted from the ballot argument, while at the same time leaving intact some of the sentences that former Yolo County Clerk-Recorder Tony Bernhard had objected to.

For those of us who believe that school funding cuts are criminal and that we are risking our future investment for momentary illusive fiscal balance, the results of the last parcel tax election were too close for comfort.

The district knew it was a close call before entering the fray – the final results were actually almost identical to the polled level of support.  But it did not help that the district and supporters of the parcel tax committed a series of errors or perceived errors along the way.  That was coupled with the fact that the district was asking for a $200 increase in the tax, and we had a dog fight.

The District estimates that they save $200,000 by having an all-mail ballot versus the more traditional election, where people have to go to the polls and the county provides polling workers.

Moreover, the last election, in May of 2011, saw the parcel tax matter go to the voters in an all-mail ballot with no reported incidents.  Nevertheless, Jose Granda, who was flagged for improperly bringing up peripheral issues on the ballot statement by the opposition to the parcel tax, Measure C, continues to bring up the issue of the all-mail ballot, accusing leaders of “stealing our secret ballot right.”

Former County Clerk Tony Bernhard has filed a writ of mandate with the Yolo County Courts to remove portions of the argument filed by Jose Granda and Thomas Randall that Mr. Bernhard, along with current County Clerk Freddie Oakley, believes to be misleading.

At issue are two excerpts from the Argument against Measure C – the renewal of the Davis School District’s Parcel Taxes that were passed by the voters in Measure Q and Measure W.

The board awaits the results of the polling, which would help guide the amount and terms of the next parcel tax on the ballot before the voters in March.  Currently the district receives about $6.5 million from these two measures, which could generate up to $320 from each single family home per year.

The Fair Political Practices Commission sent a letter to the district informing them that they had closed the file, after a review of the evidence following a complaint “alleging that the Davis School Board sent a mailer to senior citizens that expressly advocated the passage of Measure A, which would be an expenditure for a political purpose.”

In a statement from Superintendent Winfred Roberson, he said, “Concerning the mass mailing of Measure A senior exemption letters, I am pleased to learn that the FPPC has assigned no fault to DJUSD and has closed the file.”

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.

With the all-vote-by-mail election, 16,000 ballots were counted almost immediately at 8 pm.  At that time, Measure A was passing very narrowly.  The question was how many more ballots.  Had Measure A had a sizable lead it would have been over at 8 pm, but given that a few votes could swing the election, it took a bit longer to know for sure that Measure A had passed.  As it turned out, the original percentage mirrored the final vote breakdown.

Normally about this time in an election, the comment would be that the matter is in the hands of the voters now.  But the truth is, it has been in the hands of the voters for quite some time.  43,000 ballots were sent out a month ago, and it appears just over one-third have been returned already.  The election is over, we just do not know the results until tonight.

Nevertheless, it is dismaying to see the amount of mud and accusations thrown in this election, at a time when the district is going to face a $6 million deficit, a time when teachers will be laid off, a time when class sizes will increased, and a time when the most vulnerable students in the school district will be at grave risk.

The Davis Enterprise is reporting this morning that Thomas Randall, one of the primary movers against Measure A, has filed an FPPC (Fair Political Policies Commission) complaint against the district on Measure A.

According to the Enterprise, Mr. Randall “said his committee has filed the complaint against the Davis Board of Education, and specifically board president Richard Harris and trustees Gina Daleiden and Sheila Allen.”

One thing that I have learned during this Measure A election cycle is that as little as I know about school financing, the average person knows so much less.  I do not mean that in a derisive way, it is just a fact that school financing is one of the most complicated things we have to try to make sense of.

There is a simple reason for that, California’s education code is not a simple uniform document, but rather layers and layers of laws and financing strung together over the years.  You have state and federal monies coming in, you have mandated spending in some areas such as special education, you have categorical funds that can only be spent on certain things.

School financing is a complicated area that, frankly, lay people should not try to argue about unless they are well-versed.  So, when Measure A opponent Jose Granda wrote a letter arguing, “Teachers used as political hostages” in Davis, he got a lot of facts wrong.

He wrote, “When you look at these numbers, it is easy to conclude that Measure A is a farce. What the school board is doing to the teachers in unconscionable. Like hijackers, they are using them and the programs they are obligated to provide our children with taxpayer dollars as a political hostages to coerce the voters into approving Measure A. These numbers prove the deception of the school board.”

Yolo County Supervisor Matt Rexroad was commenting on a discussion, and mentioned something to the effect that process in his experience only becomes an issue when all other arguments are exhausted.  I took exception to that remark and I will prove it today.

Democracy is not a clean system.  It is messy because it is about process first and results second.  We have ideals of free elections, open government, freedom of speech, freedom to express a variety of ideals.  It is the marketplace of ideas that embodies our governmental bodies.

Given my pointed criticism of Bob Dunning recently, I think it is only fair to point out that he is absolutely correct when he writes, “The spirit of openness and fair play that we’ve come to expect when debating political issues in the City of Davis was clearly lacking in the recent League of Women Voters ‘forum’ on Measure A.”

Why is that? Because they apparently went out of their way to invite only those speakers who supported Measure A and “specifically declined respectful requests from the ‘No’ side to have a seat at the debate table.”

The last financial statements are now in from Measure A.  While this seems to be one of the more contested parcel taxes we have seen, the amount of organized opposition, even this time, is fairly small, as the No on Measure A committee named “Davis Taxpayers Against Measure A” received a total of 740 dollars from three donors.

Two of those donors should be no surprise to anyone: Jose Granda who has been been one of the more outspoken opponents of this measure chipped in 130 dollars, while Thomas Randall chipped in ten.  The third donor bears some scrutiny: six hundred from Voters for District Elections.