School District Looks at Budget Assumptions, Passes Election Consolidation

In an action packed meeting Thursday night, the Davis Joint Unified School District received the first interim budget from Budget Director Bruce Colby. Despite uncertainty about the state budget, Mr. Colby reported that the school district has enough in its rainy day reserves to survive this fiscal year with no additional cuts.

"General Fund is deficit spending and has adequate rainy day reserves to maintain positive budget certification with the approved current state budget assumptions. The District budget will need to be adjusted once the state acts on revisions due to the state budget crisis."

That is the good news for the school district. The bad news is that next year they will not be in such fortunate shape. Depending on the budget that is ultimately approved, the district is probably looking at a sizable deficit of at $1.8 million. This is entirely due to the state's budget crisis and the prospect not only of zero COLA but the likelihood of budget cuts barring a major surprise.



Based on current budget assumptions, the district will be in the black for the three fiscal years covered by the report. The caveat is that once a new budget is passed, the assumptions will change and the district will have to adjust its budget.



One of the interesting aspects to the discussion last night over the budget is that the Governor's budget provides more flexibility on categorical funding than the Democrat's budget. Mr. Colby suggested that at least from the standpoint of this district, we are better off with greater categorical fund flexiblity. Board member Susan Lovenburg mentioned that the district had received a letter from Senator Gloria Romero who chairs the education committee asking the district to her know what their needs are in terms of categorical fund flexibility. The district will have Mr. Colby communicate with the legislature including our own representatives to let them know about our needs.

Board Votes Unanimously to Consolidate Elections

Richard Harris felt truly conflicted about the issue of extending his own term by one year. He understood the budget realities facing the district. The fact of the matter is that the county was going to impose much larger fees for conducting an election. He still wanted to look toward a means of compromise for his term. He expressed frustration at the meeting about the process and the fact that the County Clerk was passing along fixed costs to local jurisdictions. He also questioned the decision by the Clerk to hire a new chief deputy. Very similar to the views expressed in the Vanguard yesterday.

In the end, he did the right thing and voted to consolidate the terms even though he recognized he would earn the scorn and ridicule of a local columnist who had previously given him an "A" for standing against such a move.

If it means anything to Richard Harris, I grew a measure of respect for him during this process as I could see a very genuine conflict in his mind between two principles--the first being a democratic principle of not extending his term that he was elected to and the other being a fiscal principle that he had to steward the school district through appalling economic times.

I think it was important that this vote not go down 3-2. I think that would have cast more doubt on the process and the legitimacy of it. So it was pleasing to see Mr. Harris and Susan Lovenburg do the right thing and join their colleagues on what was clearly a painful (and rightfully so) decision.

For that I give Richard Harris an "A" even though I recognize it does not mean nearly as much coming from me as it does from my longer term counterpart at the Davis Enterprise.

Board Votes to Extend Health Benefits and Bruce Colby's Contract

I am disappointed to report that the board voted 5-0 to extend the health benefits of certain classes of district employees during this time of economic crisis. As I explained earlier this week, the raises are much deserved and needed. The timing is suspect. The district has basically frozen open positions to balance out the books. That is both noted and appreciated.

That said, if they could freeze open positions to offset these costs, that means those freezes will not be available in the future to offset other needed cuts. That is my chief concern.

Boardmember Lovenburg voted for this one suggesting that the district had already promised this increase for health benefits because they had done the rest of the district's employees in a previous year and promised these employees that they would get their turn.

However, when it came time to extend the contract of Bruce Colby, Ms. Lovenburg held the only dissenting vote. She expressed strong support for Mr. Colby. However, she said she would only support a three year extension on the same terms as before. We could not afford to do a pay raise at this point in time.

As I stated earlier this year, no one has more appreciation for the work he has done than myself. This is not an issue of support or lack of support for Mr. Colby. Unfortunately we live in times where we will need maximum budget flexibility. The district has done an admirable job of balancing these pay increases.

I want to be clear that the district has made the funds available for these increases and it has come at the expense of the very departments where these individuals work. In other words, in exchange for greater pay or benefits, they will have to do more work. I want that point to be clear.

My problem with this is that once you cut these positions you will not have that flexibility next year when you face huge budget cuts. The district decided that their health benefits were irresponsibly low and that had to be rectified, I just do not believe this is the year to rectify that problem.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Vanguard Looks At Increasing Election Costs

Tonight, the Davis School Board will most likely vote to pass an election consolidation measure which will move school board elections to the November General Elections as opposed to the current arrangement of the November Election in odd years.

The overriding factor here is cost and the rising cost imposed on the school district by the County has made this move necessary. Because the other districts in the county have already moved their elections to even years, the school district would have to bear full cost of running an election.



Last year that cost rose to $585,622 for the 2007 election county-wide. It is unlikely that the district would have to pay that full amount and estimate suggest closer to the $300,000, but part of that will depend on increasing costs from the county which if they continue at the current rate, could push the cost much higher.



DJUSD officials were stunned in February for instance when they got the bill for the November 2007 and found it to be $155,420, a more than three-fold increase over the 2005 election. Far more than they budgeted.

The Vanguard now takes a closer at these rising costs. The first graph and chart show the increasing costs for running elections since 2000.

In 2003, the total cost was $88,000 of which DJUSD bore $52,000. That cost rose to $319,000 in 2005, remember in 2005 was the Governor's initiatives and Measure X, as a result, even with the rising cost, DJUSD only paid $47,000. That changed in 2007 when the cost increased by a huge order of magnitude. County-wide it was just under $600,000 of which Davis paid over $150,000.

These increases were somewhat baffling since the cost of doing business may have gone up, but certainly not by half a million over four years.

When we examine the breakdown of the costs we get a far better picture of what is going on.



In 2003, the county only passed on a fraction of the costs to local jurisdictions. The biggest costs were all direct costs for running the election. The county charged $46,000 for its printing and $15,000 for its election night staff. A small portion of that cost was $10,000 to staff and salaries.

In order to highlight the changes, I have color coded the changes for 2005 and 2007. Coded in blue are huge increases in cost from 2003 to 2005 and coded in red are huge increases in cost from 2005 to 2007.

What we see in 2005 is largely what appears to be a fuller bearing of election night costs from the county to the jurisdictions holding election. So you have a huge increase in the cost of election night staff, printing, postage, and drayage (the cost of trucking the polling equipment around). One exception was a nearly seven-fold increase in the cost of staff salaries and wages.

In 2007, we see that trend continue, but now they are asking local jurisdiction to bear what appear to be fixed costs. There was an increase in drayage costs, but the other increases were mainly fixed costs with the exception of extra help salaries, wages, and overtime which the county charged for the first time.

But you see now $154,800 in staff salaries and $58,000 in benefits. Overtime appears to be an additional cost. But you have over $200,000 in costs passed on to the local jurisdictions for what appears to be normal operating costs to the election's office. It is hard to evaluate the line for indirect election costs, also a new line for 2007.

What appears to be happening is that with the county facing revenue problems, they have simply passed along the costs to other jurisdictions. That seems reasonable. But they are making those jurisdictions that utilize specific services that year bare the full costs of running the department, costs that would be incurred regardless of whether or not they held an election.

The consequence has been to force most jurisdictions into the general election where the costs are shared across jurisdictions, but for Davis this comes at a cost.

Board Member Richard Harris adamantly believes that it is wrong to vote to extend his term. I do not agree with him fully on this issue, but he clearly feels very strongly about it, strongly enough that it appears he will resign after his fourth year. The county's revenue crunch appears to be the culprit here, but the cost-bearing apparatus should be examined.

Perhaps a more equitable distribution of costs would be a more fair way to go. After all, the elections office will still operate in 2009 with its basic staffing level regardless of what DJUSD decides to do here. So the question as to why they should pass along fixed costs to DJUSD seems appropriate? Perhaps this is something that should be more closely evaluated.

Earlier this week, the County Clerk's Office announced the hiring a new chief deputy, Andrea Jones, who had previously worked as Supervisor Mariko Yamada's chief deputy. The position had been open it appears for at least six months, meaning that the election's office functioned through the highest turnout election in recent years without someone filling this position. Given the cost cutting mode of the county and given the new policies by the County Clerk's office, perhaps, this position would have been better off staying vacant. After all, is there not a basic hiring freeze in place in the county, and if there is not, shouldn't there be?

---David M. Greenwald reporting

DJUSD Moves Toward Changing Election Cycle

As I mentioned in a previous article on this subject, the move from odd-year elections for DJUSD board members to even-year elections make complete sense from a democratic standpoint and a budgetary standpoint.

From a political standpoint both Bob Dunning and Richard Harris expressed concerns about the major drawback, the fact that the board members would essentially be extending their term for a year. Looking at the issue purely from this standpoint however, obscures the benefits of the move. The biggest being the huge budget impact. But the secondary point being democratic factors. In 2007, around 30% of people turned out to vote for DJUSD board elections, Measure P, and Measure Q. In 2008, over 80% of the voters turned out to vote in the Presidential election and by extension in the Measure W election. Even in an average mid-term election, you are looking at well over 50% of the vote. To me it makes perfect sense and I will share more in the commentary portion of this article.

The board last night had their third discussion on this item without taking a vote. However, there is a clear three member board majority that favors this move pending a vote possibly next week.

The big change necessitating the move is also the fact that DJUSD would be the only election matter on the ballot in odd years and thus would have to bare the full cost of the election.

In a memo from Sandra Fowles, DJUSD Director of Fiscal Services she explains the impact:

"The district shared the ballot costs in 2007 with the Yolo Library District locally and the county costs with West Sacramento, Yolo County Office of Education (YCOE), and Woodland. In 2005 a statewide special election was held and the district shared costs with the state, the City of Davis locally and county wide with YCOE, Esparto, Winters and Woodland. In the election years of 2001 and 2003 the district did not share the costs with another district locally but shared the costs with other school districts county wide. The cost to run a Board member election in 2007 was 245% more than 2005. The cost is expected to increase another 43% for 2009 if Davis Joint Unified is to remain the sole election contest on the ballot for the November election.

The ability to conduct the district election strictly by mail is not currently an option. The County of Yolo is pursing legislation giving Yolo County this right."

County Clerk Freddie Oakley wrote the school district in September:

"The result of using that formula for the first time was a really awful "sticker shock". We subsequently adjusted the billed amounts downwards by removing some of the items that we were billing for the first time. In order to maintain a spirit of fairness and cooperation with the districts, we have permanently removed some of those items from the billing formula - for instance, the cost of my salary and the cost of some "allowable overhead." Any further adjustment would necessitate raising the issue with our auditor and Board of Supervisors.

In discussing ways to reduce or minimize election costs for the districts, we have discussed the advisability of districts changing their election schedules so that they move from the odd-year "Uniform District Election Code" (UDEL) schedule to the even-year "General Election" schedule.

We have posited that such a change would afford the districts the economies of scale that are the result of sharing the expenses of transportation, poll worker costs, "real estate space" on the ballot, and other inflexible expenses."

Board Member Richard Harris remains adamantly against the change, arguing that the voters voted him in for a four-year term, he considers it wrong to take an extra year.

Since he said it very succinctly in his December 4, 2008 letter to the editor in response to Bob Dunning's column, I will use his words from that which he forcefully reiterated last night:

"I will not vote to extend my own term of office because I don't believe elected officials should extend their own time in office.

I consider it a privilege to be on the school board and thank the people who voted me into office last year. But it is their right, not mine, to extend that term.

There may be savings from consolidating elections and I look forward to more discussion about the issue. But as I stated the other night, there are also benefits to school board elections being run separately from other elections.

We should consider those benefits versus potential savings from consolidating future elections without interjecting the notion of unilaterally extending our own terms."

Board Member Tim Taylor however passionately and eloquently summed up the counter-argument which seems to be carrying the day:

"The people elect you to take care of this district, and for anybody to say, well, 2009 we'll just bite the bullet, is not taking care of this district. And quite frankly I think that's thinking of the individual and not thinking of the collective. I think our job is to think about this district and think about the collective and think about what's in the financial health and security of this district. This is not a power grab for anybody, believe me. This is not even a personally wise decision for anybody to do on a personal level. It's only about the district. To think well it's not in my interest or I am somehow violating the trust... is the complete wrong way to look at this. The public has entrusted you with the financial security and the health of this district and if you say I'm going to spend fifty thousand dollars, much less a hundred and fifty thousand dollars, much less five hundred thousand dollars in 2009 that you don't have to spend, you're not entrusting, taking on that public trust ability. And quite frankly that is the beginning and end of the story."

Mr. Taylor doesn't see this as an equal decision, but he said that there are real on the ground consequences

Past Board President Sheila Allen:

"I am willing to take one for the team, to stay one more year if it meant a school could stay open, a teacher's job could be saved..."

She continued:

"I would do all sorts of things for this school district to save programs."

Newly elected Board President Gina Daleiden summed it up:

"I agree with what Tim and Sheila have said because I closed a school, we're still battle scarred from that. I won't do that again for a few more months because I have a funny feeling about it."

Ms. Daleiden continued:

"I think it's a no-brainer when you are talking about laying off teachers and destroying programs."

I agree with the position of Boardmembers Taylor, Allen, and Daleiden. I think this is a no-brainer. Frankly, if the biggest cost is the political future of board members because of this move, it is a small price to pay. It is far better than the prospect of closing a school or laying off teachers. We are not talking about a small sum of money here, we are talking about perhaps half a million or more. That's a school right there. That's perhaps eight FTE teaching positions.

I think Tim Taylor is absolutely correct when he said that the voters elected the board to take care of the district, and this is the best way to take care of the district.

One of the first votes I cast was in an election in San Luis Obispo which consolidated the ballot to even years. From a financial standpoint it makes sense and from the standpoint of democracy, getting good voter participation it makes sense. The 30 percent turnout in 2007 was both a waste of taxpayer money and problematic for democracy. And we saw that the city could support education even when 80%-plus turn out at the polls and I suspect people were as aware if not more aware of Measure W as opposed to Measure Q.

One final point, it seems like they would put the parcel tax on February 2012 ballot and it would take effect for the fall. The downside to that is that if it were to fail, the district would have some difficulty getting it on the June 2012 ballot. But it may be possible. That would be the only hurdle to that dilemma, I know people were asking about it for the townhall meeting.

As Tim Taylor pointed out, this is not a political power grab, this is a prudent economic cost savings during one of the worst financial times ever. If board members such as Richard Harris are uncomfortable with that, and I can respect his trepidation, they can always resign. I do not say that flippantly and I hope that Mr. Harris, despite my perhaps policy disagreements with him, does not resign over this matter.

It appears this will be put to rest next week, I hope they can vote on it and I hope it does not end up a 3-2 vote, which might be more harmful than the action itself.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Down the Homestretch for Measure W: Multiple Views on the Ballot Measure

If Measure W passes, the good news is that Vanguard readers will have plenty of other things to read about and this blogger who sometimes acts as a reporter will not have to stay up until 1 or 2 in the morning to watch school board meetings.

Yesterday someone in the comment section asked me how much I was getting paid by the district, implying that I was a shill for them. I can understand how someone would feel that way. I have spent many many hours in the last year working on this blog and elsewhere to get Measure W passed.

Granted I have been talking about a parcel tax for far longer, but the first mention of Measure W was August 3, 2008 on this blog. Since then this will be the 17th article I have done mentioning Measure W.

Tomorrow, we will have a very special report on the Measure Q oversight committee. I encourage everyone skeptical of that process to read what Bob Schelen has to say.

Today, we are going to take a look at what a number of people and others are saying about Measure W.

The Davis Enterprise has letters from four of the five school board members supporting Measure W. I am not certain if Susan Lovenburg has already submitted a letter, but if she has not, do not read anything into it. She was out at the MU on Monday working hard trying to tell students about Measure W.

Board President Sheila Allen actually posted this on the Vanguard as well, yesterday.

I am going to post her entire post here for those who do not read the comment section.

She directed people to note that she is a strong supporter of neighborhood schools:

"Note especially the last paragraph. I am a firm supporter of neighborhood schools for many reasons that I have publicly presented during School Board meetings for the Valley Oak and the Emerson discussions. Please show your support by Voting Yes on W."

Here's the body of her letter:

"We moved to Davis because of the great schools. This is true for our family. I have received many emails from concerned citizens that begin with that very sentence. But, because of an on-going decline in state funding for public education the ability to continue our great programs is at stake.

This year the district cut $1.1 million dollars from the budget and still faced the specter of cutting an additional $2 million in program. With a budget that is over 80% direct student-related personnel, these dollars mean teacher jobs. Last spring hundreds of students, teachers, parents and community members lined up to ask that their program or position would not be cut. Luckily, the Davis Schools Foundation was able to rally the community to temporarily fill the gap for this school year only. Measure W will mean the teachers and our programs will continue for the next 3 years. Measure W means the Davis public schools will continue to be a great place to learn for all of our students.

On November 4 you have the opportunity to provide a solution. Coming to protest in March will not be a solution. The solution to save the teachers and program is now--and it is Measure W! Please vote yes on W."

Then Gina Daleiden and Tim Taylor:

"Clear and straightforward, if you support science, math, English, foreign language, music, social studies, librarians, athletics, debate, journalism and the teachers who enliven the minds of our next generation, then you support Measure W. The choice is clear.

We are all too aware of the state budget crisis and the impact that has on school funding. Local dollars are needed to maintain our quality programs here in Davis - among the best in the state - because state dollars simply do not.

You may find yourself asking, is the school district running leaner in these trying economic times? Absolutely. DJUSD spends more than 80 percent of our discretionary budget on expenses directly related to classroom instruction - teachers, counselors, principals and para-educators. Of the remaining percentage, we've cut $1.1 million, including eliminating one of the top three administrative positions, squeezing site budgets to levels difficult to sustain, and cutting operating costs. Our administrative budget falls in the lowest tier in the state, lower than most school districts, and even lower than many nonprofit organizations.

Despite all of this, the shortfall in funding is over $2 million annually. It is simply not possible to cut these funds without severely impacting the classroom and our kids. Vital programs and teachers will be lost. Our school system, our community and, most importantly, our children will lose."

Boardmember Richard Harris makes a plea that they need a two-thirds vote:

"To succeed, we need two votes in favor of Measure W for every one vote against it. Unlike the presidential race, where a candidate can win without gaining the most votes nationwide, or the local bond measure for community college facilities that can pass with only 55 percent of the vote, we need a super-majority of two-thirds support to pass Measure W. A simple majority will not be enough to save our schools.

Measure W is a true test of this community's willingness to take local responsibility in these uncertain economic times for key education programs like science, math, music and libraries.

We've reached out to voters during this campaign and we know a majority of voters, and overwhelmingly parents, support investing $10 a month in their community. A clear majority of voters definitely agrees with The Enterprise, the Chamber of Commerce and the Yolo County Taxpayers Association that Measure W is good for the schools and the community.

But there are many more potential voters in households without students attending Davis schools than households with children in the schools.

So parents, now is the time to get out of your comfort zone and go talk to your neighbors who don't have school-age kids. Tell them about Measure W, emphasize that strong Davis schools make our community strong and Davis a better place to live. Earn their support and then make sure they vote."

Do not take the word just for the elected members of the school board. A few weeks ago, the Sacramento Bee Endorsed a Yes on Measure W vote, citing: "APPROVING PARCEL TAX WILL PRESERVE A TRADITION OF GOOD SCHOOLS"

They write:

"Voters approved the last four-year parcel tax in November 2007, for $200 per parcel.

Since that 2007 parcel tax passed, however, the state's budget situation has worsened, and with it the situation in local school districts. The Davis school district faced $2.8 million in cuts this last year. A one-time fundraising effort by the Davis Schools Foundation staved off $1.77 million in cuts, but the district still had to chop $1 million out of the budget.

So now the Davis school board is back, asking voters to add $120 a year to the 2007 parcel tax to avoid program cuts. Measure W would raise $2.4 million a year for the next three years."

They continue:

"The additional $2.4 million a year would allow the Davis schools to preserve elementary science and music programs; preserve librarians at elementary and secondary schools; preserve class-size reductions for ninth- and 10th-grade English and math; preserve class periods for foreign language, music and physical education; and preserve extracurricular drama, debate, journalism and sports programs.

Measure W does not fund new programs.

If voters do not pass the parcel tax, the school district will have to cut $2.4 million from its budget."

They discuss a criticism of the parcel tax:

"The main criticism of parcel taxes in general is that because they are a flat fee on every parcel, lower-income households bear a disproportionate share of the burden. Davis mitigates that by making the parcel tax lower on apartments ($50, instead of $120 in Measure W) and by exempting property owners age 65 and older, who fill out a form and return it to the school district."

Finally:

"Davis residents have a long history of extraordinary support for their schools, and every school in the district performs above state goals on the Academic Performance Index. To continue the tradition of excellence, Davis voters should vote "yes" on Measure W."

Here are a couple of fliers, in case you have not seen them. The first, is a flier sent out by the Davis Teachers' Association and I'm not sure where the other one comes from.

---David Greenwald reporting

State Budget Bad News For Davis Schools?

At first glance one might believe that passing the state budget without the cuts to education that the Governor originally proposed would be good news for schools around the state.

However, at the school board meeting on Thursday night, Superintendent James Hammond reported that the district's budget outlook remains uncertain and even gloomy.

The first problem is that the budget contains within it the authority for the governor to make midyear budget cuts. That was one of the sticking points for the Governor and it makes it very difficult for school districts to plan. Imagine the expectation of state money and to have that state money cut in the middle of a school year. Suddenly the district could be scrambling around for money that it had planned on having. Districts like Davis have almost no margin for error. Across the state, school districts are very concerned about this possibility.

School Board member Richard Harris who also works as a lobbyist in the state Capitol said that he thinks the district is probably worse off now than before the budget was adopted.

The second problem is that there will be little or no cost-of-living adjustments for school districts from the state. Basically that means that while inflation is occurring, the state is not adjusting the amount of money which is equivalent to a budget cut along the rate of inflation in a given district.

The worst problem by far is that the state budget does not address the state's own structural budget deficit. It merely punts the problem until next year's budget. And making matters even worse, the economic condition in the state does not appear to be improving any. Thus the state budget picture looks worse next year than it was this year.

For a district like Davis, that makes it even more imperative that the local voters pass the parcel to enable the school district to continue to operate at current levels. The good news for a district like Davis that resident have been generous in the past with support for the schools in the form of parcel taxes and bond measures.

However, many districts across the state are not so fortunate. School dodged a large bullet when the May revised budget forecast put back a lot of the money that the Governor was threatening to take out in January. The budget largely mirrored the May revise. However, with the prospect for midyear cuts and a worse budget forecast looming for next year, schools are hardly out of the woods. Those districts and students who are most vulnerable will take the brunt of this.

While from the standpoint of many, having a state budget passed was a good thing. At the end of the day, they did not resolve any of the tough issues. As a result, school districts will once again have to look for ways to cut money without cutting teachers and programs, a prospect that will become more and more difficult as time goes on. Luckily for Davis, the voters have the opportunity this fall to bypass many of those problems by approving a modest $120 per year increase in the parcel tax that will enable the Davis schools to continue to function at their present high level.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

School Board Opts for November 2008 Parcel Tax

Polling Shows Plausible but Difficult Battle to Get it Approved

Yesterday morning, in a special meeting, the Davis Joint Unified School Board viewed preliminary polling of focus group results for a proposed parcel tax. The findings show significant support for such a proposal of between 57% to 62%--however that support is lower than the two-thirds threshold. Moreover, both polling focus group results showed very strong currents of distrust for government accountability and fear about current state and national economic tides.

On the basis of these findings, the board by a 5-0 vote, decided to place a parcel tax on the November ballot. They will still have to work out most of the details such as the amount of the funding, the duration, and the specifics of what this parcel tax would fund.

The research was conducted by EMRC Research with assistance from local consultant, Jay Ziegler who ran the previous parcel tax.

They began with a focus group study which focused on Davis Seniors and also younger Davis voters. These individuals were considered middle voters who were neither strongly in support nor strongly opposed to a parcel tax. They were also considered persuadable on this issue.

Frankly, some of the results of the focus group study resembled the comments section of the Vanguard.

What they found was a deep distrust of local government among some of the focus group participants. Notably they do not distinguish between the performance of the City Council and that of the school district (something that we noted in fact on the campaign trail as well). They believe that the District has the incentive to continually increase the budget year to year and that any funding from a parcel tax will become part of the larger pot of funding expectations and expenditures that cannot be tracked. Accountability is a huge concern for the focus group.

These participants were aware of the state budget crisis and the local impact on schools, but were very reluctant to increase taxes locally. They want assurances that money raised in Davis stays local and is not taken by the state. They are further concerned that money raised locally would simply result in the district getting lower amounts of funding from state (they do not understand in other words how funding for schools works and that is an important component of any campaign to educate the public). What I found interesting, is that Jay Ziegler mentioned that they were more likely to pass a short-term sales tax rather than a parcel tax.

Accountability again is a key issue. They want a set of specific funding priorities that can be measured and tracked. The longer the duration of the parcel tax, the more accountability is required, since they were concerned that as time goes on voters would forget about what was promised. They want a community-led, independent assessment of the district's funding priorities and benchmarks. They would trust independent financial experts to audit the status of the parcel tax and make recommendations to the district and the public. (It should be noted that all these things were done for Measure Q already).

A final note of interest, the current parcel tax did not heavily factor into their decision about a new parcel tax. None of them knew the amount of the current parcel tax and most of the participants suggested that strong accountability would increase their support for a parcel tax regardless of the amount.

They then went through the polling results which were literally received at 4 pm on Sunday afternoon. Two things to be mindful of. The margin of error overall was plus or minus 5.7 percent. Half of the participants in the poll heard questions based on an $80 parcel tax and half heard it for $140. That means that the split sample margin is plus or minus 8! Keep that in mind when these results are discussed.

For the purposes of this discussion there are really five categories--two in the affirmative and two in the negative and one neutral or don't know--that have been combined into affirmative, negative, or don't know. The first question dealt with how much need there is for more money for the school district. 36% said there was a great need, 35% said some need, 11% did not know, 10% said little need, 8% said no need. So 71% answered in the affirmative and 18% in the negative. That shows a soft support, but there is at least a two-thirds awareness that there is a need for more money. They viewed that as a positive for the parcel tax.

Additionally 67% were concerned about funding for the Davis Schools, considerably less were concerned about funding for the county and the city. 72% said maintaining the quality of our schools should be a top priority.

The next polling result is a critical one. 31% say that taxes are already high enough and that they would vote against any tax increase. 68% were opposed to that. That number is right on the border. The pollster suggested that this number has risen across the board in the last year. She thinks this is a caution but a good indicator that a parcel tax is plausible.

66% trust DJUSD to manage tax dollars appropriately, however, at the same time 60% agree that there has been a waste of opening and closing new schools. 33% believe that the district already has enough but the money has just been mismanaged with 59% disagreeing.

So those are the generic questions. They then put a basic write up for a parcel tax including accountability stipulations. On the initial vote, neither the $80 nor the $140 would pass if the election was held today (keeping in mind the high margin of error).

The $80 sample had 62% support while the $140 had 57% support. The bottom line here is that the district will have to work to get either one of these passed. One thing that was clear from these results was that they need to determine how much they need rather than base it on polling results.

This is going to require, according to Jay Ziegler, a privately funded campaign to connect with the voters and give them reasons as to why we need this.

When they broke down the support, they found, not surprisingly that there is much stronger support from DJUSD parents as compared to non-parents. Among both non-parents and older voters, support for the $80 parcel tax is under the two-thirds threshold. On the other hand, no demographic had less than 57% support for the lower of the two. For $140, 83% of parents support passage but only 48% of non-parents. Likely voters were at 62% for the $80 and occasional voters slightly lower at 58%.

The scary statistic of the day is really the lack of basic knowledge by the voters. For example, only 45% knew that they currently paid a parcel tax while 51% did not know and 6% thought we do not currently pay a parcel tax.

Accountability is huge--they want to know where the money is spent, know that there is transparency and accountability and there was overwhelming support (76%) for having a sunset date and the district having to bring it back to the voters.

The board and the consultants went back and forth on March of 2009 versus November of 2008. The basic consensus was that November would be a tougher and more costly election given the very high turn out. The key demographic would be student voters who will come out to vote for Obama and trying to to get them to support a parcel tax.

On the other hand, there are good reasons for having it in November. The data, according to Mr. Ziegler benefits from a three to six month sustained period of public awareness about the District's budget problems. The further we get from that, the more difficult it is. Also this would allow the district to go into the 2009-2010 budget process in January knowing where they stand on money.

Richard Harris made a crucial point however about where the district's finances fall. They are starting with roughly a $1.7 million hole that was bridged temporarily by the Davis Schools Foundation. In addition, and he suggested that media reporting did not make this clear, they used about $1.2 million in carryover funds the other day to balance the budget. So realistically, the district will start next year at a $3 million deficit.

There was definitely an awareness on the part of the board about the accountability issue. There is an oversight committee for Measure Q, but it has not yet had a chance to operate and work, because Measure Q funding was just approved for the next school year. So we really have not had a chance to test the system yet.

The board did not make a determination on the amount of the parcel tax yet. However, I would guess they will go with a figure closer to an additional $140 per parcel rather than $80. It gets them to the amount of money they need and they realize that either way, getting a parcel tax passed will not be a walk in the park.

That is really the final point that needs to be made. The district knows this is not a slam dunk. The last parcel tax had very strong support from the beginning. It was largely a "get out their vote" campaign. This campaign is going to need to educate the voters during a time when many will focus on the Presidential Race. And, it will have to convince an 80 to 85 percent turnout rather than a 30 percent turnout.

What seemed clear watching this is that everyone knows this will be difficult. There is a good chance it will not pass. However, they see no other option other than cutting teachers, programs, and facilities. There was also a recognition of the voters who have serious reservations and they need to build in those accountability mechanisms.

Personally I think a November ballot measure is more risky than a March one, but I understand the rationale for going forward now.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Painful Times Ahead for DJUSD

This is what we have come to--on Thursday night, the Davis School District, faced with a huge budget cut, put on the table the notion of rolling back teacher salaries by 2 percent. The motion was made by Richard Harris and seconded by Susan Lovenberg.

If the motion had been approved, Mr. Harris would then have asked administrative staff to take a similar temporary pay cut.

The idea purportedly came from one of the PTA presidents, who wondered how many teaching positions could be saved if teachers would agree to forgo their salary increases until after the state budget approval, which is expected to happen sometime in the late summer or early fall.

Richard Harris operated under the belief that up to $1 million would be added to the budget from the state once the agreement is actually reached but by that point it would be too late to do much with the current budget--unless you are dealing with salaries that could be the first thing adjusted once a budget passes.

There is a logic to Richard Harris' proposal, but the rest of the board Tim Taylor, Gina Daleiden, and Sheila had serious doubts.

One problem was that the idea came forward from a board member rather than either the Davis Teachers Association or the California School Employees Association. In fact, the president of DTA, Tim Paulson told the board that a 1 percent salary rollback had been proposed at a recent meeting but failed without so much as a second. CSEA also had problems with a rollback.

Tim Taylor I think clinched it in my mind:

"If we pass this motion, we're saying (to employees) 'Why don't you step up to this 2 percent?' We're not asking this of doctors and lawyers. ... We're asking this of teachers and other staff who we'll all admit are not paid enough already."

Sheila Allen examined whether there was even time to pursue such negotiations, but Kevin French indicated that there was not.

For Sheila Allen it became an issue of timing:

"I don't think we can get the information out to the membership to put the money back into the budget in time so that we can use it. I can't support this motion tonight."

In the end, the correct answer probably came from both Sheila Allen and Gina Daleiden--from a practical standpoint, it is not clear that they could have gained sufficient buy-in from the teachers in the amount of time available to contemplate such a decision.

The choices here are quite horrific, at this point in time, it is really not a realistic option. On a philosophical level, I think I have to side with Tim Taylor, himself a lawyer. Asking people who are not paid enough to begin with, to take a pay cut, does not seem a responsible course of action. But then again, cutting positions is not a comforting action either.

In the meantime, the board also delayed the decision on additional pink slips to classified employees, that decision will be made on April 28, 2008 at the very earliest.

It seems to me that the district has taken a lot of options off the table, but at the same time, it seems pretty clear that they still have to make these deep cuts. None of these cuts are going to painless. They already decided that they could not close a school on this kind of notice, which is probably the right decision but it nevertheless puts another $500,000 in cuts back into play.

Hence we have the proposal to cut classified positions. However, now six elementary school principals warn that serious problems will result if school secretaries' hours are reduced.

Here's what I have come to the conclusion about watching this process. There has been perennial speculation out there that public schools are run inefficiently, that they waste huge amounts of money. And yet, when push comes to shove and they actually have to make deep and real cuts, they are not able to do it painlessly. To me that's an indication that there is not nearly as much waste in a school district as people think.

Perhaps there were too many administrators, but even cutting some did not dent the budget and the amount of work performed by the administration, I think is severely underestimated. The additional workload with reduced staff will have consequences.

On a school site itself, who are you going to cut? Teachers? Secretaries? Principals? Other support staff? Each of those carries with it, vital tasks and duties.

When we are talking about cutting salaries for professionals who -most in society acknowledge- get paid too little to begin with, you suddenly realize that the amount of waste in public schools is not nearly what most think it is. We can cut painlessly perhaps on the margins, but once we get into real cuts, there is nothing but pain to go around and that's why these decisions are so difficult and why the process is taking so long. In the end, we are going to have to make decisions and do things that really hurt--that is the only way to avoid even worse consequences of losing control of the operations of our district.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Davis School Board Votes to Keep Three Junior Highs

After long discussion over the last several weeks, the Davis School Board voted by a 3-2 vote to keep three juniors and keep the secondary schools in the same current configuration with Davis High School remaining a 10-12 program and DaVinci High School remaining on the Davis High School campus.

Gina Daleiden in her dissenting vote made it clear that the vote was not necessarily on the substance of the issue, but due to the fact that the vote was not tied to corresponding budget cuts. The same is true from Tim Taylor's vote as well.

In addition, the school board voted to keep hire three Principals to fill the vacancy at three elementary schools.

Earlier in the evening Superintendent James Hammond made a radical suggestion of offering to save the district over $100,000 by performing a duel role of Principal at an Elementary School while at the same time continuing to serve as the district's superintendent.

Gina Daleiden would say that "this is one time we need to save James, from James." Arguing that the situation was not feasible from a workload standpoint. She also suggested there would be a potential conflict to have the Superintendent of the District tied to one elementary school site.

The board would vote by a 4-1 margin to take this option off the table with Tim Taylor dissenting.

Commentary

I am pleased that Emerson Junior High is remaining open. It is a vital school in West Davis and while there are upgrades needed to the campus, it is only the fifth oldest campus in the school district. The building itself has a number of desirable features that lead me to want to preserve it as a vital Junior High.

That said there are a number of aspects of this particular vote that I am uncomfortable with, even as I am pleased with the outcome.

First, the fact that it was not tied to additional cuts, means that there remains more work to be done. The district has to meet a threshold in order to meet its budgetary requirements or it risks the county taking over its operations.

Second, I think Gina Daleiden's concern is quickly dismissed with regards to the cut of teachers and programs. Something has to be sacrificed in order to keep Emerson open and that might be more teachers or more programs. I hope we can find creative ways to do this, but if we do not, we need to recognize what this means for teachers and programs in the district.

Third, and this is probably my biggest concern--Richard Harris and Susan Lovenburg were two of the strongest proponents of closing Valley Oak and denying the charter. The stated reason was fiscal cost. Now, they have been the ringleaders to keep Emerson open which presents its own problems with fiscal cost. That does not sit well with me. To use the phrase of some on the board, this has become a sacred cow to these board members.

At least Sheila Allen was consistent on this issue--she voted to keep them all open. I would agree with her on both issues. Gina Daleiden and Tim Taylor were consistent as well, opting for fiscal prudence on both issues. While I disagree with them, I can respect their decisions.

However, I really need to understand the decision that Susan Lovenburg and Richard Harris made--the differentiation that they took. Does that differentiation amount to a rationalization or is there an actual tangible and clear reason that distinguishes the closing of Valley Oak from the maintenance of Emerson.

All of that said, keeping Emerson open is the right thing to do. The other choices were not good educational choices for the students involved. They required creating an overly crowded Davis High Campus, they required moving DaVinci students away from their logical location, and there was not a compelling demographic or attendance issue to necessitate this move. In short, the move was only made for the purposes of saving money. At this time that might be reason enough, but I still think you need to bear in mind educational considerations. I am not opposed to a 9-12 high school--I attended one myself. There are strong reasons to do it which is why the majority of the state has 9-12 high schools. However, there are also reasons not to do it, it keeps 9th graders in a better situation socially.

However, removing this option from the table now forces the district to look at other areas for cuts.

Everyone applauds the efforts of the Davis Schools Foundation. I am big supporter as well. They have raised $250,000 for the district which is wonderful, but it is less than one-tenth of the way to their goal and I just do not see them at this point getting anywhere near that goal.

I do not say this to bring people down, but we also must face reality. Parcel tax relief will not come until 2009. The Davis Schools Foundation is only going to help offset some of the worst cuts. The state may provide some relief but that will also come after the budget for next year is set in stone. The long and the short of it, is that we have dodged another school closure, but we are going to have to brace for a major hit, there is no way around it.

Finally, the demographic forecast shows that we will stabilize after this year. That means that declining enrollment will not have an ongoing impact of forcing additional steep budget cuts. Those who believe the solution to this is more growth need to look at a lot more closely at faster growth and larger cities--these cities have no escaped the problems of the budget nor are their schools doing better than ours. We need solid land use and growth policies in this city, but those should not be based on school enrollment priorities. The voters in this city have made a choice to support their schools vastly with parcel tax money while choosing to grow their city closely. People who think we can have better with faster growth policies might want to also consider what would happen if those new residents vote to cut off the parcel tax. In short, be careful what you wish for and plan wisely.

In the end, we are all in this together--the amount of civic spirit I have seen from students, teachers, and parents is amazing. We need to learn from this however--the lesson is the cost of complacency. Just four months ago there was so little interest in the school elections and now schools are all that are on people's minds. We need to focus our attention on these issues when we are not facing severe cutbacks. We must remain attentive and aware so that these types of things do not sneak up on us in the future.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Superintendent Hammond Says He Doesn't Want to Close Emerson

After over a hundred people spoke on Monday night at a jam packed Emerson Junior High Multipurpose Room. After the Superintendent and Bruce Colby painstakingly pointed out that that the cuts were real, the crisis was real, changes had to be made. After one by one, the Superintendent and Bruce Colby dispelled notions that they had emergency reserves. After one by one, they discredited any of the possible remedies offered up by the public and school board member alike. After they pointed out that even a new parcel tax would benefit the budget only in 2009.

After all of that school board member Susan Lovenberg asked a very simple but key question of the Superintendent, I've heard what we cannot do, what will your recommendation be?

After all of that, the Superintendent before a dwindling audience got up and said, he did not want to close Emerson. He would recommend against it. The remaining audience roared in delight.

Board Member Tim Taylor then said that he needed to see how they were going to make this work fiscally on Thursday night.

Let us step back a second. Back in January, Superintendent James Hammond worked long and hard with the Valley Oak petitioners in an attempt to get the Valley Oak Charter School approved. But he could not convince his board to take a leap of faith.

I met with him a few days after that meeting and he was as genuine as could be. The only thing he regretted was that he didn't have a few more days to convince the board to take a chance on the Charter School. He believed in it. He was truly remorseful that he was unable to convince the board about it.

I had always liked James Hammond, on that day, I recognized however that Hammond was a man of compassion and principle. So I believe him when he says he does not want to close Emerson Junior High. I guarantee you he believes that and I guarantee you he will find a way to make the numbers work.

The difference between the 4-1 to reject the Valley Oak Charter Petition and a possible vote to keep Emerson over is that it seems that Richard Harris and Susan Lovenburg support keeping Emerson open. Whether they get a third vote is another question. Richard Harris seems to believe it however, he apparently was telling parents not to worry, they would not close Emerson. I am not certain how he could know that for certain given Brown Act restrictions, but at the same time, I may also believe him.

On the other hand, they are going to have to find another $400,000. This is not a situation they can exactly play around with. If they do not get it right, if they do not cut enough, the County will take over the district. This was a point made over and over again last night.

I am all for creative solutions, I am all for keeping Emerson open, and I believe in Superintendent James Hammond, I just want to see the numbers. I am with Tim Taylor, show me how the numbers work and I am all for it. I am all for making it work. Hopefully come Thursday night, we will all believe.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Hundreds of Students, Parents and Community Members March to Save Emerson Junior High

At Central Park yesterday, hundreds of students, parents, and community members marched throughout the park urging the Davis Joint Unified School District not to close Emerson Junior High School.

Carrying a wide variety of signs and bullhorns, the group first rallied at the park, then marched around the park twice, and finally marched from the park across the street to in front of the district offices.

At that point, most impressively, new Superintendent James Hammond addressed the crowd. He told them this was a most difficult decision that they would have to make and that they will consider it very carefully. While, it was not exactly what the large crowd wanted to hear, there was an appreciation that the Superintendent was not hiding in his offices.

Some of the concerns raised by community members were also captured in a letter from the school PTA to the school district.

There were expressed concerns about the risk of commuting by students to other portions of town. The increased crowding of junior highs back to what it was before Harper (although I believe part of the plan is to move 9th graders to high school, so the problem of overcrowding might occur on the high school campus). There are fears that once the school closes, it might now re-open again even if budgeting would allow it.

One of the big concerns is that there has been no taskforce or planning for the closure of the school.

Proponents of Emerson site Education Code 17387:

“It is the intent of the Legislature to have the community involved before decisions are made about school closure or the use of surplus space, thus avoiding community conflict and assuring building use that is compatible with the community’s needs and desires.”

Just as the education code requires a 7/11 commission to sell off surplus property, so would it seem to require some sort of task force before closing a school.

A number of DaVinci High students both joined in the protest and had their own brief demonstration asking for their teachers and programs to be saved.

COMMENTARY

A few points of commentary that I want to raise at this point.

I listened throughout to people talking about the fact that the seeds for this district's fiscal mismanagement were laid in the past and the public did not pay sufficient attention. I agree with that. However, I do not think the public really understands the depths of those problems that should be laid firmly at the feet of past school boards, past administrations, and past policies. At the same time, I also do not think the public truly understands the work that the most recent past school board did to fix many of these problems.

Unfortunately, despite those efforts as outlined on this blog in the series on the former CBO, the school district has not been able to escape this problem.

Discussions I have had with people close to state government emphasize that the expectation that we will have the economic problem alleviated by the Democratic Legislature may be less than expected. It is unlikely that the legislature would impose 10% cuts, but everyone believes that painful cuts will occur.

That puts the onus on local school district. The Davis Schools Foundation was working hard to get additional pledges for donations. The raising of these one-time monies could be vital to helping to lessen the pain of such cuts.

The school board as we suggested last weekend, should consider an emergency ballot measure for temporary funding relief. I discussed this possibility one of the board members on Saturday and it is something that they are considering. The problem is that the public seems so angry right now that they may not be amenable to yet another tax increase.

I spoke to Freddie Oakley and she told me that such a ballot measure if it were mail-in only, would only cost around $50,000.

Some have floated the idea of recall, but frankly that is the last thing this district needs. First, it would be punishing the students in the form of more payments by the school district. It would also distract the district from other means in which to deal with the revenue problem. Finally, for the most part it would punish those not responsible for the bulk of the budget problem. We can all point to decisions by the board we disagree with, but on the whole, the current board has done a decent job given the magnitude of the problem.

Those who wish to punish the kids for the mistakes that some adults have made, might want to reconsider that. If we all join together, we can probably save the schools and programs that we all like.

The final point I would like to make is that while this may be frustrating for all involved--and I remain a strong supporter of keeping Emerson open as well as the Valley Charter School--I was impressed with Superintendent James Hammond. I remember how former Superintendent David Murphy reacted to criticism and protests. There is little doubt in my mind that he would have hid in his offices, as so many government officials would have done, waiting for the protests to end.

But James Hammond had the courage to address the hostile but generally polite crowd and while he could not assuage their concerns, I think he gained their respect in the process. It would have been nice if Board Member Richard Harris had done likewise but at least he and Board President Sheila Allen attended the rally and can report back to their colleagues tomorrow night the community's concerns.

We all have a stake in the future of Davis schools and we all have to pull together to prevent things like cutbacks in teachers, school programs, and closures of schools.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Hundreds of Da Vinci Students Flood Chambers Hoping to Save Jobs of Their Teachers

One thing just about everyone agreed last night--no one had seen so many students at the Community Chambers. The fire marshal locked the doors to the main chambers. The hallway outside was filled to capacity. They opened the room next door and it was filled. People, almost all of them students, flooded the corridors and the patio. One had to park down the street. It was an amazing site.

Inside was a sad picture. A picture of inevitability. For almost two and a half hours, the Davis Joint Unified School Board went back and forth discussing the possibilities and the probabilities and numbers. Oh those numbers. There just aren't enough of them. Or too many of them, depending on your perspective.

We learned earlier this week that Da Vinci High School faced a possibility of 9 of its 12 teachers being on the layoff list. An occurrence that would obviously decimate the school.

Last night we learned the consequences if the school district did not make over $4 million in cuts. Associate Yolo County Superintendent Linda Legnitto with Superintendent Jorge Ayala looking on, laid out in very stark, very real, and very cold terms exactly what a lack of action by the Davis School Board would mean. It would be that Davis Joint Unified would lose control of its financial affairs. It would prevent the School District from taking on new debt without approval from the voters. It would prevent them from applying or being eligible for various monies. It would in all likelihood lead the County take over most operations. In short, we would lose local control of our schools.

Unfortunately last night, we also learned the consequence of making such deep cuts. There are some 280 students at Da Vinci which has become a magnet for technology and students who are unique. One by one the vast majority of those students flooded the chambers and spoke from their heart. One by one, the cold hard truth sunk in deeper and deeper. This is going to be a devasting loss.

When you think about it, whether it is Da Vinci High cuts, whether it is foreign languages, whether it is music, whether it is programs that aid at-risk kids, the bottom line is that you are cutting programs that for some kids mean the difference between education and not education. Between success and failure. Every kid is different. What inspires a kid varies. What keeps a kid interested and engaged depends on the kid. What makes Davis unique is the variety of programs that it offers to keep students engaged in their education and when those programs are taken away many kids will become at-risk.

The worst part of these cuts are that they are deep, painful, and have the air of inevitability. We cannot merely rail against the County, the Board of Education, the School District, and hope to make things change. We cannot blame the boogie man and demand better. There is no bad guy here. There are mistakes to be sure. But the board in this case is doing what it has to do. And that's the worst part about it. It is a helpless feeling. The worst thing in the world was watching those kids sitting in the audience and you could literally see their hearts ripped out of them and you knew there was literally nothing that you could do to stop it.

That said, all is not completely lost. As the board emphasized, by March 15, 2008 they were required to lay out these cuts--send out the layout notices and show the county that they had over $4 million, it is closer to $4.3 million in cuts.

However, things can go back some now that this has occurred. The budget will take a long time to hash out, Ms. Legnitto suggested not until at least the summer would we know, but there is a good chance that the state cuts will not be as steep.

In the meantime, the Davis Schools Foundations has already raised over $15,000 and their goal is to raise $2.8 million. They are sponsoring a "Dollar a Day" fundraising campaign, which for laymen would be $365 donations (or perhaps $366 since it is leap year). For more information people are encourage to go to their website at http://www.davisschoolsfoundation.org.

Should their efforts to raise $2.8 million be successful, it could help bridge the gap. The problem of course is that this too is just one-time money. And the budget picture for next year is not figuring to be any better, in fact, there might need to be another $600,000 in cuts.

There was talk of another parcel tax. But the deadline for June is today. So that would obviously be out of the question. That puts November as a possibility. But would the voters approve another parcel tax just a year after they renewed the last one? That seems like a lot to ask the voters. We are probably talking about another $100 per year to cover everything. It is tough to imagine. Then again, it is tough to imagine $4 million in cuts.

There is no doubt that yesterday was the low point among low points for many in this community and on that board. Gina Daleiden, who called in from Los Angeles from her visit to the Museum of Tolerance emphasized how difficult a call this was and that this was not what she came to the board to do.

One has to sympathize with our new Superintendent James Hammond, who finds himself thrust in the firing line. Hopefully the coming weeks bring better news, until then, we will have to bunker down and ride out this storm.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting