The tragedy in Tuesday's election did not come from Davis, but rather West Sacramento. Measure S would have brought in $59 million in desperately needed bond money for a district that is struggling to survive.
The Measure received a bare majority at 50.4 percent of the vote but needed 55% for it to pass.
I am consistently troubled by the power that a minority of voters are given to block the will of majority.
One person quoted in the Sacramento Bee delivered the "we have sent a message" line:
This got me thinking to the city of Davis' generosity and commitment to education. Davis approved not one but two tax bills by very wide margins, garnering over 73 percent of the vote and failing even to generate organized opposition.
On the surface you would look and say that Davis has a very strong commitment to education. In fact, if you look at the comments from officials in charge of these measures, they said as much.
But I look at this a little differently.
Does Davis really have a commitment to education? By two measures there is a clear commitment. First, the shear magnitude of the vote. And second, the fact that there was no organized opposition.
However, a third measure has troubled me really since Election Day and before. The low voter turnout. The low voter interest in this race. The fact that other than the "scandal" involving envelopes, most articles on education on this blog drew relatively little interest.
Let's put this another way--if Davis was so committed to education--why would 70% of the eligible voters stay home from the polls? As many pointed out, this is normal, as though that exonerates the low interest. All that tells me is that Davis never has great interest in school issues. Whereas a city council election will draw 67 to 100 percent higher voter turnout.
I am sorry but a city where 70 percent of the electorate stays home during school board elections, does not demonstrate commitment to education. Other communities rally against taxes and Davis does not do that. That again does not prove a commitment to education. Instead I see apathy. It's not that Davis voters are against education--we see that and we get that. It's that Davis voters are not interested in what is going on at the school board. It is apathy.
To me apathy is a very dangerous thing because it leads to complacency and eventually it leads to a deterioration in governance of the board. Given the level of disinterest and apathy, Davis is lucky to have strong and well-funded schools. But taking that for granted is dangerous and will eventually catch up to us.
As I have said previously, I am very glad that the parcel taxes passed, but let us not take that to mean a commitment to education.
---Doug Paul Davis reporting
The Measure received a bare majority at 50.4 percent of the vote but needed 55% for it to pass.
I am consistently troubled by the power that a minority of voters are given to block the will of majority.
One person quoted in the Sacramento Bee delivered the "we have sent a message" line:
"The residents of West Sacramento have sent the school board a message: You must be accountable to the people first and for the money that has already been given to you in the three prior bonds before asking for more."Actually the majority of the citizens in West Sacramento who voted said the opposite, it was a minority that was able to block it.
This got me thinking to the city of Davis' generosity and commitment to education. Davis approved not one but two tax bills by very wide margins, garnering over 73 percent of the vote and failing even to generate organized opposition.
On the surface you would look and say that Davis has a very strong commitment to education. In fact, if you look at the comments from officials in charge of these measures, they said as much.
But I look at this a little differently.
Does Davis really have a commitment to education? By two measures there is a clear commitment. First, the shear magnitude of the vote. And second, the fact that there was no organized opposition.
However, a third measure has troubled me really since Election Day and before. The low voter turnout. The low voter interest in this race. The fact that other than the "scandal" involving envelopes, most articles on education on this blog drew relatively little interest.
Let's put this another way--if Davis was so committed to education--why would 70% of the eligible voters stay home from the polls? As many pointed out, this is normal, as though that exonerates the low interest. All that tells me is that Davis never has great interest in school issues. Whereas a city council election will draw 67 to 100 percent higher voter turnout.
I am sorry but a city where 70 percent of the electorate stays home during school board elections, does not demonstrate commitment to education. Other communities rally against taxes and Davis does not do that. That again does not prove a commitment to education. Instead I see apathy. It's not that Davis voters are against education--we see that and we get that. It's that Davis voters are not interested in what is going on at the school board. It is apathy.
To me apathy is a very dangerous thing because it leads to complacency and eventually it leads to a deterioration in governance of the board. Given the level of disinterest and apathy, Davis is lucky to have strong and well-funded schools. But taking that for granted is dangerous and will eventually catch up to us.
As I have said previously, I am very glad that the parcel taxes passed, but let us not take that to mean a commitment to education.
---Doug Paul Davis reporting
