OPEN LETTER TO THE DAVIS JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Congratulations for your important and impressive victory in Measure W. The people of Davis, as they did last spring with their donations to the Davis Schools Foundation, have affirmed their support for education. It is a resounding victory that carries with it a good deal of responsibility.

The people have entrusted to you the education of their children. You do not need me to tell you how big a responsibility that entails.

During the course of the campaign, I had the chance to speak with many, many people in the community about the schools. I would like to share some of my thoughts with you in a moment.

But first I would like to say I worked so hard to get the facts out for this measure because I believe in education. As I have said so many times on the blog, I sat up in the audience all too many nights last spring until all too late into the evening. I talked with parents and students and shared their anxieties and concerns. I supported Measure W first and foremost for them, never again did I want students to worry about the possibility of their schools closing and their teachers fired.

I have heard concerns about fiscal mismanagement, transparency, and accountability from many quarters in the community—including from people that it might surprise you to learn shared this concern. However, I believe that I have thoroughly reviewed and observed district practices. I believe that the district has gone to great lengths to be both transparent and accountable. I look forward to working in the future toward both of those goals.

Now however I offer some critiques and hopefully constructive criticism.

First, this has to be the last parcel tax until Measures Q and W expire in three years. The community was willing to back this one, but they were getting a bit leery. I support education strongly, the state budget is going to be a huge challenge, I can only hope that given a year at least where the district is assured that they will have the necessary funding, that the district finds ways to keep afloat in tough economic times. The taxpayers of Davis face all sorts of potentially new taxes, fees for service, and water rate increases in the coming years. I worry about their ability to make ends meet in these tough economic times. As such, I will state plainly right now, I will not support another parcel tax before these two parcel taxes expire. Furthermore, I urge the district to find a way to renew only Measure Q when the time comes, that means find a way to account for the $120 per year that Measure W provides even if the state does not.

Second, there needs to be community outreach on Valley Oak. There is still a lot of bitterness out there. I understand that Measure Q and Measure W passed despite the closure of Valley Oak and at times it passed with the support of many of those same parents, but there are two groups that you need to focus on. First, those parents and community members who fought so hard for to keep Valley Oak open. And second those in the community that really believed it was a special and unique school and who believe that there were racial elements that came into play.

I spoke with so many this year and many of them told me this fall that they were torn. They had always supported education, always voted for whatever measures were on the ballot to support education, but they were angry about Valley Oak. Those people in the end voted for W as they voted for Q, but do not let this fact mask a very serious animosity that has developed out there. A number of very prominent people did not endorse Measure W because of Valley Oak and they only in the last week and through great effort of many decided to hold their nose and vote for it.

I will never forget right before the election going on a police ride along of all things, and as we drove past Korematsu, the police officer told me that he had mixed feeling about that school. He described to me how he had worked at Valley Oak in his capacity as a police officer as he had several other schools over his lengthy career. But he said Valley Oak was different. They made him feel like he was part of the school itself. He did not feel like a visitor there. At one point, there was a troubled student without male role models in his life and they asked just to talk to him about ten minutes at recess.

To me this story reinforces to me that yes you can duplicate programs but a school is more than a sum of its programs. That is not to take away from the great things that this district does at every school. But I, like so many others believe that Valley Oak was special and unique that the district did this community and that neighborhood a great disservice by closing the school. The district and the board have not made amends for that or acknowledged that to the citizens of the community. And yet, the devoted parents and community leaders there remained loyal to this district and supported Measure W even as their hearts were breaking over the loss of their school. Talk to them, and you will see, the hurt feelings and raw emotions still. You will also see the love for schools and the commitment to education.

Third, again along the same lines, during the course of the budget struggle, there was another struggle that lost attention. In 2007, there was a serious push for stronger work toward closing the achievement gap. There were period but persistent concerns about race relations on the high school campus and elsewhere in the district. There was the controversy about the STAR testing. There were concerns raised by longtime and prominent members of the community that issues that were addressed in a 1990 report laid on the shelf for years, un-acted upon. These issues came back up in 2007. They have disappeared during the struggle for the budget. These are serious issues and they need to have renewed focus. The problem is no less real in 2008 going into 2009. The fact that the district will have fewer resources to deal with this problem means that we must be that much more aggressive at addressing it.

Fourth, there are serious issues of mistrust regarding Emerson Junior High. These are not merely manifested on the blog, but also in emails on several email lists developed to mobilize people to fight to keep Emerson open. Interestingly, not one email went out on that list urging people to vote Yes on W prior to the vote. There are people in this part of Davis that really believe that Emerson’s closure is fait accompli. I do not believe that is the case at all. From every conversation I have had with the district or board members, while they cannot promise that Measure W’s passage means Emerson stays open, I believe it would be logistically infeasible to close it.

However, I would suggest that there needs to be more communication between the school board, the district, and West Davis about the exact concerns about Emerson and the real prospects for it closing. Level with the public in advance if there is reason for concern and reassure them if there is not. Communication and trust are the keys. I understand that in the rush of the spring budget crisis, these discussions could not happen, but they can happen now and they need to.

Finally, Bruce Colby a couple of weeks ago suggested a Vanguard sponsored Q & A session. I hope to work with Mr. Colby and Dr. Hammond to facilitate something along those lines. We can think about how to structure it.

I am pleased with the transparency and accountability of this district, but I do believe that the district can do even better. Opening lines of communication are important. The new district website is better, but it could be better still.

In this day and age of instant communications, there is no excuse to have a communications gap with the community. I would look as a district toward finding ways to enact better communication tools. The Davis Enterprise is only read by less than one-third of the households in the city. The Vanguard is one alternative means to communicate more directly to the public, but not the only way.

The district has come a long way in the last four years in terms of public trust and accountability, but there is much that still needs to be done.

---David M. Greenwald

Measure W Wins with an Overwhelming 75% of the Vote; Measure N Goes Down

Measure W needed two-thirds majority to pass, instead it got three-quarters majority. All along, I thought it was headed to a very narrow win, instead it won by an overwhelming majority. With 100% of the precincts reporting, Measure W received just under 22,000 votes on the yes side compared to just 7000 votes on the No side. It is an overwhelming mandate for continued high quality education in Davis.

In the coming days, I will speak to what this means and what it does not mean. Right now, let us just say that the people of Davis have spoken in a way that the few on the blog who have been dissenters all along cannot speak. Just as the people stepped up last spring to prevent disaster, the voters have stepped up to do the same. There will not be teacher layoffs, not this year, not in this school district.

Meanwhile, I would be loathe to mention that the Charter City concept rightly went down to defeat and back to the drawing board. The solace that backers of a better charter might take is that it was a narrow defeat, at least in comparison to the victory of W. Just 2000 votes separated yay from nay. And so, if Councilmember Lamar Heystek and Stephen Souza are so inclined, we can have a real public process this time and put a good measure on the ballot, that all of us can get behind. Measure N was not that measure.

But this morning belongs to Measure W and its backers. The Vanguard spoke by phone last night when it was not certain that W had passed, but it looked like it would.

Janet Berry has twice saved this schools district. First as the head of the Davis Schools Foundation and then as the Co-Chair of the Yes on Measure W committee.

"I am encouraged by the early returns and the fact that the community is really coming together and showing that it values education."

School board member Gina Daleiden who called me around 5 pm to tell me that they had won this election, but she did not want that said at the time with three hours to go before the ballots even closed. She told me at midnight last night:

"I'm thankful that we live in a community that truly values education. When times are difficult our community steps up and supports our children and our schools. "

She then added:

"This one of the broadest coalitions I've ever seen behind a campaign. I think that that's quite a testament to the school support that our community gives to education and our schools. "

She pointed out the support of the Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Business, Yolo Taxpayers Association, all of the PTAs, the Realitors, the Aggie, the Sacramento Bee, the Enterprise, the Vanguard, you name it.

Finally after 1 pm last night, the Vanguard spoke with District Superintendent James Hammond.

First, the Vanguard asked the Superintendent how he felt at this time:

"With the preliminary numbers, I'm obviously encouraged. I am definitely feeling good about our ability to weather the financial instability of the state and try to at least protect certain programs and protect any significant cuts that would affect the district in the future. Obviously there are no guarantees, because we now have to wait to see what the January budget from the governor states. But we're definitely in the position to take local control of the programs that our community is accustomed to having. "

The Vanguard then asked him what the future held with the prospects for the state budget looking very bleak in the foreseeable future:

"We obviously are going to have to keep a very close eye on how the state's budget is going to create a local impact for us here in the district. We definitely want to make sure that we have a good understanding of the revenues that the state is following short on in its projections if any midyear cuts are forced upon us. Also at the same time, try to build a reserve to try to be able to spread it over a multiyear budget we are required to submit."

Finally, the Vanguard asked him if there was a possibility with a bad budget forecast of future parcel taxes, a possibility he immediately and clear discounted.

"You know, I don't see that being a realistic meaneuver any time in the very near future. We've already gone to our community two years in a row , but obviously that's ultimately a board decision. In the near foreseeable future, I don't see that being a consideration."

The people of the district have shown overwhelming support once again for the district and for education. However, it should not be viewed as any kind of blank check. More than a year ago, many people eventually voted for this measure because they believe in education and have always voted to support education. But there seemed from so many I talked to, mixed feelings about a number of topics.

We will talk about this later in the week. In the meantime, the district deserves not so much to celebrate but to take a collective breath. It has indeed been a very long year for the district and the district with this vote survives though it will not prosper, not with the governor already threatening additional cuts and the people of Davis about tapped out.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Measure W Gains Most Powerful Endorsement to Date: Dweezel the Dragon (Update)

I hope my friend Julie Cuetara forgives me for relaying this story. There are just moments in your life you do not forget. And one of the most vivid moments I remember in my over two years of coverage of Davis events was the night that they closed Valley Oak. Hundreds of students under the direction of Dweezel the Dragon marched from Valley Oak to the Community Chambers. Late into the night the meeting went and it became very clear that the verdict on Valley Oak was in and it would be closing. There in the back of the room was the image of Dweezel in tears. I will never forget that.

Dweezel is not one to give up easily however and she continued to fight for Valley Oak, through the charter process, through school board elections, until the very day they had to stop fighting when it became clear that it just was not going to happen.

I pass this on because there is no one more committed to Valley Oak than Julie Cuetara. She not only was Dweezel the Dragon, she was a member of Davis OPEN, a group organized to keep Valley Oak open.

This morning in the a letter to the Davis Enterprise, Dweezel (and Julie Cuetara) have endorsed Measure W.

She begins:

"Measure W is not about Valley Oak Elementary and Davis Joint Unified School District - It's about California's budget, California's state of affairs, and securing, through hard times, our children's future."

She continues:

"Some people are saying $120 is a lot of money on top of what we currently spend in our classrooms. I'm saying $120 per year is not much to secure what we have - a good district, good programs, (more) stable home value, a wonderful place to raise children and to grow old.

Think about our schools losing nearly $3 million for even one year and how it would trickle down through our community. We could never get back what we would lose! And I can guarantee you, with the loss of teachers, programs and the trickle-down effects that would occur, this measure would come up again next year and we would pass it."

And then finally, the message she closes with:

"I have been proud to be Dweezel, proud of supporting children and the Davis community for over 15 years. Through my endeavors, I've learned a lot about our district, its finances, policies, programs, schools and the people behind them. I have lost a lot due to decisions made and through all my sadness and upset with our district, I am proud to say, we do have a good district that deserves our support."

Frankly, I cannot think of a more powerful spokesperson or a more powerful statement than that. Anyone who is still on the fence because of Valley Oak just remember, no one lived and breathed Valley Oak more than this individual. She sees the big picture here and knows what needs to be done.

UPDATE:

Julie Cuetara has sent the Vanguard the full version of the letter, the Davis Enterprise could not print the whole thing today. I think it is important that everyone here reads the entire letter because it addresses a key concern about Measure W and Valley Oak.

Click to enlarge.



---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

Rumors About Emerson Continue, Irrational as They May Be

No, it is not just on this blog. I hear and get asked about whether Emerson is going to close wherever I go. There is a persistent rumor that the closure of Emerson is fait accompli regardless of the outcome of Measure W.

As I have argued this is completely illogical. I will break down that illogic shortly. I would submit to the readers of this, that if you want Emerson to close, then you should vote against Measure W, because voting against Measure W will almost surely lead to the closure of the school. If you want to strongly increase the likelihood of Emerson remaining open, and these are the words of Superintendent James Hammond whom I will quote fully below, then you should vote for the Parcel Tax.

I will get to those words of the Superintendent in a moment. First we need to logic through this argument.

Why Emerson Closes if Measure W Fails

The school district last spring estimated that the closure of Measure W would save the district roughly $600,000 in site specific operating expenses. That is largely without the lay off of teachers.

That is the biggest single chunk of money that can be saved with terminating or eliminating teacher positions. In fact, that represents around a quarter of the money that they would need to cut if Measure W fails.

If given the choice between teachers and a facility, they are going to pick the facility every time. (I will get to why they eliminated Emerson for this list last spring below).

The problem that you face when you have a number like $2.4 million is that you really cannot nickel and dime your way to budget cuts. They have already trimmed two major positions from the district's administration including an Assistant Superintendent whose contract was not renewed and whose position was not replaced.

The good news for the district is that 82% of the district's discretionary general fund budget goes directly to the classroom, but the bad news is the same. It means to get meaningful cuts, you have to cut from the classroom. Of the remaining 18% of the budget that does not directly go to the classroom, 9% of the budget goes to ground operations such as custodians and only 7% of the budget goes to administration.

That means you are either cutting teachers or you cutting facilities. Again, that means if you have to cut $2.4 million and can get a quarter of that without laying off a single teacher, guess what they do?

So by all means, if you want to have Emerson close, vote no on W. The illogic of people who say because they won't guarantee Emerson stays open if W passes, they will therefore vote against W and ensure that Emerson closes, is mindboggling.

Why Emerson Stays Open if Measure W Passes

There are issues of the facility that will prevent the guarantee of Emerson staying open. But, most available rationale indicates that it most likely has to stay open if the general fund is not in deficit.

People try to link Emerson and Valley Oak. But Emerson has advantages (many of them) that Valley Oak never had.

As Superintendent James Hammond said on the Vanguard Radio show in mid-October:

"It's not like the closure of an elementary school where you have eight or nine sites, you have three junior high sites spread across town, so you have logistical concerns to evaluate."

This is not a defense of closing Valley Oak, but when they had to close Valley Oak, you have at least three schools within close proximity to Valley Oak. North Davis Elementary and Birch Lane are both within nine-tenths of a mile and Korematsu is just one and a half miles. That means that you are generally redirecting students within a relative close proximity. Now as we know from the Valley Oak issue that arose last year, you are still putting a burden on parents and making it more difficult for young children to walk and bike to school. Nevertheless, it is not a logistical nightmare for the district.

On the other hand, the Junior High scenario is much more tricky. You have Holmes Junior High a full 3.3 miles from Emerson. That is a logistical nightmare in a school district that does not have district busing transportation. That reason alone is why the district held off on closing Emerson as a possibility last spring and why it will likely not close it in the future if there are funds.

And remember they cannot simply move all of the Emerson students to Holmes, they would have to move a good portion of Holmes students to Harper, another two miles away.

So unlike having a simple situation where a few relatively close elementary schools can absorb additional students, you have a tough scenario where you are moving a large amount of students a good distance away.

These logistical problems relegate Emerson to a worst-case scenario closure rather than a likely closure if the general fund is in relatively good condition.

I pressed Superintendent Hammond on this issue during the October 15 radio show. Here's what he told me.

"The status on Emerson, to be quite honest, right now there is no decision. I mean we are status quo. There has been no formal discussion about Emerson between the staff and the board since last spring... Emerson has challenges but it doesn't mean there's an imminent closure waiting for it. There's facility concerns. It's not like the closure of an elementary school where you have eight or nine sites, you have three junior high sites spread across town, so you have logistical concerns to evaluate, facility concerns to evaluate. But by no means is there any type of hidden agenda to close the school. I think that that is one of the things even after passing the budget that we still deal with today."

Thus he completely denies that there is any kind of hidden agenda. On the other hand he cannot make promises.

"I can't make any promises as a superintendent particularly when it comes to the instability of the state budget and the inadequacy of how schools are funded."

He lays it out pretty clearly here, he believes that if we get the funding, the "likelihood" of Emerson staying open increases. And if we do not get the funding, the "likelihood" of closure increases.

"I would like to think, and what I say with my own words without representing anyone else, that with additional revenue in this case from Measure W, probably increases, and I use this word intentionally, the likelihood, the likelihood of things staying status quo, the lack of funds that we get if we're not successful with the parcel tax or we have to re-run a parcel in '09 at a lesser amount and we get a very bad January revise like we're expecting, the likelihood of being back where we were last spring increases. And as you know David, everything is back on the table and being evaluated and discussed. And that is my fear, that being in a place early in our school year where our fiscal indicates that we have to make some cuts and that's where I don't want to be."

Again, Measure W's passage will not guarantee that Emerson stays open. It will not. What Measure W does is take all of the position that Measure W funds, all of the teaching positions and it guarantees them for the next three years. Those positions by law cannot be eliminated. That frees up other money to go to keep Emerson open.

If the district does not have that money from Measure W then they have a choice, they can either terminate the positions that W would have funded or they can try to save money by closing schools. My guess is that they are going to close at least one school if they do not get Measure W or if they have to pass a smaller parcel tax in the spring.

Again, if you want to insure that Emerson closes, vote against the parcel tax. Because if the parcel tax fails and they have to come with a smaller amount in the spring, Emerson is likely gone. If you want Emerson to have a possibility to remain open, you have to vote for Measure W.

With $2.4 million, you are not going to nickel and dime your way to a balanced budget. If it were $0.24 million you might have a chance to. But with it at $2.4 million you have to cut from that 82% of the budget, and that is classroom money.

Again, the illogic of the position, they won't guarantee Emerson so I'll vote against Measure W is breathtaking. The reverse is most likely true.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Vanguard Ballot Initiative Recommendations

While the Vanguard does not endorse candidates, we do make recommendations on issues. Many of these you can of course glean simply by reading the articles on this site. But since I have had a number of calls and emails over the last wee asking how I would vote and a number of issues, I thought I would put this in one place.

I also attach a sheet at the bottom with a link to the Courage Campaign who have compiled a list of 10 progressive organizations and how they are voting. Although other than on Prop 11 there are no disputes on which way to vote, some groups do not recommend on some of the propositions.

I will start with the local measures and then deal with the statewide issues.

DAVIS BALLOT MEASURES

MEASURE N: CHARTER CITY: NO. This measure would determine whether or not Davis would have a charter city enacted. In theory, I would be supportive of such a concept, but I think this charter is too broad. It would allow too much power to future city councils. I would like to see this charter get voted down and a committee formed to draft a new one that is much more specific.

MEASURE W: DJUSD PARCEL TAX: YES. For $120 per parcel voters of the city of Davis can ensure that core programs and teachers remain in tact. We are talking about elementary science, music, some HS athletic programs, as well as keeping class size down. If this does not pass, the district faces a $2.4 million deficit which means that teachers and programs get cut.

STATEWIDE BALLOT

PROP 1A: HIGH SPEED RAIL: YES. This would begin construction of a train that connects San Francisco to Los Angeles via San Jose and Fresno. This is a project I have been wanting for at least 15 years. Create a fast and convenient alternative transportation system to get people out of their cars. This is the most important project that we can fund this year.

PROP 2: STOP ANIMAL CRUELTY: YES. Goes without saying humane treatment for farm animals. We're not talking a lot--enough space for animals to beable to move around, stand up and sit down. This seems like a no brainer to me and the arguments against about costs and competitiveness do not make a whole lot of sense.

PROP 3: CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL BONDS: YES. I see no reason not to expand children's hospital facilities around the state.

PROP 4: PARENTAL CONSENT FOR ABORTION: NO. Proponents argue that this will get teens to talk their parents about sex. I do not believe that you mandate parent-teen communications. I think it places teens at risk who fear the response of their parents more than they fear other things. It is just not a good idea. One thing I never see in these proposals is how big a problem this actually is. If it is a problem, I think there are other approaches that would be more effective and starting well before pregnancy and abortion issues arise.

PROP 5: NONVIOLENT OFFENDER REHABILITATION: YES. I am a strong proponet of alternative forms of punishment. I think we put way too much emphasis on incarceration and our prisons are being overwhelmed with non-violent sex offenders. The program has the possibility of saving the state between $1 billion and $2.5 billion per year.

PROP 6: SAFE NEIGHBORHOODS ACT: NO. This basically does the opposite of Prop 5--it extends and expands mandatory sentencing and it also takes money from the rest of the state's beleagured budget and puts it into more prisons and correction spending. This may be the worst initiative on the ballot in my opinion and that includes 4 and 8.

PROP 7: RENEWABLE POWER STANDARD: NO. This bill may be well intentioned putting more resources to solar and wind projects by mandating that we get 50% of our power from renwable sources by 2025. The problem is that opponents believe that the measure is poorly written and would cause more harm than good. When the opponents include Sierra Club and Conservation league, then I tend to believe that statement.

PROP 8: ELIMINATES SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: NO. I believe that consenting adults should have the right to marry the person that they love regardless of gender. To me this is a no-brainer and almost every argument against it is based on fear. For those who suggest that same-sex marriage is a threat to traditional marriage, look at the divorce rate, it seems that marriage is under fire much more by people who do not respect marriage rather than people who desperately want to wed.

PROP 9: Victims' Rights and Protection Act of 2008: NO. Some of these provisions are not bad including notification and participation of victims in criminal justice proceedings. However, opponents argue that these are already in law. They also believe that these provisions would end up costing the taxpayer hundreds of millions. I am not nearly as opposed to this one as the Prop 6, but it does not seem the type of reform we really need.

Prop 10: California Alternative Fuels Act: NO. This is another one of those bills that look good until you realize who is supporting it and what it would actually do. One the plus side: The funding it provides will allow the generation of electricity from renewable sources, and provide consumer rebates for the purchase or lease of "clean alternative fuel vehicles". Th bill is sponsored by Boone Pickens, many have derided Pickens and Clean Energy Fuels for sponsoring this initiative because it may set up the company and Pickens for a financial windfall. Again, League of Conservation Voters and Sierra Club support it. This would take $10 billion out of the state's general fund over 30 years. The proposition was initiated by one person/interest group and as such lacks the vetting that would have come had it gained input from a wider variety of sources.

PROP 11: REDISTRICTING: NO. This sets up an appointed bipartisan commission to handle state redistricting. We already have a bipartisan commission that handles redistricting, it's called the state legislature, they are elected by the voters in California. From what I have seen, voting reforms generally create more harm than good. The system we have now has been in place for over 100 years.

PROP 12: VETERANS' HOMES BOND: YES. Basically renews a home loan program for veterans that dates back to 1922. The bond must be periodically renewed--this would be the 12th renewal. Enables veterans of current wars to get affordable loans and the bonds are repaid by the veterans themselves. Do not see a downside to this one.



---David M. Greenwald reporting

Measure W Campaign Ad

Check it out, the thirty second spot airing on Comcast Cable in Davis.

Vanguard Radio Interview with James Hammond

We had a tough time slot this past Wednesday, up against the third Presidential debate. But for Davis voters, Measure W may be the most important issue on the ballot next to the Presidential Election.

On Wednesday, the Vanguard sat down with Davis Joint Unified Superintendent James Hammond and pressed him on the key issues of the day.

• Click here to listen to that interview: Hammond Interview

Endorsement Watch: 5th Senate and Measure W

'Tis the season to watch Sunday newspaper endorsements. For those who have been reading this blog for awhile, you know that for some reason I love to read and critique newspaper endorsements. For me, it gives us an insight into what the media think and to a lesser degree what issues they think are important and how we can evaluate the news overall.

Newspapers will argue that there is a separation of the the news and editorial function, but in my former profession as a social scientist, there has been some interesting empirical studies that argue otherwise.

Besides, at the end of the day, this blog was largely developed to respond to what the mainstream news was reporting and in general to criticize it.

We begin then with two newspaper endorsements that came down yesterday--one involving the 5th Senate District and the other involving Measure W.

STOCKTON RECORD ENDORSES AGHAZARIAN

There is one main reason why the Stockton Record endorses Aghazarian. It is not partisan. In fact, they have endorsed Barack Obama for President and Jerry McNerney for Congress--both of them Democrats. Granted the endorsement of Barack Obama was a very big deal. It was the first time since 1936 that the Stockton Record Endorsed a Democrat.

The reason the Stockon Record endorsed Aghazarian is that he's from Stockton.

"And that brings us to one of the most important reasons Aghazarian should be sent to the Senate: He lives here. He understands the district and its needs. He will be here.

Because of the loony way legislative districts have been carved out - with the express purpose of making them safe for incumbents - it is possible San Joaquin County could end up with no representatives in Sacramento who live in the county. That's unacceptable no matter the sincerity of an out-of-area politician's vow to be in the county often."

Are you kidding me? First of all, the current State Senator is from Linden which is essentially Stockton, so it is not as though there was a long history of Stockton being shutout of the Senate Seat. Second, it's a big district. It goes from San Joaquin County to Yolo and Solano Counties. Why does Stockton deserve a representative more than Yolo County or Solano County?

I am sorry but that is just selfish. There are many cities in this district, Stockton is the largest one but it's also on one end of the district, the majority of the district would be left high dry by such a move--if we are merely looking at geography.

Can we draw districts more compactly? Certainly, but I am not going to selected my representative based on geography.

A couple of other points that they argue.

"Aghazarian, who used to brag about his ascension through the Republican Party ranks, has reinvented himself for this campaign. His advertisements paint him as the candidate of "independent leadership," never mentioning his party affiliation."

The Record is for some reason buying into Aghazarian's non-partisan rhetoric. The reason he is arguing this is that he is running for election in a Democratic year in a district that has a 15 percent Democratic registration. He has not changed his tune or if he has, make him prove it in the legislature not as part of his campaign rhetoric. In short, his record as an Assemblyman shows nothing to lead one to believe he independent. Nothing.

Finally, I take issue with this:

"Wolk claims she is more effective than Aghazarian at working across the aisle, claiming she has had more bills signed by the Republican governor than any other legislator. In truth, however, most of the bills have been relatively insignificant."

In truth probably most legislation in the California Legislature, is insignificant. However, she did sponsor several key pieces of legislation dealing with flood control, delta protection, and elder protection. Somehow I doubt that Aghazarian has such a legislative record. They certainly do not cite it in the endorsement article.

However, this is really the most illogical of the Record's arguments. Democrats will control roughly 60% of the seats in the State Senate regardless of who wins this seat. Who is going to be the most effective legislator the majority party member or the minority party member? The answer is the majority party member who will pass a much higher percentage of legislation. It is not even close. The Stockton Record does even think about this contradiction with their argument. Aghazarian is not going to as effective as a minority party member as Wolk will as a majority party member, so if that is you rationale for voting, it makes no sense to vote for Aghazarian over Wolk.

In short, the Stockton Record probably has many good reasons to support Aghazarian, but they really do a poor job of selecting three that make no sense. I am sure they really do want Stockton to be Represented, but it's not like Stockton has not been Represented the past eight years. The rest of the District is just as deserving of representation as the City of Stockton.

In my opinion people should vote based on who they most agree with on the issues and who they think will be a better legislator. I cannot answer that question for my readers, but I can say that the Stockton Record falls woefully short in its endorsement criteria, at least the ones it states.

DAVIS ENTERPRISE ENDORSES MEASURE W

This is really not a surprise at all. Let us face it, the Davis Enterprise since 2005 has endorsed the wrong way from my perspective on every single issue except Measures P, Q, and W--the Parcel Taxes. They endorsed Covell Village. They endorsed Target. They endorsed Jeff Reisig for District Attorney. They endorsed Ruth Asmundson and Mike Levy in 2006 for Davis City Council. They endorsed Souza, Saylor and Sydney Vergis this year.

In other words, given that record, it is hard for me to use their endorsement of Measure W for much of anything other than to say that a broken clock is right twice a day--if it is an old fashioned, analog clock. And the Davis Enterprise is certainly that.

And frankly, I think the Stockton Record makes a stronger argument for Aghazarian than the Davis Enterprise does for Measure W.

The argument is this:

"Without the $2.4 million in extra funding per year, we face the same severe cuts and massive teacher layoffs that were threatened last spring. That's when the community came together - led by the Davis Schools Foundation - to raise $1.77 million. That one-time effort, along with more than $1 million in district budget cuts, plugged the hole for this school year only."

What happens if it fails:

"IF MEASURE W FAILS, the community faces another massive fundraising drive to save teachers and programs. Or worse, we face their loss due to budget cuts."

This is a point that has be driven home to voters. The $1.77 million raised by the schools foundation was one-time money the result of a hard drive in the community with the issue firmly in the minds of voters.

However, some need to recognize that that money is one-time money and it is not sustainable.

"But community philanthropy can't always be the answer, said Alan Anderson, the new president of the Davis Schools Foundation. 'Ongoing support is the best way to solve chronic under-funding from the state and to restore confidence in the future of our public schools for families, teachers and, of course, our students.'"

We had Alan Anderson on our radio show last spring, he is exactly right here as he was back then. The support by the Davis Schools Foundation was amazing and it saved programs and teachers but it was a one-time bridge loan, not a means by which to provide ongoing support. The voters need to decide if the programs funded by the $2.4 million and the teachers funded by that money are necessary for the Davis Schools to remain at the top of the state scale.

There are so many more factors that needed to be addressed in this editorial. We have mentioned them in this space time and again, so for now we are just thankful that at the very least the Davis Enterprise has the commitment to provide schools with the necessary funding to continue to function at a high level.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

What are good teachers worth?

Earlier this week, we broke down the district budget numbers and found that the major problem facing the school district right now is the lack of full state funding for the COLA. In short, the the state is funding .7% of the COLA when the districts should be getting somewhere around 5.5%. That works out to $40 per student when the schools should be getting $280.

The numbers work out to roughly $2.4 million district-wide and the district is placing a parcel tax on the ballot in less that four weeks.

Last Thursday members of the Davis Teachers Association showed up at the Davis school board meeting to demonstrate how many teachers would lose their jobs should Measure W fail.

Former DTA President Jerry de Camp said:

"Six months ago, we were in the worst situation I'd ever seen in 27 years with the district. We are facing the same potential next spring if Measure W does not pass.

It's essential that we understand that Measure W is not 'something extra.' Measure W continues programs that we've had a long time. It's not extra.

All the things that Measure W does are things we have come to take for granted. We've had the support of the taxpayers over and over. We must have it again now. What we have in this community is so precious and so good — and it's threatened if Measure W does not pass, because of problems with state funding."

Last week a column in the Davis Enterprise by Rich Rifkin put the blame for the current budget crisis on employee raises that were handed out a few years ago.

While the 6.5% teachers raise given out just two years ago, did in fact put a strain on district finances and the school board was misled by the district in terms of their ability to pay for that raise in the short run, given the state COLA at that time, it would have been difficult if not impossible for the district to give a considerably lower raise.

Moreover, when we look at the spending by the district since 2002-03, it is unclear that spending is the ultimate problem.



Over that period of seven school years, district spending increased around $14 million from $59.1 million to $73 million. That's roughly the rate of inflation. Teacher salaries account for $10 million of that money. In 2002-03 teacher salaries accounted for 64% of the total budget, in 2008-09 it accounts for 64.5% of the total budget. In other words, teacher salaries have basically increased in proportion to the rest of the budget.

82% of the budget for 2008-09 goes directly to the classroom.

Let us put it this way, is that not where we want the money to go? Do we not want money to go directly into the classroom?

The primary budget increases over this time come from the state. Now Measure Q did upwardly adjust the parcel tax but only commensurate with the rate of inflation. In real dollars, Measure Q was roughly the same as Measure N's funding.

Does Davis overpay its teachers?

I do not think so given (a) the relative experience of Davis teachers and (b) the cost of living in Davis compared with the state.

Davis' average teacher makes $63,378 in total compensation. The statewide average is virtually the same at $63,323. By comparison, Woodland teachers make an average of $57,688. However, not only is the cost of living in Davis higher than in Woodland, but the average Davis teacher has 3 more years of teaching experience than their Woodland counterpart. Moreover Davis has over a 6% higher proportion of credentialed teachers than Woodland.

Recall that the collective bargaining agreement grants for step and column increases to salary and those two factors--credentialed teachers and teaching experience likely account for that difference.

In other words, Davis' teacher salaries do not appear to be disproportionate either to the statewide average or even Woodland. You also have the bottom line in terms of the overall performance in Davis.

The other factor here is that DJUSD's belath benefits for teachers was in the lower tier for all districts until their recent increase. Teachers had to pay supplementals to health coverage, particularly to extend their health care benefits to their children. We complain in this society about companies and their responsibility for taking care of their a minimum level of health insurance to make sure that their employees were covered. The district is moving in that direction.

The bottom line, as with elsewhere, is that if you want quality teachers, you have to pay and give increases that are commensurate with surrounding districts.

To me you just cannot put a premium on good teachers. The cost of losing quality teachers and programs makes Measure W a pressing matter. Increasingly, it looks like Measure W will pass. Given where the economy is headed, this will help insure that Davis Schools will be able to function at a high level in the foreseeable future regardless of where the economy goes.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Budget Picture Bleak for School District: Full Examination of DJUSD Budget 2009-10

All you have to do is turn on the news these days to see the bad economic news. Experts are predicting now a deep recession. And due to a number of structural problems at the federal level and most notably at the state level, the economic picture and thus the budget picture looks bleak for the foreseeable future.

As many know, DJUSD faces a $2.4 million deficit for the fiscal year of 2009-10. The district was able to plug their deficit from 2008-09 due in part to the generosity of this community through donations to the Davis Schools Foundation that totaled roughly $1.8 million.

When the revised state budget came through, the district was able to use $1 million in one-time carryover money in addition to that $1.8 million plus some other budget cuts to hold off deep cuts to teaching staff. However, that is not likely going to work in the future.

Why we need Measure W to pass

Each year expenses go up. If you think about your household expenses as an analogy--let us say you have the same job and you do not get a cost of living increase to your salary from one year to another. You live in the same home and you pay the same bills each year. If you look at your expenses from this year and compare them to last year, you will notice that expenses go up. Gas prices rose, food prices rose, energy costs rose, water bills rose dramatically, etc.

If you do not get a payraise for cost of living, you in effect make less money this year than last year.

People generally cover that in one of two ways. One way is to cut discretionary costs. So in tough times, you make fewer big and luxury purchases. You go on fewer trips. But generally those are one time expenses and they are dwarfed for most people by the everyday costs of doing business.

Let us look at gas prices alone. Let us say that on average gas went up $1 per gallon over last year. Let us further say that you have to consume 10 gallons per week. That's $10 per week more money than last year or $520 per year. And for most of us, 10 gallons per week is probably on the low side. So for many we are spending between $500 and $1000 more just on gas. That's just one expense that will take a chunk out discretionary spending. Again, some of that we can save by driving less, but you can only cut so much.

The other way that people finance themselves through tough times is with credit. They go into debt. The school district cannot go into debt however. So they have two options, they can cut spending and at a certain point they have to cut programs and teachers since that is where most of the discretionary money goes or they can ask the taxpayers for a parcel tax.

But let's get back to cost of living increases because they explain why the school district is facing future deficits.

In a normal year, the school district funds COLA (cost of living allowance). When the state funds COLA, that enables the teachers to get a cost of living increase at a similar rate and it also enables the district to be able to pay for the increased cost of doing business.

However, due to the budget crunch at the state level, the state is not funding COLA this year. So the cost of living for the district is going up by $329 per pupil but the state is only funding about $40 of it. That is going to leave the district this year with a $2.4 million revenue deficit.

Does that number look familiar? It should, that is the same amount that Measure W funds. The reason the district asked for the $120/ per parcel tax is that is what it needs in order to make up for the loss of COLA. The school district is putting Measure W on the ballot in order to cover the funding for our programs and teachers that directly impact our students. Its passage would avoid deep cuts to programs and teachers.

If the state fully funded COLA for 2009-10, we would not need Measure W. Instead the state is funding the COLA at .7% which is far below the 5.5% that was due to schools. This results in far less money for the district. The bottom line is that state money does not cover our current programming, so local dollars have to fund what state dollars do not or we will have to cut programs and teachers.

The bad news

It turns out that each year the state does not fund COLA, actual costs of living go up roughly $1.2 million. So what happened is that we were able to cover the $1.2 million for COLA in the current budget. But next year we have to cover that $1.2 million plus another $1.2 million.

Where does that money come from?

The big expense is the Step and Column increases. Teachers will not get a payraise this year, and at some time I can explain the basic fair-share formula that would explain when they do and when they do not get a payraise. For now, it is most important to realize that it is heavily tied in with state funded COLA. However, just because teachers do not get a payraise does not mean that teaching expenses do not go up.

Built into their contract are step and column increases. Step increases are based on seniority, so each time they go up in seniority, they get a payraise. In addition, also built into their contract is a column increase. Let's say they take classes in the summer to increase their level of education. They can bump themselves into the next column and get a payraise that way. The district has no control over these increases, they are built into the collective bargaining agreement.

The rest of the inflation costs are utilities (which obviously we understand), insurance increases, and then special education costs (which are restricted dollars).

It is important to understand that as much as a quarter of the spending in the district is tied to restricted money or categorical funds, which means the money has to go to those programs and those monies cannot be transferred to other spending. If you look through the budget for the district, you will see a number of spending lines that have references to legislation that dictates exactly how that money can be spent. Some of these restricted programs were not fully funded, including special education. The district is required to provide them, but does not get reimbursed.

The really bad news

If you are following along, you see where this is going. Let us say we pass Measure W, the district would get an additional $2.4 million which would cover the last two unprovided COLAs for the state.

However, now let us suppose that for 2010-11, the state still does not provide COLA. If that is the case, then the district again runs a deficit of $1.2 million. And that deficit increases by $1.2 million or so each year that the state does not provide COLA.

The other bad news is that this happened in the 1990s the last time the economy was really bad. What happened then is that it took several years before they could catch up with the missing COLAs.

If the budget picture improves, the state could partially fund COLA by 2010-11 and with Measure W, the district would be able to survive without further cuts to teachers and programs. If the state fully funds COLA, in three years years from now, the district would not need to renew the Measure W portion of the parcel tax.

If you are like me, you probably have the same question I did at this point. The budget forecast looks bleak as does the economic forecast. That means if the state does not fund COLA in 2010-11, we end up back in deficits. At that point, does Measure W really matter?

The answer is yes. First of all, Measure W locks into place those programs that it funds. That money is not discretionary money anymore, it is de facto restrictive, just as Measure Q money must go to the programs that it was written to fund.

Second, a $1.2 million deficit is better than a $3.6 million deficit. Neither are good, but the cuts for the former are obviously much less than the cuts for the latter.

Finally, perhaps the worst news for last is the possibility that the state might in the next few months suspend Prop. 98 which guarantees a certain proportion of the budget to schools. If that happens, money could be even more scarce for local school districts. That would make it all the more important that the districts be able to raise money locally to keep programs and teachers afloat.

The bottom line in this analysis is that the problems that the district faces beginning the year 2009-10 are limited to state budget problems. The $2.4 million projected deficit is a direct result of the anticipated zero COLA. It has nothing to do with fiscal mismanagement and nothing to do with declining enrollment. To reiterate, if the state suddenly came through with COLA for 2009-10, Measure W would not be needed and the district would be able to balance its budget.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Response to Rich Rifkin's Column on Parcel Tax and District Fiscal Management

In last night's Davis Enterprise, Rich Rifkin, certainly no stranger to this blog, presented his analysis of Measure W.

In his column he presents numbers on the district's fiscal situation. I both agree and disagree with his findings. And I agree in part with his conclusions.

Let us begin here:

"In the 1997-98 school year, the Davis school district had $4,995 to spend per student in average daily attendance (ADA) revenues. Ten years later, that had grown to $7,972, a 60 percent increase, which equals a compounded annual inflation of 5.33 percent. On top of the ADA money, the district receives funding from other state and federal sources, as well as our local taxes.

Had the ADA revenues simply kept pace with inflation over the past 10 years, our district would have had $6,517 in ADA money per student. That's $1,455 less per child than we are actually getting and spending."

He then writes:

"The answer is clear: The school board has been increasing salaries and benefits (for teachers, staff and administrators) at an unsustainable rate."

And we can pin the culprit to the 2005 and 2006 school years when certificated and classified salaries increased by 7 and 11 percent.

The Vanguard reported on this issue back on July 24, 2008.

The genesis of this problem was a memo sent out by then-Davis Joint Unified Superintendent David Murphy to the Board of Education dated September 20, 2006.

"In this memo are factually incorrect statements that ultimately led the school board to approve a 6.5% teacher pay hike based on claims in it that the district had the funding available over a three-year period to pay for this pay increase. At the time this was a factually incorrect assessment. According to sources however, it is likely that neither the Superintendent nor the interim CBO were aware of this fact."

The board was told that they would have to use one-time reserves the first year of this pay increase in order to cover the expenditures. After that, monies would become available on an on-going basis to pay for the salary increase. The board was told that this increase would thus only require a one-time use of one-time money. As it turned out, this was not accurate either.

The three-year ongoing fund projection was wrong. There were at least two glaring errors in it.

First, the budget was missing some positions that were being paid $400,000. FCMAT discovered this in their report to the school district.

Second, there were changes to special education funding that were not factored in and this accounted for nearly half a million dollars in expenditures. Both of these errors accounted for $900,000 or just under half of the money spent in the salary increase.

The district would keep itself fiscally solvent and the budget on the positive side by spending the district's voluntary (as opposed to the state mandated) reserves. As those reserves have become depleted however, the district has run into huge fiscal problems.

What is the root of these problems? According to a board member at that time, the problem largely consisted of problematic budget tracking procedures that were in enacted under Tahir Ahad.

The new board has taken steps to correct this problem.

So when Rich Rifkin writes:

"What needs to be done going forward is some responsible financial planning by the district. Whenever money rolls in - as it did during the housing boom - our school district spends it as if there is no tomorrow. They agree to contracts with huge inflators, under the assumption that the good times will never end. And then when they do end, all they can think of is to raise another parcel tax.

Instead, the school board ought to cap the increase in per-pupil spending on all programs at 3 percent per year, regardless of how much money they get from the state. In good times, this will result in a large surplus. And in bad times, the district will be able to move forward without a crisis or a tax increase."

I completely agree with Mr. Rifkin's assessment and I believe that every member of the current school board completely agrees as well. The board has worked very hard since the departure of the former Superintendent and CBO to put the district on sound fiscal footing.

The other point that Mr. Rifkin does not make is that even with the increase of spending over the last 10 years, California and by extension Davis' schools still have remained substantially below the national average in terms of per pupil spending.

As Michael Hulsizer cites in his recent letter to editor now posted on the Measure W website.

"According to the most current data from the National Center for Education Statistics and Bureau of Labor Statistics, California schools spend $1,055 less per student than the national average. This means that our Davis schools currently receive $9.1 million annually less than the national average."

Remember that this below average spending occurs DESPITE the fact that the cost of living in California is considerably higher than in almost all other states.

Mr. Hulsizer writes:

"In September 2007, Stanford University researchers concluded that despite higher costs than almost all other states, California schools are funded 30 percent below the national average and a staggering $5,500 PER STUDENT below schools in New York State. The result is that California schools have the highest student-to-staff ratios (teachers and administrators) in the United States."

And he concludes:

"While Measure W will not bring Davis schools to the national average, this modest proposal will at least allow our schools to protect several core instructional programs that help our school district arguably be one of the finest in our region, if not the entire state. Moreover, 100% of Measure W funding will go to programs and services for our children."

I have spent many hours working to understand the city of Davis' fiscal situation. I have devote many columns to that. I agree here with Rich Rifkin in part in terms of fiscal responsibility. Where I might differ (although perhaps not) is that I believe the district has already taken the steps that Mr. Rifkin recommends to prevent the kind of problems that surfaced back in 2005 and 2006.

Moreover, I also believe that teachers as a whole in this society, are underpaid in terms of the jobs that they perform and the importance of those jobs to our society. The fact is that we have increased their wages and benefits over the last decade. I would argue that is a good thing. The bad thing is that the district prior to 2006 did not have good fiscal management practices. As I have gone into painstaking detail however, those issues have been resolved with both better personnel and better practices as recommended by FCMAT in 2006.

Finally the big picture is that we do not spend nearly enough on education in California, especially when you taken into account cost of living. And we are nowhere near the top in performance.

Davis voters get a chance to do two things. First, they get a chance to keep Davis schools great. And second, they get a chance to renew their commitment to excellence in education. We can find ways to save money in other aspects of our lives. We can hold the line on fiscal discipline in other ways that do not harm our children's ability to receive a quality education.

What has struck me in this debate is the 90 percent of the things that critics have suggested the district do, the district has already done. The other thing that has struck me in this debate is how many times discredited arguments are repeated with no acknowledgment that they have already been asked and answered. What that tells me is that people are looking for excuses to vote no on this measure rather than reasons to vote yes. That is unfortunate because the end result will be a cutback in the programs that make Davis schools what they are.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

The Measure W Imperative

In just over a month, an election is going to be held that may be the most important election since 1932. I write those words with hesitation, because dare I say that every election I have ever been a part of, and that goes back only to 1992, they have said something like that.

And yet, for me that biggest lesson of my life occurred in 2000 because it was a realization that one cannot take things for granted. A scant few votes in a single state and some, if not voting irregularities, then anomalies determined the course of history of this nation. Not to mention a 5-4 Supreme Court decision.

Okay now let's stop and dispense with the melodrama here. The fact of the matter is that there are a number of important elections coming up in just over a month from now. For me, the most important of the ones below the Presidential contest is Measure W. I have devoted much time and space to this measure.

I think it is one of the most important issues facing Davis right now for a lot of reasons.

Last week I criticized the Measure W effort and was rebuked (and that's clearly too strong a word) by Measure W Campaign Coordinator Kingsley Melton.

My statement that drew his criticism:

"The concern that has been emerging has been that this campaign has been low-key."

Mr. Melton responded on the blog:

"Sorry DPD, I have to take issue with this statement. Perhaps you have not been contacted by Measure W, and with good reason, you are identified as a supporter. We are running a targeted operation that is on track to contact every likely absentee voter prior their receiving a ballot.

As I sit here numerous volunteers are making the phonecalls and contacts essential to the Measure's passage. We may not be a big budget operation, but we are a lean and mean machine. To learn more about volunteer opportunities and campaign activities, please visit our website, www.yesw.org."

I hope my friend Kingsley Melton does not take this the wrong way, but I have to disagree with him. I am glad they are on track to contact every likely absentee voter, and I hope they are very effective, but I have seen some very effective grassroots campaigns of this sort. The most effective was a special election in 1998 for Lois Capps. I understand this is not going to be a million dollar campaign, but it still needs to be a high profile one. The efforts by the Davis Schools Foundation ring a bell as to how to organize on this kind of level.

The Capps campaign was able to mobilize over 50 percent in 1998 across the Christmas and New Year's holidays by bombarding the voters not only with calls--we're talking six, seven, eight calls across not a city but across a congressional district with hundreds of thousands of voters. We are talking huge amounts of volunteers, direct mail, vote-by-mail applications, etc. I am glad they are going to contact every voter, but they need to contact every voter about seven times for it to be effective. And I hope they do.

I do not want to be a downer, but I do not have a sense for that kind of coordinated effort at this point. And I only point this out because in my opinion, we cannot afford to lose this.

If I am looking for a spokesman, how about the elderstatesman of Davis--Dr. Herb Bauer.

Reading his words literally gives one chills.

He writes:

"Open your eyes for a moment and read Measure W for the coming election. Measure W protects children and their education alone, nothing else. Read the details to convince yourself. In a world full of flames, with war on earth and ill will to men, only well-educated children may hope to create a better world."

If anyone in this entire community has been there and done that, it is Dr. Bauer.

Last week the Davis City Council unanimously passed a resolution supporting Measure W.

In part the resolution reads:

"DJUSD spend less on each child’s education than either the national or the state average, and the District has stretched every dollar to minimize overhead; and.... Measure W is needed to continue services such as reduced class size, enhanced reading and math programs, training for teachers, school-based technology support, school counselors, nurses and more; and... funds from Measure W will make a direct difference in increasing classroom resources for the children of Davis; and... Davis is a community that is defined by its commitment to our schools and our children, with Davis schools enhancing the quality of life for all residents..."

And as we reported last week, Former School Board Member John Munn and current President of the Yolo County Taxpayers Association sent a letter to the Davis Enterprise on behalf of the group in support of Measure W.

"The Yolo County Taxpayers Association board of directors has voted to support Measure W, the proposed parcel tax to maintain school programs in Davis. Although the association is not pleased by spending decisions that have contributed to the school district's current financial situation, the need for Measure W is real; and opposition at this point would not be in the best interest of the community, where taxpayers have a clear interest in the education of Davis students.

This support, however, comes with a caveat. We expect that the school district and board members now understand how decisions about present spending can lead to future deficits. Therefore, the association will not support future tax measures to pay for deficits created by subsequent board decisions.

But this is for another day's debate. Today, we must work together to keep the good things we have, which requires passing Measure W."

There are so many reasons to continue to support Measure W--quality education is not a luxury in this world, it is a necessity. $120 is real money to people. But it pales in comparison with the costs of substandard education. There is simply too much at stake now to allow our schools to go by the wayside. Education is the ticket to a better life and maintaining a strong education is an imperative.

At the end of the day, we need to remember that this is about our children and their future. They only get one shot at this.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

What impact will the Yolo County Taxpayers Association's Endorsement Have on Measure W?

This isn't supposed to happen--Taxpayers Associations do not endorse tax increases. At best you have to hope that they will remain neutral. But there it was last week, we heard rumors that the Yolo County Taxpayers Association had endorsed Measure W, the Davis Joint Unified School District's parcel tax needed to offset severe cutbacks from the state.

Those rumors have been confirmed now with an article yesterday in the Davis Enterprise and a subsequent letter by John Munn, former school board member, former Republican nominee for State Assembly, and current president of the Taxpayers Association.

John Munn writes:

"The Yolo County Taxpayers Association board of directors has voted to support Measure W, the proposed parcel tax to maintain school programs in Davis...

Although the association is not pleased by spending decisions that have contributed to the school district's current financial situation, the need for Measure W is real, and opposition at this point would not be in the best interest of the community, where taxpayers have a clear interest in the education of Davis students...

This support, however, comes with a caveat. We expect that the school district and board members now understand how decisions about present spending can lead to future deficits. Therefore, the association will not support future tax measures to pay for deficits created by subsequent board decisions. But this is for another day's debate. Today, we must work together to keep the good things we have, which requires passing Measure W."

Board member Gina Daleiden told the Enterprise in response to Mr. Munn's letter:

"As we are all aware, this year's state budget crisis has resulted in dismal funding for schools across California, and Measure W is needed for local support to save our quality educational programs that state dollars fail to adequately fund...

The district has worked hard to incorporate a high degree of accountability and transparency in Measure W, so that everyone can see it's a wise investment in our community, our kids and our future...

We welcome the support of the Taxpayers Association and their president, former school board member John Munn. We agree we must all work together to pass Measure W."

The question now is how much such an endorsement means. That is a key a question because such an endorsement provides a good deal of cover for the school district who has argued, with good reason, that they have worked hard to put their financial house in order and that this money is absolutely necessary for the district to continue to function at a high level.

The concern that has been emerging has been that this campaign has been low-key. The supporters of Measure W need to sell the need for another parcel tax to the public--some of whom are undoubtedly skeptical. To date that has yet to have occurred and it is desperately needed. It is already the last week in September. The election is less than fifty days away.

There is no doubt that this is a shot in the arm for the campaign. It helps make the case from an unlikely source about the necessity of the funds, but it will only go as far as the backers of this measure are able to get the word out to the public. Something is needed soon to raise the profile of this campaign and sell the message to the public. There is still time to do that, but time is quickly becoming an issue.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Addendum to Parcel Tax Post from Saturday

A number of interesting side issues came out of the article on Saturday regarding the parcel tax and particularly the district's spending.

The gist of that report is that the state budget picture with the approval of a new budget is very uncertain for schools. However, commenters have continued to question the district's spending practices and their ability to absorb two million or so in loss of revenue from the state and a lack of COLA to even keep up with inflation.

In particular, there is the suggestion that the district was able to cut $1.1 million from the budget and that therefore those things cut amounted to an admission that there was waste in the system.

Those budget cuts were obtained in a variety of ways including the closing of Valley Oak (something that I remain strongly opposed to), the non-replacement of retired teachers, the non-filling of vacant administration positions, and letting an assistant superintendent leave.

Some of these cuts have led to further questions and I will attempt to briefly address these questions. I strongly urge people who have further questions to talk to the district rather than jump to conclusions. While I would consider myself more knowledgeable than many on the issue of the district's budget simply because I have been covering this issue for frequently, I am hardly any sort of expert or authority on the matter.

One question that emerged this weekend was how Valley Oak's closure was able to save money if there are now programs that are located on the campus.

As people are aware, the closing of Valley Oak did not cause teachers to be laid off. However, there is still a large amount of operational expenses that are saved when a school closes. These include the principal and office staff, library support, teaching specialist support, custodial support, and some utility savings.

The programs that have been moved to the Valley Oak campus were relocated from Korematsu. There is no additional staff for these programs nor are any of these programs new.

The programs are only taking up about half of the campus. There are able to lease space out to other programs such as a Yolo County Office of Education program, Los Rios College, and STEAC.

An additional question came up about the crunch lunch and food improvements. These are intended to increase sales that will enhance the Student Nutrition Program.

As I mentioned in the comments yesterday, food services is a totally separate fund from the General Fund with the exceptions of the Measure Q enhancement. In other words, none of this money is coming from the general fund. The Measure Q funding as people know is required based on laws the bound parcel taxes. So none of this money is discretionary.

The district believes that in order to keep sales up that they need to serve quality food and if they don't, they will not break even and that money will come from the general fund.

Schools are required by law to offer food service as part of the National School Lunch Program. Most of the district's meals go to "free and reduced" qualified students. The district need cash paying students to help cover the cost of the program. If all cash paying students brought lunch, the district would lose money on this program and the General Fund would have to cover the loss.

The crunch lunch does not require additional staff. They were making pre-packaged salads and they were going unsold.

In addition Davis Farm to School is a non-profit partner in this program. No district funds flow through them.

Finally on the energy savings program--it began over a year ago. It was approved by the school board in the summer of 2006. Savings from this program were used in adopting the budget--it is part that $1.1 million they saved. Much of the savings however are mitigations from rate increases.

It is important to continue to ask questions about the district's budget process. It is a very complicated process and I keep learning more and more about it myself. However, there are a lot of assumptions and accusations being thrown out that that are simply untrue. We should try to education ourselves first before jumping to conclusions.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Guest Commentary: DJUSD parcel tax analysis and recommendation

by Don Shor

How should you vote on Measure W? That depends on

-- your assessment of the causes of the current predicament,
-- your guesses about future funding stability, and
-- your faith in your elected officials and district staff.

I was curious about the history of the present predicament and wanted to analyze the district’s finances. For a while, it was pretty hard to find clear information. EdVoice.com and the state Dept of Ed site are useful resources. A fellow blogger sent me some statistics and Bruce Colby provided detailed information, and I thank both of them. The conclusions here are my own.

Most of the district’s money comes directly from the state, based on the enrollment. Most of the district’s money goes to instructional expenses: teachers, teaching staff, books and supplies.

Myth: enrollment decreases are the cause of the district’s fiscal problems.

Fact: Paid ADA enrollment has dropped less than .3% per year since 2002-3, a total decrease of only 1.6% over the entire 2002-8 period. This is a total reduction of 134 paid ADA students from 2002 to 2007. Enrollment appears to be up a bit this year.

Costs should be proportional to enrollment, as income is. You would expect the district’s expenses to rise by about the rate of inflation (16% overall 2002-7), adjusted for any change in enrollment (down 1.6%).

Based on those criteria, the district budget for 2007 should be about $67.5 million.
The actual (projected) budget for 2007-8 was $73.8 million.

So over the past six years, DJUSD expenses have increased $6.3 million (10%) more than they “should” have. We’ll call this “extra.”

Where did the money go?

So what expenses were rising faster than the rate of inflation (adjusted for enrollment) in DJUSD between 2002 and 2007-8?

Myth: bloated administrative costs are the problem.

Fact: administrative costs actually rose slower than the rate of inflation.

Teacher pay. With a slight decrease in enrollment 2007/2002, certificated salaries increased 20%. Difference over inflation, adjusted for enrollment: $1.8 million “extra.”

The number of teachers, after dropping slightly from 2002 to 2003, remained nearly constant, at least through 2006 (this number is pretty hard to pin down).

Davis teachers are paid, on average, slightly more than the statewide average. Their benefits package is comparable to other districts.

Teacher pay increases in 2005 and 2006 made up for increases in the previous two years that were well below inflation. But the 6% increase in the 2007 budget is a pay increase above the rate of inflation through 2007.

Staff pay. During the same time period (2007/2002), classified salaries increased 23%. Difference over inflation, less enrollment: $0.9 million “extra.”

The biggest increases were in the 2005 and 2006 school years, when certificated and classified salaries increased by 7% and 11% respectively, each year.

Benefits increased 31% 2007/2002: $1.3 million “extra.” According to one board member, DJUSD benefits had been pretty paltry. They are now in line with other school districts.

Books and supplies increased 61%: $1.5 million “extra.”

Services and other operating expenses increased 41%: $1.6 million “extra.”

There was a big jump in Services and other operating expenses in 2006: 27%, a single year increase of nearly $2 million. This includes increases in utility costs ($400,000), special ed transportation, payments to other districts, legal fees, consultants, and settlements. 2006 was a messy year.

Why didn’t they go broke sooner?

Fortunately for the school district, total revenues increased 22% during this time period, so income was actually increasing faster than the rate of inflation as well. DJUSD had nearly $13 million more money total in 2007 vs. 2002.

So what’s the problem? Unfortunately, total expenditures increased 25%: the district spent $14.7 million more.

Two big factors:

Some district expenses are restricted, and the state has been reimbursing less than these cost the district.

The state is not giving ADA cost-of-living increases, at least for 2008, so revenues will dip.

To their credit, the board has proposed an essentially flat budget for 2008-9 that will not even account for inflation. They are not hiring new teachers, nor are they budgeting for a pay increase. Administration has been trimmed. If they can hold the line on the expenses that are within their control, expenses and revenues are expected to balance in 2010 or so. But there is a gap between revenues and expenses for the next two budget years. School districts can’t run a deficit; in fact, they are required to maintain a prudent reserve.

The proposed parcel tax would bridge that gap in revenue with about $2.4 million per year for three years. It would maintain the current budget level and a healthy reserve, allowing the district to weather future state budget crises. It is unlikely that districts will get a full cost-of-living increase in the next couple of state budgets.

If Measure W doesn’t pass, the number of teachers will have to be cut for at least a year or so. That’s where the money goes, so that is what will be cut. Teachers equal programs and low student/teacher ratios. You can quibble about this program or that one, but it is the total number of teachers that matters. Programs would be cut and student/teacher ratios would increase. Since the lower grades are at state-mandated ratios, the effect would fall disproportionately on grades 7 – 12. Enrollment has been increasing in those grades as it declines in the lower grades.

To some degree, this comes down to trust.

As a strong supporter of Valley Oak, and then the charter proposal, I have serious issues with the board’s actions in the last couple of years. Closing Emerson is often discussed. There has been turbulence in the administration. This parcel tax will not be an easy thing to sell, and I share much of the skepticism others have voiced.

Some recommendations:

The district needs to update its web site and provide fiscal information in an easy-to-read manner.

Staffing should be proportional to enrollment. The district should implement a hiring freeze to adjust for the slight enrollment decrease over the last few years.

Expense increases should not exceed the rate of inflation, or the rate reimbursed by the state, whichever is lower.

Those are simple guidelines an oversight committee can enforce.

So if you have faith that this newly-elected school board will keep expenses in check, and will continue to be honest about fiscal issues, you will probably be willing to vote for this parcel tax on a one-time basis. If you are skeptical, talk directly to the board members and staff about your concerns. I think you’ll find them approachable and willing to provide information.

My own thoughts?

I don’t vote here, but as a local property owner I do pay this tax: business parcels are taxed at $120 per year. My kids went to DJUSD K – 12 as interdistrict transfer students. We went out of our way to bring our kids into this district each year for more than 14 years. The teaching quality and program choices here are excellent. Budget cuts would directly affect those.

Unlike the ongoing parcel tax that voters just approved, the board should not expect this tax to be renewed automatically by the voters. There are no guarantees, but the trend lines suggest that it would not be necessary. But with the loss of cost-of-living increases from the state and the continued increase in mandated, under-funded programs, Measure W gives DJUSD breathing room.

Don Shor is a business owner in Davis, owning Redbarn Nursery.