As I reported before, we have a group working on reforming the school district at a fundamental level, primarily, at this point, through working towards a system of ward elections for school board members. Our organizing effort was distracted somewhat by the failed parcel tax campaign, but we are still moving along. The next milestone is the completion of a proposed map for the petition to establish ward elections. This should be done by the end of the month. Then I’ll be back with more news.
On October 11, the WCCUSD School Board held another study session on the long-range budget situation and the failure of the August 28th Measure G parcel tax. I have to locate my notes for a fuller account of this session, but in the meantime I can tell you immediately about the developments for a new parcel tax campaign.
Madeline Kronenberg and Dave Brown (contact info) are now the Board Committee charged with exploring a parcel tax as an option. Superintendent Harter will put out a request for proposals for a consulting firm to potentially use in a campaign. The next study session on November 1st will be an opportunity to check the sentiment of Board members to formally pursue a new parcel tax campaign.
Here are the dates being looked at:
June 3, 2008 Statewide Primary Election
August 26, 2008 Special (Mail-In) Election
November 4, 2008 General Election
March 3, 2009 Special (Mail-In) Election
The filing deadline is 88 days in advance, so, for instance, for the primary election, the deadline would be March 7th.
One implication of this approach is that the development process for a parcel tax could be more transparent. Public funding for the polling means that the public should have more access to the information gathered. Also, having a more obvious public Board committee means at least you know who to approach.
An interesting question is: What happens to the UTR (teachers union) plans for their own “community-based” parcel tax? No one from UTR was at the study session this time.
Surveys and polling are an important and expensive part of most parcel tax campaigns. One of the claims I’ve often heard in our school district is how great it is that the For the Children of West County PAC pays for surveys instead of the school district. This is not so great. The problem is that a private group owns the survey results, not the public. So, the public is dependent on the For the Children group for access to the data in the polling and can’t insist on access as a right. (One question the public might be interested in is: What exactly was the projected support for an 11-cent parcel tax with the objectives stated in the ballot language?)
One of my more amusing experiences from the failed measure G parcel tax campaign was being sort of blackballed by the consultant hired by For the Children of West County for the measure G campaign, Kevin Reikes. Mr. Reikes decided that using the words “parcel tax”, to describe the measure G parcel tax would doom its passage. So, if you look at any of the brochures produced by his firm for the parcel tax campaign, you won’t see the words “parcel tax” anywhere. It’s actually quite rhetorically beautiful. My problem was that, as the Webmaster for the parcel tax Web site, I found it very difficult to banish the words entirely from all Web content. I tried, but I couldn’t completely. For a BS glossy brochure, it’s much easier. I offered to give up running the Web site to someone else like Reike’s firm, but I was still left to carry on. The dysfunctional solution for Reikes was to simply exclude any references to the campaign Web site in the campaign brochures. Well, I guess, even though measure G failed, our consultant is in the clear.
One of the many things I’ve put off commenting on is the failure of the West Contra Costa USD parcel tax “renewal,” Measure G, on August 28th. This was a mail-in ballot whose campaigning season was mostly over the summer when school was not in session. The current parcel tax has two more years to go, but it was decided (note the vague passive tense) to go for it now.
Why did it fail? Who knows. When people talk about this, I am reminded of the parable of the blind men and the elephant. I’m one of those blind men.
The driving force behind the parcel tax was the For the Children of West County “faction” fueled by Charles Ramsey’s ability to bring in a lot of money from construction interests. I worked on the parcel tax campaign as a PTA VP (the Bayside Council of PTAs endorsed the parcel tax) and as the Webmaster for the campaign Web site. So, I was in position to make a lot of observations despite being somewhat removed from the center of things.
How It Was Supposed to Pass
The basic theory behind this parcel tax campaign was that the “no” vote was sleeping and that by targeting the “yes” vote and just getting them to vote without disturbing the sleeping “no” vote everything would be fine. In other words, the “no” vote is soft and the “yes” vote is hard. As a blind man, my take on the elephant is that the “yes” vote is soft and the “no” vote is hard.
Here are the results by city for the failed Measure G and the previously successful Measure B parcel tax measure (2004):
|Measure B||(2004)||Measure G||(2007)|
|Yes||No||Yes||No||Yes Change||No Change|
Pretty consistently the “yes” vote falls off by 50-60% from one election to the next, while the “no” vote just holds steady, without increasing, losing only about 10% across the board.
The Lack of a Well-Publicized General Crisis
So, what kept the soft “yes” vote home. The overarching reason to this blind man was the lack of a sense of a general crisis in funding for education. In 2004, the State education funding crisis was constantly in all of the news outlets. This included extreme measures like mid-year budget cuts. In contrast, in recent years, funding for education from the State has steadily increased. All the doom-and-gloom reporting about education funding has been significantly reduced in the media. Yes, there has been a continuing controversy about what is the “correct” amount to fund education, but this is a more abstract discussion.
The Role of the Teachers Union
In addition to this, there was the uncertainty produced by the teachers’ union (UTR) and its bizarre maneuvering over the parcel tax. The UTR was involved in salary reopener negotiations with the district during the whole parcel tax campaign. The UTR was not happy with the For the Children of West County people (who hold a 3-2 majority on the Board). The UTR could have simply done nothing about the parcel tax and made there point more subtly. But, no. Instead the UTR leadership had to be clever and introduce some weird resolution that the UTR would formally NOT support the parcel tax, but it wasn’t against the parcel tax. Whatever realpolitik point the UTR was aiming at in doing this was buried within a mound of confusion. Most “no” voters could care less what the UTR does, but for “yes” voters — if you’re scratching your head, you’re not voting.
When Is a Renewal Not a Renewal
Finally, the parcel tax itself was confusing. It was presented as a “renewal” with some kind of “inflation” adjustment. But, this inflation adjustment was a whopping 50% increase. And, the parcel tax actually included an increased scope of funding purposes. More head scratching and less voting by those who would be sympathetic to supporting education.
What Next for the For the Children of West County
The reaction of the For the Children people has been a big shrug. The dog ate the parcel tax. The dog assumes various guises like the subprime mortgage crisis or the dastardly state and federal authorities (not local authorities) or simply the fact that people “just don’t get it.” Along with explaining how the dog ate the parcel tax, the focus for the For the Children is making the cuts to show people how they will suffer from not passing the parcel tax. Any work on another parcel tax campaign will have to be shouldered by others.
What Next for the UTR
This brings us to the UTR. Now that the UTR leadership has not helped not not pass the parcel tax, they stand ready to campaign for their own parcel tax. This will be different because it will be a community-based campaign and the parcel tax will be based on appealing to uplifting values and not just supporting existing programs. We’ll see, I guess.