Posted by Pleasanton Parent, a resident of the Pleasanton Meadows neighborhood, on Jun 1, 2009 at 1:28 am
I urge you to vote No on G. The district is in desperate need of assistance in coming up with a long term financially responsible, ethically sound, and equitable solution that balances the needs of our children, our schools, and our community. A No vote on G will ensure that a solution that meets these criteria is developed.
A Yes vote on G just ensures the district can pay out $15 million in raises over the next four years while the programs we value the most fight over the table scraps.
Posted by KGM, a resident of the Valley Trails neighborhood, on Jun 1, 2009 at 8:31 am
It is important to read the specific verbage regarding the purpose of Measure G. I'm pretty sure it doesn't say "so we can pay out $15 millions in raises over the next four years while the programs you value the most fight over the table scraps."
Cynical speculation about where the funds will go does nothing to further the no argument. The district is bound to use the funds as described in the ballot wording.
Posted by Another Pleasanton Parent, a member of the Fairlands Elementary School community, on Jun 1, 2009 at 10:10 am
The district is bound to use the funds as described in the ballot wording.
I was for G until I started reading the blogs and then went back and read the actual ballot itself. I was unpleasantly surprised to discover the No on G people were right about the ballot language not being specific.
After all the money and time spent on the Signature Properties lawsuit - and it's still not over - I would have expected the School Board to be very careful about what they write.
I've changed my mind and will be voting No tomorrow.
Posted by Pleasanton Parent, a resident of the Pleasanton Meadows neighborhood, on Jun 1, 2009 at 10:12 am
I aggree, it is important to read specific verbage regarding the purpose of Measure G. Unfortunately there isn't any. Instead it is vague and misleading and allows the district the freedom to use the funds for whatever it chooses. I think the only specific limitations outlined in measure G state that the funds cannot be used for administrative salaries. There is no specific language surrounding what programs will be funded or how much funding they will receive.
As for the cynical speculation, make no mistake about it, the $15 million dollar figure is very real and was taken directly from the PUSD website. That is the figure they are budgeting for S&C increases over the next four years.
Vote No on Measure G, let us develop a solution that is ethically sound, fiscally responsible, and puts our children's eductation ahead of other interests.
Posted by KGM, a resident of the Valley Trails neighborhood, on Jun 1, 2009 at 9:19 pm
The funds have not been spent poorly. The district is facing cuts at the state level. The ballot wording lists specific programs the measure aims to support (CSR, reading and math support, libraries, counselors, technology instruction, school upkeep) in the face of fluctuating funding from the state.
Yes, G is a temporary fix in the face of unstable funding at the state level. Vote yes for Measure G, and advocate for reform at the state level. If you are interested in how our district has spent funds, please look at the recently released API scores for PUSD - fantastic!
Posted by West Side Observer, a resident of the Oak Hill neighborhood, on Jun 2, 2009 at 8:45 am
KGM is informed just enough to preach to the cool aide sipping sheeple. Read the ballot language before you vote today. If you have time, look carefully at the test scores—there are some surprises. Read a short review of school board activities in the last few years—some bad financial decisions were made. Finally, look at the teacher’s salaries and benefits and ask if the community should sacrifice while administrators and teachers are receiving raises.
Please vote NO on G, then vote no on trustees who do not understand how we got into the predicament we are in, and vote no on any state politician who cannot understand that we cannot afford every social program than comes down the line.
Of course, be positive, we wouldn’t want to offend anyone.
Posted by NO ON G, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jun 2, 2009 at 9:52 am
I don't know if KGM is crazy, but based on her posts, she is not reading the ballot language. There are no guarantees that the programs she wants to believe will be retained at their existing levels will be retained if measure g passes.
The vagueness of the ballot language should have been everyone's first clue that the school district was looking for a way to pass a parcel tax without making any real commitments to honor what the community has said it wants.