PTA Lobbies to Lower Taxpayer Protections Schools & Kids, posted by PEVC, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2011 at 2:27 pm
Debbie Look, Pleasanton resident, is the Director of Legislation for the California PTA.
SCA 5 was introduced after the PTA’s attempt to place an initiative on the ballot failed. This was championed by Trustee Jeff Bowser who collected signatures at a PUSD school board meeting, and for which the PUSD School Board subsequently endorsed through a resolution. According to the PW article, Web Link (page 5) this initiative effort was started after another legislative attempt SCA 6 died in the CA Legislature.
Speaking of Jeff Bowser, let’s see if his May 29, 2009 prediction of PUSD closing two schools came true Web Link (page 10) He writes “With the additional $6 million in cuts announced by the governor the district will have no choice but to close one or two schools.”
This entire issue is worth reading for all the predictions of doom and gloom for PUSD if the 2009 Measure G parcel tax did not pass. Here we are in 2011, with student test scores rising, and PUSD showing a $4,000,000 surplus for this fiscal year.
It is worth asking. Should we trust all the 2011 doom and gloom Measure E supporters, or should we trust that our school district administration will be able to negotiate their way to a balanced budget this year.
Should we be supporting our PTA organizations as they work to lower taxpayer protections and pass new taxes, or should we say NO to Measure E and keep holding PUSD and the unions to use the annual $165,000,000 in tax revenues wisely.
Posted by Drexl, a resident of the Ironwood neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2011 at 2:38 pm
I guess you missed the article about PMS missing the grade on no school left behind. I don't have exact number of teachers laid off, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was equivalent to one school. Stop your whining, only $100. Seriously, if this is causing you to lose sleep; you need to get medicated...
Posted by Drexl, a resident of the Ironwood neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2011 at 2:41 pm
Oh yeah, special taxes, I agree with you, need to keep 2/3rds. Renters don't care if the landlord needs to pay higher taxes; so yes, if you only allow property owners to vote, then 50% for tax increase; if everyone can vote, then needs to be 2/3.
Posted by comment, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2011 at 3:13 pm
$98 dollars a month for one of the best school districts in California sounds very reasonable to me. Now that the Michelle Rhee fraud/scandal is out there, this really cements a lot of yes votes. Everyone in my house and all my neighbors will be voting yes.
Posted by What do I think?, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2011 at 3:29 pm
I think the PEVC has way too much time on her hands. Didn't she actually threaten to stop throwing mud on the wall and get actively involved in some worthwhile community project? What happened? Oh, that would have meant getting out of her chair. I guess there's always one or two who want to bore a hole in the boat while everyone is paddling.
Posted by Start Afresh, a resident of the Country Fair neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2011 at 6:32 am
I believe that the taxpayer protection of 2/3 voter approval for new special taxes needs to stay in place. If the PTA organizations are lobbying to lower these protections, then it is certainly reasonable to not support them in these efforts. And certainly reasonable to vote No on E to send that message.
Posted by comment, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2011 at 8:33 am
You may want to send the message that 2/3 rule for parcel taxes is unreasonable. But that is not the main reason I'm voting for Measure E. The main reason is that I want to support our excellent schools.
Posted by Nomad, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Apr 4, 2011 at 1:04 pm
Organizations like the PTA and teachers unions are doing everything they can to get a greater percentage of taxpayer money. The question is, should they? Or are there more things unions and school districts can be doing to use taxpayer dollars more efficiently.
Which brings a new question. How are the negotiations between PUSD and APT and CSEA progressing? Are they negotating specific changes that will control costs? Will they complete and announce the negotiation results before voting progresses too far?
View in an RSS Reader
E-mail this topic.
Print this topic.
