Original post made
on Sep 21, 2012
"During these uncertain times with the lack of education funding, the continuity of board members with experience and historical knowledge of the district will help to ensure that our school district continues to move forward. We truly appreciate the community's continued support and confidence in our leadership. Four years ago, you entrusted us to be stewards of the school district's policies, budget and what matters most -- the future of our children. We pledge to continue to represent the community with integrity and honesty. Please feel free to contact us at any time."
I just read about the 10K tv you guys approved, and the ipads for yourselves that the district is paying for, all at a time when we are seeing cuts to the classroom.
I do not know how the vote went, but if Arkin and Hintzke votes yes for the tv and ipads, I can tell you I am very disappointed. I am not surprised if Grant voted yes since that is what he does: says yes to everything. But you Valerie? Please tell me you voted no!
If you guys are thinking parcel tax, do you think the community will pass a tax given 2 already failed and you guys continue to make poor decisions? You guys do NOT need ipads, and if you want them, pay for them with your board stipend. And a 10K tv? are you kidding?
The story about the 10k tv is on the Independent, someone posted a link to the story on another forum.
The board has not had an agenda item about a future parcel tax, and nothing I have heard board members say in public would indicate that they are considering one for this year. There were a number of community member comments at the last board meeting asking the board to consider a parcel tax as a way to get the funds needed to reduce class sizes in grades K-3... but there's a big difference between a community member's suggestion and formal board action.
If prop 38 passes, it would make no sense at all to move forward with a local parcel tax. Let's wait till after November 7 before we jump to any conclusions about fiscal matters for schools next year.
Ah Mr. Capilla,
Listen carefully! Mr. Thorne said he was in favor of the projects and the tax if it didn't mention "in perpetuity". In fact he is on record as saying that he would vote FOR the tax if it did not include that phrase.
It is not the tax he is against but the semantics.
How can you be in favor of the projects and not in favor of paying for them. Where will we get that money and how will those projects get built?
He may be taking a hard stand but it is because he is trying to straddle the fence, (again).
This is pandering by Thorne and spin by Capilla.
I've attended two of the forums. Thorne's position on the transportation tax has been pretty clear--he sees a need for some of the proposed projects but government needs to be held accountable with our tax dollars so he would only support a transportation tax measure with an end date to the tax. Hardly pandering.
If you want to talk about pandering lets talk about cook--kallio and the unions. She was "bitterly disappointed" (her words at the council meeting) that the applicant (BRE) to build the apartments across from BART and the union were not able to reach a labor agreement (PLA). Yet in the Chamber forum (think business & developers) she said she didn't support PLA's. Talk about pandering.
And which way did Cook-Kallio happen to vote on the BRE project?
Stacey. Yes, of course. She has voted Yes on all but one or two votes in six years.