Town Square

Post a New Topic

Why was a thread asking questions about parcel tax blocked?

Original post made by John, Another Pleasanton neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2009

The following thread was closed off by the Pleasanton Weekly, but for the life of me, I can't figure out why since it was posted by a registered user who used her own name and asked intelligent questions.
Can anyone explain to me why this thread was closed off?

Open Response to a Board Member's Email
Schools & Kids, posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of the Vineyard Avenue neighborhood, 11 hours ago

I am a former board member who has been watching the parcel tax issue. I decided to email the current board about the state of the district reserves. I was surprised by the response from one member. Here is my open response, with a cc to the community.

There is no direct reply to my original question of why the goal of a seven percent reserve was abandoned—a reserve that would buy the community time now to evaluate what really has been happening with the district’s budget and how best to find long-term solutions. While the issues at the state level compound the district’s problems, the response is an apparent abdication of responsibility for previous decisions that brought the district to this point.

Your question of why shouldn’t the community decide about restoring programs on the chopping block, though, leads to many of my own.

• Why have suggestions other than a parcel tax been ignored?

• Why were teachers and principals not surveyed for their ideas of what could be cut (not what they would personally give up)?

• Why was a survey not used to ask the community about what they support? Wouldn’t that be less expensive and less risky than an election to ask the same question?

• Why doesn’t the ballot language or the accompanying resolution specifically state what it will save (# teachers, # counselors, etc.)?

• Why doesn’t the ballot language indicate that no one will receive a raise during the life of the parcel tax? Couldn’t this be a better approach than asking for concessions from the unions? This would have made a smaller (less than $233) two- or three-year parcel tax easier to pass, allowing plenty of time to seek more permanent solutions without a heavier burden for tax payers in the current economy.

• Are board members and staff preparing more than one plan for what will happen if the tax does not pass?

• Why is the election in June and not May (nearly twice as expensive)?

• It has been suggested the one-item June election is an attempt to keep opposition voters out of the booth. If most Pleasanton voters use absentee ballots, wouldn’t this suggest that those who oppose the parcel tax will vote and that this additional cost is more money wasted?

• How does it make sense to consistently spend more money (taxpayer dollars) to ask the taxpayer to provide more funding?

To respond to your other points:

• Every one of the remaining days before June 2 is a just another campaign day—there has not been a sincere two-way conversation yet, only a drive from the position in favor of the tax.

• There was not much listening at the meetings. Those who spoke in opposition were admonished for their efforts to seek additional time and a different approach. The sacrifice by the union is appreciated, but may not have been necessary as noted above.

• Cutting class size reduction was the heaviest emotional hammer in the district’s toolbox, so I don’t agree the community/media endorsements have any real value to the voter.

Contrary to what seems to have been implied, I am very concerned for the 50% of my former co-workers losing their jobs, and I am equally upset for the dedicated teachers and classified staff members who find themselves in the same position. I’m also quite aware this tax isn’t for building reserves, which means the district still does not have a plan for ever achieving it’s stated goal.

The question remains—what happened to that goal for reserves? The answer points to money being spent with no regard for economic uncertainty and that this is the sole reason for the pink slips that were given throughout the district.

Saying it is “just 64 cents per day for four years” is how you don’t say it is $18.4 million dollars. Is the presumption you mention one about the voters not figuring that out?

I appreciate the dialog and look forward to your response.

Comments (7)

Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Apr 2, 2009 at 7:29 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

The Weekly is trying to be half-pregnant with their anonymous posting policy. I've had two kids so far and for the life of me I can't figure out how anyone can be half-pregnant.

Like this comment
Posted by @
a resident of Castlewood
on Apr 2, 2009 at 8:42 pm

You ask a very good question. Although the answer should be obvious. The PW and its Editor are blatantly biased in their liberalism, just like the mainstream media including most other newspapers in metro areas.

This PW might as well be declared an additional tool of the democrat party (ps...note that I refuse to use the term "democrat-ic" party as their is nothing "democratic" about democrats.)

Like this comment
Posted by ConflictofInterest?
a resident of Foothill High School
on Apr 2, 2009 at 10:40 pm

Is Mrs. Bing that works at Foothill High related to the editor of the Pleasanton Weekly? Is that why the Pleasanton Weekly censoring the posts that are against the parcel tax--because a relative of the editor is a school district employee?

Like this comment
Posted by Sensibly Save Our Schools
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 2, 2009 at 11:29 pm

On another thread, a poster named Mike identified Jan Bing, a counseling secretary at Foothill High School, as the wife of Jeb Bing. Mike also noted that Jan Bing received a pink slip.

in Jeb Bing's editorial of March 13th, he did not disclose that his wife is a PUSD employee.

Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Apr 2, 2009 at 11:57 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Isn't such disclosure one of those journalistic duties? It's like when one reads news stories about the owners of the newspaper in which the story appears and they disclose that. PW should issue a correction in print.

Like this comment
Posted by Jerry
a resident of Oak Hill
on Apr 3, 2009 at 2:45 am

I've purposely stayed clear of this fiasco since I don't have factual comments to present. However, I question why the Editor continues to publish articles concerning the parcel tax, such as "Chamber endorces Measure G parcel tax proposal", allowing "non registered" favorable comments but when the comments turn "unfavorable" the posting suddenly becomes "only registered posters"...

Something smells here. This Editor/Newspaper is certainly losing credibility with many in the community with what seem to be "selectivity". Those associated with this newspaper should be ashamed that such a double standard is allowed to exist...

Like this comment
Posted by Jeb Bing
editor of the Pleasanton Weekly
on Apr 3, 2009 at 7:46 am

Jeb Bing is a registered user.

Just a reminder that we are restricting all posts related to the June 2 parcel tax measure to registered users of the Pleasanton Weekly Town Square forum. We have found that this keeps the conversations more civil and focused without any restriction on what posters say or the opinions they express.

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Salami, Salami … Baloney
By Tom Cushing | 24 comments | 705 views

Time for new collaboration between city and school district
By Tim Hunt | 2 comments | 505 views

Holiday Fund raises $70,000 for 12 Tri-Valley nonprofits
By Jeb Bing | 0 comments | 115 views