  |
Debate will continue, but ballot measure won’t appear until at least 2011
By KERRY BENEFIELD
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Facing nearly $14 million in potential cuts, Santa Rosa school board members will continue to debate whether to ask voters to support a parcel tax, but it will not appear on a ballot before 2011.
Board members expressed concern Wednesday that voters do not yet know the real impact of the estimated $13.9 million in cuts expected to come from the 2011-12 school year.
The looming cuts come on the heels of the $5.6 million that Sonoma County’s largest school district cut from the school year that starts Aug. 17.
“As draconian as the cuts were, as difficult as it has been on everyone, I think the next round of cuts will frankly be much more difficult and much more difficult to manage,” school board member Frank Pugh said.
Board members debated whether to pay for a voter-sentiment poll or whether to seek donations for the approximately $20,000-$30,000 survey.
“I do not believe we should spend any money on polls,” board president Bill Carle said. “I’d have a hard time writing any money out of the general fund for that.”
Trustee Tad Wakefield, who just last month pushed the board to consider a parcel tax as early as the November general election, said recent public spending scandals at the California School Boards Association and the Southern California town of Bell have soured voters.
“I’m going to be against a parcel tax, I have changed my position,” Wakefield said. “We need to focus on how we can make painful cuts while keeping teachers and programs.”
“I don’t know if we are magicians and can do that, but I think that is what the public wants to see,” he said.
The board directed district staff to pursue information on polling, ballot language, timing and other issues related to a parcel tax in 2011.
Staff writer Kerry Benefield writes an education blog at extracredit.blogs.pressdemocrat.com.
Subscribe by Email
Follow us on Twitter
Patrick, I agree with everything you say. The problem, however, is in what is not said. Whenever we look at an individual public function in isolation, be it schools for our children, new senior centers, parks and pools, public safety, you name it, they all loook good and no one wants to say “no.” But we don’t have unlimited resources to pay for all that. What is missing is a discussion on priorities. Let’s stack all these competing functions up against one another and make some qualitative decisions about what we want or need and what we don’t. Likewise, when proponents argue that a parcel tax increase is “only” five dollars a month, or a vehicle license surcharge is “only” ten dollars annually, or a sales tax increase is “only” a quarter or half of one percent, or a parking fee is “only” five dollars, and the list goes on, the cumulative effect of all these taxes and fees is ignored. As long as we retain a nearsighted view of these matters, we will never see the big picture.
There’s a big difference between the horrendous actions in the City of Bell that resulted in $700,000+ salaries, and asking Santa Rosa property owners to support the future of our economy and our community.
While voters may have filled their appetite for bond measures (the pork-laden Prop 18 being exhibit A), I firmly believe that if voters are given the choice of ensuring that our children have the resources they need for success, or are crammed into crumbling classrooms with outdated materials, they’ll chose success over failure every time.