Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Opinion: CUSD board loads, aims at foot, prepares to pull trigger
Dedicated opponents of a school district parcel tax must be rubbing their hands in anticipation of Thursday's school board meeting. On the agenda:
ACTION ITEMS
a. Approve Honors Geometry Course at
Half Moon Bay High School
b. Approve
selection of textbook adoption for
honors geometry.
c. Direct the
Superintendent, on behalf of the
District, to write and submit a letter
in support of Assembly Bill 1991.
I needn't go into the details of AB 1991, Half Moon Bay's attempt to void the Coastal Act within its city limits. The bill has been well covered in these pages, and has aroused strong opposition on the Coastside and around the state.
As District Superintendent Gaskill writes on the district website,
We are also entering a period of
significant economic uncertainty. The
Governor’s proposed 2008-2009 budget
calls for massive cuts to K-12
education and the potential for
mid-year cuts remains a strong
possibility. We will need to work
harder and more creatively, continue
to seek out new partnerships and
alliances, and identify new sources of
revenue and financial support in the
months and years to come if we are to
retain our status as a high performing
district… and we could use your help
along the way.
Indeed they could.
As the state budget goes into the tank, our cash-strapped district will have little alternative but to ask the voters for a parcel tax. This will require that the middle school siting fiasco has faded sufficiently into the distance that the fifth attempt at passage will be the charm. We know from painful experience that parcel taxes are difficult to pass in the best of times, and these are not the best of times. Such a measure would require all the help it can get.
So, why is the board preparing to take this divisive vote on Thursday? I'm frankly at a loss. Superintendent Gaskill can be forgiven for not yet understanding recent district history, especially if we assume that most of his instruction is coming from his board. But the board itself has no such excuse.
If the school board is acting in response to a request from their friends on the Half Moon Bay City Council, then the council will share the responsibility for the school service cuts that will follow the failure of the next parcel tax attempt.
Of course, the district's endorsement of AB 1991 may simply be an acknowledgment that it has given up on passing a parcel tax in the foreseeable future. If it believes that aggressive development of the Coastside will turn around ten years of falling enrollment and save the district's finances, it would be would be wrong on at least two counts. First, the changing demographics of the Coastside have produced population growth without enrollment growth. Second, there is no evidence larger enrollment has improved the finances of any school district.
By statute, the district will pass next year's budget later this month. It won't be pretty then, and it won't be any prettier come November.
Comments
Jonathan,
A minor correction, any parcel tax would be the Sixth “attempt at passage” - CUSD has been so successful at ticking off the public, it is difficult to remember them all! It has been twelve years (June 1996) since 74.90% approved a $35,000,000 Bond measure. The CUSD School Board has not showed any respect for their fiduciary responsibility in managing that money!
Two CUSD Governing Board members have already announced their support for AB 1991 - Charles Gardner and Jolanda Schreurs:
Charles Gardner has been leading the PCF/CCF in the support of AB 1991
Jolanda Schreurs wrote:
“Come to the Board meeting and we would be happy to answer you in person, as we debate the merits of AB1991. At this point, I am not able to ascertain how the individual Board views this particular resolution as we must discuss this in public.
From my own perspective, which I will reiterate on Thurs, if AB1991 does not pass, there will be negative repercussions to the school district in a variety of contexts both short term and long term. There are no negative financial repercussions if AB1991 passes, contrary to the rumors put out by Ms Roberts.
jolanda”
Apparently she never read the Settlement Agreement - it sets the fees that CUSD would receive at 1990 levels. CUSD, in 1990, had the fees set below state levels. It was increased prior to the passage of the Bond Measure. That amount is still less than that required to build space for students.
CUSD has been very cavalier at allowing current residents to pay for Developer’s Schemes!
It appears that the PACIFICA SCHOOL DISTRICT PARCEL TAX MEASURE,
Measure N, for $96/ year for 5 years, was just passed - of course, it requires “independent citizen oversight”!
Ken Johnson
Joel,
We all support the parents, teachers, and students of the school district. However, many of us do not support the school board members (Schreurs, Gardner, Riemer, and Wilson) who do not understand the job they were elected to perform.
My letter in last week’s Review:
http://www.hmbreview.com/articles/2008/06/11/opinion/letters/doc4850380de9bc3879267804.txt
Dear Editor:
Last Thursday, by a vote of 4-1, the elected board of the Cabrillo Unified School District voted to support AB 1991, a bill that seeks to exempt the 129-house Beachwood subdivision from all state and local environmental laws.
Why is the school board once again meddling in controversial land-use politics? Didn’t members learn anything from the last time they ventured into the development speculation game, i.e., Wavecrest? That fiasco delayed construction of the new middle school by at least five years and escalated construction costs by at least $10 million. Why can’t the school board just stick to the job it was elected to, which is to improve the quality of the local schools?
Our schools have serious academic achievement problems. Student enrollment is declining because people who have the means to do so are taking flight from the district to obtain a better education for their children. It’s no wonder that five consecutive parcel tax votes have failed. A sixth failure is now assured.
All of this demonstrates a failure of leadership. The parents, teachers and students of the school district are being ill-served by the current board.
The lone dissenting vote in the board’s latest misstep came from [CUSD Board President] John Moseley, who should be congratulated for having the integrity to stand up to the cabal that is corrupting the school board’s mission.
Kevin J. Lansing
Half Moon Bay
Jonathan,
A minor correction, any parcel tax would be the Sixth “attempt at passage” - CUSD has been so successful at ticking off the public, it is difficult to remember them all! It has been twelve years (June 1996) since 74.90% approved a $35,000,000 Bond measure. The CUSD School Board has not showed any respect for their fiduciary responsibility in managing that money!
Two CUSD Governing Board members have already announced their support for AB 1991 - Charles Gardner and Jolanda Schreurs:
Charles Gardner has been leading the PCF/CCF in the support of AB 1991 Jolanda Schreurs wrote:
“Come to the Board meeting and we would be happy to answer you in person, as we debate the merits of AB1991. At this point, I am not able to ascertain how the individual Board views this particular resolution as we must discuss this in public.
From my own perspective, which I will reiterate on Thurs, if AB1991 does not pass, there will be negative repercussions to the school district in a variety of contexts both short term and long term. There are no negative financial repercussions if AB1991 passes, contrary to the rumors put out by Ms Roberts.
jolanda”
Apparently she never read the Settlement Agreement - it sets the fees that CUSD would receive at 1990 levels. CUSD, in 1990, had the fees set below state levels. It was increased prior to the passage of the Bond Measure. That amount is still less than that required to build space for students.
CUSD has been very cavalier at allowing current residents to pay for Developer’s Schemes!
It appears that the PACIFICA SCHOOL DISTRICT PARCEL TAX MEASURE, Measure N, for $96/ year for 5 years, was just passed - of course, it requires “independent citizen oversight”!
Ken Johnson