I think it is safe to say that our school bookfair that Denise Bohman is so proud of having run is part of a corporate marketing scheme that is reported to exploit school children and their families through false advertising.
According to a statement by the law firm that has filed suit vs Scholastic found on on PR Newswire, Scholastic "uses its marketing presence within elementary schools to convince parents to purchase educational products, and then bombards parents with unsolicited goods, demanding payment in violation of state and federal law."
Apparently, these marketing ploys and bookfairs are wildly profitable since Scholastic's top executives have received huge pay raises in the past 4 years. The total compensation for top executives grew from about $2.9 m to $9.7 m even though their stock price has fallen. Between 2007-11 their CEO's total compensation has more than doubled, their CFO's compensation grew almost 6 fold, and the president of Scholastic Education has seen her compensation rise by 50%. These figures were reported to Morningstar.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Daily facilities use fee: Part 2 of My Save Our Schools—Tax the Super-rich plan
Another measure to bring about a more equitable and fair local tax base would be to pass a proportional San Geronimo Valley Community Center facilities usage fee based on the average daily number of users present on the property. The objective of this fee is to restore balance to the local tax base. Several large property owners in the Valley who literally have hundreds of thousands of combined annual users of their property are profiting from access to our facilities without paying their fair share. This fee would end what is known as the “free rider” phenomenon.
The way the facilities use fee would work is that the more daily users of these facilities you have on your property the higher the fee would be collected to support local school district and community center services. The local tax burden would be restored by placing the largest responsibility for paying the fee on those property owners who gain the most use from the facilities.
Why is this necessary? Today the Valley is home to several extremely large businesses that generate a substantial income stream from tourists and customers that live outside the Valley and yet benefit from our services without contributing to them. As free riders these local businesses unfairly place the heavy inequitable burden for supporting these services on local residents.
The way that cities and counties such as San Francisco address this free rider phenomenon is to impose a luxury or tourist tax on such services. These taxes commonly are used to fund the arts which has the effect of stimulating a vibrant arts community but also jobs and income for artists and those who work in the arts such as carpenters, sound engineers, fashion designers, and actors for example.
However, as a school district we cannot issue a tourism tax but we can issue a fee based on use of services under Article 13D of the California Constitution.
For example, the following fee would create a fairer tax revenue burden by shifting the responsibility to pay local taxes to support our schools and community center to those with the greatest number of users. This is not unusual. Property and income taxes follow the same principle by scaling the responsibility to pay taxes based on how much one’s property is worth or how much one earns in income.
The other way a use fee makes our local tax base more equitable is that like a luxury tax it places all the burden on the consumption of luxuries such as maintaining a horse, going on a retreat, eating at a restaurant, staying at a hotel, or playing a round of golf. One need merely look at the high daily and monthly fees charged for a local retreat, to board a horse, or belong to the golf club to see that consumers of these services are living at the very top of the income and wealth brackets of our society.
The following fee imposes a tax per person per day that starts at 1/100th of a cent and maxes out at $1.00 per day. For example, a household of 4 people would pay merely 4/100ths of a cent per day which comes to 4 x 37 cents = $1.48 per year. You can barely buy one organic apple for that.
This fee generates nearly all of the revenue from local facilities that host 30 or more residential customers per day. It would not apply to non-residency sales of simple goods or services. As you can see below, my rough calculation below shows it would generate a minimum of $360,000 per year.
This amount would most likely be more than enough to restore all the cuts to teachers and instructional and other staff and even give the teachers and staff a pay raise—all measures the incumbents Richard and Denise are unwilling to do. There would probably even be money left over to pay for facilities upgrades without even further indebting our District’s to Wall Street on top of what we still owe from the 1997 bond measure.
Facilities Use Fee Scale:
1-10 users: .001 cents per day
example: at 1 per day: 37 cents per year
11-20 users: .01 cents per day
example: at 11 per day: $40.15 per year
21-29 users: .1 cents per day
example: at 21 per day: $766.50
30 and more users: $1.00 per day
example: at 30 per day = $10,950 per year (Serenity Knolls maximum guests)
example: at 40 per day = $14,600 per year (rough estimate for San Geronimo Golf Course)
example: at 100 per day = $36,500 (Dickson Ranch can accommodate at least 100)
at 822 per day = $300,000 per year (Spirit Rock estimated usage according to San Geronimo Valley Planning Group)
The way the facilities use fee would work is that the more daily users of these facilities you have on your property the higher the fee would be collected to support local school district and community center services. The local tax burden would be restored by placing the largest responsibility for paying the fee on those property owners who gain the most use from the facilities.
Why is this necessary? Today the Valley is home to several extremely large businesses that generate a substantial income stream from tourists and customers that live outside the Valley and yet benefit from our services without contributing to them. As free riders these local businesses unfairly place the heavy inequitable burden for supporting these services on local residents.
The way that cities and counties such as San Francisco address this free rider phenomenon is to impose a luxury or tourist tax on such services. These taxes commonly are used to fund the arts which has the effect of stimulating a vibrant arts community but also jobs and income for artists and those who work in the arts such as carpenters, sound engineers, fashion designers, and actors for example.
However, as a school district we cannot issue a tourism tax but we can issue a fee based on use of services under Article 13D of the California Constitution.
For example, the following fee would create a fairer tax revenue burden by shifting the responsibility to pay local taxes to support our schools and community center to those with the greatest number of users. This is not unusual. Property and income taxes follow the same principle by scaling the responsibility to pay taxes based on how much one’s property is worth or how much one earns in income.
The other way a use fee makes our local tax base more equitable is that like a luxury tax it places all the burden on the consumption of luxuries such as maintaining a horse, going on a retreat, eating at a restaurant, staying at a hotel, or playing a round of golf. One need merely look at the high daily and monthly fees charged for a local retreat, to board a horse, or belong to the golf club to see that consumers of these services are living at the very top of the income and wealth brackets of our society.
The following fee imposes a tax per person per day that starts at 1/100th of a cent and maxes out at $1.00 per day. For example, a household of 4 people would pay merely 4/100ths of a cent per day which comes to 4 x 37 cents = $1.48 per year. You can barely buy one organic apple for that.
This fee generates nearly all of the revenue from local facilities that host 30 or more residential customers per day. It would not apply to non-residency sales of simple goods or services. As you can see below, my rough calculation below shows it would generate a minimum of $360,000 per year.
This amount would most likely be more than enough to restore all the cuts to teachers and instructional and other staff and even give the teachers and staff a pay raise—all measures the incumbents Richard and Denise are unwilling to do. There would probably even be money left over to pay for facilities upgrades without even further indebting our District’s to Wall Street on top of what we still owe from the 1997 bond measure.
Facilities Use Fee Scale:
1-10 users: .001 cents per day
example: at 1 per day: 37 cents per year
11-20 users: .01 cents per day
example: at 11 per day: $40.15 per year
21-29 users: .1 cents per day
example: at 21 per day: $766.50
30 and more users: $1.00 per day
example: at 30 per day = $10,950 per year (Serenity Knolls maximum guests)
example: at 40 per day = $14,600 per year (rough estimate for San Geronimo Golf Course)
example: at 100 per day = $36,500 (Dickson Ranch can accommodate at least 100)
at 822 per day = $300,000 per year (Spirit Rock estimated usage according to San Geronimo Valley Planning Group)
Friday, October 14, 2011
Why did Denise Bohman vote against a grant funded environmental education project?
At a packed and tense board meeting on 10/19/10 Denise Bohman attempted to kill the Larsen Creek restoration project. The project was the brainchild of parents from both the Waldorf Inspired and Montessori programs and included a campus watershed education component. This was truly inter-program cooperation at its finest and yet Denise tried to axe it. If you have had a chance to walk across the fantastic bridge (which Richard Sloan helped build) you will see that area cleaned up, restored and cleared of several unsightly storage containers.
Yet, although this project cost the District nothing Denise vehemently denounced the sponsor organization at the meeting and was clearly working on behalf of a competing local organization at the meeting. This non-issue was n extension of an on-going clash between the watershed conservation group SPAWN and the Valley Stewards that is rampant throughout the Valley.
By attempting to can the project Denise was politicizing not only the school board but the classroom by attempting to deny the expertise of trained watershed biologists to our children, parents and teachers. SPAWN has raised many hundreds of thousands of dollars for the Valley for about a decade restoring creeks, culverts, and roads in an effort to save the now probably extinct coho salmon.
We have been fortunate that until the past few years coho were found spawning in our very own watershed. I once saw coho jumping at the Inkwells when I used to work in the Valley. It was truly one of the wonders of my existence. It moved me to awe. Sadly, my daughter has yet to see them even after years of taking her in winter rain storms to find them. We have an extinction crisis happening right before our eyes and it's a tragedy.
Voting to allow the Larsen Creek project to go forward Richard put it succinctly that the District would not be initiating a relationship with SPAWN since it has long had one. That included, he pointed out, its sponsorship of the rain catchment structure at the upper campus, an amazing system that yet again Richard helped build.
I write about this because it raises a number of crucial questions about the incumbents' endorsement of one another for re-election.
1. If Denise really represents all the programs and the principle of parent choice as she repeatedly claims why did she try so hard to kill the Larsen Creek project?
2. Does Denise have an ideological opposition to environmental education and watershed conservation? If so, what is it? What does she think about the crisis facing our ecosystems?
3. If Denise really works to raise funds for the entire District and all its programs why did she vote against this grant funded program? Does she favor certain fundraising over others? The Larsen Creek project saved the District invaluable thousands of dollars on facilities and grounds maintenance that was freed up to be used to educate the children. That's much more effective than funding it by further indebting the District to Wall Street by borrowing at a 100% interest rate over 20-30 years.
4. Lastly, how can Richard and Denise, who stand on opposite sides on issues revolving around environmental education endorse one another? This is not just about SPAWN and the Stewards but a reflection of how they manage the District. They each represent interests which have bitterly factionalized our schools. Do we really want this to continue another 4 years? Could their mutual endorsement be an expression of just how willing they are to compromise their own principles just to stay in office? What else have they and will they continue to compromise on?
Of course, this also begs the question as to why Richard in early 2009 unsuccessfully attempted to cut SPAWN's parent organization's parcel tax by 80%.
These are crucial questions I hope voters will ask before casting their votes for either of the incumbents. A vote that is given away is a wasted vote.
Yet, although this project cost the District nothing Denise vehemently denounced the sponsor organization at the meeting and was clearly working on behalf of a competing local organization at the meeting. This non-issue was n extension of an on-going clash between the watershed conservation group SPAWN and the Valley Stewards that is rampant throughout the Valley.
By attempting to can the project Denise was politicizing not only the school board but the classroom by attempting to deny the expertise of trained watershed biologists to our children, parents and teachers. SPAWN has raised many hundreds of thousands of dollars for the Valley for about a decade restoring creeks, culverts, and roads in an effort to save the now probably extinct coho salmon.
We have been fortunate that until the past few years coho were found spawning in our very own watershed. I once saw coho jumping at the Inkwells when I used to work in the Valley. It was truly one of the wonders of my existence. It moved me to awe. Sadly, my daughter has yet to see them even after years of taking her in winter rain storms to find them. We have an extinction crisis happening right before our eyes and it's a tragedy.
Voting to allow the Larsen Creek project to go forward Richard put it succinctly that the District would not be initiating a relationship with SPAWN since it has long had one. That included, he pointed out, its sponsorship of the rain catchment structure at the upper campus, an amazing system that yet again Richard helped build.
I write about this because it raises a number of crucial questions about the incumbents' endorsement of one another for re-election.
1. If Denise really represents all the programs and the principle of parent choice as she repeatedly claims why did she try so hard to kill the Larsen Creek project?
2. Does Denise have an ideological opposition to environmental education and watershed conservation? If so, what is it? What does she think about the crisis facing our ecosystems?
3. If Denise really works to raise funds for the entire District and all its programs why did she vote against this grant funded program? Does she favor certain fundraising over others? The Larsen Creek project saved the District invaluable thousands of dollars on facilities and grounds maintenance that was freed up to be used to educate the children. That's much more effective than funding it by further indebting the District to Wall Street by borrowing at a 100% interest rate over 20-30 years.
4. Lastly, how can Richard and Denise, who stand on opposite sides on issues revolving around environmental education endorse one another? This is not just about SPAWN and the Stewards but a reflection of how they manage the District. They each represent interests which have bitterly factionalized our schools. Do we really want this to continue another 4 years? Could their mutual endorsement be an expression of just how willing they are to compromise their own principles just to stay in office? What else have they and will they continue to compromise on?
Of course, this also begs the question as to why Richard in early 2009 unsuccessfully attempted to cut SPAWN's parent organization's parcel tax by 80%.
These are crucial questions I hope voters will ask before casting their votes for either of the incumbents. A vote that is given away is a wasted vote.
Coming soon: Part 2 of My Save Our Schools—Tax the Super-rich plan
Coming soon will be my proposal for a Daily Usage Fee for use of the San Geronimo Valley Community Center.
This plan would provide an equitable reform of our tax revenue base so that the most valuable properties and businesses in the Valley begin to pay their fair share to fund the local services from which they profit.
The burden to pay for these services have been carried by Valley families and residents who are struggling to make ends meet. It's time to make the share more equitable.
This plan would provide an equitable reform of our tax revenue base so that the most valuable properties and businesses in the Valley begin to pay their fair share to fund the local services from which they profit.
The burden to pay for these services have been carried by Valley families and residents who are struggling to make ends meet. It's time to make the share more equitable.
Why did Richard Sloan vote to cut a local $1.3 million non-profit's parcel tax by 80%
As I mentioned in one of my Wednesday blogs, Richard Sloan claimed at the candidates debate that the District "zero control over revenues" with the exception of parcel taxes.
That's quite an important exception.
On 3/17/09 Richard proposed voting to cut the parcel tax obligation from 5 to 1 lots for the controversial local environmental organization SPAWN. A week later, on 3/24/09, he was the only trustee to vote to approve this huge discount. Luckily, it was not approved.
There are several crucial questions that Richard needs to answer.
1.Why did he propose cutting more than $1000 in much needed taxes for our schools when the board is slashing teachers, instructional aides, and staff? Is that what he meant Wednesday night by not needing to be "anxious" about our revenue crisis?
2. How much has SPAWN's executive director, family and staff contributed to his campaign? The executive director (Todd Steiner) and his wife (Lynette McLamb) are listed as endorsers of Richard's candidacy.
3. Why did Richard think that a local non-profit whose parent organization indicates in its 2010 IRS 990 that it has an annual budget of about $1.3 million needs to have a parcel tax cut?
4. What other political favors has Richard made to this and other donors?
While $1000 is nowhere near the millions showered on Sacramento and Congress in our rampant "pay to play" politics it demonstrates that what Richard does and says do not jive with one another.
Full disclosure: I worked for the Sea Turtle Restoration Project which is run by SPAWN's parent organization Turtle Island Restoration Network (which has the same executive director) for 3 and 1/2 years from 2003 to 2006. Although I loved the work protecting our ocean and its creatures from being driven to extinction I left to take a management position with Humane Society International, a DC based wildlife conservation non-profit. I also received a $45.00 donation from SPAWN's executive director but returned it several weeks ago without cashing it. This will be updated in my campaign filings. I wholeheartedly support SPAWN's long efforts to preserve our local watershed and assist local property owners restoration of their properties. But I do not think that means the organization now somehow gets to pay less than its full share of our local taxes and shortchange our schools—which the two children of SPAWN's founder attended—out of much needed resources.
That's quite an important exception.
On 3/17/09 Richard proposed voting to cut the parcel tax obligation from 5 to 1 lots for the controversial local environmental organization SPAWN. A week later, on 3/24/09, he was the only trustee to vote to approve this huge discount. Luckily, it was not approved.
There are several crucial questions that Richard needs to answer.
1.Why did he propose cutting more than $1000 in much needed taxes for our schools when the board is slashing teachers, instructional aides, and staff? Is that what he meant Wednesday night by not needing to be "anxious" about our revenue crisis?
2. How much has SPAWN's executive director, family and staff contributed to his campaign? The executive director (Todd Steiner) and his wife (Lynette McLamb) are listed as endorsers of Richard's candidacy.
3. Why did Richard think that a local non-profit whose parent organization indicates in its 2010 IRS 990 that it has an annual budget of about $1.3 million needs to have a parcel tax cut?
4. What other political favors has Richard made to this and other donors?
While $1000 is nowhere near the millions showered on Sacramento and Congress in our rampant "pay to play" politics it demonstrates that what Richard does and says do not jive with one another.
Full disclosure: I worked for the Sea Turtle Restoration Project which is run by SPAWN's parent organization Turtle Island Restoration Network (which has the same executive director) for 3 and 1/2 years from 2003 to 2006. Although I loved the work protecting our ocean and its creatures from being driven to extinction I left to take a management position with Humane Society International, a DC based wildlife conservation non-profit. I also received a $45.00 donation from SPAWN's executive director but returned it several weeks ago without cashing it. This will be updated in my campaign filings. I wholeheartedly support SPAWN's long efforts to preserve our local watershed and assist local property owners restoration of their properties. But I do not think that means the organization now somehow gets to pay less than its full share of our local taxes and shortchange our schools—which the two children of SPAWN's founder attended—out of much needed resources.
Factcheck: Just how beneficial are the bookfairs?
One unconfirmed "fact" that Denise Bohman cited at the debate this week is that "I raised about $70,000 in books for our school in the past 14 years." Assuming that she is correct there are several ways to look at this, not all of them really that positive for our school.
How could this be? We all love reading and books. My daughter complains that I have too many books. She herself has her nose in books from morning until night and sometimes even later.
According to Scholastic's book fair web page, the school gets 40-60% of the sales to spend on books. If these fairs really brought in $70,000 then a simple calculation would show that around $140,000 has been drained out of our Valley community and into the bank accounts of a corporation with $50 million per year in sales. Keep in mind who runs the corporation including board Executive Vice President James W. Barge who also serves as Chief Financial Officer of Viacom Inc. which is the owner the such fine programming at MTV, Neopets, and VH1.
Denise's effort to sell our children books of doubtful academic or even entertainment value cannot compare to her vote in 2010 to cut our library instructional assistant position. What good are all those books she claims to have singlehandedly brought in for our school if there is no librarian to run the library? They do look pretty good on those shelves.
Also, while Denise has been giving her time to run the book fairs our local public library was shut down several years ago due to county budget cuts. Since the Fairfax library is shockingly closed on Fridays and Sundays Valley children and residents have virtually no library service for 2/3 of the weekend. Pt. Reyes is only open 4 hours during the weekend and Inverness for 6 hours. These are the meager library services across a distance of distance of 21.4 miles from Fairfax to Inverness.
Anybody who been in business knows that a 40-60% "rebate" on the retail price is really no rebate at all. This is really just a scam. If they really want to rebate what our children spend on their books they would give it on their cost not their mark-up. I put quotes around rebate because in reality this is nothing but a kickback for getting our kids in front of their limited product range. Our children are being led to these book fairs as a captive audience which is being taught to consume not to learn.
Lastly, take a look at the books offered at the fair. They are all brand new, overpriced, and the quality is fairly poor. Except for a decent selection of science oriented books there are books of doubtful "scholastic" quality offered. We own numerous scholastic books but these were published over many decades and acquired at pennies a used book. Most of the books they publish today are part of a vertical marketing strategy which tie the books to toys, movies, cartoons, video games (such as Neopets) and other commercial trash being marketed to children at younger and younger ages.
While Denise would have us admire her efforts to run the fair perhaps a more effective use of her time and efforts over the past dozen years would have been as a board member trying to make our local revenue tax stream more equitable and adequate. This could have included keeping our public library open and accessible to those children whose parents cannot afford to buy brand new books for their kids or even want to buy those from a limited range offered by a corporation. Afterall, this is a corporation whose bottom line is profiting from children with highly suspect products fronting as being of "scholastic" value.
We also know how libraries are more than just about warehousing books. They are a hub of community life and learning, an information access hub, and a gathering place used by people young and old. Denise let our library shut down on her (and Richard Sloan's) watch and they have done zero to bring it back.
How could this be? We all love reading and books. My daughter complains that I have too many books. She herself has her nose in books from morning until night and sometimes even later.
According to Scholastic's book fair web page, the school gets 40-60% of the sales to spend on books. If these fairs really brought in $70,000 then a simple calculation would show that around $140,000 has been drained out of our Valley community and into the bank accounts of a corporation with $50 million per year in sales. Keep in mind who runs the corporation including board Executive Vice President James W. Barge who also serves as Chief Financial Officer of Viacom Inc. which is the owner the such fine programming at MTV, Neopets, and VH1.
Denise's effort to sell our children books of doubtful academic or even entertainment value cannot compare to her vote in 2010 to cut our library instructional assistant position. What good are all those books she claims to have singlehandedly brought in for our school if there is no librarian to run the library? They do look pretty good on those shelves.
Also, while Denise has been giving her time to run the book fairs our local public library was shut down several years ago due to county budget cuts. Since the Fairfax library is shockingly closed on Fridays and Sundays Valley children and residents have virtually no library service for 2/3 of the weekend. Pt. Reyes is only open 4 hours during the weekend and Inverness for 6 hours. These are the meager library services across a distance of distance of 21.4 miles from Fairfax to Inverness.
Anybody who been in business knows that a 40-60% "rebate" on the retail price is really no rebate at all. This is really just a scam. If they really want to rebate what our children spend on their books they would give it on their cost not their mark-up. I put quotes around rebate because in reality this is nothing but a kickback for getting our kids in front of their limited product range. Our children are being led to these book fairs as a captive audience which is being taught to consume not to learn.
Lastly, take a look at the books offered at the fair. They are all brand new, overpriced, and the quality is fairly poor. Except for a decent selection of science oriented books there are books of doubtful "scholastic" quality offered. We own numerous scholastic books but these were published over many decades and acquired at pennies a used book. Most of the books they publish today are part of a vertical marketing strategy which tie the books to toys, movies, cartoons, video games (such as Neopets) and other commercial trash being marketed to children at younger and younger ages.
While Denise would have us admire her efforts to run the fair perhaps a more effective use of her time and efforts over the past dozen years would have been as a board member trying to make our local revenue tax stream more equitable and adequate. This could have included keeping our public library open and accessible to those children whose parents cannot afford to buy brand new books for their kids or even want to buy those from a limited range offered by a corporation. Afterall, this is a corporation whose bottom line is profiting from children with highly suspect products fronting as being of "scholastic" value.
We also know how libraries are more than just about warehousing books. They are a hub of community life and learning, an information access hub, and a gathering place used by people young and old. Denise let our library shut down on her (and Richard Sloan's) watch and they have done zero to bring it back.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Title transfer fee: Part 1 of my Save Our School—Tax the Super-rich plan
This evening I outlined part one of my equitable revenue enhancement plan.
Under Article 13D the District can levy a fee on local property owners. The District board can meet in an emergency session and pass the fee. Those who wish to oppose the fee have 45 days to send in their written objection. If they get a majority of the voters to oppose the fee it goes for a vote of all registered voters who then must pass it with a 2/3's vote. If they don't the fee goes into effect. This can be done in under 60 days—if the board has the political will to do so. The incumbents made it clear tonight that they do not have the political will.
The first fee that can be passed would have no effect on current property owners and taxpayers. The District can impose a title transfer fee that may be either a single rate or scalable.
For example, 27 homes sold in the past year totaling about $14 million. A 2% fee would have generated $280,000. A 3% fee would have generated $420,000.
A transfer fee would go a long way to rectify the inequitable property tax base inflicted by Prop 13 since the last 1970s.
It would also not only allow the District to avoid the further expected lay off of a Middle School teacher in 2012-13 but help us hire back the instructional aides and staff time cut in the past 2 years and even finally give the teachers and staff a pay raise.
And to top it off it would help us do all the facilities work that is expected to be needed at real current dollars instead of yet another inflated Wall Street funded bond measure that may be coming down the pipe line. We haven't paid off the past one from 1997 yet. The expected $4-6m bond measure in the works will end up costing us 100% interest over the next few decades.
Why do we want to sell off our school to Wall Street when we can fix the problems now?
Keep in mind that this is just one possible way to raise additional tax revenue in an equitable manner. I give the flat rate as just a hypothetical example. A flat fee is not as equitable as a scaled fee based on the sale price. I would exempt those buyers over 65 and homes for buyers who make less than the median income for their size household.
If it were scaled up it would link the fee to household wealth. For example, because a family with two income earners in the top 20% (~ $228,000 per year) would be able to afford a mortgage for a house around $900,000 and up (at about the standard 30% of their income spent on housing).
Scaling it up this way may generate less revenue than a flat fee since fewer homes sell for these prices. However, it would provide a long-term solution if home prices continue to rise.
I will be posting more about how to raise revenue on the super-rich in the Valley in the coming days.
Under Article 13D the District can levy a fee on local property owners. The District board can meet in an emergency session and pass the fee. Those who wish to oppose the fee have 45 days to send in their written objection. If they get a majority of the voters to oppose the fee it goes for a vote of all registered voters who then must pass it with a 2/3's vote. If they don't the fee goes into effect. This can be done in under 60 days—if the board has the political will to do so. The incumbents made it clear tonight that they do not have the political will.
The first fee that can be passed would have no effect on current property owners and taxpayers. The District can impose a title transfer fee that may be either a single rate or scalable.
For example, 27 homes sold in the past year totaling about $14 million. A 2% fee would have generated $280,000. A 3% fee would have generated $420,000.
A transfer fee would go a long way to rectify the inequitable property tax base inflicted by Prop 13 since the last 1970s.
It would also not only allow the District to avoid the further expected lay off of a Middle School teacher in 2012-13 but help us hire back the instructional aides and staff time cut in the past 2 years and even finally give the teachers and staff a pay raise.
And to top it off it would help us do all the facilities work that is expected to be needed at real current dollars instead of yet another inflated Wall Street funded bond measure that may be coming down the pipe line. We haven't paid off the past one from 1997 yet. The expected $4-6m bond measure in the works will end up costing us 100% interest over the next few decades.
Why do we want to sell off our school to Wall Street when we can fix the problems now?
Keep in mind that this is just one possible way to raise additional tax revenue in an equitable manner. I give the flat rate as just a hypothetical example. A flat fee is not as equitable as a scaled fee based on the sale price. I would exempt those buyers over 65 and homes for buyers who make less than the median income for their size household.
If it were scaled up it would link the fee to household wealth. For example, because a family with two income earners in the top 20% (~ $228,000 per year) would be able to afford a mortgage for a house around $900,000 and up (at about the standard 30% of their income spent on housing).
Scaling it up this way may generate less revenue than a flat fee since fewer homes sell for these prices. However, it would provide a long-term solution if home prices continue to rise.
I will be posting more about how to raise revenue on the super-rich in the Valley in the coming days.
Here's a cut I support: Stop paying for the board member's health insurance
This evening Richard assured us that he is trying to "cut as far from the classroom as possible".
If that is the case I have a suggestion: eliminate the subsidies for board members' health insurance.
District taxpayers pay $15,108 per year towards their health insurance. How many children at our school have no insurance? Too bad there is virtually no school nurse anymore due to "efficiency" measures to "share" the nurse.
Odd that they would keep this nice perk for themselves and yet propose axing the lunch program. What about all the kids receiving free and discounted lunches because they live in poverty. How many lunches can their perks buy for our children?
If we parents hadn't spoken up against their slash and burn plan to axe the lunch program and other services last year our children would have gone the entire day hungry. How much learning can happen on an empty stomach?
So much for trying to "cut as far from the classroom as possible".
If that is the case I have a suggestion: eliminate the subsidies for board members' health insurance.
District taxpayers pay $15,108 per year towards their health insurance. How many children at our school have no insurance? Too bad there is virtually no school nurse anymore due to "efficiency" measures to "share" the nurse.
Odd that they would keep this nice perk for themselves and yet propose axing the lunch program. What about all the kids receiving free and discounted lunches because they live in poverty. How many lunches can their perks buy for our children?
If we parents hadn't spoken up against their slash and burn plan to axe the lunch program and other services last year our children would have gone the entire day hungry. How much learning can happen on an empty stomach?
So much for trying to "cut as far from the classroom as possible".
Tonight's debate made it clear that the incumbents have no solutions
Our sparsely attended candidate forum exhibited the distinct differences between myself and the two incumbents. I asked those in the audience to listen for what policies Mr. Sloan and Ms. Bohman had to offer to address the continuing decline in our school's funding. Their comments are indicative of their policies about which they declined to address specifically.
Richard at one point said there is no reason to have "anxiety" over the revenue crisis since "we have zero control over revenues." Odd, I guess he still hasn't had time in nearly 40 years on the board to read California Constitution Article 13D that specifically outlines the power of school boards and other local government bodies to raise fees and assessments. The Ross Valley Sanitary District just used it successfully earlier this year. Are our children not worth it?
It was no different with Denise whose strategy is to, as she urged us, to "hold tight and see what's next". She also apologized "If I seem vague."
Actually, her silence on the widespread cuts she has voted for in the past two years is not vague at all. She supports cutting teaching staff, classroom aides, shifting the costs of paying for teaching staff to the parents, and increasing class sizes. In other words, if we elect her we can expect more of the same.
Neither spoke about any policies to address the revenue crisis because their actions in the past two years are their policies. In fact, it appears that they belittled the idea that we have a crisis at all. They must be aware that the state has cut the billions of dollars in the past 3 years alone and may end up making further mid year cuts.
Last year, Richard urged my fellow Lagunitas Waldorf Inspired parents to split up the District by forming a charter school. The track record for charter schools would lead us to expect classes packed to the rafters, special needs students excluded, teachers prevented from bargaining collectively and taxpayers having little control while having to front the money for a tax funded privatized school. No wonder the teacher's union called for him to resign. So much for "collaborative relationships."
Not much different with Denise. She would rather continue to bleed programs she doesn't appear to like. In the past 2 years she has voted 75% of the time against the Waldorf Inspired program (LWIP) not to mention the other teacher and staff cuts mentioned above. No wonder she didn't bother to show up at our candidate's comment evening a few weeks ago.
Look out Montessori, Open and Middle School teachers, students and families. LWIP is the canary in the coal mine. If Richard and Denise are re-elected teachers will get ever growing class sizes, declining instructional support, eroding pay and our children, nephews, nieces and grandchildren will become just another statistic on a spreadsheet, a cost to be minimized.
Richard at one point said there is no reason to have "anxiety" over the revenue crisis since "we have zero control over revenues." Odd, I guess he still hasn't had time in nearly 40 years on the board to read California Constitution Article 13D that specifically outlines the power of school boards and other local government bodies to raise fees and assessments. The Ross Valley Sanitary District just used it successfully earlier this year. Are our children not worth it?
It was no different with Denise whose strategy is to, as she urged us, to "hold tight and see what's next". She also apologized "If I seem vague."
Actually, her silence on the widespread cuts she has voted for in the past two years is not vague at all. She supports cutting teaching staff, classroom aides, shifting the costs of paying for teaching staff to the parents, and increasing class sizes. In other words, if we elect her we can expect more of the same.
Neither spoke about any policies to address the revenue crisis because their actions in the past two years are their policies. In fact, it appears that they belittled the idea that we have a crisis at all. They must be aware that the state has cut the billions of dollars in the past 3 years alone and may end up making further mid year cuts.
Last year, Richard urged my fellow Lagunitas Waldorf Inspired parents to split up the District by forming a charter school. The track record for charter schools would lead us to expect classes packed to the rafters, special needs students excluded, teachers prevented from bargaining collectively and taxpayers having little control while having to front the money for a tax funded privatized school. No wonder the teacher's union called for him to resign. So much for "collaborative relationships."
Not much different with Denise. She would rather continue to bleed programs she doesn't appear to like. In the past 2 years she has voted 75% of the time against the Waldorf Inspired program (LWIP) not to mention the other teacher and staff cuts mentioned above. No wonder she didn't bother to show up at our candidate's comment evening a few weeks ago.
Look out Montessori, Open and Middle School teachers, students and families. LWIP is the canary in the coal mine. If Richard and Denise are re-elected teachers will get ever growing class sizes, declining instructional support, eroding pay and our children, nephews, nieces and grandchildren will become just another statistic on a spreadsheet, a cost to be minimized.
It's official: Bohman and Sloan endorse one another
It's perplexing how two trustees who sit not only on opposite sides of the table but on most District issues would endorse one another. Yet, that is what they did at tonight's candidate forum.
The forum was organized and run by a fantastic group of 8th grade students (with guidance from their teachers) from the Middle School. A fine model of engaged citizenship if ever there was one. Too bad the board is considering cutting one of the Middle School teachers when two of the current teachers retire.
The forum was organized and run by a fantastic group of 8th grade students (with guidance from their teachers) from the Middle School. A fine model of engaged citizenship if ever there was one. Too bad the board is considering cutting one of the Middle School teachers when two of the current teachers retire.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Marin Peace and Justice Coalition endorsed my candidacy
This evening the Marin Peace and Justice Coalition endorsed my candidacy for the Lagunitas School Board. Their endorsement appears at the MPJC website.
Monday, October 3, 2011
A lot of damage to our school in just 1 year
I just returned from meeting the Marin Parents for Public Montessori (I admire that their name includes the word "public") meeting where the parent are struggling to be heard by the board. They have seen a big cut in the number of instructional aide hours and the District has assigned aides that don't meet their needs because they are not available at opportune times, do not know their children or the program.
The program parents voted to pay for more aide time out of their own precious parent pledge funds. I hope the two incumbents who joined me heard them. Yet, considering how both Denise and Richard spent nearly all their time touting their great deeds only Richard responded to the parents by repeating the need for what they just voted to do.
The District cut aide time District-wide by 75% in the past two years (although it has restored some this year). This has not only increased the workload and stress of our teachers (I volunteer on Monday mornings so the 2nd/3rd grade Waldorf teacher can go to the bathroom) but is subtly shifting the burden to pay for teachers to us parents. According to California court precedent it is unconstitutional to require parents to pay for their children's "public" education.
At the Q and A last week with the two District unions Denise denied any money is being spent on teachers. This decision tonight demonstrates either that she is mis-informed or mis-informing.
However, the refrain from both the incumbents is that "everyone knows me" but "no one knows Robert Ovetz." I know they both graduated from high school and college a long time ago (Denise does not credit herself as having ever attended college) but a google search on the internet for "Robert Ovetz" is quite straight forward to do. I have a long record of working and advocating on behalf of the public interest, the public sector and the environment—including 3 years in Forest Knolls.
It may have taken the incumbents nearly 50 years to build up our amazing programs but look at the damage they have caused in the past year, just 1 year.
The program parents voted to pay for more aide time out of their own precious parent pledge funds. I hope the two incumbents who joined me heard them. Yet, considering how both Denise and Richard spent nearly all their time touting their great deeds only Richard responded to the parents by repeating the need for what they just voted to do.
The District cut aide time District-wide by 75% in the past two years (although it has restored some this year). This has not only increased the workload and stress of our teachers (I volunteer on Monday mornings so the 2nd/3rd grade Waldorf teacher can go to the bathroom) but is subtly shifting the burden to pay for teachers to us parents. According to California court precedent it is unconstitutional to require parents to pay for their children's "public" education.
At the Q and A last week with the two District unions Denise denied any money is being spent on teachers. This decision tonight demonstrates either that she is mis-informed or mis-informing.
However, the refrain from both the incumbents is that "everyone knows me" but "no one knows Robert Ovetz." I know they both graduated from high school and college a long time ago (Denise does not credit herself as having ever attended college) but a google search on the internet for "Robert Ovetz" is quite straight forward to do. I have a long record of working and advocating on behalf of the public interest, the public sector and the environment—including 3 years in Forest Knolls.
It may have taken the incumbents nearly 50 years to build up our amazing programs but look at the damage they have caused in the past year, just 1 year.
An alliance of convenience?
Incumbent Richard Sloan reportedly showed up this morning at the Lagunitas Waldorf parent's fundraising committee to announce his new alliance with fellow incumbent Denise Santa Cruz Bohman.
If this report is accurate, it is curious that Richard would ally himself with his fellow Trustee Denise who not only sits on the entirely opposite side of him at board meetings (Richard to the left and Denise to the right) but often votes against him on issues ranging from killing the Larsen Creek restoration project to axing the Waldorf Inspired program by pink slipping two of its three core teachers last Winter.
It's clear what Denise's principles are but what are Richard's?
Politics makes strange bedfellows indeed.
If this report is accurate, it is curious that Richard would ally himself with his fellow Trustee Denise who not only sits on the entirely opposite side of him at board meetings (Richard to the left and Denise to the right) but often votes against him on issues ranging from killing the Larsen Creek restoration project to axing the Waldorf Inspired program by pink slipping two of its three core teachers last Winter.
It's clear what Denise's principles are but what are Richard's?
Politics makes strange bedfellows indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)