" If future voters don't like the tax, they can petition the board to rescind the tax. If they don't like the board's response to the petition, they can take their petition to the voters and an election will be held."

And any such petition would require the signature of at least 10% of ALL the registered voters in the district. That would be a very expensive undertaking.

> in May of 2010, 47.6 percent of registered voters actually voted...in the June 2012 presidential primary election, only 36.5 percent of San Mateo County registered voters voted.

This comparison was entirely refuted in another post.

You're comparing a small SUBSET of San Mateo County with the ENTIRETY of San Mateo County.

When you compare the above May 2010 election with a local district for the June 2012 presidential primary, the presidential primary gets MORE votes.

And of course you conveniently ignore the fact that MPCSD created a special election ONE MONTH before a primary, forcing taxpayers to pay for TWO elections 1 month apart.

I find that appalling.

MPCSD 2015-2016 revenues are higher than the student population growth and inflation by +$6,547,549 (2000-2001->2015-2016 school years)

MPCSD does not need even more tax revenue; the existing 3 permanent parcel taxes plus property tax increases are mathematically proven to be more than sufficient.

Other school districts accomplish just as much, or more, with less. We don't need a gold-plated school district, we need a public school district that is actually affordable to the PUBLIC. These parcel taxes are unnecessary largesse.


The Almanacnews recommends a NO vote on Measures A and C.
The Daily Post recommends a NO vote on Measures A and C.


Vote NO on Measures A and C

> If future voters don't like the tax, they can petition the board to rescind the tax.

Excuse me, but setting an expiration on the parcel taxes accomplishes that much more effectively. As Mr. Carpenter noted, a petition would require the signature of at least 10% of ALL the registered voters in the district...

But of course you and MPCSD and the other sycophants know that.

It's also worth pointing out that MPCSD in most years recently has been running deficits, despite the economic growth in the area. The district should be running surpluses so that when the inevitable recession hits, it can fall back on reserves.

MPCSD is fiscally out...of...control, and unless we the taxpayers put a stop to it, MPCSD is inevitably going to ask for a SIXTH parcel tax, simply because the moment revenues (inevitably) dip, it will have no fallback.

[PART REMOVED. REPETITIVE.]

1. To quote Jeff Child, "If future voters don't agree with the school board's decision, they can elect other trustees (elections are held every two years, including November 2016), or can unseat trustees through a recall election."

I believe this argument to be weak. I don't want to wait two year, nor can I afford to wait two years when we are talking about this kind of money. I also don't have the time nor money to unseat a trustee through a recall election. It's a lot easier to just vote this down now and encourage our community to live within it's means and even better, put their extra money into causes of social justice. I don't want to preach to others about how to spend their own money, but I think our children don't witness very much true altrusim aside of watching their parents write checks.

[Part removed. Please make your point without recounting what was said in personal conversations with named people. ]

The board is a closed club and we all know it.

Jeff. Although I can appreciate you and the boards need to defend these poorly thought out tax measures, your three points cannot stand up. Peter and Train completely refute the poor logic used in trying to counter points 1 and 2 (see comments above).

Regarding point 3, I don't know how you can keep a straight face when making the argument that the board, and foundation for that matter, is not a "closed club". Perfect case in point was the process for filling the vacancy when Laura Rich resigned. I attended the board meeting when the candidates to fill the vacancy presented their credentials for considerations. What became very evident to many in the room early on during the presentations and the joke called "board deliberation" was that the board and superintendent had already made its decision of selecting Scott Henshaw (who's presentation was actually one of the weakest). Although I have nothing to back this statement up, it is my opinion that Scott was asked to fill the position and the meeting was really just a rubber stamp.

As someone who has sent kids through the MPCSD schools, everything from the site PTO groups, to the foundation, all the way to the board has always been one big closed club where you are either "in" or out. It reminds me of the high school click scene but played out by adults. And it is the in crowd who always seemed to get rewarded by the schools and district for being such.

Bottom line, I applaud the Almanac (and Daily Post) for standing up against the MPCSD and calling Measures A & C for what they are - POORLY THOUGHT OUT TAX MEASURES!! Making a tax PERMANENT is rarely a good idea and thus why the two local papers and a number of residents are calling ENOUGH and pushing for NO votes on Measures A & C.

"In addition, each year the school board conducts a public hearing to solicit comment about the taxes and then decides whether to collect the tax or not."

riiiiiight. I've attended board meetings and seen the contempt of the board directed toward anyone that questions them or disagrees with them. Petitioning the board will have ZERO effect.

Seriously, if it is so easy why are you making these parcel taxes permanent? Especially, when property tax revenues are rising much faster than enrollment.

Vote NO on A and C.

Jeff, thank you for taking the time to post this piece and for your service to our community. I think the voters would very much appreciate if you or another member of the Board would address the questions posed by Peter Carpenter in another thread. In particular I am curious as to whether some or all interdistrict transfers are counted as "new students" for purposes of Measure C. I don't feel that I can vote in good conscience vote for Measure C without knowing the answer to this question. If "new student" determinations are intended to be discretionary with the administration or board, I would like to know that too.

Jeff, I appreciate the facts you have provided and really would like to have the additional facts requested on the other threads. I recognize that there is a fair amount of rhetoric but if people are getting their facts wrong when voicing opposition to the Measures, it really would help if someone could correct the factual errors with explanation. I think there might be quite a few of us who have not yet voted and are on the fence here, despite having voted with the Board on all the recent prior measures.

Apologies for typos in my previous post.

I know Jeff (not well) and have known all the members of the School Board, one of them a close friend for many years.

The board is a closed club with handpicked members. Don't get me wrong: everyone on the school board is generous and public-spirited, and I thank them for the time they devote on behalf of our kids. But I think the community would be better served if we had truly open elections, with multiple people running for each spot, as you see in Palo Alto. Right now, our community is not well represented, and when you have a clique on the board, as we have had forever, they tend to reinforce each other's beliefs, resulting in collective myopia. You see this myopia in Jeff's article.

My friend once told me that the board dislikes public scrutiny, and that their decisions are all made outside meetings. How they manage this without violating the spirit of the Brown Act if not the letter I do not know. This was the case with the appointment of Scott to take Laura's spot.

I have not been to a lot of school board meetings, but my experience is that the board is dismissive of parental concerns. They really don't like to hear from their constituents.

The process is broken. The poorly conceived measures are merely a manifestation of that dysfunction.

One addition: with regard to Jeff's point three, the Almanac got it wrong. People don't resign early, but typically serve out their terms. However, during the last months of each term the board decides on the successor to that member.The successor is informed of the dates for filing and handheld to ensure that everything goes smoothly. The upcoming opening is not publicized. Any legally required notices are buried deep in a place where they are likely to be unnoticed.

On the rare occasions -- I can think of two in the last 15 years -- that someone has figured it out and decided to file for the board, she has been vilified. I feel ashamed now that I heard gossip about both candidates and accepted it without asking questions or reaching out to the "crazy" candidate for her side of the story. In both cases, the challenger was crushed by a well-oiled machine.

Our school board is efficient, comprised of like-minded people. But efficiency and groupthink do not always lead to the best outcomes.

The Pro-Parcel tax people are lying. They claim that more people vote in the special election than in the primary and then compare voters in the MPCSD with the county at large to back up their specious claim. The irrefutable fact is that more people living in the MPSCD vote in the primary than in the special election.

This was a deliberate subterfuge to conduct an election where the likelihood of parents with children attending schools in the MPCSD will compose a greater percentage of the people voting in the special election than in the primary in hope of increasing the odds of passing this egregious parcel tax. Anyone who will try to tell you different is lying.

The MPSCD acolytes think of their schools as exclusive education academies. The MPCSD has adequate funding to provide a quality education, especially when you consider that property tax revenue is on the rise.

However, some parents are not satisfied with a good education, they want the best possible education for their children without regard to the cost nor the unfair burden it places on others with no children. That is their right to want the best for their children and they should send their children to privates schools if that is what they want. The tax payers are only obligated to fund a quality education at a prudent price. However, we are not obligated to replicate Groton, Choate, or Phillips Exeter.

What you have her is some inconsiderate parents wanting the rest of Menlo Park to pay for a Private School education rather than reaching into their own pockets and paying for it themselves. There comes a point when parents have to take responsibility for raising their own children and not depend on others to do it for them.

Although I appreciate Jeff's rebuttal on three of the points raised by the Almanac's Editorial, a discussion of the most important part of the parcel taxes, the tax itself, was left out of his rebuttal.

The reason that I voted NO is that I haven't yet seen a good reason why these parcel taxes are necessary. Although these other points are important, I suspect that most voters will be making their decision based solely on the financial aspects of this issue.

To MP Parent and Jeff Child:

I would also like to know if "new student" determinations are intended to be discretionary with the administration or board.

In addition I would like to know how much we are spending on staff member's children and what is the projected about to spend given the current number of employee's children coming up the line.