MPCSD Candidate Information Night

Unfortunately, this is a 5 member board. Two new members will not control the board.
IMHO, Terry Thygesen and/or Jeff Child should term themselves out to make room for at least 1 more on the November ballot.

"IMHO, Terry Thygesen and/or Jeff Child should term themselves out to make room for at least 1 more on the November ballot."

We could say the same about you and the seat on a certain board you happen to have, Hickey...

stop:

whatever you think of Jack it doesn't mean he's wrong in this case. Given the statements made by these two, post election, that those of us that were against A & C were spreading "false information," it's obvious they don't get it. Voters are angry and we don't like being treated like mushrooms. I'm waiting to see some actual transparency from this board. I won't be holding my breath.

Menlo Voter and Train Fan. I would like to communicate with you regarding work being done to continue the push for transparency from the board and the district. You can email me at mptpa@outlook.com.

Stop "pushing" the Board -- Joe, join it! If you know how to run MPCSD better than the current Board, do so.

And Mr. Hickey, what a great cop-out. No point in anyone putting their name forward for school board if they can't be part of a majority, right? What an extraordinary amount of foot-stomping you all do, with not an iota of actual work on behalf of our kids. Incidentally, Jeff Child IS one of the Board members who will not be running again. But you couldn't be expected to know that, could you?

excuses:

operating with transparency doesn't require replacement of the board. It does require a sea change in their mentality however. They seem to think they know better than anyone else how to run things and should be allowed to do so without any oversight. Sorry, doesn't work that way. Especially when you're spending MY tax dollars and the tax dollars of 80% of the citizens of this city that DON"T have children in the district. We want to be sure the board is doing their fiduciary duty. From what I've seen, they're NOT.

What is Menlo Voter's problem with Jeff Child? Jeff has done a terrific job and is extremely fiscally conservative. He doesn't even have kids in MPCSD schools anymore, yet continues to serve our community with great distinction. We are lucky to have him.

I don't have a problem with Jeff Child in particular. I have a problem with the board that has been operating in an opaque fashion forever. Not to mention given their statements after Measures A & C were defeated they clearly don't understand that is why they were defeated. I'm sure the board is doing the best it can, but having looked at the numbers, they are not being good stewards of taxpayer money.

A board that has been operating in an "opaque fashion" -- come again, Menlo Voter? Don't confuse the fact that the Almanac no longer covers local government meetings thoroughly with opacity on the part of local governments.

The Parcel Tax was explicitly on the agenda (and discussed) in the November 19th meeting, the December 8th meeting, the December 15th meeting, the January 11th meeting, and the January 21st meeting -- all before the February 1st meeting when the Board resolved (still no public comment!) to put it on the ballot.

Furthermore, the need to extend the Parcel Tax was mentioned in every budget and financial decision in recent memory, certainly reaching back to and before the October 14, 2014 LCAP and financial reviews.

Was it a secret? No. Furthermore, the plan to submit a parcel tax measure was also (finally) covered in Almanac News articles on January 8th and 23rd.

Interestingly, the idea of formally opposing the measures first shows up in the comments section on the 23rd Almanac article. Yes, twelve full days before the February 1st vote to put it on the ballot. An anonymous poster said they were willing to go through all the hassle of filing arguments against.

But did this concerned citizen bother to go to the Board meeting on February 1st? Did he say, "Wait! Explain again why you have to do this now! Don't do a special election, save us money, wait 'til the June primary!"

No. No one went. No one asked even ONE question.

And how about the Board meeting on March 10th? Did someone, perhaps the ever-vigilante Mr. Carpenter, present a list of questions to the Board -- maybe even a few days ahead of time, so they could prepare full answers -- then ask them at the meeting? No. Still not one word of public comment on the parcel tax.

There has been nothing opaque about this Board. Expecting them to not only deal with all the challenges of public education in California, but also interpret for a posse of armchair cowboys, who don't care enough to attend a single meeting, is ridiculous.

" Did someone, perhaps the ever-vigilante Mr. Carpenter, present a list of questions to the Board -- maybe even a few days ahead of time, so they could prepare full answers --"

As recorded in this Forum I have repeatedly asked the Board a long list of questions and also provided them with four specific recommendations. To date none of my questions have been answered and my recommendations have been ignored.

MPCSD is a PUBLIC school and it belongs to the public, not to the parents of the students, not to the teachers and not to the administrators.

80% of the taxpayers are paying for a platinum education for the children of the other 20% and yet there is not one word in MPCSD's Mission statement that acknowledges that its primary responsibility is to the taxpayers who pay the bills.

Posted by Jack Hickey
a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Feb 19, 2016 at 3:20 pm
Jack Hickey is a registered user.
On Feb. 3, I sent the following to the MPCSD Board: "Members of the Menlo Park School District Board of Directors. I urge you to cancel your plans for the ill-advised parcel tax measures you are pursuing. There will be opposition."

Today I sent this: "MPCSD Boardmembers. You can still act to cancel this election. Alternatively, you could enhance it's chances of passage by offering across-the-board exemptions for all of the parcel taxes."

The first message was sent to SHinshaw@mpcsd.org instead of SJones@MPCSD.org. The link to Stacy Jones e-mail on the District website is SHinshaw@mpcsd.org.

excuses:

the opacity is in the boards complete failure to acknowledge, let alone answer, a long string of questions. The opacity is in ANY response when their numbers were questioned. And their response that "misinformation" was spread about those numbers. The numbers were THEIR numbers. How is that misinformation? No one has been questioning the board, you're right, but look what happened when they did. silence and stonewalling and flat out misrepresentation of the facts. That's opacity in my book.

There's a story behind the EMC focus group for which the MPCSD paid more than $30,000.

Excerpt from Web Link
"At a Dec. 15 meeting, the district's governing board heard from Ruth Bernstein, a senior principal at EMC Research, who had held two small focus groups about the parcel tax the previous evening.

"Really what we found is great news," she said. The focus group participants "really like this community. They value this community and they value the schools," she said. The voters she talked to "know change is happening" in Menlo Park and "they understand that the responsibility of the schools is to accommodate that."

Ms. Bernstein said "the vast majority of people we talked to last night were in support" of a $550 parcel tax that would have an exemption for seniors. "They recognize the schools are great," she said. "They were very, very positive." The people in the focus group value the schools' "excellent teachers" and "have a lot of trust" in the district, she said. What they are looking for, she said, "is maintaining quality education."

Ms. Bernstein said that the focus group participants also preferred to hear about what the money would be spent on rather than a complex explanation of how growing enrollment and declining outside financial support is affecting the district's bottom line. "Educational outcomes and quality teachers (are) what they are interested in," she said."

EMC subcontracted with
Brad Senden - Linkedin
Owner, The Center for Community Opinion/ Political Designs
Ghysels contracted with Senden on 14 October, 2015 and again on 12 January, 2016
Vender Payment lists “Political Designs” as vendor. Total cost reported $37,200.

@Excuses

My wife and I attended one of the January MPCSD board meetings. There were ten or so people in the audience.

I asked numerous questions during the meeting about the proposed parcel taxes, such as where to research the source data to understand the financial need and compare districts. I was directed to Ed-Data and the MPCSD websites.

It was based on this research that I decided to write the arguments opposing the parcel taxes. While there are strong reasons to support new parcel taxes, there are also strong reasons to oppose them. The public deserves a vigorous debate, whether any community members attend these board meetings or not.

I also pointed out during that January meeting that a special election would likely have low voter turnout. I asked if the board would consider moving the election to the June primary instead, especially with both Democrat and Republican presidential primaries closely contested this election cycle.

Now, I don't think the board is opaque. They are willing to meet with members of the public, including me, and listen. They are public servants working for no pay, trying to do their best for the district, but there are ways the process can be improved.

During their mid-May meeting, the board members agreed that more transparency and outreach is needed to make the case why parcel taxes are needed. I think that's a great first step to ensure the public is better informed.

How many potential candidates attended Candidate Information Night for the Menlo Park City School District Governing Board?

There were about 15. Many seemed to be members of the Foundation or school PTO's. Barbara Woods was there so I suspect there will be a small write up in the next edition of the Almanac.

Jack Hickey,

So, AFTER the Board formally met for the SIXTH time to discuss the parcel tax -- on February 1st -- AND filed its Parcel Tax election with the County, you sent one of the members an email warning him that there would be opposition? (Just a week after you enthusiastically egged “Volunteering” on in the comments section of the Almanac report on the January 23rd meeting?) Now that is really getting in front of the show!

Of course, it doesn’t help that a parcel tax election without Jack Hickey filing in opposition would be notable. You do have a long well-documented history of being against everything. Unless of course you are for it.

Who can forget your January 4, 2016, request to the City of Menlo Park for tax funds? You asked the City Council for additional financial support to the Ravenswood Clinic, which receives tax funds from the Sequoia Health District Board, on which you sit. Or, you suggested, for help expanding the district to include East Menlo Park. Or help shutting it down. Is it worthwhile or not, Jack?

Of course, the residents of Menlo Park already provide 16% of Sequoia Health’s property tax revenue. Your chart showed that Menlo Park residents, West and East, represent 3.8 + 7.4% = 11.2% of Ravenswood’s patients. Menlo Park is already providing significantly more resources than our residents are using. But you’re back for more? I mean, if you're for it, rather than against it?

What is your excuse for continuing to attack the messengers rather than answering the many questions that have been raised regarding MPCSD and Measures A and C?

Alex,

I apologize. The Board thought your questions were cooperative. They were remiss in not realizing that they were Public Comment, proscriptive, and should have been captured in the minutes.

I agree that the public deserves a vigorous debate. But I’m astonished that, with no experience with the district, and no evident understanding of California school finance, you decided that you were the person to provide it.

You began your Argument against C with a fundamental untruth. “MPCSD’s revenue increased by $5,748,669…”

No, it did not. You did not include $6 million of parcel tax revenue in the prior year’s number. Missing this might have been forgivable, had it been any other error. But it was parcel tax.

Since you specifically cited Fund 17 in your Argument against A, you had read the financial reports closely enough to realize that parcel taxes flowed into the Revenue statement differently from other income, due to the vagaries of standard government funds accounting. The fact that the accounting had changed was clearly footnoted in the 2014-15 budget document. Yet, you appear to have made no effort to look for and incorporate parcel tax into your prior numbers. Did you want to label the school board liars … so looked no further?

Is this how vigorous debate is started? Throwing a half-researched untruth against the voters to see if it sticks? Lots of vigor, forget the rigor?

Then you followed up that error with ignorance about the nature of state funding over the past 15 years. You claimed we were, “… still paying [parcel taxes] long after the [state] budget cuts were restored.” Restored? On the basis of what? That state funding had grown from 2011-12 (the depths of the recession, a year when the state deferred a full 20% of its obligations to schools) to 2013-14?

Had you been following state school finance, you would know that Jerry Brown passed Proposition 30 in 2012 to attempt to dig out of the wall of debt the state owed – overwhelmingly to its schools. You would know that, since then, he’s made every effort to ensure that any continuing funding goes to the poorest students and the poorest schools. Districts like MPCSD, meanwhile, have gotten one-time payments to settle past debts and mandates (which had been funded out of reserves) or fund one-time requirements (e.g. transition to Common Core). Brown has been as wily as possible in ensuring that, when the fiscal tide turns, California has the smallest possible ongoing obligation to districts like MPCSD. If the economy stays strong, we may have another year or two of state largess – but when the tide turns, that money will evaporate.

And your comparisons to other districts? OMG – look: Portola Valley’s revenues only increased 31%, compared with 63% for MPCSD! Bad, bad MPCSD. Yeah, but Portola Valley’s headcount SHRANK. It still spends 140% of what MPCSD does per pupil. (And Woodside, with its measly 43% growth? It’s gone from 145% to 150%.)

Oh, and, bizarrely, you accused the Board of “deficit spending.” Somehow, spending the parcel tax, as the Board had told voters it would do, was a criminal act of not saving it “for a rainy day.” Parcel tax was levied to reduce class sizes, fund electives and ensure that MPCSD provided a decent public education. But it should have been saved for a rainy day?

Honestly, did you grab a list of buzzwords then look for data to shove behind them? Insult-laden data throwing is not debate. Grabbing numbers that you don’t understand, from data sources you don’t study, then screaming about false inconsistencies is not democracy.

And how interesting that, now, you say that you feel the school board is trying to “do their best” for the district.

Really? Those FALSE claimants, those OUTRAGEOUS chargers who treat homeowners like ATM machines! That district that is trying to FOOL the voter … Those mindless bureaucrats! Those fiscally IRRESPONSIBLE stickers to “us” of a PERMANENT tax. (Us?! All those taxes were in place when you chose to buy into the district. You got "stuck" with nothing.) Those taxpayer abusers are being “dishonest with voters.” Really?

Are you being condescending – or suddenly aware that those feckless thieving idiots on the school board are the ones who now have to pull the schools out of the hole you’ve helped dig?

Alex, three thousand children around you will be going into the 2017-18 school year with $2M less funding – that’s $666 less apiece. You will have saved $200 off your property tax bill.

So, enjoy that $200, Alex. Because if the now-overdue downturn in the state economy leads to new homeowners filing Prop 8 decline-in-values, if Prop 30 isn’t renewed, if parents paying for private schools have to send their kids back into public ones, things could get really grim in MPCSD. The gains that generations of voters have tried to make in this district will be reversed.

And you and your wife will have joined an elite pantheon of people who’ve ensured that California kids consistently rank among the bottom ten states on national educational tests. Who never allow California to reach “average” on any national measure of school funding, without collapsing back to the bottom as soon as the economic tide turns.

Meanwhile, you want the public to be “better informed.” Considering the misinformation you felt fully entitled to spread, after a few days’ review, whilst heaping contempt on people who’d given years of their lives to be good stewards of local education, that is so generous of you.

Peter Carpenter,

My “excuse” is that it’s not my job to answer whatever questions you feel you can throw against the wall. I am not a School Board Member – that is to say, Unpaid Public Servant, that is to say, Peter Carpenter’s Slave. Frankly, given the speed with which you generate questions – and your complete unwillingness to research answers on your own – and your style of dropping off questions without listening to presentations for the answers, I’m not in the least convinced it’s their responsibility to answer you, either.

Meanwhile, if you feel that local agencies have a primary responsibility to the taxpayers who pay the bills, I’m astonished you don’t dissolve the Fire District. As many people have written here in the Almanac, it would be far cheaper for the taxpayers to have a volunteer department, and reimburse property owners for any structures that actually burn down, than to spend $40 million each year running the District.

And which taxpayers, exactly, should the Fire District feel responsible to? The 80% who pay the bills -- or the 20% who get to enjoy a platinum level of service for a fraction of its cost? If it’s taxpayers who count, we could be like the Fire Departments of old, providing a shield outside each house signifying whether the occupants have adequately paid for coverage.

MPCSD’s primary responsibility, meanwhile, is NOT to “the taxpayers who pay the bills. “ (Or, for that matter, those who don’t.) MPCSD’s primary responsibility is to serve the district’s children under the rules of the State Constitution. Its second responsibility is to the district’s residents. Those residents have the right, as voters, to select its Board and – as with the parcel taxes and Foundation – to determine additional funding.

Meanwhile, love your “80% who are paying for a platinum education for the children of the other 20%.” What a sneer. Too bad the school funding model nationwide is that one pays over time, through property taxes, rather than all at once. Far more than 20% of voters here have had children in the public schools here – or have valued them as a reasonable fallback for kids in private schools – over 60% in my neighborhood. Which may explain why the vote was 60% to 40% for A, despite your sneer campaign.

Excuses, Excuses, I hope you are running for one of the seats. There will be opposition!

Please confine your ranting and raving to the topics where they belong. Or, start your own topic. I would be happy to respond with corrections to your contextual transformations.

"Excuses Excuses" wrote:
> [a total rehash of numerous campaign slogans and sky-is-falling mantras from the pro-5-parcel-tax crowd, all of which were refuted over and over and over]

I'm saddened that the reasons and reality of those losses STILL haven't sunk in for the pro-5-parcel-tax crowd, and instead almost a month later they lament the existence of an opposition instead of trying to understand why you were taken to the shed.

Let me help you understand why your proposed 5-parcel-taxes were rejected:

* the pro-5-parcel-tax crowd CHOSE to run a "special election" instead of waiting 1 month for a primary election (which would have saved California tax dollars, by the way). A special election wasn't our idea; if additional parcel taxes were to be voted on, it should have happened during the primary, which was more likely to have a higher voter participation rate. But nope, the pro-5-parcel-tax crowd were hoping for MPCSD-parents-only participation, so they could improve their odds of ramming more taxes down taxpayers throats.

You people were clearly wrong; the low turnout and most importantly your LOSS proves that, unequivocally.

You people chose to have a special election; not us. Why don't you try owning that choice instead of complaining about the outcome.


* "Is this how vigorous debate is started? Throwing a half-researched untruth against the voters to see if it sticks? Lots of vigor, forget the rigor?"

The Board suggested Alex use ed-data (California Department of Education website, for those that don't know) as a reference. Alex complied. And the numbers in the Argument were consistent with ed-data; not exactly an "untruth".

Personally, I find the debate on past revenues orthogonal to the central debate, yet the pro-5-parcel-tax crowd continue to harp on it, and do so by comparing prior years that used different accounting methods (by their own admission) as a justification for additional funding beyond property taxes, 3 parcel taxes, the state, the Foundation, etc.

(and note that in prior discussions on this, I proved that comparing 2000-2001 revenues to current revenues, MPCSD current revenues are over 6 million dollars above both student growth and inflation. This is not a district starved for revenue)


* "Alex, three thousand children around you will be going into the 2017-18 school year with $2M less funding...that's $666 less apiece. You will have saved $200 off your property tax bill."

Statements like this are irritating in their wrongness.

Using the above logic, if I play the lottery and don't win, I will be going into next year with millions less in funding. It's technically true, but it assumes that the funding was mine to begin with, which is clearly not true both for me and the pro-5-parcel-tax crowd.

News flash: the expiring parcel tax was DESIGNED to be TEMPORARY; it was created as a byproduct of the 2008-2011 financial crisis, and the community stepped in to help. Hello? And you have 3 other parcel taxes that are permanent that you can still depend on for funding. Most school districts have zero parcel taxes. Hello? Bemoaning that your largess is not as large a largess as you'd like is a poor defense of largess.

Also, keep in mind that using the district's own financial projections, the 2017-2018 revenues will be over $1,000,000 higher than the 2015-2016 revenues. And this is WITHOUT the 4th and 5th parcel taxes the pro-5-parcel-tax crowd has been promoting as "necessary." In addition, the revenue projections are conservative; MPCSD assumes a 3% increase in property tax revenue for 2017-2018, but if that ends up being 4% that brings in roughly another 300k in revenue, just from property taxes.


* "the school board are the ones who now have to pull the schools out of the hole you've helped dig"

Voting down measures A and C was one of the best things to happen to the district in a while. This will force the district, and the various unions, to no longer assume that the community will write parcel-tax "blank checks". You will have to budget based on the generous revenues you already have.

One only has to look at Palo Alto to see the truth: A and C were never about extra school programs; it was about setting up another series of raises for the various unions. PA PASSED another parcel tax last year, under the guise that the money would go to smaller classes; instead virtually all of it went to pay raises, teachers and non-teachers alike. The bait-and-switch worked in Palo Alto, but I'm proud to say NOT HERE.

Thank you Train Fan. The pro parcel tax folks constantly claim false data, yet the data used was the district's own data supplied to the state. False? Hardly. They just want to claim it so. Just as they wanted to claim the sky will fall if the measures aren't passed. Total nonsense.

Oops-a-daisy, Train Fan!

Don't let facts get in your right-of-way, but ...
(a) Alex Keh and Jennifer Sun explicitly cited the MPCSD 2014-15 budget, not Ed-data.org, as their source for 2014-15 revenue numbers in the voter pamphlet. Footnote #1 on one argument, #2 on the other. Probably because …
(b) the 2014-15 numbers weren't released on Ed-data until 3/28/2016 -- a month after the ballot arguments were submitted (go to Ed-data, the 3/28 announcement is still posted).
(c) so not only did they have access to full budget documents on the MPCSD website, they also used them.
(c) And they also cited Fund 17 explicitly in those same ballot arguments. So they knew there was a pass-through fund for the parcel taxes.
In the voter pamphlet they didn't say, "Based on our inexperienced look at ed-data.org, we kinda think that …" They said, "… revenue increased by $5,748,669…" Which it didn't, because they didn't include the $6 million of parcel tax in 2013-14. Blaming the school board for pointing you towards perfectly good sources that you didn't take the time to understand or analyze, just sucked likely numbers off of, does not pass the straight-face test.

No wonder a majority of voters approved both measures.

But you know, your approach sure sounds like "The Big Short." Investment bankers blaming their victims. Yup, mortgage brokers made all those NINJA mortgages to anyone they could get to sign. Who cared that verification would have shown borrowers had No Income, No Job, No Assets? Then mortgage bankers bundled and sold them to pension, mutual and money-market funds. Then interest rates went up, so hundreds of thousands of people lost their homes, while millions lost their savings. Yup, who could have expected anyone selling the goods to look carefully at the numbers? Certainly not when there was something to be gained by claiming they were what they wanted them to be.

Quite clearly, you couldn't care less about our schools, our community or our voters. Or even responsible financial analysis. You just want to kill parcel taxes. Hmm...

Oh, and then there's the "it's all about the wasteful special election" argument. That wasn't in the voter pamphlet either. That was the Almanac's argument -- not yours. Trying to jump on a different horse?

That argument, however, shows your (and the Almanac's) lack of understanding of school budgeting and fiscal cycles. The Board needed the results in time to deliberate 2016-17 staffing and load balance in the face of a severe state-wide teacher shortage. School district budgets must be submitted to the County Board of Education by June 30th. Getting election results with just three weeks to budget would leave them scrambling. But you don't care about diligent analysis, so why should you care about careful budgeting? In any case, that was one of your after-the-fact-since-our-"facts"-won't-stick argument.

And now you claim you "proved" that there had been growth over 2000-2001 numbers, so the district wasn't starved for revenue? Why should we trust your grasp of the California Department of Education SACS database now? You're showing no contrition -- just wanting to blame the Board for pointing you towards it -- nor showing any respect for thoughtful analysis. So who knows what you proved? Who knows if you understand the dot.com bomb year numbers any better than you did the 2013 ones?

And, by the way, did you prove that spending per pupil was anywhere near adequate in 2000-2001? Nope. California schools have been on the ropes since Prop 13 in 1978. Our community is one of the few that has tried to do a little better. Prop 13 handed control of property tax allocation to the Legislature -- so voters can no longer reallocate property tax. Parcel taxes are the one tool we've got. (If you don't understand, go look at Mr. Hickey's long and vain attempts to close down the defunct Sequoia Hospital District.)

But clearly a little guilt is seeping in around the edges. Look, you say, the District's revenue projection two years from now, for 2017-18, will be a million higher than this year. Look, you say, the District is only budgeting 3% property tax growth. 4% would bring in another $300K. Frankly, I don't trust your blithe disgorgement of numbers, but I can't waste time checking. However, I do know that the district's CalSTRS pension obligation grows $1 million between now and 2017-18 -- so there went your $1 million. Now we've gotta hope property taxes come in at 4%, since that will have to fund all new headcount.

But this is boring. It's so easy to flatten your arguments like pennies on a track. No wonder you're now dancing away from them now -- oo, oo, can you call me 5-parcel-tax guy and make it about unions? Unfortunately, I don't care any more for unions than I do for you, so hang onto that hat.

Incidentally, there is an excellent site on school finance that anyone who's actually interested in school funding should check out:

Web Link

Meanwhile, Train Fan -- back to trainspotting for you.

The School Board had adequate opportunity to make the case for Measures A and C during March and April - they pointedly made the decision NOT to answer the many questions that had been raised and focused all their efforts on getting parents to vote. Ignoring the people who pay the bills was a big mistake. And in the end only about 20% of the registered voters voted Yes on Measure A and Measure C.

The School Board chose the special election date and the election mail ballot method in order to have a low visibility election at which they hoped the parents would be the dominant factor - they were wrong.

The School Board wanted to add to its already unprecedented number of permanent parcel taxes and felt confident that the non-parent voters would either ignore or blindly support such an over reach - they were wrong.

It is time to look to the future and to engage the entire community in a totally open dialogue about what kind of elementary school system we want and how much we are willing to pay for such a system.

Excuses:

so since you're so infinitely wiser than the rest of us opponents, please, show us the errors in our math. You're very good at attacking the messengers, are you that good at showing us the math?

Mr. Carpenter responded to "Excuses Excuses" post better than I could have (thank you) but there are a few additional points I'll address:


"you couldn't care less about our schools, our community or our voters. Or even responsible financial analysis."

I and people like me are saving the school district, and helping ensure that future generations of students get the same high quality school experience current students enjoy.

The district is in the midst of epic increases in property values and the accompanying increases in property tax revenue, yet it still cannot balance the budget? Can't build a reserve? But wants us to finance 5 parcel taxes while most districts have 0? That's not reasonable.

Saying "no" to measures A and C forces the district to rethink its assumption that it can go to the community any time it wants to financially bail it out. It will make smarter financial choices, and be in better bargaining positions in the future.


"Getting election results with just three weeks to budget would leave them scrambling."

Ugh, what a terrible reason for a special election. How about this: budget with WHAT YOU KNOW YOU HAVE. Don't ASSUME they pass. If they do pass, don't change the budget, just use the unexpected funds to pay down CalSTRS more aggressively, making future budgets easier. Hello?


"You're showing no contrition"

Of course not, why would I? I'm helping to preserve the high quality educational experience for future students.


"just wanting to blame the Board for pointing you towards it"

Who are you talking to?


"nor showing any respect for thoughtful analysis."

Example?


"the District is only budgeting 3% property tax growth. 4% would bring in another $300K...but I can't waste time checking"

Ummm, don't you think your unwillingness to check the numbers is part of the problem here? You rail against folks who want fiscal restraint, yet you think verifying the finances is just a "waste".


"I do know that the district's CalSTRS pension obligation grows $1 million between now and 2017-18"

The measures made no mention of CalSTRS. Perhaps if the district had been more honest on where the money would go (and had the vote in june like everything else), the result may have been different.


"flatten your arguments like pennies on a track"

What you did here is the equivalent of walking onto a basketball court, declaring victory then running off to your car and driving away before even the first basket has been scored :)


"Train Fan -- back to trainspotting for you."

I see what you did there. Clever, clever!

Two issues,

1, The facts, to be debated, reasons numbers etc,

2, It was intentional to do a mail in special election, It was sneaky and leaves a lot of us w/ a bad taste in our mouths that will carry over to the next time it comes up.

Unfortunate as I may have agreed with you on point one and voted for it.

Oh Excuses, you glorious creature! I bow out of these threads in the interest of preserving my sanity, and when I come back I find this delicious gift from you. I love that you're in there fighting the good fight, which, when dealing with some folks, is not in the least an easy task. Thank you, and a rousing hear freakin' HEAR!!

Excuses Excuses,

Stick to the facts. There is NO teacher shortage in MPCSD. Candidates are flocking to our district. Planning during a state wide teacher shortage may affect other districts, but it doesn't impact ours enough to call a special election.

hellohanalei:

you're another that is great at attacking the messenger and not dealing in facts. Care to try your hand with facts/math? Or as excuses said, is that just a "waste of time?"

At least Woodside School district doesn't plan their future budget assuming renewal of their parcel tax. Woodside's parcel tax also expires the same time as MPCSD, in 2017. The timing of this election just happened to occur after board allowed the Union to reopen negotiations. Coincidence? Don't think so.

The proponents are attacking the messengers because they are unable to defend the facts and numbers. They're the ones who called the election and controlled the timeline. They are the ones that set the special election at a cost of >$80,000 to the taxpayers because the timing is more convenient for the YES parcel tax campaigners. They are the ones that had tens of thousands of dollars to spend on the election, while the opponents spend nothing. They have no one to blame but themselves for their loss, but it's easier to blame others than look at the real cause. Enough of the community didn't trust the district's message and spin and voted NO.

Homeowner hit it on the nail on the head with the statement "The proponents are attacking the messengers because they are unable to defend the facts and numbers."

Reading HelloHanalei and Excuses Excuses comments is like reading a transcript of a Donald Trump speech. Attacking the person but never addressing the facts presented.

In all the posts around these measures, the opponents have CONSTANTLY asked Maurice, the school board and people like HelloHanalei and Excuses Excuses to point out the errors with numbers and facts. So far just crickets.

Wow — I think I'd liken someone to Satan before I'd utter their name in the same breath as that of the Donald. That's an aspersion I wouldn't cast on my worst enemy.

In all seriousness, it's like spitting into the wind to engage in these threads. Scott Lohmann, Excuses Excuses, and others have tried, time and again, to present countering facts here, but they were shouted down. No one in the anti-parcel tax camp will listen to anything the supporters have to say, nor will they entertain the notion that anything said by anyone who doesn't agree with them might have any merit. The Superintendent, the COO, and School Board members sat down with those who contacted them requesting information before the election, and have had an open door policy in terms of meeting with anyone who has wished to take the time to understand the District's budget. To be frank, I had mixed feelings about the parcel tax myself, but I never for a second thought the Board was duplicitous, or that the School District was incompetent or deceitful, all things that have been implied in the comment sections of the various Almanac article on the parcel taxes. People are of course free to think what they want and say what they believe, and the School Board has in fact listened to the anti-parcel tax group's concerns, as evidenced by the fact that they said ~ in an open meeting ~ that they need to find ways to be more transparent and better engage with the community. I don't, however, see the listening (or the respect, for that matter) flowing in the other direction. The District, the Board, and those who defend them, get trashed here. I made what was essentially a lighthearted comment to Excuses, who was getting beaten up and staunchly holding his/her own, and then I was hammered in turn. I agree with the community member who observed at the School Board information night that it's disheartening to observe and attempt to take part in these "conversations." I'll turn off the lights on my way out.

"The Superintendent, the COO, and School Board members sat down with those who contacted them requesting information before the election."

As one of the people who asked a lot of questions I can assure you that none of them were answered either before or after the election including at a meeting with two Board members and a staff member which I hosted at my home.

I am not a member of an "anti-parcel tax group." I am a parent and an independent thinker who did the research and voted against Measures A and C. The no voters do not all walk alike and talk alike, and it is duplicitous to suggest that a lot of smart, educated, caring people are members of an organized cabal.

I was extremely involved in prior parcel tax campaigns, and I respect the time and energy that the board members invest in our community. But they are a hand-picked insulated group, and I am happy that members of the community are being encouraged to run for the board -- the first time that has happened in decades.

Weeks after the election, I'm sad that we are still seeing posts like the ones above, attacking the opponents of the measures. Where is the honest effort to understand the widespread concerns of residents? I guess some insiders believe that they can find a negative label that applies to all the no voters -- that we're all nasty people, or victims of groupthink -- and that will enable them to ignore the message and revert to their private clubbish behavior. Too late: the voting public is waking up and is not going to let that happen. Time to open the shades and let the sunshine in.

HelloHanalei. Let me be clear - I am NOT calling you or anyone Donald Trump. I am just saying that the comments attacking the opponents is "like reading a transcript of a Donald Trump speech." All talk no substance.

I find it interesting that you state that "Scott Lohmann, Excuses Excuses, and others have tried, time and again, to present countering facts here, but they were shouted down." I cannot find one comment from Peter, Train Fan, Jack or other main contributes that attacked them. I only see responses back that question that arguments and provide counter facts to discount. The door has always been open to present solid arrangements based on facts, to dispute the "misinformation" you all claimed were falsely spread about the measures. Again - CRICKETS.

Public debate is good and healthy and the MPCSD has been flying under the radar of public scrutiny for far to long. I hope to see a slate of board candidates that represent all sides, not just the parent community.

"The door has always been open to present solid arrangements based on facts, to dispute the "misinformation" you all claimed were falsely spread about the measures. Again - CRICKETS. "

Bingo!

Yet again Hanalei, when asked for factual response, what do we get from you? Certainly not facts. I asked you to take a crack at it, yet, nothing. Gee,I wonder why the voters didn't pass Measures A and C?

" I hope to see a slate of board candidates that represent all sides, not just the parent community."

I would love to see this as well. Just wait and watch what happens if one not in the "in crowd" runs for the board. The whisper campaign and smear campaign will start just as it did the last time an "outsider" ran.

"The no voters do not all walk alike and talk alike, and it is duplicitous to suggest that a lot of smart, educated, caring people are members of an organized cabal."

Thank you. If I weren't married, I'd kiss you.

I'm very confident that the financial numbers in the 2015-2016 budget and the projections in them do not support the case made for measures A and C. It's why I voted No, and apparently many people came to the same conclusion since they both lost.

Come back with a better case, and I'll happily listen. Note that in addition to the defeats of Measures A and C, recent events in Palo Alto are going to make it even more difficult to pass a parcel tax in November (we all know they'll try again); PA passed an increased parcel tax under the guise of "reducing class sizes". But when the money actually became available, few teachers were hired and instead the money went for pay raises...and not just for teachers. Bait-and-switch.

If the district wants my vote, and the vote of people like me (I usually approve school-specific bonds), a parcel tax similar to this would get my attention:

1) temporary: 3-5 years
2) 100% of the temporary parcel tax would go to pay down CalSTRS

There would need to be a few other circumstances for me to vote yes:
* Pay raises are totally fine...after the deficit spending stops
* Improve the reserve fund
* Average funding per-student actually went down. (note that the only time in the last 15 years that happened was 1 year during the financial crisis; and of course the community came to the rescue with the current temporary parcel tax that expires next year).

I happen to think needing a 4th parcel tax is ridiculous, but if the above were the case I'd vote yes for a 4th, temporary parcel tax.

HelloHanalei,

Fact: I have asked Jeff questions and he has forwarded them to Ahmad who forwards them to Maurice who says that they will be answered in a meeting but doesn't specify what meeting. Some of us are really getting the run around. What is to hide?

--------------------------------------------------------------
Fact: This community is not interested in rants. Your posts have very few likes. Bloggers who don't rant and attack the messenger have many likes. (Oversight, Train Fan, Homeowner).

This community is educated and doesn't rally behind, "attack the messenger". These are educated community members who are speaking like professionals and building a dialogue based on listening and questioning.

Suggestion: Leave the emotion out, stick to the facts, and remain open minded.

excuses is a one person attack dog who will spread false information/excuses, etc. to get her groups way. Sorry, no yes vote from me nor will there be until all questions have been answered.

Shout out to Oversight.

However, it is time for everyone to move on and start trying to participate in finding a solution. These are formidable issues that require the best and brightest of our community to turn out and help solve.

It is clear that Employee Benefits (employer contributions to STRS and PERS) are crowding out funding for existing programs and services.

This is a problem that is not going away and will NOT be solved by a parcel tax.

At last night's school board meeting, it was announced that the Superintendent was forming his own ad hoc committees to address compensation and recruitment as well as community giving.

I hope many of the participants in this forum will volunteer to participate in these committees.

"It is clear that Employee Benefits (employer contributions to STRS and PERS) are crowding out funding for existing programs and services."

Actually it is salaries that are crowding out funding for existing programs and services because employer contributions to STRS and PERS are based on salaries and not an independent item.

At last night's MPCSD Board meeting it was revealed that the loss of Measure C parcel tax revenue would amount to $1.6 million in 2017/2018.

At the May 10, 2016 Board Meeting it was revealed that the current average class size is 22 students per teacher and that every 1 additional student per class reduces 4-5 teacher full-time employee (FTE) a savings of $490,000.

The biggest determinant of student outcome/success is the quality of the teacher.
While class size is an important factor, it is not the most important factor and does not become a deterrent until you reach much higher levels of student:teacher ratios.

I understand 24 students per class is not a problem for teachers if they have the benefit of an aide (1 hour per day/ 4 days/week) as they employ in Palo Alto. This is based upon interviews of teachers in surrounding school districts.

If we increase class size by 2 students (from 22 to 24) that is an immediate savings of almost $1.0 M per year and reduces the escalating pension liability.

I would rather pay more to recruit/retain quality teachers and have them teach 24 students, than run a bigger deficit.

"At last night's MPCSD Board meeting it was revealed that the loss of Measure C parcel tax revenue would amount to $1.6 million in 2017/2018."

Thank you, Brown Eyed Girl.

I think this spin from MPCSD needs a little clarification...

Using MPCSD projections from the 2015-2016 budget, and also including the fictitious scenario where the 4th parcel tax existed, the increase in revenue from property taxes and the 3 permanent parcel taxes + the temporary 4th parcel tax for the 2017-2018 school year would be about $2.6 million.

When you use MPCSD projections using the 3 parcel taxes and property taxes that ACTUALLY exist, you get an increase in projected 2017-2018 revenue (in comparison to 2015-2016 revenue) of roughly $1 million.

So the $1.6 million isn't exactly wrong, but it hides the fact that 2017-2018 property-tax+parcel-tax revenue is projected to be $1 million HIGHER than the current 2015-2016 budget. And that's using MPCSD projections on revenue, which are very conservative.

It irritates me when a $1 million increase in revenue is spun as a $1.6 million loss. Did they mention that 2017-2018 revenue is projected to be at least $1 million dollars higher than the current-year budget? I'm going to take a guess and say, "No, they did not mention that."

Three candidates have filed. None are incumbents. I suspect that all 3 voted YES on the parcel tax. If both incumbents plan to run, that will dilute the incumbent vote and pave the way for two fiscally responsible candidates to get elected.


Menlo Park City School District, Governing Board Member Vote for 2 On Ballot: No
Qualified:
1 DAVID ACKERMAN Candidate Stmt Filed? Yes - 7/28/2016
Educator
Res: 1050 Oakland Ave
Menlo Park, CA 94025
(415)298-2274
Email: dackerman109@gmail.com

2 SCOTT SAYWELL Candidate Stmt Filed? No
Biotechnology Business Development
Res: 307 Trenton Way
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Website: www.scottsaywell.com

3 ALKA GUPTA Candidate Stmt Filed? No
Executive and Entrepreneur
Res: 1825 Oak Avenue
Menlo Park, CA 94025
(415)370-7028
(650)561-3022 Email: alka.gupta.wg96@wharton.upenn.edu

" In the May 10, 2016 Board Meeting it was revealed that the current average class size is 22 students per teacher and that every 1 additional student per class reduces 4-5 teacher full-time employee (FTE) a savings of $490,000."

I actually pulled out the past 3 years of our Laurel/Encinal/Oak Knoll School Directories to verify the class size of 22. It's in fact extremely misleading. This number is true for the past 3 years for ONLY grades K, 1, 2. But in fact, in grades 3, 4, 5, over the past 3 years, the class size has actually been at 26/27.

Many of our teachers have approached us as parents expressing their concern about being able to provide quality education with such large numbers.

So it's mind-blowing for me to hear that one proposed solution to our budget crisis is to simply add 1-2 more kids per class. That would increase our class sizes for grades 3,4,5 to 28-29!!!!

I find this totally unacceptable, especially knowing Woodside Elementary and Ahlone in P.A. have class sizes averaging 21, from grades K-5.

Perhaps we should consider raising the current "ask" of $1500 per student per year, especially in light of the fact that Woodside Elementary's ask is close to $5,000 per child per yr? Even payinng $3K per child per year for a quality education is a bargain compared to paying local private school tuition rates.

@homeowner and parent:

Your statement on class sizes is in conflict with ed-data.org: Web Link

The 14-15 school year students/teacher was 18.8, well under your 22/teacher and 25/teacher. 14-15 is within your three year window.

Re: Ed-Data Does Not Agree.

How can our school directories from the past 3 years listing the names of the students at Oak Knoll, Laurel, Encinal by class by teacher lie? I can show them to you at the next Board meeting if you'd like. I have no incentive to communicate mis-truths.

When I went to school, 40 was a comfortable class size.

@Homeowner and Parent :

> I have no incentive to communicate mis-truths.

People can be wrong and not realize it. I'm not accusing you of lying.

The bottom line is that class sizes are not as high as you're reporting. Even MPCSD's own website shows substantially lower average class sizes than what you posted. Look: Web Link

STAFF : 178 Teachers
STUDENTS : 2,941 Students

2941/178 = 16.5 students per teacher

Why doesn't the District simply post the sizes of each class in each school on its web site?

What was the actual increase in overall enrollment this year compared to what was predicted during the parcel tax election?

They should also post the capacity of each classroom and the total # of classrooms.