One day after Bob Dunning put at risk the district’s prospects for gaining the passage of Measure A, the parcel tax measure that requires a two-thirds majority, Superintendent Winfred Roberson and school board President Richard Harris issued an apology about the timing of the letter sent out last week to a group of seniors about the senior exemption for Measure A.
As the Vanguard reported on Monday, the key issue with the letter was that the district office was flooded with a significant number of requests during the past few weeks for information and help in filing for the senior exemption for Measure A.
Superintendant Roberson would offer an apology.
In a statement he said, “The district recently sent a letter to senior citizens which confirmed and/or explained exemption status with regard to parcel taxes. I’m sorry that the senior exemption letter was mailed in close proximity to Davis voters receiving the Measure A ballot. This timing gives the appearance that my office has campaigned to senior citizen voters. For this I am regretful.”
“Though approval of Measure A will provide immediate benefits to Davis students, I acknowledge my role as a public official to only provide facts to the Davis voters,” he continued and added, “I apologize if the language is perceived to advocate rather than provide information about the intent and process.”
There are many who have argued that the letter should have been sent after the election. However, the District has cited the fact that their resources have been sapped by the large number of seniors unsure about their eligibility to receive the exemption and the process by which they can complete the request.
One representative from district personnel told the Vanguard on Monday that they have already received 100 filled out exemption requests. They estimate it would take ten minutes for an individual to come in and fill out the form. The amount of time that was saved was substantial.
Moreover, given the relatively short period between passage of the Measure and the deadline, they did not think a letter after the fact would be helpful.
Instead, Board President Richard Harris argued that the letter should have been sent out earlier – in March.
“The letter should have been sent early in March, to talk to people, and give them a heads up,” Board President Harris told the Enterprise. “Our seniors, especially our fixed income seniors, they have questions about how the exemptions work. It’s our job to let them know. Where we made a mistake was we sent out the letter too late, too close to the ballot. I apologize for that.”
He added that he is “confident that the letter meets the standards of the law. It’s clearly not a campaign piece. It’s clearly information for people that wanted it, information that is very helpful to them.”
“Nobody’s trying to pull a fast one. The district’s just trying to get information to seniors,” Mr. Harris told the Enterprise, adding that “I think Dunning blew it out of proportion.”
In an email to the Vanguard last night, “The timing of the letter was wrong. No doubt about it. But the fixed income seniors who take advantage of the exemption, as we intended, deserve our support and help to navigate the system. “
He added rather pointedly, “Those who try to find scandal in every government action do a disservice to the folks who get up every morning and go to work and try to manage a system that educates our kids.”
On a more serious note, he noted that there is legitimate confusion on the part of seniors at Rancho Yolo, as many are unsure about whether they are eligible for the exemption or even required to pay the full parcel tax due to their Co-op status.
He referred the Vanguard to talk to David Thompson, who had noted on Sunday, “I can confirm that there has been an active series of requests made by a number of board members and residents of Rancho Yolo to the offices of the Yolo County Clerk and to the School District over the past few weeks. The manner in which the written material was presented in the mailed information is very confusing to the 330 residents of Rancho Yolo.”
He said that there were several reasonable points of confusion for the resident.
“The document received by residents of Rancho Yolo from DJUSD provides them with an Assessors Parcel Number and the space number for their address in Rancho Yolo,” he wrote. “It then goes on to tell them that as property owners they are under penalty of perjury entitled to an exemption. However, none of the 330 seniors living at Rancho Yolo own any part of the property.”
He added, “All the Rancho Yolo residents know that someone else owns the property so I am assuming that signing under penalty of perjury that you do own property which is not yours is frightening.”
“That letter talks about the Tax being $200 per parcel or $20 per Mobile Home. But the letter is all about parcels so some seniors at Rancho Yolo figured they were going to be paying $200 a year,” Mr. Thompson continued.
He concluded, “Members of the board of Ranch Yolo Community Association have been trying to obtain clarification as to the tax status of the residents. Some progress has been made but it is understandable that many Rancho Yolo residents are calling both the County Clerk and the DJUSD. It certainly is continued proof that the status of residents of Rancho Yolo remains unclear and as a result a little frightening. This is especially true for the almost 200 low income seniors living there on fixed incomes.”
Bottom line, I understand that the district thinks that the timing was bad for the letter. But they were attempting to deal with a situation that quite apparently was causing a good deal of anguish for seniors as well jamming their offices.
The letter, as Mr. Harris suggests, should have been sent out earlier. That makes far more sense than after the election, particularly with their offices jammed up.
Was there real intent to circumvent election laws here? I do not think so.
Should Bob Dunning have done more research and inquiries on this? Absolutely.
Did he blow it out of all proportions? By all means.
The real question now is what is Mr. Dunning’s intent. Is he going to run ten more stories on this in the next two weeks and attempt to take down the school district? We will have to wait and see.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Apartment dwellers need to step up , or the owners of these apartments do , make it so David .
[i]The real question now is what is Mr. Dunning’s intent. Is he going to run ten more stories on this in the next two weeks and attempt to take down the school district? We will have to wait and see.[/i]
4/12/11, Bob Dunning: Letter rip: Everyone needs to come clean
[url]http://digital.davisenterprise.com/opinion/dunning/letter-rip-everyone-needs-to-come-clean/[/url]
dmg: “One day after Bob Dunning put at risk the district’s prospects for gaining the passage of Measure A, the parcel tax measure that requires a two-thirds majority, Superintendent Winfred Roberson and school board President Richard Harris issued an apology about the timing of the letter sent out last week to a group of seniors about the senior exemption for Measure A.”
1) It is the SCHOOL DISTRICT who put at risk the district’s prospects for gaining the passage of Measure A – by sending out a letter that at the very leaast had the appearance of impropriety as advocating for Measure A. Bob Dunning just pointed out the obvious, Supt Roberson admitted the letter was a mistake, and Richard Harris partially admitted it.
2) Just bc the school district says this letter was legal doesn’t make it so. Certainly if the school district did receive legal advice for this one, it wasn’t very good advice.
3) The letter did not clear up confusion for the Rancho Yolo folks. If anything it caused MORE CONFUSION.
4) School monies were used to send out this piece of propaganda – MONEY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT CLAIMS IT DOESN’T HAVE.
5) If someone was on the fence about Measure A, the school district just handed them a reason to vote “no” – not a smart move when a 2/3 majority is necessary for passage.
6) Apologizing for the misstep WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO by Supt. Roberson. Half apologizing but essentially defending what was clearly a misstep as School Bd. Pres. Harris did was NOT THE RIGHT THING TO DO, just compounding the error.
7) For many, this has highlighted the unfairness/regressive nature of the parcel tax – all seniors regardless of income get an exempton, renters pay hardly anything, owners of huge homes pay the same tax as someone who owns a very modest home. Perhaps this issue needs to be revisited by the school district.
8) This shameful letter has made the national news – it was on the internet this morning.
My hope is this letter will serve as a lesson ON WHAT NOT TO DO. Matt Rexroad and Bob Dunning called this one correctly, and the school district has conceded the error.
Why would a letter being sent out to just inform seniors how to get their exemptions have to go to a lawyer for approval in the first place? Was it because they were trying to push the envelope as much as legally possible to advocate for a yes vote?
rusty49: “Why would a letter being sent out to just inform seniors how to get their exemptions have to go to a lawyer for approval in the first place? Was it because they were trying to push the envelope as much as legally possible to advocate for a yes vote?”
I’m not even convinced they went to an attorney, bc I think any good attorney would have advised them against this letter…
[i]One day after Bob Dunning put at risk the district’s prospects for gaining the passage of Measure A[/i]
If Measure A fails, it won’t be because of Bob Dunning.
Speaking to Elaine’s comment: I’m not even convinced they went to an attorney, bc I think any good attorney would have advised them against this letter…
More importantly any good politician would have advised them against this letter.
Forget the questionable legalities, this was a political disaster of the first rank. Looking for somebody else to blame, including the Superintendent and Bob Dunning, only makes it worse. The best thing to do now, is for the District to shut-up. The more they try to explain the indefensible, the worse it becomes.
Do people really take the time to read Dunning ? Then again, as they say in politics and entertainment, “Any publicity is better than no publicity”
[i]”One day after Bob Dunning put at risk the district’s prospects for gaining the passage of Measure A, the parcel tax measure that requires a two-thirds majority, Superintendent Winfred Roberson and school board President Richard Harris issued an apology about the timing of the letter sent out last week to a group of seniors about the senior exemption for Measure A.”[/i]
It sure is good to know a 501c3 company like the Vanguard cannot advocate in favor of Measure A.
That is the most bogus spin I have ever seen by anyone who is not “advocating.”
As Elaine and Don stated above, it was the stupid decision of the superintendent to advocate in favor of the approval of Measure A which stirred up this hornet’s nest. Funny that the Vanguard, which is officially neutral under the law, places the blame on Bob Dunning.
Moreover, the Vanguard neutrality further comes in doubt with the spin that the apology was only about the timing. Roberson in fact apologized about his choice of words which read as advocacy in favor of Measure A.
Dunning made another very good point in his Tuesday column on this topic: If Roberson’s intent was to provide information to all seniors who qualify for this exemption, why didn’t he send out a letter to all seniors? He only sent it to those who already know about the exemption and have already exercised it in the past. It would seem more likely that the people who need information about the exemption are those seniors who qualify for it but have never exercised that option. Many of them may not understand that they can apply for an exemption.
A final excellent point by Dunning on this question is how much time there will be once the ballot is decided for seniors to apply for the exemption: 8 weeks. Dunning notes that is more than enough time, if Measure A passes, to send out notices [i]to all seniors[/i], informing them of their right to an exemption. I spoke with an elderly neighbor of mine (who is a DJUSD retiree) about this and he said that is always what had happened in the past–that he would get a post-card informing him to file an exemption on a school tax if he wanted to.
No one has given Dunning more publicity than David–I never even heard of the guy before I read the Vanguard.
Does DG have a secret deal with Dunning to promote his column?
Dunning got it right. Richard Harris has shown his somewhat arrogant stripes once again.
[i]” Richard Harris has shown his somewhat arrogant stripes once again.”[/i]
I like Richard Harris. I think he is one of the best, most thoughtful members we have elected to the school board in a long time. However, I think in this case, because he (and the other members of the board) so badly want Measure A to pass, he either cannot see what was so clearly wrong about this advocacy letter by the district or he cannot now admit it.
… Anyone interested in the new 5-story Taj Mahal that the state is set to build in Woodland might be interested in reading my take on it ([url]http://digital.davisenterprise.com/opinion/courtroom-construction-shouldnt-be-a-priority/[/url]). It will also be published in the paper edition of Wednesday’s Enterprise.
[quote]“I’m not even convinced they went to an attorney, bc I think any good attorney would have advised them against this letter…”[/quote]I’m not convinced of a lot of things that have been reported as fact about this issue. When the rationale for such a questionable political and legal move gets revised with every round of criticism, one has to question the stream-of-consciousness nature of the free-floating justifications.
And what to make of explanations that are so patently untrue that one wonders how they could have been dreamed up even after the fact and under the pressure of public criticism.
[quote]“…(Roberson and Harris) issued an apology about the timing of the letter…”[/quote][u]Correction[/u]: Roberson issued an apology about the timing [b][u]and the language[/u][/b] of the letter. The breadth of the superintendent’s statement of regret shouldn’t be minimized, for he’s done an exceptional job with it (given the deep hole in which he found himself).
In fact, his statement is masterful. It’s short, clear, mindful of the fair nature of the criticism, doesn’t equivocate and sets the right tone to move beyond the mistake. I’d give it higher than an A, except for one phrase:[quote]“I apologize [s]if the language is perceived[/s] that the language appears to advocate rather than provide information about the intent and process.”[/quote]
Too bad Roberson’s excellent move to put the controversy behind ends up getting sabotaged by President Harris. His rambling [u]Enterprise[/u] interview is just the kind of non-apology apology for which politicians are criticized. Aggressively claiming “we were right all along” is simply fuel to keep critics agitated for longer than necessary.
Bruce Colby, the anonymous personnel representative and other employees and board members need to quit undermining Superintendent Roberson–their efforts to “clarify” haven’t helped.
Since December of 2009, the board of Rancho Yolo Community Association has been engaged in an effort to fully understand every legal and regulatory aspect that applies to Rancho Yolo and its residents. This was part of the due diligence RYCA went through as part of its proposal to buy the park. However, for 15 months neither the Mayor & City Council nor the City Manager would ever respond to any of RYCA’s written requests for information and clarification as to the status of the park.
So even while engaged in an offer to buy the park, RYCA never made any progress with the City on clarifying many issues of substantial importance for the park residents. Last month under the Mayor and the new five person Council we are grateful that the embargo appears to be lifting.
Most people would not understand the immense complications of owning a home which sits on land rented by the month. Go to http://www.community.coop/davis/ryca or http://community.coop/twinpines/parks/stories.html. Amongst those problems is the lack of clarification when it comes to voting and property taxes.
About a month ago, members of the RYCA board began a conversation that was spurred by discussion of the possible tripling of water rates. This moved into trying to determine whether the owner of the park would get the increase and then pass that on through monthly rents or would there be a bill to each home? In all of this would there be a senior exemption or would there be a low income exemption. Some taxes allow one and not the other.
Then community discussion of Measure A began and similar questions were raised. Board members of RYCA began to search for answers a few weeks ago and many calls starting going to DJUSD and others. A number of RY seniors I am told did start to make visits and calls to the DJUSD office. I honestly believe that the letter from DJUSD was an appropriate although regretfully confusing attempt to help residents of RY understand their status. Much more work needs to be done to provide clear information and using the correct terminology as it applies to those mobile home owners who rent a space by the month at Rancho Yolo.
David J. Thompson, Neighborhood Partners. LLC.
“Dunning notes that is more than enough time, if Measure A passes, to send out notices [i]to all seniors[/i], informing them of their right to an exemption.”
The district did not feel that was enough time. Did you talk to anyone in their offices about this? Did Dunning? Has Dunning yet spoken to anyone at the district?
In addition to that, not one person came up with a good alternative for how the district should handle the public coming into their offices other than to send them away with no information.
This makes no sense. How could the district do that? People are entitled to that information as a matter of law.
Elaine: I find it amazing that you disbelieve that they have consulted a lawyer. Have you looked up both the state law and the case law on this? You’re a lawyer, have you looked into whether it is illegal or legal before you have thrown accusations?
Rich:
I did read over the last portion of his apology:
“I apologize if the language is perceived to advocate rather than provide information about the intent and process.”
I do find it interesting that people gave him a pass when he said “perceived” to advocate, it’s the standard public non-apology. I’m not sorry for my words, I’m sorry if they have offended you.
David, why would they feel the need to even consult a lawyer for a letter about senior tax exemptions in the first place?
For one thing, to make sure you got the process right by which people would get the exemption. Pretty much any time you send out a public notice that involves procedural or legal matters you have a lawyer look at it.
So you don’t feel they had a lawyer look at it to make sure it didn’t step over the line on advocacy?
I’m sure they looked at that as well.
[i]In addition to that, not one person came up with a good alternative for how the district should handle the public coming into their offices other than to send them away with no information.
This makes no sense. How could the district do that? People are entitled to that information as a matter of law.[/i]
People sometimes have higher expectations of government than are reasonable; good public education and entitlement programs and full accountability, and transparency all delivered with a smile actually do cost money.
Rich: [i]”Dunning notes that is more than enough time, if Measure A passes, to send out notices to all seniors, informing them of their right to an exemption.” [/i]
The District’s Vanguard: [i]”The district did not feel that was enough time.”[/i]
And you agree that 8 weeks is not enough time? That’s hard to believe.
[i]In addition to that, not one person came up with a good alternative for how the district should handle the public coming into their offices other than to send them away with no information. [/i]
Yes I did. Send them away with a handout.
[quote]“I do find it interesting that people gave him a pass when he said “perceived” to advocate, it’s the standard public non-apology.”[/quote] I don’t think I “gave him a pass.” I lowered his grade from A+ to A. Now, I see that Dunning is using a similar grading system in today’s [u]Enterprise[/u] column.
I needed to save my “non-apology apology” tag for Harris’ clumsy efforts to step all over Roberson’s timely and appropriate apology.
As reported by the [u]Enterprise[/u], Harris said “clearly there were some failures in the system.” He then went on to list all of the reasons The Letter was the right thing to do, not acknowledging any failures. Finally. as reported in the [u]Vanguard[/u], some mysterious force compelled him to charge:[quote]“…rather pointedly, “Those who try to find scandal in every government action do a disservice to the folks who get up every morning and go to work and try to manage a system that educates our kids.”[/quote]Assuming Harris was shooting Dunning, and not Greenwald, this is the perfect way to fire up the issue some more.
P.S.–David, how can you say that “not one person came up with a good alternative for how the district should handle the public coming into their offices other than to send them away with no information.”
These few days of comments are replete with overt options as well as implied alternatives. I’ll try to provide citations for you later. Only if you suffer the same problems as Harris would you be so blind to the alternate suggestions here. It’s not an unusual symptom of devout, dedicated and involved advocates.
Rich probably is correct about being worried, cannot see and cannot admit. That the [u]Vanguard[/u] is egging them on has to be a contributing factor–it’s too bad that the whole gang now is pretty well dazed and confused.
[quote]“…how the district should handle the public coming into their offices other than to send them away with no information. This makes no sense. How could the district do that? People are entitled to that information as a matter of law.”
“People sometimes have higher expectations of government than are reasonable; good public education and entitlement programs and full accountability, and transparency all delivered with a smile actually do cost money.”[/quote]
I certainly missed even the slightest hint that the district should “send them away (from their offices) “[u]with no information[/u].”
This wouldn’t happen here, it doesn’t “cost money” beyond what’s already there, and providing the requested public information is only a minimal expectation for government. I can’t imagine you can find a single Davis public employee to contest this.
An true example of a “higher expectation” is that government employees will not spend their time and our money trying to convince us to vote a certain way.
ha ha . I echo elaine’s sentiments on this one, and I repeat my initial statement. The school board would be wise to keep its collective mouths shut. because like I said, it has the appearance of damage control, and it is getting itself into trouble. Harris is now doing double speak – on the one hand admitting bad timing and the appearance of impropriety on one hand, and then claiming it wasn’t in the next breath. Mr. Harris, please for your own sake, just shut up.
and I want to repeat what elaine said, and struck me as well – geez blame bob dunning for pointing out the stunt the district tried to pull, not the district for pulling in in the first place with regard to passage of A.
Had the district come up with a hand out, it probably would have been the same thing that was mailed. Granted not as many people would have come home with it. Those who weren’t mobile would still be jamming the phone lines.
David, LOL, what are you the district spokesman? You’re trying to provide more cover than the parties actually involved.
Just trying to get at the truth Rusty which was not reported initially. I got a lot more coming, just wait.
The letter sent by DJUSD about Measure A to seniors who are on file as having a senior exemption caused confusion particularly to the 330 seniors of Rancho Yolo and continues to cause confusion. The initial DJUSD letter used a parcel number and talked of the parcel tax. However, the seniors of Rancho Yolo do not own a parcel they rent a space on a monthly basis. For this particular tax, the residents are categorised as being renters. They do not own a parcel.
As consultants to Rancho Yolo Community Association (RYCA) our immediate obligation at this time is to provide clarity for the seniors who live there. Although larger issues are at stake for a number of people the correct status of the tax has economic meaning to the residents of Rancho Yolo, of whom, 70% are low income.
In today’s Enterprise, Bob Dunning’s column adds his suggestion for how it should have been handled:
“The letter should say simply: “As you may know, Measure A has passed, adding a $200 per year tax for the parcel you own. As someone who is over the age of 65, you are eligible for a full tax exemption. A form is enclosed for your signature that must be returned by June 30.”
The problem again is that the letter Bob suggests does not apply to Rancho Yolo. Seniors of Rancho Yolo do not own a parcel, although they have been told by DJUSD that they do. The seniors at Rancho Yolo will therefore not be paying $200 but because they are renters they will be paying $20. They will have the right to apply for a senior exemption. There is clearly confusion for the seniors of Rancho Yolo and someone needs to clear it up? But the question now is who should clear it up without it appearing political?
David Thompson, Neighborhood Partners, LLC consultants to RYCA.
[quote][u]Rich[/u]: “Dunning notes that is more than enough time, if Measure A passes, to send out notices to [i]all[/i] seniors, informing them of their right to an exemption.”
[u]David[/u]: “The district did not feel that was enough time. Did you talk to anyone in their offices about this? Did Dunning? Has Dunning yet spoken to anyone at the district?”[/quote] You point out that you handled your part by talking to someone at the district.
I question whether you can argue that you’ve really done due diligence when you’ve: 1) abandoned your questioning when someone’s answer appears to confirm the stand you’ve already taken yourself, 2) accepted without question answers that are illogical or evasive if they are offered by a friendly source, 3) continually repeated these dubious statements without following up even after they’re questioned, and 4) charged that others have “not called the district” when you’re clueless about what they’ve done and implied that other haven’t looked into the legal issues “before you have thrown accusations.”
David Thompson
wait until it passes or doesn’t then provide clarity.
“accepted without question answers that are illogical or evasive if they are offered by a friendly source”
How do you know this?
“charged that others have “not called the district” when you’re clueless about what they’ve done”
How do you know this?
Because I have read your reports and comments on this issue.
You have not sat next to me as I talk to people on the phone trying to get information from them.
I up until Monday morning I had not talked to a single person from the district who had spoken with Dunning, not from the school board, not from the district. So that assertion is false. I have a very good idea what they have and have not done.
You make good comments sometimes, but all you have done here is make assertions. I get your opinion both of my work and the district here.
SODA: [i]wait until it passes or doesn’t then provide clarity.[/i]
Wait until it passes or doesn’t to provide clarity? That seems unfair.
I can see how the issue of mobile homes is confusing. Wouldn’t a mobile home dweller be interested in clarity before voting?
I think the school district has experienced an example of “let no good deed go unpunished”.
Don S: [i]Send them away with a handout.[/i]
Please see David Thompson’s posting above, note DMG’s comment about the mobility of residents, and my comment above about the fairness of understanding what it is one is voting on.
wdf: “a good alternative for how the district should handle [b]the public coming into their offices[/b]”
Presumably those people who come into the offices are mobile. Clearly, as David Thompson points out, the letter exacerbated rather than alleviated confusion about the status of Rancho Yolo, which seems to be a special issue unto itself. The letter didn’t even address the issue of mobile home parks. Why this parcel tax would be any different than the others already in place, I don’t know. So that issue needs to be resolved for those residents, but presumably the simple answer would be “this parcel tax won’t be any different than the others.” If they are confused now, they were confused the last time(s) they voted as well.
Don: More confused now? I don’t know. It isn’t for me to say. But I had never heard before in past measures how mobile homes were assessed, so I can understand why others might wonder.
Before Dunning’s piece last Sunday, I was aware that Rancho Yolo residents were wondering how this applied to them. I see how a skeptical person would think the district had nefarious purposes. But I still think Bob, as a respected local citizen with connections, had a chance to ask and provide clarity to those citizens in his column (even with his brand of skeptical humor) instead of venting a knee-jerk reaction.
Rancho Yolo is the largest senior community in Yolo County (330 seniors) and also the largest low income senior community in the county. Once you enter a mobile home park you are entering a somewhat “feudal” world of limited rights and lack of legal clarity. That is why RYCA is engaged in an effort to purchase the park.
Due to the different type of tax measures, residents of mobile home parks are often in different categories. Some taxes such as property taxes on the park are paid by the owner and passed through as part of the monthly space rent. Some taxes are paid directly by the resident seniors. For some taxes, there is a low income exemption for which the low income seniors in the park can apply for. Other tax measures such as this one have only a senior exemption (but not a low income exemption). Some mobile homes are taxed as homes some are taxed as vehicles. Therefore, each time a measure comes up the RY seniors seek clarification of how it applies and whether they are able to seek an exemption.
You can understand that many RY seniors end up calling and visiting the offices of various agencies. The status of residents as renters in mobile home parks is regretfully complex.
Since December of 2009, the board of Rancho Yolo Community Association has been engaged in an effort to fully understand every legal and regulatory aspect that applies to Rancho Yolo and its residents. However, for 15 months neither the Mayor& City Council nor the City Manager would ever respond to any of RYCA’s written requests. So even while engaged in an offer to buy the park, RYCA never made any progress with the City on clarifying many issues of substantial importance for the park residents. Last month under the Mayor and the new five person Council we are grateful that the embargo appears to be lifting.
However, you can probably understand that seniors at RY wanted to get clarity. It’s been hard to find for the past 15 months.
dmg: “Elaine: I find it amazing that you disbelieve that they have consulted a lawyer. Have you looked up both the state law and the case law on this? You’re a lawyer, have you looked into whether it is illegal or legal before you have thrown accusations?”
I’m amazed that you are advocating for something that was clearly wrong… legally, ethically, morally…
[i]I’m amazed that you are advocating for something that was clearly wrong… legally, ethically, morally…[/i]
And your position is if there is confusion among senior low income mobile home dwellers as to how this measure applies to them, then to hell with them, the district should just leave them confused? This is an interesting position for someone like you to take.
wdf1: is it your view, “my DJUSD” right or wrong”?
Dunning states in his column today:
“Imagine that the letter said “The week of April 4th you will receive a ballot in the mail and be asked to reject Measure A,” instead of the actual letter that asked us to “approve” Measure A … I think folks would be rightly outraged … or, what about the sentence in the letter that began “The District is seeking voter approval for a parcel tax.” … imagine if that sentence had said “The District is seeking voter “rejection” of a parcel tax.” … there wouldn’t be a person in the house who’d say that wasn’t advocacy …”
This is so true. David, would you be protecting a letter that was sent out to 1000 voters which was paid for by a government agency that stated this? Somehow I don’t think so.
wdf1: “And your position is if there is confusion among senior low income mobile home dwellers as to how this measure applies to them, then to hell with them, the district should just leave them confused? This is an interesting position for someone like you to take.”
This letter caused greater confusion among the Rancho Yolo folks, not less. The letter made no attempt to explain the issue of mobile home dwellers as it related to the parcel tax. The letter was aimed specifically at those senior voters who had in the past taken the parcel tax exemption – a pretty explicit and cynical attempt to get these seniors to vote FOR a parcel tax they will NOT be paying for. So your attempt to use that issue as justification is a complete red herring… the tortured logic that is being used to defend this letter is laughable. The better approach is what Roberson did – apologize for the gaffe and move on…
By the way, I haven’t received my ballot, yet both my son and daughter have. Anyone else have this problem? Guess I’ll have to call Freddie Oakley…
[quote]By the way, I haven’t received my ballot, yet both my son and daughter have. Anyone else have this problem? Guess I’ll have to call Freddie Oakley…[/quote]Just don’t call the jammed-up DJUSD offices. They might take time they don’t have to fill out your ballot for you before they send it. P.S.–Be sure to vote “YES” in spite of all the commotion!
[quote]“He (Harris) referred the Vanguard to talk to David Thompson, who had noted on Sunday, ‘I can confirm that there has been an active series of requests made by a number of board members and residents of Rancho Yolo to the offices of the Yolo County Clerk and to the School District over the past few weeks….'”
“And your position is if there is confusion among senior low income mobile home dwellers as to how this measure applies to them, then to hell with them, the district should just leave them confused?”[/quote] Be more careful what you grab at as the support for the district’s bad decision:
1. David T. is using this controversy to advance his own broader agenda involving the purchase of Rancho Yolo. It’s in his interest somehow to paint RY as “a somewhat ‘feudal’ world of limited rights and lack of legal clarity.”
2. He isn’t at all documenting a massive run to DJUSD offices by confused RY residents who have asked not to pay such a tax in the past. He simply is explaining why it’s understandable if they are questioning this one, given the variety and complexity of tax laws facing mobile home park residents.
3. He isn’t at all expressing support for The Letter. In fact, he’s repeatedly pointed out that DJUSD [u]caused[/u] RO confusion about the Measure A provisions.
4. To David T., this is just one more, somewhat-related issue in his long, frustrating battle with the city over his efforts to help Rancho Yolo’s beleaguered residents.
[i]wdf1: is it your view, “my DJUSD” right or wrong”? [/i]
I am an involved parent. If I have doubts or questions, I have no problem contacting a principal, teacher, school board member, superintendent, or other admin. type. Apart from desiring information and clarification, I am normally not demanding, confrontational or a venting kind of person to these people. I see these folks are mostly overworked, understaffed, and reactive in many cases.
I believe the district made an attempt to provide clarity to a group that had questions. Yes it may not have helped the situation. Yes, it looked bad to an objective and skeptical observer. I also think the superintendent made the right decision in apologizing, on account that it definitely had the appearance of looking bad. He and his staff are already overworked, and taking the time to defend and explain would be a waste and wouldn’t change anyone’s mind who had already decided what the truth was after reading Dunning’s column. Nevertheless, I think there was more to the situation than Dunning or others had the patience to consider.
Based on what I know and see in the district, yes, I am inclined to defend it on most issues where a number of Vanguard commenters would criticize. I think it’s mostly a cheap shot to criticize the schools, because the schools don’t have the staff or time to defend or explain why things are the way they appear to be. And because there are kids and their education involved, I feel an obligation to respond when appropriate.
Rifkin: [i]It sure is good to know a 501c3 company like the Vanguard cannot advocate in favor of Measure A.
That is the most bogus spin I have ever seen by anyone who is not “advocating.” [/i]
A 501c3 can advocate if it is within the parameters of its mission. I don’t think David G. could make much of any commentary without advocating for or against any position to some degree. Nor could Elaine Musser
A 501c3 can endorse positions that fall within the realm of its mission. It can even engage in political activity that falls within its mission, provided that it is less than a certain percentage of its resources that are involved — I think that number is 20% or less. If it involved more resources than that, it would have to file as a different kind of corporation.
[i]”A 501c3 can advocate if it is within the parameters of its mission.”[/i]
I accept your statement. However, I recall that David G. wrote, because the Vanguard was a 501c3, it was illegal for him to advocate for or against candidates for office or for or against ballot measures. (He mentioned that in the context of Wildhorse Ranch.)
Here is what the IRS says: [i]”To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization … may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.”
“Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as [b]charitable organizations[/b]. … Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct.”[/i]
Keep in mind there is another type of IRS recognized company called a [b]political organization[/b], which is organized under internal revenue code 527.
Here is what the IRS says about a 501c3 and ballot measures:
[i]”Generally, expenditures to support or oppose a referendum or initiative measure are not for an exempt function activity, since this activity generally does not further the purpose of influencing or attempting to influence the selection process. Instead, such expenditures typically constitute lobbying. The legislative history of IRC 527 treats ballot measures as outside the purview of exempt function activity.”[/i]
[i]”Expenditures to support or oppose initiatives, referenda, etc., generally are considered to be lobbying expenditures rather than political campaign activity. An IRC 501(c) organization may engage in lobbying activity, although there are limits on the amount of lobbying that an IRC 501(c)(3) organization may do.
Consequently, a ballot measure committee (an organization formed specifically to support or oppose an initiative or referendum measure) cannot qualify to be treated under the provisions of either IRC 527 or IRC 501(c)(3), but may, in the appropriate case, qualify for tax exempt status under other subparagraphs of IRC 501(c), for example, IRC 501(c)(4), IRC 501(c)(5), or IRC 501(c)(6). Besides otherwise meeting the requirements of the relevant subparagraph of IRC 501(c), the organization must file an annual information return (Form 990).28 “[/i]
[i]P.S.–Be sure to vote “YES” in spite of all the commotion![/i]
I have!
I just received a recorded phone call with a “no” on Measure A message.
I didn’t know there was any organized opposition.
I got the same robo-call, Rusty. The voice almost sounded mechanical, but by the end I decided it was a human being speaking who had probably played a robot in science fiction movies.
Moi, aussi… I hate those “robo-calls”… I didn’t catch all of the message (picked up late) but I thought I heard some ‘dis-information’ (semi-truths/lies). Between the district’s faux pas in their mailer, and this disgusting attempt to sway voters (unless it was a conspiracy by DJUSD to offend voters into voting yes, which I cannot believe), this is the ‘dirtiest’ local measure for the District. I wish we had a third choice… “none of the above”, where we could show our lack of support for both, but still not count against the actual outcome.
I am however curious, if the measure came from the City, to create a $200/year parcel tax to maintain city employee wages, benefits, and city services, and if the CC made it so that seniors could have an exemption, and if the City Manager mailed out the same mailer (substituting the pertinent words), and if the CM & Mayor wrote the same types of apologies that the DJUSD folks did, would David and the other apologists respond as they have to defend the letter and the “apologies”?
by “both”, I primarily mean the tactics…
I have a slightly different spin on the question being posed. If this is a question of timing, could not Dunnung have waited until after the vote on measure A to voice his concerns about the letter and the actions of the supervisor. He would then have been expressing the same concern and criticizing the same action without influencing the outcome of the election. So how about it Bob ?
Were you advocating against the measure without coming out and saying so ?
Admittedly your right to do so, just asking?
[quote]“He and his staff are already overworked, and taking the time to defend and explain would be a waste and wouldn’t change anyone’s mind who had already decided what the truth was after reading Dunning’s column. Nevertheless, I think there was more to the situation than Dunning or others had the patience to consider…. think it’s mostly a cheap shot to criticize the schools, because the schools don’t have the staff or time to defend or explain why things are the way they appear to be.”[/quote]So, it’s come to this. Instead of taking five minutes to [u]tell[/u] the [u]real[/u] story, the staff and board members have spent days coming up with one unbelievable justification after another. Until now. Uh…it’s a secret. Mmm hmm…yeah, I’d be glad to tell you all about it if…uh…if I only had time to talk to you. Yeah, that’s the ticket![quote]“So how about it Bob ? Were you advocating against the measure without coming out and saying so ?”[/quote]Now, it’s becoming clear. This whole thing has been manufactured by the school district in league with Dunning. They’ve secretly conspired to drum up publicity and support for Measure A in the most convoluted manner ever conceived.
The district feigns concern about the broke, slow and uninformed Rancho Yolo geezers who [u]won’t[/u] be contributing $1.67 a month for schools. Dunning is ready with a column before many of the letters even hit the mobile home mailboxes, ginning up hoopla for what had seemed a fairly quiet referendum. The conspirators keep interest up with a daily back-and-forth that gets the whole town talking about our schools and their need for more money.
Measure A opponents, lulled into complacency, don’t take the trouble to vote. Anxious supporters shout, “Vote YES for Davis schools,” triggering a landslide.
The district then decides [u]not[/u] to send out completed exemption forms (citing the earlier firestorm and, of course, not too interested in letting a big batch of rich seniors off the hook for $200 that schools really need). Dunning wraps it all up with a supportive column dealing mostly with his personal need for excellent schools over the next 25-30 years, depending on how many more kids he has.
Astounding! It’s just genius! It’s all so counterintuitive. But, let’s hope it works.
HUH? JustSaying, I lost you on the second half of your post.
[i]the staff and board members have spent days coming up with one unbelievable justification after another.[/i]
The staff and board members gave their answer Monday morning (first working day) and moved on. You have an overactive imagination.
[quote][b]rusty49:[/b] “Of course the letter advocated for Measure A even if it didn’t actually ask the seniors to vote ‘yes’.”
[b]David:[/b] “But under the law they are allowed to do that provided they don’t actually ask the seniors to vote yes. That’s been my point from the start. You want to go after the district, but really you need to change the law. The district acted within the law.”[/quote]Excellent point, David, clear and succinctly put.
I’m not sure anyone really has been charging that Superintendent Roberson committed a willful, clear violation of law. The way I evaluate the concerns being expressed: It’s a reaction that what he did by advocating with The Letter was wrong–ethically, professionally and legally (in the sense of violating the [u]intent[/u] of the law).
In any case, your four-sentence stand supporting the theory that [u]what the law actually states[/u] is the most important consideration–and not what someone thinks, however passionately, [u]the law ought to be[/u].
This is an important foundation for having a rational discussion about any legal topic, yet a difficult one to convey convincingly to a skeptical advocate of a different perspective.
With your permission, I’d like to use your persuasive approach with Judicial Watch discussions such as those about whether it’s appropriate to use the labels “wrong, improper, flawed” when criticizing lawful acts. For example:[quote] “But under the law the police are allowed to interrogate Mr. Moses that way provided they don’t actually beat him senseless to get him to confess. That’s been my point from the start. You want to go after the cops and the DA, but really you need to change the law. The county acted within the law.”[/quote]Thank you.
Just Saying:
I’m not exactly sure your point here, I argued from the start that we need to change the law with regards to confessions, this is from my article on interrogations:
“I do not believe there is a reason that it should be lawful for police to attempt to browbeat or trick or fatigue someone into a confession.”
In this case, I am advocating for a change of law, I am not arguing that the DA or police broke the law.
I guess I’m failing to see the inconsistency that you seem to be pointing out to me.