Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

376387 1


Published on

Published in: Economy & Finance, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

376387 1

  1. 1. Just The Facts, Please: To Educate, Not Advocate Ron Bennett, School Services of CaliforniaMelanie Petersen, Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost
  2. 2. Introduction How Does California Compare With Other States? Overview & Comparison of the Two Tax Initiatives  The Governor’s Initiative, Prop 30—The Schools and Local Public Protection Act of 2012  The Munger/PTA Initiative, Prop 38—Our Children, Our Future: Local Schools and Early Education Investment and Bond Debt Reduction Act2 Informational Versus Advocacy—Legal Issues
  3. 3. How Does CaliforniaCompare to OtherStates?3
  4. 4. Funding Per ADA – Actual vs.Statutory Level Loss due to midyear cut School Services of California, 20124
  5. 5. California’s Education SpendingContinues to Lag School Services of California, 20125
  6. 6. California’s SpendingLags the Nation California’s Schools Lag Behind Other States on a Number of Measures Californi Californi Rest of a Rank a U.S.K-12 Spending Per Student (2009-10)* 44 $8,826 $11,372K-12 Spending as a Percentage of Personal Income (2008-09)* 46 3.28% 4.25%Number of K-12 Students Per Teacher (2009-10)* 50 21.3 13.8Number of K-12 Students Per Administrator (2007-08) 46 358 216Number of K-12 Students Per Guidance Counselor (2007-08) 49 809 440Number of K-12 Students Per Librarian (2007-08) 50 5,038 809*EstimatedNote: “California Rank” and “Rest of U.S. exclude the District of Columbia. Spending per student and number of studentsper teacher are based on average daily attendance (ADA). Number of students per administrator, guidance counselor,and librarian are based on statewide enrollment.Source: National Education Association, National Center for Education Statistics, and U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis School Services of California, 2012 6
  7. 7. An Overview of the Governor’sInitiative: Prop 30 and MungerInitiative Prop 38 on theNovember 2012 GeneralElection Ballot 7
  8. 8. The Governor’s Initiative – Prop 30 “The Schools and Local Public Protection Act of 2012” This measure is designed to provide additional revenues to the state general fund to avoid further cuts to public education  The revenues would be part of the state’s general fund budget and administered according to state law  New income taxes heavily weighted toward highest earners  Sales tax increase would affect all taxpayers  This funding would be part of the state’s normal funding to schools, not additional  The additional revenue could prevent deeper cuts to public education This initiative helps the state to meet its commitments, but in the near term does not provide additional funding for public education School Services of California, 2012 8
  9. 9. The Munger/PTA Initiative – Prop 38 “Our Children, Our Future: Local Schools and Early Education Investment and Bond Debt Reduction Act” This measure is designed to provide a significant amount of funding directly to school sites and early childhood education  With a minimum of administrative cost and influence  New taxes are broad-based, but high earners pay more  Separate and above any other state or local funding  It provides funding for retirement of state-level debt during the first 4 years This initiative is clearly intended to provide supplemental funding for public education to improve California’s comparative standing with other states School Services of California, 2012 9
  10. 10. Education Funding Initiatives Proponent & Title Total Education Revenues Source of Additional Duration Revenues Generated Revenues GeneratedGovernor Jerry $8.5 billion Limited – additional funds Quarter-cent sales tax 4 years salesBrown – “The in 2012-13; offset State General increase; up to 3% increase taxSchools and Local $6.5 billion Fund (GF) obligation; in personal income tax rate 7 years incomePublic Protection thereafter $2.9 billion increase in for high-income earners taxAct of 2012” Proposition 98 first year ($250,000 and above)Molly Munger 1 $15 billion First 4 years: Increase in personal income 12 years(PTA supported) in 2013-14; 60% K-12 schools tax for all but low-income“Our Children, Our $10 billion 10% Early childhood earners, from 0,4% forFuture: Local thereafter 2 education (ECE) lowest income individuals toSchools and Early 30% State GF bond debt 2.2% for individuals earningEducation more than $2.5 millionInvestment and Remaining years:Bond Debt 85% K-12 schoolsReduction Act” 15% ECE1. The Munger initiative provides K-12 funds on a school specific, per- pupil basis, subject to local control, audits, and public input. It also prohibits the state from directing or using these funds.2. Funding in 2013-14 includes revenues generated from Proposition 38 in the second half of the 2012-13 fiscal year. School Services of California, 2012 10
  11. 11. A DetailedComparison ofProp 30 &Prop 3811
  12. 12. Comparison of the Initiatives Our Children, Our Future Governor’s Compromise ProposalGeneral Fund Impact Years 1-4 Used to fund Proposition 98 General Fund relief due to state bond guarantee, freeing up General debt payments of about $3 billion Fund revenues for other priorities annually Years 5-12 negligible – Funds outside Proposition 98Proposition 98 negligible – Increase in Proposition 98Impact Funds outside Proposition 98 guarantee of approximately $2.9 billion in the first yearLocal District Impact Roughly $1,000 per ADA Indeterminate for the first few years. Increase in Proposition 98 funding to be used to pay down interyear deferrals, reduce deficits, fund COLAs. School Services of California, 2012 12
  13. 13. Comparison of the Initiatives Our Children, Our Future Governor’s Compromise ProposalRevenue Source Increase in personal income tax for 1/4 cent sales tax all but low-income earners, from 0.4% for lowest income individuals to 1% to 3% income tax increase on 2.2% for individuals earning more than earnings greater than $250,000 $2.5 millionRevenues 2013-14: $15 billion 2012-13: $6.8 billion to $9 billionGenerated(From LAO) Each year thereafter – $10 billion Each year thereafter – $5.4 billion to $7.6 billionRevenue Allocation Years 1-4 Proposition 98:(State) 30% ($3 billion) ― State Bond Debt 89% for school districts, county offices Relief of education, and charter schools 60% ― K-12 Programs 11% for community colleges; 10% ― Early Childhood Education Programs State General Fund: Years 5-12 Determined through annual budget 85% ― K-12 Programs 15% ― Early Childhood Education Programs* Funding in 2013-14 includes revenues generated from Proposition 38in the second half of the 2012-13 fiscal year. School Services of California, 2012 13
  14. 14. Comparison of the Initiatives Our Children, Our Future Governor’s Compromise ProposalRevenue Allocation Funding formula based on CBEDS Increased Proposition 98 funding(District) enrollment counts. Funds to be allocated according to State budget used to support local schools. priorities; remainder offsets state Restrictions on use; requirements aid. to supplement, not supplant, existing funds.Accountability Prohibits use of funds for Requires open meeting of the administrative costs, or for governing board to make spending increasing compensation for current determinations staff Prohibits revenues from initiative Requires at least two meetings from being used for administrative annually for each school site: one costs for input on use of funds; and one for response to board Public display of how tax revenues recommendations prior to action. spent Inclusion of tax revenues Public display of school-level expenditures in LEAs annual budget financial and compliance audit. School Services of California, 2012 14 Annual report on the use of funds
  15. 15. Comparison of the Initiatives Our Children, Our Future Governor’s Compromise ProposalDuration 2013 through 2024 Sales Tax Increase: 2013 through 2016 Income Tax Increase: 2012 through 2018Initiative Type Statutory Initiative Constitutional InitiativeChief Supporters Molly Munger, CA PTA, The Governor Brown, ACSA, CTA, CFT, Advancement Project, CSBA CSBA, CSEA, League of Women Voters, California Nurses AssociationNotes Would result in General Fund Also makes permanent the sales tax savings in the first four years as a shift for realignment result of initiatives allocation towards bond debt School Services of California, 2012 15
  16. 16. What If They Both Pass? If both initiatives pass and  If both initiatives pass and Governor Brown’s initiative Munger’s initiative receive receives more votes more votes  Brown’s sales tax  The Munger initiative’s realignment and the personal income tax personal income and increases would go into sales tax increases go effect into effect  The sales and income  Munger’s initiative is tax increase provisions null and voided of Brown’s initiative would be null and voided School Services of California, 2012 16
  17. 17. Informational VersusAdvocacy—LegalGuidelines17
  18. 18. Informational Versus Advocacy Principles  Free election of the people  Avoid distortion of the democratic electoral process District resources for ballot measures  California Education Code imposes strict limitations on the use of district/COE resources for ballot and bond measures 18
  19. 19. Informational Versus Advocacy School Officials  Information must be fair and impartial presentation of relevant facts to aide the electorate in reaching an informed judgment  You may inform the electorate about the initiatives, including potential benefits and consequences 19
  20. 20. Informational Versus Advocacy What to avoid  Use of district or COE phone, mobile phone, fax, email, all office supplies (including paper, pens, pencils) vehicle, printers, copiers, postage, scanners, staff time  Use of district or COE resources to purchase advertising space or promotional materials, such as bumper stickers, buttons, posters  Use of staff time to disseminate materials that were privately funded  Practical Pointer – If the agency procures or pays for it, do not use it 20
  21. 21. Informational Versus Advocacy What may you do?  Informational materials must give a fair and balanced presentation of the facts  Identify the consequences, both the good and bad Practical Pointer – Avoid inflammatory, argumentative or persuasive language ― tone should be neutral, fact- based, and balanced 21
  22. 22. Informational Versus Advocacy What constitutes informational versus advocacy? Practical Pointer –  There is no hard and fast rule Avoid using words  Courts tend to focus on style, tenor such as: and timing of the material “sign petitions for”  Is the material/message basically “vote for” informative and factual, or does it “vote against” try to sway? “cast your ballot”  When and how was the information “support” is released? Was it released using the normal channels of “reject” communication (newsletters, “defeat” website) or was a “special edition” created and disseminated? 22
  23. 23. Informational Versus AdvocacyQuestion: A group wants to run an ad on a school or district website or in a newsletter, can you deny this?Answer: Prohibited from expending public funds in an attempt to influence the electorate  This includes providing space for partisan messages This is true even if you offer equal space to both initiatives The district is the authority regarding content of its communications pieces23
  24. 24. Informational Versus AdvocacyQuestion: Can the board pass a resolution in support of or opposition to a ballot measure?Answer: Absolutely The language in the resolution should be simple, measured, and informative    It must not be designed to persuade Adoption of a resolution must take place during a regularly scheduled board meeting, and the public must be provided opportunity to comment on the item It is not improper for a public agency to take a position on a measure/initiative  It is improper for the agency to use public funds to mount a campaign 24
  25. 25. Informational Versus AdvocacyQuestion: Are there forums in which board members and staff may express their position?Answer: Yes, if a public or private organization specifically requests the appearance of a school board member or staff to present information on the ballot measure  You may attend, but your presentation must remain fact based  The representative may not attend such meetings during the regular work day25
  26. 26. Informational Versus AdvocacyQuestion: Can a school board member or staff actively support or oppose a ballot measure in their private (individual) capacities?Answer: Yes – no restrictions may be placed on the outside political activities May not use district funds, resources/staff, or participate in activities during working hours You may:   Attend rallies, meetings, political, or campaign-related events  Urge other to vote “yes” or “no,” and solicit or receive political contributions to promote the passage of a ballot measure26
  27. 27. Informational Versus AdvocacyQuestion: To what extent may a school district regulate the  political activities of its employees on school property?Answer: Employees do not forfeit their free speech rights on school grounds No funds or contributions may be solicited or received by employees during working hours Working hours do not include before and after school and a duty-free lunch period, or other scheduled work intermittency during the work day No person may enter onto district property for the purpose of making such solicitations or campaigning27
  28. 28. Information Versus AdvocacyQuestion: What can you do to inform the electorate and what are your responsibilities?Answer: Study the initiatives Determine the pros and cons of each Identify where to locate informational resources and other materials regarding the initiatives to better inform the electorate You may actively support a measure in your individual capacity, however, you must make it clear that your efforts are during non- working hours and are not intended to represent the views of the district 28
  29. 29. Inform ation in this presentation, including but not limited to PowerPoint handouts and the presenters com ments, is s ummary only and not legal advice. We advis e you to consult with legal couns el to determ ine how this information m ay apply to your specific facts and29 circumstances .