July 29, 2004

San Jose Unified considers parcel tax to offset budget deficit

Budget deficit fallout expected—with or without it

By Kymberli W. Brady
Staff Writer

While more than 32,000 children kindergarten through 12th grade enjoy the final weeks of summer vacation, San Jose Unified School District [SJUSD] is racing against the clock to offset a grim forecast by considering whether or not to put a parcel tax on the November ballot.

SJUSD board members reviewed the budget update during a special session on July 22, where the looming 2005-06 deficit shows drastic cuts edging toward the classrooms. While a cash infusion is desperately needed to curtail school closures and hold on to vital programs, including smaller class sizes and the six-period day, they admit that even if a parcel tax passes, it may not be enough.

“It’s a very serious situation,” says Board of Education President Gary Rummelhoff. “We’re bordering on a $10 million shortfall in 05-06.”

“This budget takes away about $2 billion from public education that was guaranteed under Prop. 98,” explains Associate Superintendent Jerry Matranga. “For San Jose Unified, that means about $9 million in revenue that we should have received this year, but will not.”

If the 60 people who attended the meeting are any indicator of interest, or lack thereof, the district faces tough challenges ahead. First, board members must decide whether to file papers with the county registrar of voters by Aug. 6 or miss the Nov. 2 election—critical timing, as statistics indicate a much higher voter turnout during presidential elections. Second, they must persuade two-thirds of the voters to approve the tax in order for it to pass.

“Look around this room—I’m appalled, explains Janice Allen of Willow Glen. “I expected to have standing room only in here. Without parents, and they’re not here, they won’t be well enough to pass this.”

“The ballot language is weak,” claims Area Four trustee Veronica Lewis. “We need to let voters know what we would be preventing. Some people don’t understand that we have a crisis here.”

There are some however, who cast blame on the district’s accountability and oversight.

“There’s a general lack of trust in the likelihood that the district will spend the money appropriately,” claims Allen Rice. “The real issue here is the promises that are going to be put into this measure and the credibility of those promises. If you can’t satisfy that, this thing isn’t going to pass.”

Superintendent-elect Don Iglesias says accountability from both state and federal levels is based on performance, with significant oversight and sanctions in place.

“There’s a message that needs to be put out to the public,” he admits. “We need to let them know who we are as a district, what we have and are accomplishing, and acknowledge that there are issues we need to work on. One of those is trust in general.”

Is another tax the answer?

While many agree that a parcel tax may the only alternative to severe cuts in the classroom, some don’t think it is the best solution, as contributing to a large “pot” would only dilute the benefits to neighborhood schools. Others are demanding more oversight through independent reporting.

“Taxes in general are out of control,” says Carrie Maietta, reading from a letter by Melinda Gettridge of Willow Glen. “We pay so much and still have a middle school with pathetic test scores…we have to fundraise to have music and athletic programs at our schools. When the district is serious about real changes, I believe you will have parents ready to roll up their sleeves and help you. Asking for more money without those changes will not get our support.”

According to Deb Hollis, who spearheaded a community action group called Organized Parents United for SJUSD, there remains “extreme distrust and displeasure” for things that have been promised in the past, but never happened.

“We’ve been paying and paying you,” she says. “Then I show up at my elementary school, only to have the toilets still broken three years later. I don’t want to see you voted out of jobs because you’re too dumb to change your ways. You have got to start trusting the parents and do what they want. Then, when you tell people what you’re going to do with this parcel tax money, they’ll actually believe you.”

Iglesias believes taxpayer confusion lies in the use restrictions tied to bonds, tagged only for capital facilities improvements. A parcel tax however, would be applied to voter specified operational expenses.

“Voters say we need to use the bond money for programs,” he adds. “They don’t understand that we can’t do that.”

“The parcel tax is very much different than a bond,” explains financial advisor Bruce Kerns. “We’re talking about operations. The voter can see how we spend it and have some accountability for performance with those dollars. It’s a just higher burden of proof.”

“I can’t tell you how depressed and taken back I am with these comments,” admits Lewis. “The last parcel tax failed because the parents failed us. The parents we had in our district didn’t come out and vote. What’s different now is that they are starting to see the need for a real grass roots effort.”

Community members encouraged to attend Aug. 2 meeting
The school board is strongly urging the San Jose Unified School District community to attend a final meeting Aug. 2 in an effort to help determine whether to file the necessary papers for a parcel tax by the Aug. 6 deadline. While discussions around which program cuts will be necessary in order to maintain others will also be on the agenda, the final decision whether the board should wait or try their luck with the November election will be made, along with how much the parcel tax should be. A $65 per parcel tax would add $4 million each year to the coffers, but would not be enough to keep from eliminating popular school programs. And $98, although better, would only add $6 million—$3 million short of the projected deficit.

Yet, some feel the district should ask for $195, the amount needed to bridge the gap—or not go for a tax at all.
The dilemma lies in whether the district can raise enough support to pull off a victory in November or schedule a special and more costly election in June 2005. A third option would put the parcel tax on the March 2006 ballot during the county election, but would the money come in time?

“This is not about how much you’re asking for, it’s what you do with it after you get it,” adds Hollis. “Money has been diverted and people don’t like it. Parents want you to fix what you promised and then they’ll look at giving more. They’ll be with you, but you’ve got to show them something more than lip service.”

“The reality is that the state has turned its back on local schools, and the community needs to step forward and take on a little more burden of responsibility,” admits Kerns. “The question is how and when that might happen.”

And yet, the tone is a tough pill for the district to swallow. Clearly trust remains the core issue, and whether they should sprint toward the November election or spend more time regaining the trust of the community in order to pull together a large grassroots contingency remains to be seen.

“The board is clearly going to wrestle with this,” says Rummelhoff. “Either way, we still need to make cuts and manage our fiscal matters responsibly. This has been a real reality check. If we make a decision on Aug. 2 to move forward, we’ll at least go in with our eyes wide open, with an understanding of the issues that we’re faced with, how much we’re going to have to pull from the community, and how much we’re going to have to educate the taxpayer about the challenges we face.”

“Yes there’s more work we need to do,” adds Iglesias

More information on the Aug. 2 meeting, can be obtained by calling the superintendent’s office at (408) 535-6069.