This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Health & Fitness

Did Public Schools engage in "Political Advocacy" and Force the Passage of Prop 30

I am posting a letter that I wrote to the Capistrano Unified School District in October 2012, in which I noticed the District that I had filed a complaint with the Fair Political Practices Commission because I felt very strongly that our District engaged in Political advocacy by framing every communication regarding the Districts budget in terms of the passage or failure of Prop 30 while never mentioning Prop 38 and it's effect on the budget. This is issue was raised in a discussion on several other posts. 

Date: October 1, 2012

From:  Dawn Urbanek

Find out what's happening in San Juan Capistranowith free, real-time updates from Patch.

To: The Capistrano Unified School District Superintendent Joseph Farley, Trustees, and District Staff

RE: Capistrano Unified School District is Violating California Education Code Section 7054

Find out what's happening in San Juan Capistranowith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Notice to the District: A Request for Legal Investigation into this Matter has been made.

The Law: California Education Code Section 7054

7054. (a) No school district or community college district funds, services, supplies, or equipment shall be used for the purpose of urging the support or defeat of any ballot measure or candidate, including, but not limited to, any candidate for election to the governing board of the district. (b) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the use of any of the public resources described in subdivision (a) to provide information to the public about the possible effects of any bond issue or other ballot measure if both of the following conditions are met: (1) The informational activities are otherwise authorized by the Constitution or laws of this state. (2) The information provided constitutes a fair and impartial presentation of relevant facts to aid the electorate in reaching an informed judgment regarding the bond issue or ballot measure.

(C) A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE A MISDEMEANOR OR FELONY PUNISHABLE BY IMPRISONMENT IN A COUNTY JAIL NOT EXCEEDING ONE YEAR OR BY A FINE NOT EXCEEDING ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,000), OR BY BOTH, OR IMPRISONMENT PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION (H) OF SECTION 1170 OF THE PENAL CODE FOR 16 MONTHS, OR TWO OR THREE YEARS.

When communications from the District to Parents and the Public are framed in terms of a specific ballot initiative passing or failing, and are accompanied by the threat of specific consequences that will result from the passage or failure of that initiative; then communications go beyond what would be considered a “fair and impartial presentation of relevant facts to aid the electorate in reaching an informed judgment regarding the ballot issue”. Such communications cross the line, and constitute "Political Advocacy" which is prohibited by California Education Code Section 7054.

Background

At the March 12, 2012 Board Meeting, Agenda Item #1, Attachment #3 District Staff presented the Board with a “Fiscal Solvency Statement and Budget Reduction Plan For 2012-2013”.

The plan included a Communication Plan for disseminating information about the severity of the budget problem to staff, parents, the community, and employee associations.

Page 4 of 4

“Communication Plan- start mid-February, the Superintendent and staff will communicate the severity of the budget problem to staff, parents, the community, and employee associations. This ongoing communication will include conversations with staff, information posted on District website, community meetings with parents, ongoing meetings with leadership of the employee associations and negotiating teams.”

A review of District communications to the public show that all communications regarding the severity of the District’s Budget, Collective Bargaining Negotiations and corresponding budget cuts were framed in relation to the passage or failure of: “Governor Browns Tax initiative”.

The District’s Communications Do Not Comply with 7054 (b) (2)

7054 (b) (2) the information provided constitutes a fair and impartial presentation of relevant facts to aid the electorate in reaching an informed judgment regarding the bond issue or ballot measure.     

There are two tax initiatives on the ballot:

  • Prop 30 - Governor Jerry Brown’s tax initiative entitled:  “Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding Initiative Constitutional Amendment, and
  • Prop 38 - Molly Munger’s initiative entitled: “Our Children, Our Future: Local Schools and Early Education Investment Act.” 

Under Proposition 30- Governor Jerry Brown’s Tax initiative – revenues go into California’s General Fund. It is now public knowledge that these funds are NOT ear marked for schools. See- California School Boards Association

“Under the governor’s plan, schools would get back some of the billions of dollars that were redirected away from them and used to shore up the state’s funding gap in the last budgetary cycle.  The governor’s initiative only restores some of the funds already owed to schools,” Vernon M. Billy, California School Board Association executive director

Under Prop 38- Molly Munger’s Tax Initiative - Revenues ARE earmarked for public school districts and early childhood development programs.

District communications make reference solely to the affect of Jerry Browns Tax Initiative on the severity of the District’s Budget. District communications make no reference to both tax initiatives in general; or the effect of Prop 38 Molly Munger’s Tax Initiative on the District’s budget. These communications are always accompanied by a list of consequences that CUSD children will suffer as a result of our collective failure to pass Governor Jerry Brown’s Tax initiative. These consequences include (class size increases, furlough days and cuts to staff and programs).

The District is clearly engaging in “Political Advocacy”… by advocating for the support and passage of Prop 30 - Governor Jerry Brown’s Tax Initiative.

California State Law recognizes how important it is to prevent School Districts from advocating for any political position. Such conduct is especially egregious when advocacy efforts result in the enrichment of Employee Groups at the expensive of the education of the children that District Administration has a duty to bargain on behalf of.

The Collective Bargaining Process takes on special importance during tough economic times when the interests of employee groups are at odds with those of the students.

Using children to extort votes from parents and the community results in a corruption of our political system, and intentionally misleads voters into voting against their stated interests.

The State recognizes how important it is to prevent such corruption, and imposes stiff personal penalties for those individuals who choose to violate the law for personal gain.

As a parent of a CUSD student, I am asking for our Judicial system to step in and intervene on behalf of all children in the Capistrano Unifed School District.

The Capistrano Unified School District should be legally compelled to cease advocating for Jerry Browns tax initiative and compelled to provide parents with the truth about how budget cuts were arrived at through the collective bargaining process.

Supporting Documentation: 

The PDF files below show, in red highlight, that all the District communications regarding the budget, and the corresponding collective bargaining process and the resulting collective bargaining agreements were framed in the context of the passage of Governor Jerry Browns Tax Initiative Prop 30. It is illegal for any School District to engage in Political Advocacy. Such conduct is a criminal violation of Education Code Section 7054. It corrupts the political process and results in parents and the community members actually voting against their stated interest in ensuring that their children receive a quality education- longer school year- greater instructional minutes and meaningful programs. The cuts that this District made in order to preserve maximum employee compensation are shameful.

The Capistrano Unified School District should be legally compelled to cease advocating for Jerry Browns tax initiative and compelled to provide parents with the truth about how budget cuts were arrived at through the collective bargaining process.

 

If there is enough interest I will post as a PDF the documentation for an example- Every Board Agenda Press Release - communication from the District to Parents and the Public was framed as follows:

Feb 13th 2012 Special Board Meeting Agenda Item #1- Report on 2012- 2013 Budgeting and Finance: 

"Staff will present updated estimates of the District budget shortfall for 2012- 2013, and the Governor's January Budget Proposal for 2012- 2013. These projections will consider the scenario if the proposed tax measure passes, as well as if the tax measure is defeated, thereby triggering additional cuts to K-12 education under the Governor's proposed budget." 

Slide 3 of the presentation states:

2012- 2013 Budget Shortfall

  • The projected budget shortfall for 2012-2013 is $30 million if voters approve the temporary tax measure proposed by the Governor
  • If the tax measure is not approved by voters in November, then the budget shortfall increases by $18 million.
Revenue Assumptions:
  • Assumes tax measure passes with $2.4 billion revenue used to reduce K-12 cross-year deferrals (no added revenue for District budgets)
Alternative Revenue Assumptions:

If tax measure fails, then additional cuts of $370 per ADA translate to an additional $18 million revenue loss
What Could Change?

  • The tax measure could fail in November triggering an additional $18 million cuts in funding/spending


We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?