Measure E for … Everybody ?

At least, that’s what we suggested in our October 4 column, when absentee ballots were being mailed. But it appears that “everybody” didn’t agree, as only 57 percent of voters approved of the six-year, $91 parcel tax for our local public schools. While that’s still a majority of voters, it was considerably short of the 67 percent needed under California law to pass a tax bill.
The defeat was surprising to many of us, and it’s important to learn from this in order to help our public schools move forward. Of course, the ballot measure asked just a single question and so, as an opinion poll, was not very informative. This makes drawing the right lessons difficult.
Certainly, the outlook for the northern Bay Area economy is less bright now that it has been recently, and so some greater resistance to putting a new tax in place at this time would be expected.
There is also the possibility that voters were concerned about the hospital financing, in two possible ways. First, voters had approved just 8 months ago a parcel tax to cover on-going losses in the hospital’s operations and may have been less inclined to vote for a second parcel tax, for any cause, so soon afterward. And second, voters expect a big bond measure soon for hospital construction, and they may have been less inclined to vote for additional taxes until that issue has been resolved.
At least one point does seems clear: a “stealth” campaign is not effective. Actually, it may have worked in some ways, since three-quarters of the votes cast were absentee ballots, which were presumed to have been more supportive. This approach was tried in 2004, as well, and found wanting then, when 62 percent approval was achieved. Presumably, when the school district tries again for a parcel tax, a broader pitch will be made to all the voters, not just those identified as already disposed to vote in favor. Interestingly, the percent approval last week was actually higher among those voting in person on election day, after some limited exposure of the issues had taken place. Would even more exposure, earlier, have helped? It’s easy to second-guess now, but that doesn’t diminish the value of the lesson, for next time.
Beyond the mechanics of running a campaign, there has been a sentiment in the community that “the schools” aren’t doing as well as they should, and that it’s not just about money. We’ve made suggestions in the past, and we like the focus of the Achievement Summit put on in Sacramento this week by the State Superintendent of Schools.
Sonoma Valley is not immune to gang activity, as we were reminded when violence surfaced at Maxwell Park several weeks ago. The two boys involved were both 17 – school age minors. We commented last week that these youth need a sense of hope, a sense of excitement about their future. They need to know they’re building toward a career, a trade, or a profession, and it’s in our schools that the community expects them to acquire the tools to participate in those opportunities. That’s the challenge still before us all, following the defeat of Measure E; the job will be just a little tougher.
Non-profits, neighbors, churches and, yes, schools – these will continue to need community support in the coming years.