Editorials

Editorial: Vote Yes on Measure A — Really!

By Becky O'Malley
Tuesday October 24, 2006

Mohammed Ali, the iconoclastic boxing champion originally known as Cassius Clay, used to describe his technique this way: “Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.” We’ve tried to take that as our motto for the editorial column of this publication, but evidently we’ve overdone it on the butterfly side. I got an anguished call last week from my old friend the Marxist Tax Accountant, who surprised everyone by becoming the father of twins just about the time the rest of us were seeing our kids off to college.  

“Lies,” he said. “They’re telling lies about Measure A.” He was referring to the pronunciamentos emanating from North East Berkeley (translation: top of the hills) about the school tax measure that’s on the November ballot, which may or may not have been authorized by that area’s homeowners’ association.  

He implored the Planet to endorse Measure A. “We did endorse Measure A already.” I said. “We need a big headline saying Vote YES on Measure A,” he said.  

And to back it up, I got an also-anguished e-mail from another old friend, our erstwhile soccer reporter, a former Washington policy wonk who’s moved back to Berkeley to raise the kids in a place where they could attend excellent public schools. He offered to load me up with statistics for a new editorial that would really knock the socks off opponents.  

Well, a few facts never hurt any argument, so let’s start out with a few good ones not debated by either side: 

Measure A replaces the two expiring parcel taxes: BSEP (from 1994) and Measure B (from 2004) at existing rates. It is neither a new tax nor a tax increase. It extends the expiring BSEP (12-year measure since 1994) and Measure B (two-year BSEP supplemental measure since 2004) for an additional 10 years. 

The Measure A tax rate is the exact sum of the expiring BSEP and Measure B tax rates (22.8 cent per square foot residential; 34.36 cents commercial—square footage means of building, not lot). The “typical” 1,500-square-foot-home owner pays $343 per year (actually closer to $220 since this is a deductible property tax). 

The current BSEP and B account for: 

• About 25 percent of the operating budget of the district.  

• About 30 percent of all classroom teachers. 

• The entire elementary and middle school music and library programs.  

• “Site funds” allocated by parent/staff committees at each school.  

• A small amount for parent outreach, teacher training, and evaluation. 

Measure A continues the same allocations as BSEP and B except that a small capital projects fund was eliminated and replaced with additional teacher training, outreach, and evaluation. 

Opponents’ beefs about the way the Berkeley Unified School District don’t dispute any of these facts. Instead, their criticism of BUSD has taken the form of complaints about outcomes, primarily which ethnic or socioeconomic group is doing well or poorly, and of their suspicions that the extra money raised by local taxes only makes it possible to spend foolishly in other areas, especially for administrators’ salaries. Some of their substantive complaints about the way the district is run have real merit, but they’re devalued by being used to oppose Measure A. Such arguments compare apples and oranges.  

No one seriously questions the notion that Berkeley’s school kids need the items which the extra taxes are supposed to pay for. No one has seriously argued that anyone’s stealing the money, or even that the oversight committee has been lax as regards the use of the extra funds. Very few Berkeley property owners would claim that three hundred dollars a year more or less is crucial to making ends meet.  

Opponents contend that a ten-year term is too long. That’s nonsense: there’s no credible reason to believe that needs will go down instead of up. It didn’t happen during the 12-year term of the original BSEP, and it won’t this time either. Some school districts even make the supplemental taxes they need permanent. Elections are costly, especially when needs don’t change. If Bill Gates decided to bestow a billion dollars on BUSD, any unneeded taxes could be repealed then, but don’t hold your breath waiting for that. 

The only real criticisms Measure A’s opponents can come up with are of management choices regarding allocation of available funds, and, as we’ve said before, a vote on taxes is not the right way to express your opinion on that topic. To use a well-worn metaphor, it’s throwing out the baby with the bath water.  

One more time, clearly: Vote yes on Measure A because the schools simply can’t run without that extra money. There are better ways to offer them management advice.  

And don’t be put off by the shameless attempt of some candidates (not clear which ones) to grab Measure A’s coattails to help their own campaigns. The two likely suspects continue to be Shirley Issel, whose return address was on the mailer which used this tactic, and Tom Bates, whose countenance was plastered all over it. All the other candidates, including Zelda Bronstein, also running for mayor, support Measure A too.  

Absent major scandal (none has been suggested) it seems likely that current school directors Issel and Nancy Riddle will be re-elected. But anyone who’s really unhappy with the way the schools are now being run has the option of voting against one or both incumbents to express their sentiments.  

Among the new candidates, Karen Hemphill seems to have an excellent grasp of the issues which the School Board will face, and useful relevant experience as a African-American parent of a BUSD student. We endorse her candidacy. 

David Baggins, Ph.D., on the other hand, is trying to make a big deal, with absolutely no credible data to support his allegations, of the malign influence of the presence of a finite number of students who don’t have a fixed Berkeley address in the public schools. And voters who dance to his tune are not worrying about students seeping over the border from Rockridge or Kensington.  

Dr. Baggins uses academic double-talk, social-science-speak, to thinly disguise what looks to this one-time English major like either old-fashioned racism or newfangled classism: “A one-third underperforming cohort generates more negative force than intervention can hope to alter. Only half this cohort is predicted from the census to reside in Berkeley.” In other words, if you don’t think your kids are doing well enough in school, blame those trashy Oakland and Hayward kids in their classes. No footnotes for this charge, however. Uh-huh. We recommend that you don’t vote for Baggins. 

Three seats will be filled in this election. If you think that on average the school directors have been doing a good job, you should vote for the incumbents plus Karen Hemphill. If you think they need to be told to make some changes, you can vote for Hemphill and one of the other candidates. If you don’t like what the Baggins campaign stands for, you should cast your protest vote for Norma Harrison, who’s a breath of fresh air, approaching education from an original perspective consistent with her perennial Peace and Freedom Party support at the state level.  

Let’s just make it perfectly clear one more time. If you care about public schools in Berkeley, and everyone should, here are the Planet’s firm endorsements: Yes on Measure A, Karen Hemphill for one school director slot. You’re on your own for the other two seats.