Search The Tattler

Tuesday, February 4, 2020

Election Season Deceptive Flyer From School District

School District Falsely Claims Low Funding,
 Admin Salaries

The deceptive mailer was signed by the
Superintendent of the Schools
In anticipation of the March 3rd election and the Measure K school parcel tax proposal, the Emery Unified School District late last week released a four page public mailer deceptively claiming Emery to be “One of the lowest funded districts in California” despite being funded 4% above average of State funding and over nine times the average district in local funding according to the California Department of Education.  Additionally, Emery is asserting that “No [Measure K] money can be spent on administrators' salaries” but this is the same language that was used for the last Emery parcel tax (also called Measure K, in 2014) and the District subsequently increased the number of administrators while keeping teachers’ salaries low.  Spending on administrative salaries increased by 45% while teachers' salaries went up 8% three years after passage of the parcel tax.
The 2014 parcel tax language, like this year's, claimed to bolster teacher salaries while not increasing administration costs.

The year before the existing parcel tax (2013-14), Emery spent $3,374,743 on teachers’ salaries.  In 2017-18, the most recent year reported on Ed-Data.org, the district spent $3,631,650, an increase of $256,907.  Administrative salaries went from $622,780 to $903,052 an increase of $280,272.  That means administrative salaries increased by $23,365 more than fifty teachers’ salaries increased over the same period of time.
Past and present Emery parcel tax claims of 'no administration salary increases' appears to be a deceptive shell game that discounts the fungible quality of money, an argument of sophistry.

Usually, this kind of exaggerated rhetoric if not outright falsehoods can be found in election campaign literature but for a government agency to partake of it is untoward.  Noteworthy is the fact that the flyer contains no sources or accreditation for any of the information it contains.

Emery is highest in the East Bay in Per Pupil Spending
Emery spends $18,472 per student versus
California statewide all districts average of $12,714

Source: CA Dept of Ed
Government agencies including Emery Unified, are expressly not allowed to campaign for parcel taxes they place on the ballot as Emery has with the current iteration of Measure K.  They have to rely on citizen led election committees registered with the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) to do such campaigning.  The Registrar of Voters provides that government agencies, including school districts, can only produce factual, objective information disseminated to voters, not campaign material. 
Emery Unified is claiming this flyer they produced and mailed to each voter in town is such a mailer; factual and objective.  As such, the District has charged Emeryville taxpayers for the cost to produce and mail the flyer.   If this mailer were produced as part of a campaign, the costs associated with it would have to be paid by private donations. 

The president of the School Board and the Superintendent of the Schools were invited to clarify or explain their statements in the mailer but they declined to.  The Tattler will report again on this story before the election and it is hoped the District will engage with the citizens on how they got this erroneous information of Measure K low Emery funding and no admin costs they sent out to voters last week.



Administration salaries went up disproportionally over teacher salaries after passage of the last
Measure K parcel tax despite claims to the contrary.

Source: Ca Dept of Ed


9 comments:

  1. I want to hear what the superintendent says about this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We too want to hear what the Superintendent says. And we're going to give her plenty of time to explain. We have reached out to her and you can be assured we will report back her response. The people have a right to know the reasons for the major discrepancies between what the California Department of Education says and what the Emery Unified School District says...especially as it pertains to taxpayer funds and an election. Watch this space.

      Delete
  2. measure K, a parcel tax renewal in the 2014 election was extended for 20 years through 2037. if this is the case, why is there another measure K on the ballot for the march, 2020 election?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have so much to say about this parcel tax and about how much I disagree with Brian on this! He and I have had many discussions, but for the rest of you not lucky enough for that, I would like to start by providing you with the most recent audit.
    There is always full transparency with parcel taxes. Please see this report to see exactly how the money is being spent. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3qbPM9XrbwWallNaVdqaVlBZ0x2dy1CRGFsZmN3Z1J5T0ww/view

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for responding Susan and so everyone knows, this is from Susan Donaldson, Emery School Board Vice President.
      I have challenged the Superintendent of the Schools, who signed the mailer, to answer about her claims the story highlights. She waited almost a week and then sent an email doubling down on her insistence that the district is among the lowest funded in the state (without providing evidence) and that administration salaries have not gone up (again without providing evidence). As the story shows, Emery is above average in funding from the State and way above average in local funding. I cite evidence from the CA Dept of Ed. Same with admin salaries. The Superintendent provided the audit of the previous parcel tax link in her email response to me but I was declined permission to access it. So I say thanks, Susan for letting me read it now.
      So I read the link and what does it say? It contains a letter from the chair of the previous (2014) Measure K parcel tax committee. When this letter was presented to the Board, no one from the committee was there to discuss it. The Board accepted the letter just as the committee accepted the district's accounting. If you read the letter, it thanks the district for "hiring dedicated administrators". It does not thank the district for teachers' salaries. Pretty understandable why it didn’t.

      So there you have it, the chair of the committee overseeing the parcel tax admitting what the Dept of Ed says; that Emery administration salaries have gone up after passage of the 2014 Measure K parcel tax.

      The Superintendent of the Schools is refusing to make herself available to answer our questions about the new Measure K but I hereby invite you Susan to feel free to write a letter to the Tattler responding to the story. The people have a right to know how their tax money will be spent and you seem to be the only one at the district interested in accountability. Please feel free to send a letter. We will post it unedited.
      Thanks again for sending this comment.

      Delete
    2. The link to the report in Susan Donaldson's February 9 post above doesn't seem to give access without permission. I requested permission a day ago, but so far nothing. The case for measure K is not looking strong.

      Delete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. And most importantly, YES, we spend more per pupil than our neighbors. It’s not apples to apples. Our students need and deserve more. 70% of our students get free or reduced lunch. It is not an equal playing field. 88% of our students are children of color. It is not an equal playing field. That's the difference between equality and equity - all districts should not spend EQUAL amounts on their students, because students all have different needs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting. Why are the demographics at Emery like this?

      Delete