School district officials want to limit turnout for tax vote
The Hollister School District has a fiscal crisis on its hands,
so its leaders are pursuing all means necessary to raise funds and
cut expenses, to find stability.
In taking a ballot question to the polls for a new $96 parcel
tax in the district, officials are testing the electorate on
feelings toward paying up more hard-earned money for the next four
years.
School district officials want to limit turnout for tax vote
The Hollister School District has a fiscal crisis on its hands, so its leaders are pursuing all means necessary to raise funds and cut expenses, to find stability.
In taking a ballot question to the polls for a new $96 parcel tax in the district, officials are testing the electorate on feelings toward paying up more hard-earned money for the next four years.
It would raise $1.2 million annually – minus a total over the four years of $125,000 in consulting fees and another $75,000 or so on one-time election costs – and go toward such programs as music, sports and libraries.
It is logical to ask for a tax increase, especially considering the supreme importance of education and the troubles experienced locally in the classrooms.
But the manner in which district officials have gone about creating the ballot question and doing everything in their power to limit turnout on June 7 leaves a lot to be desired and reflects an anti-democratic tone in an explicitly democratic process.
The hiring late last year of a strictly incentive-based consultant – the incentive for Dale Scott & Co. is to get the ballot measure passed – opened the door for the ploys we have seen in recent months.
Just about every decision the district has made on the parcel tax – such as the election’s timing, the precise wording in the question, the fact that seniors can exempt themselves from paying it in spite of income level, the parcel tax dollar amount, and its standing as a flat tax – were determined through polling done in January by Dale Scott & Co.
And every indication shows that district officials want to limit the turnout, as was encouraged in the consultant’s presentation to them after the surveying had been done, when Dale Scott laid out which timeline for an election – you guessed it: June – would likely draw the least number of voters.
Most obvious is the use of the senior tax exemption. Why in the world does this law exist to begin with? Everyone who can afford it traditionally funds public education.
Those schools are about a lot more than particular benefits to the students enrolled and their families. They are about investing in the community’s future. They are about investing in public health and safety. Everyone is in this together, right?
So why would district officials want to exempt seniors, or in this case make it seem like they are doing them a favor? Because they are the least likely segment to support it, and the most likely to vote.
Districts such as Hollister that are seeking additional tax funds in 2011 face a daunting task when asking voters for more of their hard-earned money.
The public’s general mood throughout the nation is against tax increases, and in opposition to spending more money – whether or not there are definitive benefits to reap. It is why district officials have treated the parcel tax with such operational sensitivity. They fear what has become the likely outcome: failure.
Getting the necessary two-thirds approval at the polls is meant to represent the electorate’s collective will – not the lobbying efforts of a consultant, lobbying efforts that are sanctioned by the elected trustees who represent the same citizens whose heartstrings are being yanked.
Public education funding is vital, so this is not about the merit involved in approving or disproving a $96 parcel tax.
This is about every voter having a right to make his or her own decisions, and we encourage all residents to educate themselves on the parcel tax and make an informed choice on or before June 7.
