We'd love to know how this blurb below from a school newsletter written by a long time district leader is not 'engaging in political activities'. Recuiting volunteers for a politicial action committee from a leader who has direct influence of a parent's child. Shameless. The arrogance in this district is off the charts.
Too bad the district and other district advocacy groups do not put as much effort and resources into the improving the curriculum and achievement, but of course that is not what they want. The want to protect their fiefdoms above all else and coast on the backs of our demographics.
Who is this Learn Yes group anyway? When you click on the link from the superintendent's web page the only options are donate, volunteer, vote or join our list. Why on Earth would I do any of those things when there is no information about who this group is, what they were created for and what they plan to do with the donations they receive. Do they really think that we are that naive? Might as well be Debbie standing at the parent pick-up line with her purse open. FORGET ABOUT IT! she's already had too much of my money to do with as she pleases. I'd rather have some responsible oversight before I donate another penny to CCUSD.
ReplyDeleteSo hard to comment on your article since it really gives no specifics other than a quote. Where did you find it, since I cannot find it? Would have to look at where it appears and who posted it to determine whether any lines were crossed?
ReplyDeleteEven if they were crossed, many people (myself and some lawyers I have spoken with) question whether the Arizona law would withstand a test on constitutional grounds. I believe that there are more than a few people both within and outside of the education community in Arizona who would like to see the law go up the courts and be tested. Sometimes, on principle, such actions must be taken or laws that should not be on the books remain. I would be astonished if this one stays on the books once anyone is gutsy enough to test it. That may be what is going on. Hard to say with such an incomplete article without a citation included.
As to 4:40PM, of course the only link would not give details for the PAC because that would be lobbying for the district.
FROM THE LEARN YES WEBSITE...REALLY IT COULDN'T BE MORE VAGUE...
ReplyDeleteThanks for visiting LearnYes.org!
LearnYes will be concentrating on fundraising and community outreach in preparation for an election to support district needs in November 2011.
Please contribute to the campaign to preserve property values and quality schools in our community.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your support of our students and teachers in the Cave Creek Unified School District.
Contact: support@learnyes.org
Paid for by LearnYES.org supporting Cave Creek USD
It says Lone Mountain right on it. Agreed that they shouldn't be recruiting parents for a PAC in a weekly newsletter.
ReplyDeleteWhen I go to the Lone Mountain website and look at the Eagle Eye, I do not see it. That is why I am questioning the citation.
ReplyDeleteThe statement is made right in the middle of page 2 of the newsletter dated August 18.
ReplyDeleteOkay, I found it. I really don't know if it crosses any lines or not since they are not actually advocating for any particular ballot issue right now. I know that there was some window of opportunity when an issue was not on the ballot, where there was a little more freedom.
ReplyDeleteThe district has pretty open communications with the election board. The law was not as onerous as you, or SN read it to be. There was a bit of latitude. I'd be surprised if this went out without being vetted.
Look, you may not like it, but if it is permitted and if the district did not do everything that is allowed to them to utilize resources to get parents on board who can then help to pass legislation later, wouldn't they be derelict of their duty?
I too believe the law should be changed. Special interest groups are allowed to come into the state, lobby for a propostion they want on the ballot, spend millions on the promotion of that...but a school district, in need of overrides which state school funding legislation specifically allows is not allowed to do anything to "promote" the ballot measure. Want to know the NUMBER ONE complaint I always heard from parents at election time. "Why didn't the district provide more information on what this was for?" Want to know why? Every time CCUSD tries to do that -- or tries to do a lot of things that are done regularly in other districts, the local paper takes them to court saying it is a violation of the law. So they cease and desist. Often the district is not found to be wrong, but rather than spend valuable dollars fighting the fight or risk money, they back down. Parents are frustrated ... not finding the information they want or need in order to make a qualified decision. As for the Learn YES, it's the PAC that was put together to support the K-3 Override and is now supporting the bond scheduled for ballot in 2011. PACS are allowed to say a lot more, but usually the district and everyone are so careful about every possible connection being evaluated so they are not "accused" of breaking election law. Since the bond is not "officially" on the ballot yet, I believe that, technically, this cross communication is all legal. It is once the board officially approves a ballot measure that the district has to stop "promoting" it which some in this community see as "say anything positive about it at all."
ReplyDeleteWhen I say state statue promotes overrides what I mean is that our state school funding legislation is written so that the state collects taxes and then distributes those proceeds "equally" to all schools in thes state. However, schools in lower income districts and schools with larger free and reduced lunch populations are able to qualify for greater weighting in those numbers AND qualify for a lot of additional Federal aide. What about districts like Cave Creek that do not have a lot of those populations? That is where the language is written into the legislation that states that in that case, it is expected that the community will support its local schools and that schools could then campaign for voter-approved overrides to their budget. Unfortunately, this community does not support the schools. Sometimes this lack of support is deserved, other times it is purely based on a "I don't want to pay any taxes" mentality. Right now, with the direction CCUSD is heading, I will find it hard to support the upcoming bond election. However...I do believe in the override process.
Seemes simple. Why should taxpayer money be spent to lobby that same taxpayer to spend more money? Use the money the taxpayers spend to educate the students. Schools should be allowed to make their case as to the need and nothing stops them from doing that. Never seen CCUSD come close to making its case.
ReplyDeleteThe law can be changed to allow free speech for the school districts (i.e. which would be constitutional), while protecting taxpayer money. For example, it would not be taking away much from the taxpayers to allow the school personnel to be allowed to tell the parents about the bills and how they should vote either in person, or through their website. Also, if a PAC were to provide teachers with bumper stickers, signs, etc. it doesn't cost the taxpayers either.
ReplyDeleteI don't have a problem from not allowing the district to print signs and propaganda materials. I do have a problem in that the law seems to be an excuse for non-public education friendly entities to be able to constantly berate the school to prevent school personnel from speaking freely on the subject.