Francina also falls farther behind in race for council seat, official results expected Dec. 2
By Nao Braverman
With updated election results, the Ojai Unified School District’s parcel tax measure appeared even less likely to pass Tuesday than it did Thursday, Nov. 7.
Measure P, which requires a two-thirds majority vote to be enacted, was just 92 votes short of passing the evening of Thursday, Nov. 7. Yesterday morning the votes were 110 votes short of passing, with 5,635 ballots, 65.39 percent in favor of the measure, of the 8,617 ballots cast. There were still roughly 1,890 ballots remaining to be counted within the Ojai Unified School District as of Tuesday morning. If the trend remains consistent, the votes will fall just short of the number required to pass the parcel tax, which would have enacted a $89 per parcel tax for seven years to raise operating money for the school district.
Countywide there were 54,939 ballots left to be counted Tuesday, according to assistant registrar of voters Tracy Saucedo.
Betsy Clapp was still in the lead of the Ojai City Council race Tuesday, with 1,395 votes, 27.4 percent of the ballots counted.
The gap between votes cast for returning Mayor Sue Horgan and former Mayor Suza Francina was widened, giving Horgan a more solid place ahead of Francina with 1,175 votes, 23.08 percent of of the ballots counted.
Francina had received 1,051 votes, 20.64 percent of ballots counted as of Tuesday. Incumbent Councilwoman Rae Hanstad remained in fourth place with 871 votes, 17.11 percent of ballots cast, and Mike Lenehan trailed behind with 579 votes, 11.37 percent of the ballots counted. But no results are yet official, according to Phil Schmit Ventura County clerk and recorder.
Schmit said that the Elections Division was going to take the full 28 days after the elections to count ballots and certify results. Official results will be confirmed Tuesday, Dec. 2, he said.
The elections web site is expected to be updated this afternoon.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
yes finally there is justice in the world. This tax is BS and was not going to help the schools.
It was good luck that Measure P failed.
1. It was unconstitutional. 2. OUSD did not have a clear message as to what the funds were going to be used for. 3. Put the budget online and all the school board meetings and staff reports. It is called transparency in government. 4. Few trust the school board or the district to give the complete story. 5. Reform - stop using declining enrollment as the cause of all problems. It has been going on for almost 10 years. 5. Fix the problem and then consider a cogent argument for a parcel tax and you may get the support of the electorate.
The primary problem with OUSD is lack of adequate funds.
Have you ever actually gone to a board meeting? Mountains of paperwork and banking details are all over that back table.
You should get yourself put on the agenda so you can tell the board how to 'fix the problem.' They have been asking for real suggestions since last year.
BTW: Declining enrollment has not been used by the district 'as the cause of all the problems' at all, but yet another component they need to factor in.
More than 65% voted in favor of Measure P. That sounds like 'the support of the electorate' to me. Too bad it wasn't enough to win. It is bad news for OUSD schools.
Nov. 14th 1:55 PM Thank you.
This is the classic argument, give us more money. We have heard this at school board meeting for the last 10 years and declining enrollment is always cited as the cause of the funding shortage. We need reform and the board members need to step up to the plate and make the tough decisions. In the past the district and the board have made decisions for political reasons that have placated the adults instead of representing the children. If the school board can not or will not find a successful solution, then bring in an Educational Czar that has the power to fire anyone and cut programs that do not directly benefit the students.
Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is madness.
More than 65% voted in favor of Measure P. That sounds like 'the support of the electorate' to me.
November 14, 2008 1:55 PM
It is the support of people that won't have to pay for it! Subtract out the renters, those over 65 exempted (which is 25% of Ojai Valley pop.), and then see if you get a majority.
This measure was put on the ballot before the governor restored full Prop 98 funding (43% of CA revenues, mandated), and was an admitted stop-gap that wouldn't solve any problem. It is great that it failed, thank goodness for the 2/3 super-majority required for new taxes.
A great way to take care of the bills is to close one of the schools. Declining enrolment should have been the first reason why we don't need the extra school. Sorry teachers if you are good enough you should not have trouble finding employment elsewear.
There aren't jobs ELSEWHERE (notice the correct spelling), meaning other districts, because they too are facing major cuts due to lack of funding by the state of California. We are too busy fully funding our ever-growing prison population at a rate of $43,000 per inmate a year, but cannot fully fund our children's education ($4,500 per year). Do you see the disparity? Something is wrong with our state, not our local schools. Our priorities are far off balance and until they are corrected, the biggest losers in all of this are our children!
Good point about the prisons sad thing is they are housing 60%illegals. 2 billion of our tax dollars at work supporting them
Yes, let us blame the "illegals" for everything. Get a clue, why do they come to the U.S., for jobs, and who hires them we do. So this has nothing to do with why the OUSD can not successfully navigate the changing economic environment.
There aren't jobs ELSEWHERE
The world is changing. Being a public school teacher is not a guarantee of a job for life.
We are too busy fully funding our ever-growing prison population at a rate of $43,000 per inmate a year, but cannot fully fund our children's education ($4,500 per year). Do you see the disparity? Something is wrong with our state, not our local schools. Our priorities are far off balance and until they are corrected, the biggest losers in all of this are our children!
November 15, 2008 2:25 PM
Prison cost per inmate is $31,200 ($5,300,000,000/170,000) NOT $43,000. OUSD student cost is $8,100 ($25,000,000/3,100). Whether you can't, or won't, use correct numbers to make your point, it makes you, public school teachers, and your argument, all look incorrect. I hope these are not the critical thinking and math skills that are being passed along to OUSD students, but nothing would surprise me.
Inmate housing cost doubles
Rise over 10 years to $43,287 a year attributed to labor, health care costs
By ANDY FURILLO
SACRAMENTO BEE
Published: Friday, February 2, 2007 at 3:00 a.m.
Last Modified: Thursday, February 1, 2007 at 9:00 p.m. SACRAMENTO - The average annual cost of housing an inmate in the California prison system has more than doubled over the past decade to $43,287 a year, according to figures by the Legislative Analyst's Office.
I stand corrected on the OUSD numbers, but not on the inmate numbers. Regardless though, shouldn't the point be that our children are worth investing in?? Compare where CA ranks in per pupil spending to the rest of the country. We aren't doing very well. No one is asking for any guarantees, just enough critical analysis to understand that when we don't fund education, both in Ojai and statewide, we have all lose!
I think someone got off on the wrong blog. This blog is about the failure of Measure P and why the OUSD continues to float parcel tax measures, and why they are defeat at the ballot box. Please stay on point. Thank you.
Anonymous said...
Inmate housing cost doubles
Rise over 10 years to $43,287 a year attributed to labor, health care costs
By ANDY FURILLO
SACRAMENTO BEE
Published: Friday, February 2, 2007 at 3:00 a.m.
This February 2007 article also uses the $34,000 figure. The figure you quote is for institutions only and excludes local assistance and lease reiumbursements. But you can see it all for yourself. Here is the link to the CA budget. http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/StateAgencyBudgets/5210/5225/department.html The Corrections and Rehab for Adult Inmate and Parolee is 5225. Line item 25 is the Adult Corrections and Rehabilitation Operations budget of $5,502,443 (in thousands).
I stand corrected on the OUSD numbers, but not on the inmate numbers. Regardless though, shouldn't the point be that our children are worth investing in?? Compare where CA ranks in per pupil spending to the rest of the country. We aren't doing very well. No one is asking for any guarantees, just enough critical analysis to understand that when we don't fund education, both in Ojai and statewide, we have all lose!
Yes, our children are worth investing in, and it is a state law now thanks to Prop. 98 that 43% of the state budget is spent on public education. This budget keeps growing, even in years when the revenues were up 12%, 14% from all the capital gains.
In contrast, the Dept. of Corrections budget at $11.5 billion is only 8% of the $144bil CA budget. These 170,000 people in prison are not unlucky, or nice people who got caught smoking a joint. They are bad people who will take what you have and hurt you and those you love, just as long as they think they can get away with it. When they are out and doing crime, they cause far more than $43,000 year in the damage, theft, injury, and cost in emergency services. And that is only the dollar cost, please consider the fear, anger, and loss that their victims will feel for the rest of their lives.
There is not a correlation between building more prisons, and putting more people in them; they are built, because CA's population is growing in general and the criminal population in particular.
In closing, this $89/parcel tax idea was a sneaky underhanded way to get more money for OUSD. Is there any problem OUSD can solve that doesn't cost more money? At some point, the taxpayer has to be considered in this equation. Confiscating money constantly, without a long-term solution offered, or an alternative proposed, does not inspire confidence.
Can the OUSD be saved? You bet go to Nov. 2008 issue of The Atlantic magazine. The article on page 78.
"The Lighting Rod" by Clay Risen. This should be mandatory reading for all the school board members. The template for success is out there. If the OUSD and the school board members would do some homework then maybe we could solve the problem.
Post a Comment