- Home
- News Grid
- Local News
- Green Hawk
- Business
- Politics
- School Zone
- Nonprofits
- Missing Pets
- Multimedia
- Arts
- Movies
- Outdoors
- Sports
- News Releases
- Columnists
- Blogs
- Opinions
- Classifieds
- Advertise
- Donate
- Partners
Bill Cirone: D is for Very, Very Difficult
The May 19 special election will present some very difficult decisions for voters.
Several of the propositions will be especially tough for educators and those who want to be supportive of public education and children in California. Proposition 1D is perhaps the most difficult of all. I am voting no.
As background, the state budget deal forged by the Legislature attempted to bridge a $40 billion deficit. The number is so staggering most of us cannot comprehend a shortfall so large. Because of the tanking economy, revenues from income taxes, sales taxes, fees and real estate taxes dropped more sharply than anyone could have anticipated. This happened as costs continued to rise.
Ever since Proposition 13 passed in the early 1970s, schools have been financed almost exclusively by the state, rather than from local property taxes whose growth had been restricted. Education has become the largest single state expenditure, and as a result, when California’s economy is in trouble, schools and students take the direct hit. This year has been devastating.
The deal forged by the legislature to pass a budget was considered the least terrible of all the truly awful choices. The agreement tried to protect public education as best it could, based on an intricate web of propositions that would need to be approved by voters in May.
That’s where we stand now. The state budget deal hinges on the approval of the propositions on the ballot, in particular Propositions 1A and 1B. If 1A does not pass, all the others become moot; if the package does not pass, it is likely that even more draconian reductions will be imposed on schools.
But what about 1D? Its title is “Protects Children’s Services Funding. Helps Balance State Budget.”
As is often the case with the titles of state propositions, this one is highly misleading. It will in fact take millions of dollars away from children and families in Santa Barbara County and does little to balance the budget. It takes away the monies generated from the cigarette tax, as approved by voters in 1998 to be used for services for children from birth to age 5, and uses that money instead to help balance other parts of the budget.
Voters at the time supported these important efforts, understanding that prevention and intervention early in a child’s life can head off a long list of challenges that are damaging to society and far more expensive to address in later years.
As president of the First 5 Commission that was formed to use the money wisely in our county, I have seen firsthand the tremendous benefit these services have provided to young children and families, and their clear impact on preventing higher costs to society that would accrue later if such services were not available.
In our county, passage of Proposition 1D will result in a loss of at least $12.6 million over the next five years, along with the additional loss of funds brought into the county through matching state, federal and private grants. The statewide loss will amount to $1.6 billion over five years.
Ironically, the current economic climate has brought a serious increase in needs of children ages 0-5 and their families. First 5 Santa Barbara County funds a range of safety net services that reach thousands of children and families. These would no longer be provided if the proposition passes. We all know an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Similarly, passage of Proposition 1E, for mental health services approved by earlier voter initiative, is cut from the same cloth as 1D. It takes away voter-approved funding from our most vulnerable citizens. I cannot in good conscience support it.
So we find ourselves in a Catch-22. The propositions need to pass in order for schools and children to avoid a much more powerful “hit” in terms of budget reductions. Yet passage of Proposition 1D will eliminate critical services to children that will result in higher remedial costs down the line. Passage of Proposition 1E does the same for those who require mental health services.
Everyone will have to decide which of the bad choices to make. Clearly, it is vital to our public schools for Propositions 1A and 1B to pass, or the resulting cuts will be unimaginable.
I believe that passage of 1D would have such a damaging effect on children and families in our community, and will cause the need for such increased expenditures in the future, that the proportionally small generation of revenue and the further loss of local control are unjustified.
I plan to vote no on Propositions 1D and 1E.
— Bill Cirone is Santa Barbara County’s superintendent of schools.
Comments
Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules as part of Noozhawk's shared online community. Please keep your comments civil and helpful. Don't attack other readers personally, and do not use vulgar, abusive or discriminatory language. Use the "Report Abuse" link if a comment violates these standards or our Terms of Use.
» on 04.23.09 @ 02:33 AM
Bill Cirone should suggest (or probably others should do it for him) a complete restructuring of the County Office of Education that would give a real reason for it to exist and for it to function at a significantly reduced budget. That would be the real difficult choice for Mr. Cirone that would help the truly vulnerable.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 04.23.09 @ 02:34 AM
Thank you Mr. Cirone for once again providing guidance on what the “real” story is behind these propositions. Your insight, as a tireless advocate for children, is valued in our home. Since my family does not directly benefit from programs such as First 5, it would be tempting to vote Yes on 1D & 1E, but, you remind us that a well-prepared preschooler benefits our entire community.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 04.23.09 @ 03:33 AM
Thank you for the insight, I don’t think people realize the full perspective of each prop…
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 04.23.09 @ 03:33 AM
as long as your pot of money is untouched, you really don’t care what happens to those impacted by the larger state budget that will not exist when these carefully negotiated propositions fail next month—-then what? So First Five will have their little boutique projects protected—-while the bulk of safety net programs, for kids, mentally ill, homeless, etc are dismantled because of the lack of compromise?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 04.23.09 @ 05:52 AM
I am so irritated with this whole thing. Prop 13 was never a good thing for California. It needs to be removed, completely and utterly. At what point do we truly decide that education of future generations is the most important thing for our society.
China is going to kick our butts in the not too far off future if we don’t figure this out pretty quick.
I’m also disillusioned by our fearful leaders. THEY have all the information to make the decisions needed here, but they are too cowardly to make them, so they pawn it off on the voters, most of which have absolutely NO CLUE what each bill will truly do when finally put into play. Truly, how many people in the voting population of this not-so-great state really have the time, the resources and the in-depth information to even begin to qualify to make these decisions?
I say we create a proposition that allows us to fire government officials and vote in their replacements IMMEDIATELY if this should ever happen again in the future.
Education has to come first, PERIOD. Prop 13 must end, today.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 04.23.09 @ 07:12 AM
I am a Health Care Professional. A Registered Nurse, Public Health Nurse, a Credentialed School Nurse, and a former member of the Santa Barbara County Mental Health Advisory Board. I am now retired and definately plan to vote no on Propositions 1-D and 1-E in support of our children and their families. I hope that others will join me.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 04.23.09 @ 11:46 AM
Thank you so much, Superintendent Cirone, for clarifying a most important issue. I will also be voting no.
Our children and grandchildren need to have their current and future education and health be protected. I know well how important the First Five program is in this state. My daughter is a full-time consultant for the First Five program in Moorpark and Simi. She is also a college instructor teaching teachers who now work with or will be working with children from 0-5 years old.
Not only am I continually aware of the needs of these children today, but also worked previously in elementary education as a school counselor in a one year special program in 1975-76. It was a highly successful program identifying learning disabilities and emotional problems for K-6 children. We also helped those who were having difficulties with reading, spelling and math due to dyslexia, language difficulties and problems at home.
It was an effective program in San Bernardino County, but was not funded to continue after the first year. I believe that the First Five program deals with many of the same issues through interaction and observation at an earlier age, which are good preventive measures and quite valuable for the success of the children and their families.
What I find most appalling at this point, in addition to the State wanting to remove the funding for such a successful program, is that AARP sent out a flyer to arrive with the ballot on the D measures. In that flyer AARP recommends voting yes on all six issues 1A-1F. That flyer is misleading in the characterization of the propositions.
Sadly, the State chose not to send out the State Voter Information Guide prior to or simultaneously with the Ballot. Voters are told it will be sent separately or to go to: http://www.sos.ca.gov to read it online.
Thank you again, Superintendent Cirone. Please send your message loud and clear to everyone who will be voting on these propositions so they will be correctly informed. I will be doing the same.
Respectfully,
Dale Louise Odom
Solvang
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 04.23.09 @ 12:11 PM
No on 1A 1B 1C 1D. Yes on 1E.
Prop 1A is touted by its proponents as the way to bring stability to the state budget process. However, it would actually make it more difficult for future governors and legislatures to enact budgets that meet California’s needs and address state priorities. It would amend the state Constitution to dictate restrictions on the use of funds put into the reserve and limit how “unanticipated” revenues can be used in good years. It could lock in a reduced level of public services by not taking proper account of the state’s changing demographics and actual growth in costs.
Prop.1E keeps the bureaucrats from raising their salaries when they don’t pass a budget on time. Naturally Cirone will be against this. His County Office of Education has been siphoning money from classrooms for decades. His 200k+ salary could be spent putting four teacher into classrooms who actually help kids learn.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 04.23.09 @ 12:52 PM
The gravy train is over—Finally—
No on all Prop’s—Cut wages staff and perks in Government.
Just like you and I.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 04.25.09 @ 11:52 AM
Prop 1D does NOT ask you to pay ANY new taxes.
First 5’s have over $2 BILLION in reserve they can use over the next 5 years while they help the rest of California. It’s a total misstatement to say that those monies are already committed to certain programs because with one vote their commissions can re-direct those reserves to whatever they choose to. So, who’s to be trusted?
Well, IMO, it’s not First 5. They are run by Commissioners who vote for budgets that direct cash to their OWN departments and organizations. There are now wild exaggerations about how 1D could affect people: just not so – reserves will be used. Perhaps such claims are why Prop 1D puts an auditor on the Commission to oversee their actions.
If that does not bother you then this should: the First 5 lobbyist has received over $1 MILLION of First 5 funds & about $200K of that went straight to her pension plan - IRS Form 990s say so! Prop 1D stops her from taking any new First 5 funds!
Vote YES on 1D!
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 04.25.09 @ 11:53 AM
Here’s something to chew on about First 5 (Prop 1D):
Although some expenditure for evaluating programs is required by the First 5 statute, over the last 7 or so years, audited financial statements reveal that First 5 commissions have spent approximately $100 MILLION on evaluation. How can it cost that much?
Well, First 5 evaluation payments go mainly to private consulting firms like Harder and Company, not to children 0 to 5!
Based on audited financial statements and adding a standard 3% for inflation, an analysis shows that in 10 years, they are on course to spend over $300 MILLION on evaluation.
In 15 years, it will top $500 MILLION. In 25 years: $1 BILLION dollars+.
First 5 Commissioners are misspending funds: Proposition 10 was not meant to make the evaluators RICH!
Let’s put some of the money back towards helping kids and get ourselves out of this budget mess – VOTE YES on 1D!
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 04.26.09 @ 04:38 AM
It is against the law for officials to vote on budgets that directly benefit them, which is why some people wonder why First 5 Commissioners have been doing so.
IMO, in part they get away with it cuz there is no strong oversight by county Board of Sups and Grand Juries. In part, IMO, it has been because Prop 10 was vague.
Prop 1D fixes this by adding the county auditor to the Commission.
HOW BAD IS IT? Well, Riverside First 5 recently tossed out its board & restructured their First 5 into a county dept because of self dealing – see their newspaper (http://www.pe.com).
According to FY 07/08 audited financial statements sent to the CA Auditor-Controllers, Riverside’s Commissioners received 77% of ALL funds directed to programs.
To give Riverside credit, at least they – unlike other First 5’s – COMPLIED with the rules to list “Related Party Transactions”.
When will other First 5’s comply? Having the county auditor on board will make it so!
Vote YES on 1D!
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 04.27.09 @ 06:18 PM
Election Thoughts, Prop. 1F is about not raising salaries if the budget is in deficit (not if it’s not passed on time).
Prop. 1E cuts programs for the mentally ill - programs that are both more humane and a lot cheaper for taxpayers than the alternative: emergency rooms, homelessness, jail. So please vote NO on 1E.
» Election Thoughts wrote on 04.23.09 @ 04:11 PM
No on 1A 1B 1C 1D. Yes on 1E…...
Prop.1E keeps the bureaucrats from raising their salaries when they don’t pass a budget on time….....
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
More Local News »
Bill Cirone: Santa Barbara County School Board Issues Statement of Conscience
Members pointedly remind California policymakers of their moral obligation to take action in support of the state's public education system
Bill Cirone: 2012 Vision for Children of Santa Barbara County
A joint and focused effort today can make a real difference in everyone's future
Bill Cirone: Violent Games, Toys Send Wrong Message
When shopping for the holidays, purchase gifts for children that help foster a fun and positive experience
Bill Cirone: Let’s Stop Saying ‘That Used to Be Us’ and Start Taking Action
We need to support and protect what's great about our country, including education
Bill Cirone: Americans Again Lead Field of Nobel Laureates
We should all take pride in their accomplishments, and applaud the teachers who helped guide them
Weather: Fair 50.0º
Search Noozhawk »
