|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Ballots for the special election on May 7 hit San Ramon Valley mailboxes earlier this month. At issue are two parcel tax measures that would provide funding for San Ramon Valley Unified School District.
Measure E is a $144-per-parcel annual tax that would generate approximately $6.8 million annually.
Although called a renewal of a parcel tax, there is one important wording change in the current Measure E text. In the previous three iterations, there was a reference to an “annual audit.” This version says “annual adjustment,” meaning it will increase over the nine-year period it is being proposed for.
There might be a need for this because what the $144-per-parcel paid for 20 years ago is vastly different. But the increase was disguised by changing one word and the annual increase was not specifically communicated to voters, which I consider a lie of omission.
Since it will no longer be $144-per-parcel eight of the nine years it will be in effect, calling it a renewal is disingenuous.
Measure F would establish a new $98 parcel tax annually, estimated to generate roughly $4.6 million annually for nine years. This is on the ballot because one-time state and federal funding provided to districts recovering from the pandemic shutdowns is coming to an end.
But I’m not supporting these parcel taxes because of deceptive practices like the wording of Measure E and the systemic, consistent lack of transparency from SRVUSD.
As a district resident and parent, SRVUSD has lost my trust and I am far from alone.
Spending $1.4 million for a special election raises eyebrows when asking for money. And special elections are, for lack of a better term, sneaky.
Assistant Superintendent of Business Operations Stella Kemp said special elections, which were also held for parcel taxes in 2004, 2009 and 2015, are done “because we don’t want the water to be muddied by the other local politics or national or state initiatives that are on the ballot at that time.”
She said it’s also because there is time before the tax expires for another attempt if the measure doesn’t pass.
Perhaps, but not only is a special election more expensive than putting measures on a primary or general election ballot, special elections historically have low voter turnout. In other words, special elections are a way to surreptitiously slip in a tax measure when most people aren’t thinking about voting while rallying the supporters to vote in favor.
I am also not convinced funds are being spent wisely.
During the Jan. 30 meeting, Board Vice President Shelly Clark said, “I can assure you that not one dime of our funding is wasted or that we don’t need it.”
“Not one dime” is wasted is debatable.
Many consider spending $1.8 million to hire “equity liaisons” wasting money. The “need” was prompted by a scandal in which innocent children, members of the California High School cheer squad, were condemned by Superintendent John Malloy, his cabinet and the board as racists, even though the facts proved otherwise.
According to Malloy, these facts were known to him and the others, but he still jeopardized the girls’ physical and emotional well-being by apologizing for them instead of making the truth known.
(Kudos to the district, though, for changing the duties of the liaisons. These individuals now “support instruction by helping review student performance, coach teachers and develop programs for students who are struggling” in the elementary schools, according to Kemp.)
Honest communication and transparency are crucial to building trust.
However, the redefining of the district’s communication policy to allow only “media coverage that supports the District’s reputation and image” shortly after Malloy arrived and the staff and board’s avoidance of putting anything in writing have eroded transparency.
Couple lack of transparency with how the accusation of racism against the Cal High cheer squad was affirmed even though it was untrue, and accusations of sexual abuse by a teacher proved true but were ignored, and this district has lost the trust of many community members.
Unfortunately, Measures E and F reflect the district’s untrustworthy nature and voters should reject them.
Editor’s note: Gina Channell Wilcox has been the president and publisher of Embarcadero Media Foundation’s East Bay Division since 2006. Her “Around the Valley” column is a recurring feature in the Pleasanton Weekly, Livermore Vine and DanvilleSanRamon.com.
‘I don’t think anyone’s safe’: Community on edge after rash of burglaries in PleasantonSeptember 10, 2026 10:57 pm
San Ramon council challenger Kathrani competing in third election in a rowSeptember 10, 2026 11:30 pm
The San Ramon Valley Unified School District (SRVUSD) has a long tradition of providing high quality education and is one of the highest-performing school districts in the nation. That being said, SRVUSD continues to be one of the lowest funded districts in California and is facing declining enrollment, making it even more vital that we pass Measure E and Measure F to continue to provide the quality education that our students deserve. Without these funds, cuts will need to be made at the district level.
Our local schools are currently supported by $6.8 million annually from an existing voter-approved local parcel tax measure ($144) that is set to expire in 2025.
This funding is currently being used to fund 56 teaching positions throughout the district, divided between elementary, middle and high school. To maintain this funding source, SRVUSD must renew this parcel tax, Measure E, at $144 per parcel per year, with a senior citizen exemption.
In addition, $6 million that the district received in one-time State funding will be exhausted by 2025. The district has voted to add Measure F, an additional $98, to preserve the systems of support that have been built with this funding. Measure F will:
a) Support reading and literacy development for the youngest learners
b) Provide support for struggling students to succeed academically
c) Address student mental health needs
d) Attract and retain qualified teachers to support students with special needs
SRVUSD’s parcel tax amount is below comparison Districts:
Orinda Union School District $804.
Lafayette School District $958 (annual adjustment)
Moraga School District $526 (annual adjustment)
Los Gatos Union School District $335 (2% annual adjustment)
Palo Alto Unified School District $836 (annual adjustment)
Larkspur Corte Madera School District $910 (annual adjustment)
Mill Valley School District (K-8) $1,250 (5% annual adjustment)
Please mail in your YES on E and F ballot before May 7, 2024 to (1) renew the expiring measure ($144/year) and (2) replace
the expiring State funding with an additional $98/year measure. Your Yes vote is needed to win each measure.
While SRVUSD paid for these measures to be placed on the ballot, SRVUSD is strictly prohibited from paying for the campaign with public funds. The campaign is a grassroots effort of local volunteers and community leaders who have come together to spearhead this effort.
Measure E and Measure F are endorsed by community leaders, elected officials, school principals, local PTAs, SRVEF, just to name a few. A full list is available at yesonmeasuresef.com
Readers wishing to see the comprehensive case AGAINST Measures E and F can visit https://www.betterschoolsnotmoretaxes.com .
Meanwhile, even the East Bay Times opposes these measures, noting that the special election [at large extra cost] “will depress turnout while deceitful ballot language hides true impact.” See
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2024/04/24/editorial-voters-should-reject-san-ramon-valley-school-tax-measures .
Special thanks, meanwhile, to Gina Channell Wilcox for her own honest assessment of Measures E and F. Noting SRVUSD’s sneaky Measure E inflation escalator, she observes that “Since it will no longer be $144-per-parcel eight of the nine years it will be in effect, calling it a renewal is disingenuous.”
Lisa Gross, a PTA area president, is an endorser of Measures E and F. The website pushing those measures itself says that “Measure E is not a new tax,” and Ms. Gross pretends herself that it’s a simple renewal. The official tax-promoter argument favoring Measure E says the same thing.
But slithering in an annual inflation increment DOES make it a NEW TAX.
SRVUSD’s individual-school PTAs and foundations, along with the related umbrella District organizations — all of them tax-exempt, so far as I know — are providing a majority of the reported funding for the tax-promoter campaign. See https://www.betterschoolsnotmoretaxes.com/campaign for details.
Most of the amounts reported by those tax-exempt entities are $999. At that level, the individual PTAs and school foundations remain just under the $1,000 threshold which requires separate formation as FPPC campaign committees and having to show the amounts within 24 hours of supplying them.
“SRVUSD is strictly prohibited from paying for the campaign with public funds”? If only that were a fully honest claim. In fact, SRVUSD taxpayers funded an expensive consultant and at least two glossy promotional mailers to registered voters (cost approximately $200,000 altogether) before the parcel tax measures were officially adopted as E and F on January 30.
Then the official campaign kicked in, apparently advised by the same consultant, and funded extensively by the tax-exempt PTAs (i.e., still effectively subsidized by taxpayers).
Ms. Gross tries to portray SRVUSD as desperate for more dollars. But ADJUSTING FOR INFLATION AND ENROLLMENT LOSSES (3,000 fewer students now) since 2015 — when the District renewed the current parcel tax — SRVUSD is $158 million ahead of its funding back then. And at a cost of $16,000 this year per student, or $320,000 in operational dollars alone for a 20-student classroom, why is that not enough?
SRVUSD always claims poverty, until it’s time for the next pay raise. See https://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/2022/school-districts/contra-costa/san-ramon-valley-unified for a dose of reality.
Keep in mind that (a) the calendar 2022 compensation shown there includes only half of the 8.5% raise implemented in late 2022, and none of the 6% raise arranged two months ago — each of the increases with a “one-time” 1% bonus on top; and (2) for teachers, the employment year is only 186 days, contrasted with 240 work days for Joe and Suzy Sixpack.
Other district’s parcel-tax rates? Showing those is part of the never-ending game of leapfrog played by public agencies. But meanwhile, Pleasanton Unified gets along fine without a parcel tax; and Dublin Unified’s is only $98.
“High quality education”? “One of the highest-performing school districts in the nation”? No, SRVUSD isn’t even the best of the worst — i.e., among California’s school districts. In fact, SRVUSD’s state-test performance is alarming. See https://www.betterschoolsnotmoretaxes.com/test-scores .
Long and short: attentive, responsible taxpayer-voters will return their E & F ballots by Tuesday, May 7 with two firm marks of “NO”!