Indy Endorsements!

Congratulations to the endorsed candidates. It was a lovely day at the pumpkin patch with innocent 5 year olds.

First let me congratulate Jean, Lisa, and Pam for being endorsed by the the Independent today. I do need to correct two errors in the Independent's characterization of me. One small error and one major mischaraterization.

The small error concerns my time living in Chapel Hill. I move here in May of 2000. This does not make me the candidate with the least amount of time living in the district. This is only a minor error and, hopefully, not a leveraging issue in the race.

The mischaracterization is very disappointing. The Independent characterizes my position on the achievement gap is that it needs to be closed by "holding the teachers accountable".

My actual statement (with my full answer to the independent posted below) is that in order for progress to be made on any issue all stakeholders, in this case the parents, students, teachers, administrators, and school board members, need to come together agree on a strategy with a clear, implementable action plan in which all parties understand their role. Once this has been established, all stakeholders need to hold each other mutually accounable in order for the strategy to be successful. This is how things are accomplished and this is my position.

The full text of the question on the survey from the Independent and my answer are below. Ruby, please print this. I have been let down by the mainstream media and need to get my message out. I should have the full text of all questions and answers up on my website in a couple of hours.

3) What specific solutions do you propose for addressing the achievement gap among minority students in this district? How can the system better serve all of its students?

The district made steady progress on the achievement gap from 1994-2002. Since then progress has leveled off. Therefore, it is time to re-evaluate our programs and methodologies and step up our efforts. In this area we can benefit by learning from the experience of other school districts who are making progress on the achievement gap by implementing programs which center on mutual accountability among students, parents and teachers. We need to develop and support enrichment programs which occur both during and outside of school hours to best support these students.

The School Board needs to invest more in community outreach programs. Study after study demonstrates that students whose parents are involved in their children's education achieve more. We need to be flexible enough as a community to commit resources to the most effective programs.

Lastly, I see a lack of innovation in our thinking about this problem. We should be looking no only at solutions which fit our perception as “common sense” but also cutting edge programs which are demonstrating positive results. Just as an example, the Ford Foundation has an education reform initiative called FAME that exposes lower performing students to a comprehensive and sequential foundation of knowledge in the visual arts and music. In the schools where it has been implemented, FAME fine arts students consistently outperform comparison students who have not been involved in the program in reading, math, and the Stanford Achievement Test. The school board needs to be looking at these types of innovative programs no matter how of out the mainstream they may seem at first glance.

We spoke with the Independent and read them my answers to their survey question and pointing out that my position was badly mischaracterized. They agreed that what they printed did not match my survey answers and they are considering printing a correction next week.

The full text of my entire Independent Weekly survey will be available on my website, www.jeffdanner.org, by this evening.

I may win this election and I may lose, but I would like the decision to be made with accurate information.

Jeff

ouch!

Jeff, The sad thing is the Indy was not interested enough in the truth to get it right in the first place. The damage is done. I'm sorry.

Congratulations to Mark, Jacquie, Randee, and John, as well as all the other endorsed candidates!

I have no complaints with Indy on their selections. I mean, other than not being selected :) JK

Thanks for the comments. Jeff, I'll look into the concerns you raise.
And, yes, we're assembling the responses of the candidates and will post them on dent within the next day or so.
Kirk Ross
Managing Editor
Independent Weekly

I just picked up the print copy of the Indy, and, wow, they didn't just endorse Mark, they featured him on the cover! Congrats, Mark! I noticed that both the Sierra Club and Indy highlighted Mark's ability to be a consensus builder, or something along those lines.

I must have a copy of the Durham version-- page 20.

Jeff,

I was very impressed with your answers this evening. I'm sorry the Independant did you such a mis-service.

melanie

Melanie,

Thanks for the support. This is my first campaign, and the forums have been my favorite part. I liked the questions tonight and feel that I had the chance to dicuss my approach and background with the audience. I hope there were some people watching on TV.

Jeff

The CHN copies Indy:
http://www.chapelhillnews.com/opinion/story/2827649p-9277678c.html
Congratulations again to all endorsed.

Liz Brown, progressive leader on the Orange County school board makes the case for NOT voting for the special county tax.

Her argument gets beyond the simplistic "more money for schools must be good" concept.

http://www.herald-sun.com/orange/10-662234.html

Unfortunately, this is not a county or state that values egalitarianism in public education.

In the same edition of the Herald-Sun, Greg Meyer makes a great case FOR voting the special county tax.

http://heraldsun.com/orange/10-662233.html

Remember, the difference in funding of the two districts IS the district tax in Chapel Hill.

I am often surprised by some of the Indy political endorsements and wonder why certain people get the endorsement and some who I consider deserving do not. Again this year I wondered. I'd like to see a more transparent process at the paper. Is it a editorial board who decide? What's the criteria for the endorsements? Who do they talk to in Chapel Hill? What do they do with the voluminous questionaires they require and are these released to the public and rated in some manner? If the Indy gives political endosements, they owe this information to their readership.

The power of the Indy endorsements should give pause to anyone advocating strict campaign finance restrictions. The cash value of Indy + CHN endorsements approaches five figures for little Carrboro. (Who thinks Alex would have beaten Steve Rose in 2003 if the Indy theoretically had gone the other way on that? Spend Nov. 8 at Homestead and watch what people carry with them into the polls.)

Also, not everyone has a mom like Mrs. Chilton who can come knocking on my door. Strict finance restrictions benefit candidates with lots of free time on their own and/or friends'-family's hands.

The Independent giveth and the Independent taketh away.

Julie, at least the Independent said something about every candidate, including those whom they didn't endorse. I wish CHN had done likewise.

This is a letter I sent to the editor of the Independent in response to their endorsement of the special district tax for OCS.

Dear Editor,

I would like to comment on an endorsement that your publication made about the November 2005 local elections, specifically about the special district tax for the Orange County Schools.

Let me begin by saying that I am an Orange County School board member and am not in favor of the tax. I am, however, in favor of more money for our schools and would vote “yes” to raising ad valorem taxes to achieve this goal. And I am not alone; in fact, there are two other board members who have strongly advocated for increased funding for our schools, but would not support a regressive mechanism such as the district tax proposed by the Orange County Commissioners. I believe, as do many others in our district who favor increased funding for our schools, that if the commissioners had the political fortitude to raise the ad valorem tax and lower the Chapel Hill district tax commensurately, then both systems would benefit and the disparity in funding could begin to be addressed.

In your endorsement you pointed out that: “The Chapel Hill-Carrboro school district, the larger of the two districts, has enjoyed a special district tax--set each year by the county commissioners--to help pay for more help in the classroom, fund new initiatives and renovations and cover the cost of opening new schools.”

The Chapel Hill-Carrboro school district tax now comprises over 30% of its local budget. The tax is much like the lottery in that it serves not just to supplement but actually supplants county funding. Does the Chapel Hill system have the right to have a special tax? Absolutely, but not one that is so high that it impacts funding allocations made to the Orange County Schools. And that is what happens. Chapel Hill can keep their county requests artificially lower, knowing that they have their district tax. Is it any wonder that every year OCS only receives the per pupil increase that the Chapel Hill system receives? And what are advocates for greater funding supposed to think when commissioners state in public and private that “giving OCS what they need in county dollars would over fund the Chapel Hill system?”

You also pointed out that: “With a flexible district tax in both systems, commissioners and school boards will have a much better and complete set of tools for keeping up with growth and managing funding…[and] a tax in both districts is a significant step in balancing the two systems.”

The proposal placed on the ballot has a 10-cent cap. It is likely that Orange County Schools could reach that cap within the next two years. Then what? Currently Chapel Hill's tax, which is around 19 cents, has a cap of 35 cents. Why would we have a much lower cap than our sister system? That doesn't seem right. And, because our commercial bases differ, even if we were to have the same tax rate, the Orange County Schools ends up pulling in about 10% less for every dollar taxed. Flexible? Hardly. Equitable? Not at all!

Further, the proposal being placed on the ballot is outdated and no longer supported by the individuals who drafted it. Five years ago, the school board commissioned a task force, of which I was a member, to look at alternative funding sources for our school system. The majority of us saw a district tax as a “quick fix” to help us open Cedar Ridge High and Pathways Elementary. No one on that task force understood how the city's tax impacted our funding, or how the property-tax bases differed. Indeed, if the same individuals were pulled together today, I assert that advocates for higher funding would recommend finding a better way to fully fund the OCS budget requests.

So that is just some of the information that perhaps wasn't shared with you, which leads me to the real reason I decided to write. I wonder why you didn't talk to those of us who want more money for our schools but see a special district tax as an unwise and inequitable policy move. Instead, you lumped together all district tax opponents and ended up with an endorsement that sounded more like an excuse rather than one that grasps a true understanding of the complexities of and inherent inequities associated with funding education in Orange County.

Libbie Hough
Orange County School Board Member

Excellent letter Libbie. Thank you so much for sharing it. I hope those who get to vote on this referendum understand the complexity involved here and do not endorse the proposed district tax. It breaks my heart that this county, supposedly so progressive in its political policies and thought, has set the two school districts up to compete against each other for school funding. Hopefully the referendum will fail and then we can look for a truly equitable funding strategy.

Thank you, Terri.

Also one correction, in the 4th paragraph, 4th line down, it should read: that the Chapel Hill system REQUESTS, not RECEIVES. By law, we all receive the same per pupil allocation from the county.

Libbie Hough

If OCS passes the tax (ha ha), that wouldn't make merger any less likely than it is now. That's a logical fallacy at best.

When OCS rejects the tax, the merger argument will be savaged -- merger proponents want Chapel Hill's Commissioners (as they all are) to take the political pain for taxing OCS residents who don't want it.

These tactical acrobatics by Hough other pro-merger, anti-district-tax people are not the stuff of brave politicians. If you're for more funding & taxation, you're for more funding & taxation. Any issue has many complications. But in the end, the core positions are simple on many of them.

Here's an analogy: President Nixon proposed a national health care system (don't know the details). Democrats shot it down as inadequate. You can see where that got us.

I thought the Indy made a compelling argument: a district tax in both districts is a significant step in balancing the two systems.
Now, the Indy in no way said that this district tax in the county is the final solution, and it isn't.
In my opinion, the next step is gradually to raise the ad valorem tax, and decrease the city schools tax until both school systems have district taxes capped at or near the same level.
In my way of thinking, voting for the district tax and then getting both school systems' district taxes capped at or near the same level gets us close to equity and it gives both school systems the local power to set their district taxes within the same range.
This is probably the best we can do, because, let's face it, CHCCS will never voluntarily abandon the district tax for schools, and neither school system and constituency seem interested in merger.
I'll add, too, that this is an imperfect world and all solutions are imperfect.

Here is a link to more detail on Nixon and health care. Jeff - that was a weak analogy at best.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_health_reform_under_Nixon

If only politics and public policy were so simple.

Seems to me the problem with the whole school financing issue is that different groups are trying to solve different problems. The Orange County School Board wants long-term financial equity. The Commissioners want to avoid taking action on merger. Chapel Hill wants to support equitable financing without risking their own. From my perspective adding a new district tax to Orange County, capped at 1/3 the amount of Chapel Hill's district tax doesn't help anyone but the county commissioners.

"the least the BOCC should do is to equalize per pupil funding across the county."

Dan, that would mean abolishing the CHCCS district tax, and it's loud and clear that the city schools will not give up funding willingly.

For Liz to get what she wants, the state will have to step in.

Maybe I'm off, but I don't think the county district tax is a disaster per my above post.

I do concur with Liz and others who feel that there is something unjust about planning land use as a county, and then having separate and unequal school systems.

IMHO, though, Liz always takes things too far in her newspaper opinion pieces. I don't fault her for wanting an instant final fix, but by now she must understand that tampering with the staus quo upsets the entire political, social, and economic fabric of this county. Steps in the right direction are good and will get us to equal funding eventually.

PS Nice to see Dan and Terri agreeing on something.

Not too sound too cynical, Mary, but I just don't see any intergroup concurrence of what constitutes 'right direction' or evidence that anything has been done to get us to equal funding. We can continue pursue the myth of incremental change or we can support valiant leaders who understand that we need a revolution to make significant change. The middle ground, "more study", seems to be a ploy for maintaining the status quo. Or maybe its just a CYA strategy for politicians who don't want to alienate a large group of constituents.

I wish the folks who fought so hard for merger a few years ago had been willing to compromise with the increase of advalorem/decrease in CHCCS tax back then instead of taking the "merger or nothing" attitude. Alice Gordon actually proposed a 4.5% increase (i believe) during the merger debate which would have given the OCS over $2,000,000 for the coming school year. The pro merger supporters said that was not enough and NONE of the commisioners would second her motion. The OCS ended up with nothing.

Laura,
Was it clear to you how far CHCCS was suppossed to go with reducing the district tax and increasing the ad valorem? It wasn't clear to me. In everyone's defense, the issue was far too emotionally charged at the time for anyone to go foward with any solution. Additionally, Alice wasn't the right person to make the proposal.

Who was the right person?

Regarding the OCS district tax, his is all about taxes and whether OCS residents are willing to bear the taxes to be move from number 4 of 115ish districts or toward number 1 of 115. No matter what option is chosen, OCS bears the brunt of the taxation responsibility, so it makes sense for OCS voters to have a say in this.

Graig's Meyer's column hits a bullseye with regards to the intent of the commissioners' bringing this to a vote. The commissioners want to gauge whether voters are willing to pay the taxes. I have attended almost all of the meetings where this was discussed and summarized some of them at orangecitizens.org

If OCS voters want increased school funding, then the OCS district tax passage is the mechanism that the BOCC has laid on the table. Passing it would send the message to increase school funding and sets the stage for future discussions of whether the ad valorem is more suitable. Advocates of increased OCS funding/taxation who have chosen not to support this have done their cause significantly more harm than good.

Why 10 cents? Voters are more likely to pass that than a 35 cent tax. It is less scary.

Does that cap the tax at 10 cents (per $100 valuation)? Not really, because if the commissioners use it as an indication that voters want more OCS taxation, then they can raise the ad valorem. They have about 70 cents left in their current legal limit to raise the ad valorem, which is twice the size of the city district tax.

The larger size of the CHCSS will continue to give it economies of scale that allow more programmatic alternatives and flexibility.

It is the taxes that are the difference. period.

Particularly given the higher level of poverty in the Orange district, the least the BOCC should do is to equalize per pupil funding across the county.

This completely ignores the fact that the only way to equalize funding is to increase taxes in OCS. They should have a say and that is what this vote is about.

Or maybe its just a CYA strategy for politicians who don't want to alienate a large group of constituents.

Or maybe the politicians are actually listening to their constituents and imposing the will of their constituents. This is about local control. This is a democracy isn't it?

Additionally, Alice wasn't the right person to make the proposal.

So who is/was?

M

My experience was that Alice had been written off by the county activists, and that county activists had stopped listening to Alice. I think Moses was the only person who could have made the proposal fly.

Mark, you say, "Passing it would send the message to increase school funding and sets the stage for future discussions of whether the ad valorem is more suitable."

Are you saying that a no vote on the district tax is the end of the discussion?

How does a yes vote set the stage for deciding if the ad valorem approach is more suitable?

I hate to be so grim about it, Tom, but I wouldn't lump our endorsement in the "important" category given the Morehead early voting numbers.

So Friday's editorial page will be a bold statement that I think will catch people's eyes. Hopefully, it also attracts at least a few people to the polls.

Terri wrote
"We can continue pursue the myth of incremental change or we can support valiant leaders who understand that we need a revolution to make significant change."

Terri, what kind of a revolutionary solution would you support, bring OCS funding up with a dramatic and immediate increase in taxation (whether district or ad valorem) for OCS residents, or drop the CHCCS district tax for an abrupt 30% cut in CHCCS funding? If it's done without incremental change, then I don't see other options.

An OCS district tax gives those residents an opportunity to dip a toe in the water, leaving future possibilities open, without risking a decrease in CHCCS funding.

Charlie--I was talking about the achievement gap.

An issue that is always intertwined in these county-city, rural-urban issues is the long festering lack of fair representation in the county. It is often ignored as a factor. If this had been resolved years ago and the rural constituents were fairly represented, a lot of ancillary rancor would not be a part of the overall education funding issue.

Unfortunately, Moses Carey has been a leader in stifling real progress on fair representation. His latest proposal (district voting only in primaries) is a wolf in sheep's clothing that is mere veneer. If any leaders are truly serious about treating all the county citizens equally and fairly, then providing the best democratic system we can imagine is the right place to start.

I'm sorry I misunderstood, Terri. When you wrote

"...I just don't see any intergroup concurrence of what constitutes ‘right direction' or evidence that anything has been done to get us to equal funding. We can continue pursue the myth of incremental change or we can support valiant leaders who understand that we need a revolution to make significant change."

I assumed that you were proposing revolutionary change "to get us to equal funding."

On the subject of the achievement gap though, I would like to know more about the relative importance of factors both within and outside of the control of the school system. How much can a school system do for kids with adverse home situations?

This discussion may be getting off the original topic of this thread.

Chris,
Ii hate to say this, but students (like others) vote when there is something of interest to them -- an issue, the war, a neighborhood problem, A FAVORITE CANDIDATE THAT HAS SOOM ALIGNMENT TO THEM. When the DTH decided for whatever reason that Jason Baker did not merit an endorsement, it took away an important motivation. The College Republicans are saying that they don't care because Republicans students aren't going to get motivated about deciding between a group of liberal Democrats (yes, I know WillR is (or was) registered as an unaffiliated voter.)
So it's all a self fulfilling prophecy. People don't vote (whether they are students are not) when it doesn't matter to them.
So the DTH can write a slam bang editorial on Friday, (and the DTH NEWS side coverage of the eleCtion has been FAR better than any other publication in the era, in my opinion) and I am not sure how much difference it will actually make.

Jeez, old age has definitely set in. You were right Charlie. I did make that statement in reference to funding. So to answer your question, the revolutionary change I would like to see is the district commissioners saying that we are eliminating the CHCCS district tax and from here on out the county will provide equal per pupil funding across both districts. Then we can have a referendum on the choices for implementing that plan (ad valorum, etc.).

While I appreciate leaders who want to listen, there is a point at which the noise is no longer productive and hard decisions have to be made. We don't elect people to be popular; we elect them to make those tough calls. If the current referendum had been held 2-3 years ago and during a national election, I would have been more supportive of it.

My experience was that Alice had been written off by the county activists, and that county activists had stopped listening to Alice. I think Moses was the only person who could have made the proposal fly.

Alice was the most supportive of education funding of all of the commissioners at the time of the proposal (Valerie was not on the board at the time).

Let's be clear that county activists fall into two categories. Those who want increased funding and those who want only merger . Those who only want merger, whatever their reasoning, are likely not going to go to Alice and Valerie to discuss anything, since they do not support merger.

Those who want increased funding for OCS should be going to Alice & Valerie.

The OCS DT vote is an attempt to ascertain who the majority is, GIVEN the strict rules under which NC allows county commissioners to place questions on the ballot. The BOCC wants to ascertain what the majority wants, but their hands are tied as to how to pose the question.

I don't buy that Moses would make that proposal fly. If you look through the years at his record, you will not find him leading proposals to increase or keep pace with inflation for education funding. He may go along with them, but not leading them. Moses primarily wants merger so that he only has to deal with one system and superintendent. Moses has had plenty of time to increase OCS funding.

Mark, you say, “Passing it would send the message to increase school funding and sets the stage for future discussions of whether the ad valorem is more suitable.” Are you saying that a no vote on the district tax is the end of the discussion?

I am saying that a "no" vote may be interpreted by some commissioners as saying that the OCS district citizens are happy being 4th out of 115. Who knows what agendas are really going on in the backchannels? Is it a setup to shut the door on OCS funding increases? Is it a setup for merger? I have no idea where this will lead us. Next year might again be an interesting BOCC race.

How does a yes vote set the stage for deciding if the ad valorem approach is more suitable?

If there is a "yes" vote, then the commissioners can say "The OCS citizens want to be taxed more for the schools, which of the taxes at our disposal should we levy to do this?" If they think that the ad valorem is a better choice that year, then they can levy it instead of the OCS DT. Ditto for if the OCS needs exceed the OCS DT.

Perhaps the question we should be asking is: "Should the BOEs be given the power to levy a schools tax?" Apparently, only 4 states operate like NC does with regards to BOE levy authority.

M

We don't elect people to be popular; we elect them to make those tough calls.

And how much does representation of the public will figure into this? That is, what if the tough call is that the majority of OCS residents desire the current funding? Your post presumes that your point of view is the "right" one. But what if the majority of OCS disagree? Is local control relevant in your frame?

M

Mark, you pulled that sentence out of context. The sentence in front of it said "While I appreciate leaders who want to listen, there is a point at which the noise is no longer productive and hard decisions have to be made." At this point, I feel like the issue of equitable funding has become noise, in other words, no one is listening to each other. By your own admission, a no vote on this referendum tells us nothing.

I am saying that a “no” vote may be interpreted by some commissioners as saying that the OCS district citizens are happy being 4th out of 115. Who knows what agendas are really going on in the backchannels? Is it a setup to shut the door on OCS funding increases? Is it a setup for merger? I have no idea where this will lead us.

You go on to say that a yes vote will mean

the commissioners can say “The OCS citizens want to be taxed more for the schools, which of the taxes at our disposal should we levy to do this?” If they think that the ad valorem is a better choice that year, then they can levy it instead of the OCS DT.

Another possible interpretation would be that the small percentage of voters who turn out voted for a district tax only and any manipulation of the ad valorum, which would impact CHCCS citizens, would be contradictory to the will of the voters.

Public representation is only meaningful we have a reasonable turnout. You were at the listening session when I pleaded with Mr. Carey to postpone this vote until the next national election. Then we might be able to draw some reasonable conclusions. This vote is going to be the equivalent of the Bush "mandate."

Terri,

"So to answer your question, the revolutionary change I would like to see is the district commissioners saying that we are eliminating the CHCCS district tax and from here on out the county will provide equal per pupil funding across both districts. Then we can have a referendum on the choices for implementing that plan (ad valorum, etc.)."

I don't feel satisfied that you have completely answered my question. You seem to be stating the upside of county-wide funding while disregarding the downside by saying we'll figure out the details later. I was really trying to ask you to acknowledge that there are but two possible scenarios for equalizing funding across the county, either drastic tax increases for OCS residents or drastic funding cuts for CHCCS.

I believe, as I think you do, that all children everywhere should get the best education financially possible. I think we differ in our opinion of who should decide what's affordable. There are many advantages to smaller, relatively independent school systems with local control of funding and curriculum.

Terri,

I was not trying to take it out of context and I don't think I have. With the context of both your paragraphs, it still reads to me as: "This has been discussed long enough, so the commissioners should just abolish the CHCCS district tax and ask the voters what to replace it with." I was troubled by the lack of respect for the will of the OCS district voters to determine their own taxation destiny. Your statements ignore the tax impacts and local control.

This leads us to "Let's make the taxation the same and let the CHCCS voters who hold the 2/3 majority determine the taxes for all of OC." It's no wonder that the district representation issue is gaining such traction from the OCS voters, this is their worst nightmare.

My question stands: Do you think that CHCCS voters should dictate OCS taxation?

I believe that the BOCC was seeking clarity in the form of a "yes" vote (and support by the OCS BOE for this outcome). I think that most would agree that a "no" vote lacks the clarity of a "yes" vote.

As for the timing, this could be brought up again if it fails, though I think it is unlikely.

One last point is that the CHCCS DT can be "unlevied" by the BOCC, but can only be abolished via a referendum.

M