The meeting this afternoon of the LAUSD Board of Education resulted in a majority vote to approve placing the parcel tax measure on the ballot. If voters approve it, add another $100 to the list of taxes on your bill. Tamar Galatzan was the only member to vote against the action, commenting about the expectations of the public for the board to do some serious review of the spending practices and programs. In other words, the wastefulness needs to end.
In a Board led by Monica Garcia, President (re-elected without opposition, not because of talent or good performance, but backed by special interests as CM Huizar's successor and annointed by the Mayor) with Yolie Flores-Aguilar (also remembered for double-dipping by getting a side job as a "consultant" for a few months with more than a few tax dollars collected for a group formed by friendly female politician that did not meet more than once a month, if at all) among the group of colleagues with like minds and here, a similar lack of utility, there is not much you can expect in the form of worthy actions or just any solutions. See the blog story from http://www.democraticunderground.com/ ,
"California jobs go to those with connections. Lawmakers can hire anyone they choose." http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=141x33873 and its reference to the underlying story in the L.A. Times, "California jobs go to those with connections," March 27, 2009, by Patrick McGreevy
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/27/local/me-nepotism27
The annual sum to be generated by this tax is estimated at $90 million. Compare some values. That payroll software that the District put into action a few years ago and didn't work out cost $200 million with what amounted to as an "Oh, Well," as a followup. All the hours of personnel that were lost in trying to repair the damage and the aggravation created by the wrong paychecks calculations is not part of that cost, nor was the money lost by overpayments that teachers didn't give back. It is the public that the Board looks to cover their losses again. Is there anything to demonstrate good use of money here? They want us to become "enablers" of more wasteful spending and that makes no sense.
You can read the details in the story just out, Tuesday Feb. 16th: "LAUSD board agrees to place parcel tax on June ballot." 6:31 p.m., Adolfo Guzman-Lopez, KPCC FM-Los Angeles 89.3. http://www.scpr.org/news/2010/02/16/lausd-board-agrees-place-parcel-tax-june-ballot/ This surely will generate a lot of opposition once it becomes general knowledge and people become not just bothered, but angry with this move. The bad thing for the District is that this is happening in bad economy, they have instances of poor management and inability to control employee, i.e., teacher, behavior in getting good performance and ending abusive and just bad behavior. Top that off with all the LAUSD waste of money and assets that will fill several pages of stories and you do not cultivate any environment for a happy property owner forking over more money to a District that is not working.
The budget for the LAUSD is larger than even that of the City of Los Angeles. There is a construction page on the LAUSD's website that shows school construction program status, with the details for all schools built or to be build and the cost. I thought that the Arts high school was outrageously expensive (and taking almost 2 years longer than estimated to finish- with months more before it saw a single student begin classes there) at a figure approachng $250 million, but I saw a figure of over $200 million for one school already built in the Valley and I just did not want to see anymore.
Posts
