Category Archives: Schools

Education and students

Community Politics Schools

Fair Tax Proponents Release Timeline Showing How Erwin & Muir Crafted School Closure Plan

February 14th, 2011 – 9:53 AM

School closure threats manufactured by political consultants paid $300/hour by AUSD

Alameda, Calif. – Proponents of a fair and progressive parcel tax to support Alameda schools released today documents and a timeline showing how Oakland-based political consultants Erwin & Muir, who have worked on every AUSD parcel tax ballot measure since 2008, and who AUSD paid $300/hour, sat on the Alameda Unified School District’s Master Plan Advisory Group, and performed public relations work for the District designed to scare voters into support parcel taxes, under threat of massive school closures through a doomsday plan known as “Plan B.”

Despite the threats crafted for AUSD by Erwin & Muir, and the failure of a parcel tax ballot measure last year, no schools have closed.

This year, the Alameda Unified School District is again threatening school closures unless their latest parcel tax measure, Measure A, on the ballot March 8th, passes. The District is again citing threats of school closures under “Plan B” and the Master Plan that Erwin & Muir helped craft.

“The Draconian plan of school closures the Alameda Unified School District says it will have to implement if Measure A fails is a fraud. This plan, known as ‘Plan B,’ was not written by educators or even the school district’s accountants but crafted by political consultants whose only interest was to give the district a political tool to scare people into voting for Measure A,” said Leland Traiman, Secretary for the Committee Against Measure A in Alameda.

Below is a timeline of Erwin & Muir’s handiwork in crafting the fraudulent school closure plan:

  • 2008 – Then AUSD Superintendent Ardella Dailey starts paying political consultants Erwin & Muir $300/hour.
  • May, 2009 – Erwin & Muir begins invoicing AUSD for work on master plan.
  • June, 2009 – AUSD Superintendent Kirsten Vital issues AUSD master plan update process newsletter, wherein she identifies political consultants Maggie Muir and Maureen Erwin as members of her Master Plan Advisory Group. Nowhere in the newsletter does she admit that they are political consultants doing work for AUSD at $300/hour.
  • June, 2009 – AUSD hires AUSD Trustee Mike McMahon’s daughter, Becky McMahon, as a web designer. Becky joins her mother as an AUSD employee.
  • July, 2009 – Superintendent Vital issues a $64,000 “open” purchase order to Erwin & Muir with no written contract, and no AUSD Board of Trustees review or approval.
  • August, 2009 – Erwin & Muir issues a $14,000 invoice to AUSD for website redesign.
  • December, 2009 – Erwin & Muir issues invoice to AUSD for work on master plan.
  • February, 2010 – AUSD issues master plan, with doomsday “Plan B” if parcel tax does not pass.
  • March 1, 2010 – Superintendent Vital justifies $300/hour expense with Erwin & Muir as a cost-saving measure.
  • May 26, 2010 – Erwin & Muir issues invoice to AUSD for $10,757 for mailing over 41,000 pieces of Measure E campaign literature disguised as a “newsletter.”April/May, 2010 – AUSD says that 11 schools will close if they don’t raise $14 million with Measure E parcel tax.
  • June 22, 2010 – Measure E fails at the ballot box. No schools close.
  • July, 2010 – AUSD begins planning for new parcel tax, citing master plan and “Plan B” doomsday scenario, saying schools will close without a parcel tax.
  • December, 2010 - AUSD says that 5 schools will close if they don’t raise $12 million with Measure A parcel tax, even though State of California school finances are no better.
  • January, 2011 – Erwin & Muir being working as campaign consultants for “Yes on A” campaign to pass Measure A. AUSD and “Yes on A” campaign cite the Master Plan and “Plan B” doomsday scenario as a reason to vote for Measure A.
  • February, 2011 – Erwin & Muir and “Yes on A” campaign bully and intimidate Alameda Journal editor Connie Rux into pulling an op-ed piece from the newspaper that exposes Erwin & Muir’s role in creating the fraudulent master plan.

The Committee Against Measure A in Alameda has published supporting documentation, and a selection of the many invoices sent to AUSD by Erwin & Muir since 2008 here: http://www.alameda-no-on-a.com/erwin-and-muir-master-plan-b.pdf

About the Committee Against Measure A in Alameda:  The Committee Against Measure A in Alameda is a group advocating for a fair and progressive parcel tax for Alameda schools, combined with honest restructuring in line with the calls for school restructuring from President Obama and California Governor Jerry Brown.

Tags , , | Comments Off
Community News Schools

Medablog Unmasked

January 5th, 2011 – 4:40 PM

Well, now we know who the formerly anonymous and utterly sanctimonious Medablog is…

Hi Charles Liuson, you coward. Welcome to the sunshine!

Tags , , , | Comments Off
Opinion Schools

Vote No on Measure A (Again)

December 19th, 2010 – 3:15 PM

The AUSD is spending $300k for a special election to try to pass another parcel tax, with a vote on March 8, 2011. In the latest in a series of pleas for help to maintain small class size, high teacher standards and general excellence, the citizens of the City of Alameda will be asked to support a 32¢/sq. ft per building per parcel tax, lasting eight years, with a $7,999 cap and an exemption for those on disability insurance and those 60 and over. Undeveloped parcels would pay $299. This will replace the existing parcel taxes from previous Measures A and H and is designed to raise over $12 million for the school district.

On all the pro-parcel tax websites, the usual dogma is being trotted out about how schools benefit everyone and that investing in schools is investing in our future, and for the best community, we must all pitch in and support our schools. What the proponents don’t seem to understand is that supporting schools, students and education while opposing Measure A are not mutually exclusive.

The flaw in this proposed legislation is this: if the schools benefit everyone equally, then everyone should contribute equally.

Admittedly this new parcel tax proposal is progress from last year’s divisive and and failed campaign for Measure E, which proposed that the smallest condo and largest mansion be taxed the same amount. A square foot per building per parcel tax shared equally by everyone is actually a good idea. But the new Measure A contains the same problem that brought the old Measure H to court, which is that it taxes different property owners at different rates.

Why is there a cap of $7,999 to appease the largest companies who can afford to contribute to the AUSD the most? By instituting this cap, the largest potential source of support for the schools is being kneecapped. Citizens and small businesses will end up paying 32¢ per sq/ft while big business pays only 1¢ per square foot, and that ain’t fair.

Exempting people who are living on disability insurance is absolutely reasonable. But why pick the age of 60 to start exempting seniors? Considering how much people contribute to society in their silver years, if this exemption is meant to be based on economic terms, i.e. people over 60 are on fixed incomes, why not actually make it an income-based exemption? That’s arbitrary, and that ain’t fair.

The allocation of funding this tax is supposed to raise is vague: “close the achievement gap” and “attracting and retaining excellent teachers” makes up 40-42% of the $12 million. How is that quantified? The threat of “Plan B” being instituted if this parcel tax is not passed should not be a reason to vote for flawed legislation. That’s a realignment that should have been handled properly when the Navy left. Having that held over our heads now is just blackmail, and that ain’t fair.

These are core flaws with this legislation that lead me to oppose it. Alameda should not support a parcel tax which benefits everybody without everyone contributing equally. 32 to 1 just ain’t fair.

Vote No on Measure A.

Tags , , , | Comments Off