http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/07/MNH210IEA3.DTL&tsp=1

To be honest I don’t have any specific ideas for tea in the harbor.

I think there was some discussion about use of funds in a capital account, but that they couldn’t be used for operational expenses due to their designation.

I start glazing over when I hear that stuff. In less critical times, sure, but we’re in nothing but crisis mode now.

I say “so what”? If it’s a legal issue, break the law on this one. That’s a pretty rational protest in my book.

Maybe its bond money and there’s some commercial financial institution that has constraints on use of funds? I don’t think I want to go off on that rant.

I’ll admit that I have a short attention span when it comes to spending rules for municipal entities, but when we box ourselves into these corners and our stewards at all levels of the District are unwilling or unable to execute outside the box (let alone THINK outside it), we’re in big trouble.

THAT’S why I’m so resigned about this parcel tax.

AEF’s plan is here: http://alamedaeducationfoundation.org/strategic-plan/

I hardly call school closure plan a strategy. That is a reaction. I am pining away for real change, like operating AHS, EHS and IHS as a virtual campus.

My other reaction is – WHY WAIT for the STATE? We’re in a crisis and the District and the City need to take radical action. So WHAT if it’s “illegal”? It’s the right thing to do. How about a little rational radicalism? Time to dump some tea into the harbor, I say.

“will you do something about changing the way you do business so this never happens again? … Not my job, buddy, call your State legislator.”

I think the District is showing positive steps in the direction of changing the way it does business. A restructuring task force is in place to preside over what will likely be multiple schools closures within the year, should Measure H fails, and longer-term restructuring, even if Measure H passes.

Many others are working on pushing change at the state level. AEF’s multi-point strategy encompasses this – both through actively lobbying for change, and pursuing options for litigation. None of these will deliver results in a timeframe to address the immediate crisis, which brings us back to the point of John’s article: the legislature’s track record on timely budget action and adequate funding of our schools is atrocious. Couple that with the budget timeline that the school district is required to follow, and we’re essentially left playing a game of Russian Roulette if we choose not to act locally and pass Measure H.

As a homeowner who supports H with a fair amount of resignation (*sigh* – ANOTHER parcel tax…) the “wait and see” comment really keeps me on the fence.

The only way I can explain is through role play:

School District (SD) – I need more money. We’re cutting music, sports and anything not in a standardized test…
ME – so if I give you the money you’ll spend it on music, sports and anything not in a standardized test?
SD – well, maybe. I don’t have my budget yet. But give me that money and I’ll put it to good use when I know.
ME – but the last time I gave you some money, you told me that it would cover your expenses until 2012.
SD – oh, times change, silly! the price of gas as $1.40 then.
ME – but what are you spending the money I gave you on? didn’t you find a way to prevent this problem after I gave you some runway?
SD – oh, come on. you didn’t give me that money to change the way I do things. It was to keep the lights on and the bathrooms clean. Boy, those students are demanding aren’t they? C’mon do this for your property values. Your neighbors are counting on you.
ME – if I give you some money THIS time, will you do something about changing the way you do business so this never happens again?
SD – not my job, buddy, call your State legislator. Can I mark you down as a Yes?