Send LAUSD A Message By Voting NO On Measure E

nope_knockout-702680.jpg
It is very difficult for us to recommend a NO vote on Measure E because we are aware of the teachers jobs and programs from the arts to maintaining librarians that hang in the balance. However, giving LAUSD more money under the circumstances smacks of extortion, while the well being of students and teachers are the human shield to try and make just one more withdrawal from the taxpayers by the money junkies at the District. If their was any credibility in LAUSD one might offer even a more expensive tax measure, but without the ability to first restructure LAUSD's corrupt and self-serving bureaucratic leadership, it is unacceptable to give them more money to waste without LAUSD first showing that they would do something different with it than they already have done. Does anybody give YOU more money for failure?

Those in favor argue that the terms of Measure E specifically make it unacceptable to spent the funds from Measure E on more administrative salaries, but that as usual begs the question. If teachers don't show up to work, there is no school. It seems to me that there are still a significant number of administrators that should lose their jobs or be sent back to the classroom for a significantly diminished salary before teachers who perform the primary function in education are offered as the only cuts possible. Because LAUSD is unwilling to make the painful cuts in administration and other areas of questionable value doesn't mean that we should give them more money to make up the shortfall that is not only due to the California State budget crisis, but also the spendthrift mismanagement that has been endemic in LAUSD for far too long.

There are alot of pigs still feeding at the LAUSD sty. Nobody seems willing to ask why the economics of scale which are supposed to get LAUSD a better price on what it needs has degraded in a procurement system where LAUSD pays more for virtually everything from computers to books to telephones to handrails, while only using technology to increase expenses rather than bring them down.

It is a false and shortsighted construct of the facts to say that the billions of dollars that we voters already gave to LAUSD with the proviso that they could only be used for 150 new schools of questionable necessity cannot be used to make up the $640 million LAUSD budget shortfall this year. There is nothing that says LAUSD has to spend all this money and if they finally get honest and pull the plug on some of these Taj Mahal new school projects of questionable need, they might turn the money back to the state which would have to lessen the indebtedness that these bonds have already created for the taxpayers. If the bond debt was lessened because of the honest reassessment of the necessity of these schools, maybe taxpayers like me would be more inclined to trust LAUSD with more money, when they are willing to pragmatically stagger the start times of their existing schools in deference to students who work nights and teachers who would be willing to teach during nontraditional hours. Obviously, this maximization of existing schools would obviate the necessity of at least some the the new schools.

On June 8, 2010 LAUSD will still pay for 8 mostly empty mini-district offices that could easily be accommodated at the already half-empty Beaudry headquarters building. While everyone would like to have their own television station, in tough budgetary times the consideration might be given to mothball LAUSD's expensive station or sell it outright. Even the $3700 a month that LAUSD is still willing to spend for my old standalone classroom in a private office building at Hauser and Wilshire could pay the salary of a teacher for a year, but even with the lease on this property coming to an end this month, LAUSD refuses to let this rental property go. Why? One would think that if they were truly in such dire need of cash, an unnecessary expense like this would be first on the chopping block. What does Ray and Co. know that we don't?

Voting for Measure E on June 8th requires you to suffer from early Alzheimer's and forget all the times in the recent past that LAUSD has cried wolf only for the voter to realize after the fact that they just got scammed again. In November 2008 they put a $7 billion bond issue on the ballot that everybody from Attorney Connie Rice, who sits on the bond oversight committee, to charter operators, to the unions, all said that it was a bloated measure that asked for far more than was required simply because LAUSD thought that they could get away with the money grab by batting their institutional eyelashes and giving us the tired old Ray Cortines saw, "It's so the students can get a great education." Ex-City Controller Laura Chick tried for years to get LAUSD to open up their books for her to audit -- they refused and got away with it. 

Once, shame on you Ray, twice shame on us if we go along with Measure E.

3 Comments

Hello No!

LAUSD just wastes money, why give them more? Even the 12 furlough days given away to save jobs was a complete hoax.

For the last 4 years, LAUSD has been making payroll mistakes and I am the one paying them back year after year.

Let the administrative office managers take the financial hit for their mistakes.

No extra money at all!

i hear you, maria. teachers lose jobs, income, respect, job security and are expected to do more yet while our students are compromised. how do we get others to hear what you are saying too?

Leave a comment