Issue link: https://www.epageflip.net/i/11189
6A – Daily News – Saturday, May 29, 2010 Opinion Desperate D NEWSAILY RED BLUFF TEHAMACOUNTY T H E V O I C E O F T E H A M A C O U N T Y S I N C E 1 8 8 5 campaign Editor: Desperate people do desperate things. This is apparently the situ- ation with some of Sheriff Parker’s opponents. Greg Stevens, Publisher gstevens@redbluffdailynews.com Chip Thompson, Editor editor@redbluffdailynews.com Editorial policy The Daily News opinion is expressed in the editorial. The opinions expressed in columns, letters and cartoons are those of the authors and artists. Letter policy The Daily News welcomes let- ters from its readers on timely topics of public interest. All let- ters must be signed and pro- vide the writer’s home street address and home phone num- ber. Anonymous letters, open letters to others, pen names and petition-style letters will not be allowed. Letters should be typed and cannot exceed two double-spaced pages or 500 words. When several letters address the same issue, a cross section of those submit- ted will be considered for publi- cation. Letters will be edited. Letters are published at the discretion of the editor. Mission Statement We believe that a strong com- munity newspaper is essential to a strong community, creating citizens who are better informed and more involved. The Daily News will be the indispensible guide to life and living in Tehama County. We will be the premier provider of local news, information and advertising through our daily newspaper, online edition and other print and Internet vehi- cles. The Daily News will reflect and support the unique identities of Tehama County and its cities; record the history of its com- munities and their people and make a positive difference in the quality of life for the resi- dents and businesses of Tehama County. How to reach us Main office: 527-2151 Classified: 527-2151 Circulation: 527-2151 News tips: 527-2153 Sports: 527-2153 Obituaries: 527-2151 Photo: 527-2153 On the Web www.redbluffdailynews.com Fax Newsroom: 527-9251 Classified: 527-5774 Retail Adv.: 527-5774 Legal Adv.: 527-5774 Business Office: 527-3719 Address 545 Diamond Ave. Red Bluff, CA 96080, or P.O. Box 220 Red Bluff, CA 96080 Insidious little undated and unsigned notes are being placed around the various candidate night events. These suggest that the sheriff condones the operation of an unseemly business by one of his subordinates. The business being maligned by these untrue notes is a legiti- mate photography business owned and operated by a Sheriff’s Department employee and his wife. The business is completely legal and is being unfairly smeared by these desperate indi- viduals. The patrons of this business are insulted by this unfair characteri- zation of its activities. The depart- ment employee involved in this business has not and does not con- duct his personal business on department time. Sheriff Parker's campaign signs are being vandalized. I obviously do not know who is responsible for these despicable acts, but his opponent should publicly indicate he does not condone these, or sim- ilar acts. Dean Cofer, Corning Experience trumps gender Editor: After reading Carrie Patterson's letter to the editor published May 12 in the Daily News, was she saying that because Lisa Muto is a woman that she doesn't have the right to run? Muto certainly has the experi- ence and education needed to be judge and wants that experience and education to be put to good use in providing to all individuals, with or without an attorney, the constitutional right to have a fair and unbiased hearing brought before a judge. I believe that Patterson has completely overlooked Muto's qualifications for Judge Office 1. In case anyone has not read her qualifications, I will repeat that information. Muto graduated in the top of her class at Red Bluff High School, received honors from the University of Califor- nia, Davis and received an academic scholar- ship to Santa Clara University School of Law. For experience, she Top performer Your Turn worked at the Santa Clara District Attorney's Office, the Bay Area Law Firm of Maroney and Bel- laamba, Redding Attorney John Minoletti and opened her own law firm in Red Bluff. She has handled a large variety of all civil and criminal cases such as felonies, misdemeanors, child custody and visitations, business litigation, juvenile law and much more. She has been a trial lawyer for over 20 years. I see Muto as a person with the legal experience and educational background who would make a great judge for the benefit of our community. Because she is a woman, does her education and experience mean absolutely nothing? Linda Byerley, Corning Editor: Having been a resident of Tehama County for many years I have observed many sheriffs. There is no question that our present Sheriff Clay Parker is one of the top performers who has held this office. His knowledge, train- ing, experience and education put him in a class by himself. He is recognized for his abili- ties and performance by the other county sheriffs in the state. He has served as the president of the Cal- ifornia Sheriff's Association. He holds all available P.O.S.T. certifi- cates, which testify to his educa- tion and management ability. He has graduated from the F.B.I. Insti- tute. He is a U.S. Army veteran. He has worked in just about every phase of law enforcement. We need to keep this compe- tent, experienced and outstanding performer in office. In these diffi- cult times we do not need a trainee in office. Please join me in re- electing Sheriff Clay Parker. Matt Anchordoguy, Vina Your officials STATE ASSEMBLYMAN — Jim Nielsen (R), State Capitol Bldg., Room 4164 P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento 94249; (916) 319-2002; Fax (916) 319- 2102 STATE SENATOR — Sam Aanestad (R), State Capitol Bldg., Room 2054, Sacramen- to, CA 95814. (916) 651-4004; Fax (916) 445-7750 GOVERNOR — Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), State Capitol Bldg., Sacramento, CA 95814; (916) 445-2841; Fax (916) 558-3160; E-mail: gover- nor@governor.ca.gov. U.S. REPRESENTATIVE — Wally Herger (R), 2635 Forest Ave. Ste. 100, Chico, CA 95928; 893-8363. U.S.SENATORS — Dianne Feinstein (D), One Post Street, Suite 2450, San Francisco, CA 94104; (415) 393-0707. Fax (415) 393-0710. Barbara Boxer (D), 1700 Montgomery St., Suite 240, San Francisco, CA 94111; (415) 403-0100. Fax (202) 224- 0454. Do we mean what we say? Commentary There is an old aphorism we all know: Be careful what you wish for, you just might receive it. There is an interesting, if not unprecedented lawsuit being filed against the State of California and our Governator. The claim is that because the State Constitution establishes public education as a fundamental right for our youth and a major obligation for the state, the state is therefore required to provide adequate resources to meet that obligation. According to the SF Chronicle “[it] seeks to force the state Legislature to fix the bro- ken education funding system…and require Sacramento to fund schools based on what state law requires they offer to chil- dren—qualified teachers, books, physical education, science labs, special education, English lan- guage instruction and more.” The suit is being filed by the usual suspects, teachers’ unions, the Association of California School Administrators (disclosure: I was once an officer in this organi- zation), the California School Boards Association, individual school districts, and some public school students. The suit brings to the fore many issues which both we as taxpayers and our state officials have tried to dodge for the last 32 years; the roots of the problem go back to at least 1978 when the electorate, in an angry fit, passed Proposition 13 in 1978. The unintended conse- quences of that passage are impact- ing us today at the local levels: less local control, uneven funding based upon the vagaries of our state governmental politics, and unfunded state mandates; the prob- lem has been complicated by the current blip in the economic cli- mate and the lack of fiscal restraint by the state government. The solu- tions to this suit, if it is upheld may bring many new unintended conse- quences we will need to deal with. Some Background School finance in California has been a litigious issue for the last forty plus years. In 1960’s the pri- mary issue was the inequality of the local burden of school taxes. That is, districts with a strong prop- erty tax base could impose very low tax rates to raise enough money to support their public schools; meanwhile, districts with a low property tax base had to impose a higher tax rate on their citizens in order to fund their schools. In most cases the low wealth districts had many fewer resources to support their chil- dren’s education. The issue, named Serrano vs. Priest, went to court in 1969. As described in the Little Hoover Report of 1997: “the dis- parity in districts' ability to spend was still staggering [at the time of the Serrano suit.] In the 1970-71 fiscal year, the tax rates in the State's 1,100 districts ranged from 39 cents per $100 of assessed valu- ation to $7.83. The difference in expenditures per Average Daily Attendance ranged from $420 to $3,447.” As a result of the disparities above, the State Supreme Court ruled on the case of Serrano vs. Priest that the existing disparities of funding and funding effort vio- lated the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution (equal protection.) The result of this deci- sion was that the state became a bigger player in funding schools, and it attempted to set in motion a long term funding equalization scheme. The idea was that over time the low wealth school districts would be brought up to fiscal equality with the wealthier dis- tricts. For many low wealth dis- tricts this meant increased state aid. To implement this program a “Revenue Limit” was established in 1972 for each school district; districts with low revenue limits would receive higher year to year adjustments than those with higher limits. Because the process of equalizing funding for school districts was so slow, the court ruled that the disparities between districts should be the equivalent of no more than $100 per pupil in 1976. The state was working on an accelerated system to bring equality to all districts when Proposi- tion 13 was passed in 1978. This constitutional amendment severely lim- ited the ability of local school dis- tricts to set property tax rates. The rate was set at $1 per hundred dol- lars of assessed valuation. The state had to step in with income to offset this limitation. The responsibility for local school funding shifted from the local school boards to the state. Meanwhile, Back at the Ranch After 1978 school organizations had to increase their efforts at influ- encing the state legislature, and school districts became more and more dependent upon the state leg- islature. In reaction to this, Propo- sition 98 was placed on ballot to ensure schools were guaranteed minimum funding based on the state income growth and popula- tion growth. On paper this sounded good, but the actual formula was somewhat complicated and subject to manipulation. The legislature viewed it as a ceiling on funding rather than a floor. When the econ- omy went south Proposition 98 could not prevent fiscal damage to schools. Other public agencies and ser- vices have suffered from both the Joe Harrop economy and our state govern- ment’s inability to balance its bud- get. Other services and agencies, however, are not labeled a fundamental right in the State Con- stitution. William Abrams, an attorney for the plaintiffs in this new California suit, says, “Education is a funda- mental right to each child in this state. The problem is the state unbelievably has not determined the cost of the educational services it requires.” The current law- suit relies on Article Nine of the State Constitution which requires the state to provide a “system of common schools.” The State Constitution also provides that “from all state revenues there shall first be set apart” money for schools. The court will have to decide if these are merely words on paper, or if they mean what they say. Since the Serrano decision the state has increasingly been involved in local education. If this lawsuit is successful, and the state, itself, must provide for the schools, it could mean the end of local school districts and county offices of education. I say this, because the literal reading of the constitution says the state will provide a “sys- tem of common schools.” When the state decides just what that will require and what that will cost, as sure as the sun rises in the east, the state will become an even larger player in local schools. Local school boards will be left to decide athletic issues and other low prior- ity matters. Joe Harrop can be reached at DrJoeHarrop@sbcglobal.net.