Narrow Search

Comment Archives: stories: Today

Re: “After Giving Oakland Schools Measure G1 Money, District Now Taking It Back — Leaving Principals With Yet Another Deficit

Wednesday night the Measure G1 Committee voted 3 to 1 to put back 50% of the Measure G1 money for the next School Year (2017-2018).

I agreed with the one "No" vote because the language of Measure G1 requires the allocation of the Measure G1 money, including the 35% portion after 1% is removed (about $2.7 million) to be allocated after the next school year ends.

But, I understand that after dropping the ball and withdrawing all the Measure G1 $2.7 million funding for next school year that at first was promised District Middle Schools, that providing half the funding for next year makes sense as providing full amount would also mean that there would be zero funding available in the second year.

Since the District has overspent its budget, it can't eat half of $2.7 million or $1.35 million next year.

But, it can, according to the CFO Hal, borrow 85% of the $1.35 million for next year and the same amount will be available the following year. In the third year the District Middle School would be getting the full amount of Measure G1 funding in Middle School grants.

I understand the rationale for borrowing but think that when the Measure G1 funding will be allocated at the "end" of the School Year prematurely allocating the funding by borrowing against the Measure G1 money is not what the Measure language allowed in my opinion.

Another thing about the Measure G1 money is placing it in schools site budgets prior to the Measure G1 Commission approving the grant money is a premature action that seems to have been forgotten in the rush to spend the money even before the tax revenues have been collected.

Also forgotten is that somewhere 15% of the $1.35 million or $202,500 will have to be found. Perhaps the $202,500 (15%) can be charged to the 1% in administrative overhead.

However, there will likely be a borrowing charge for both the 85% and the 15%. Since the County, I believe only lends up to 85% the District will have to eat the 15% or borrow from a different source than the County.

But, again, I think it is important not to short-change the Measure G1 money; taxpayers were told in the Measure G1 ballot language that with the exception of 1% overhead one-third entire amount of Measure G1 would go entirely to Middle School grants.

The method of allocation Measure G1 parcel tax money is complicated based on Middle School enrollment the previously school year grades 6,7, 8.

Yet, another added complication is that seven (7) County charters are demanding an equal share of the Measure G1 parcel tax money because the definition of who is entitled to measure G money in their interpretation of Measure G1 money the County authorized charters are within the "District" and thus entitled to a fair share of the funding for their enrolled Oakland students.

Here is how Measure G1 defines Middle School: "Middle School shall mean any district school or charter school within the District serving grades 6, 7, or 8, regardless of whether the school serves grades in addition to those grades."

The above language was written while the District Counsel Jacqueline Minor was still responsible for overseeing the legal aspect of the District's Measures. The above definition does not clearly stated that Middle School charters meant charters authorized by the Oakland School Board. This means for the next 12 years local property parcel tax money may be diverted from supporting not just District Middle Schools and Oakland School Board authorized charters but County authorized charters too. The seven County charters located in the District may take the District to court for the issue of whether Measure G1 language includes them in its definition of a Middle School. It has not been decided as to whether or not the District will fight the County charters in court and having more education dollars diverted away from education of children.

Because the 74 word summary of Measure G1, 12 year, $120 dollar parcel tax did not mention that Board charters, County charters or any type of charter schools would be getting parcel tax Measure G grant money, many of the over 80% of voters that passed Measure G1 voted thinking all the parcel tax was going for District school site personnel pay raises and Middle School grant money. The way the ballot Measure G1 was written kept the public in the dark as to the role the charters would play in getting parcel tax funding.

Posted by Jim Mordecai on 05/22/2017 at 10:21 PM

Re: “BART Police Accused of Illegally Collecting Private Cell Phone Data and Tracking Riders Through App

"...she wouldn't have originally installed the app if she knew it obtained information to identify and locate her phone. "?! WTF, the app clearly says it does that at install time. The fact that information CAN be correlated doesn't mean it is being correlated.

Something reeks here.

Posted by Bruce Ferrell on 05/22/2017 at 9:26 PM

Re: “Impeach Trump? Congresswoman Barbara Lee Held A Town Hall In Berkeley To Discuss.

Berkeley has been a shit hole for as long as I can remember. It is full of left wing anarcist fools. Keep it up dems and you will end up in the fight of your life. It will end up with the swamp cleaned out of the likes of barbara lee and maxine waters you know the one with the James Brown wig.

Posted by Jim Mzt on 05/22/2017 at 7:53 PM

Re: “BART Police Accused of Illegally Collecting Private Cell Phone Data and Tracking Riders Through App

Heres how to know for sure if your spouse is really cheating on you or not.I was introduced to leehacks92@gmail.com,hes a professional hacker and computer systems analyst,i contacted him and told him what i needed and he decided to help me out,i paid for the service and he delivered in perfect timing.It turns out my husband was a serial cheater after all,i was devastated to find out about the news but at the same time i was happy to find out early enough to know that i deserve better and move on with my life!

Posted by Peggy Weisenstein on 05/22/2017 at 7:26 PM

Re: “BART Police Accused of Illegally Collecting Private Cell Phone Data and Tracking Riders Through App

Whatever safeguards the app needs, don't kill it. A couple of us rode BART Sunday afternoon. At the Embarcadero stop, a gang of several youth in hoodies on a hot day, no more than 14 years old, made two attempts to snatch purses in our crowded car - one of them from the person I was with. The robber gangs do not operate only at Coliseum station, they do not operate only at night. It would be great if someone caught good snaps of these thieves and passed them on to BART - and posted them publicly.

Posted by Charlie Pine on 05/22/2017 at 4:22 PM

Re: “BART Police Accused of Illegally Collecting Private Cell Phone Data and Tracking Riders Through App

With a surveillance equipment regulation ordinance, aka a comprehensive privay ordinance, BART would have been required to vet this app to the public and say exactly what kind of information it was gathering, to whom it would go to and for how long it would be stored. Based on this information and public input the BART Board could have then decided to go ahead with the app, change some parameters about how it had to operate, or nix it.

This is not a radical idea! It's what oversight and transparency means. The BART board needs to step up and pass the ACLU/Oakland Privacy surveillance equipment regulation ordinance that's been worked on with staff and privacy advocates since last year now.

Posted by JP Massar on 05/22/2017 at 3:58 PM

Re: “BART Police Accused of Illegally Collecting Private Cell Phone Data and Tracking Riders Through App

Fuck the pigs and everybody fuck with them...

Posted by Gregory Belvin on 05/22/2017 at 3:02 PM

Most Popular Stories


© 2017 East Bay Express    All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation