Backers of Losing School Tax Wonder What Hit Them

Stunned supporters of a proposed parcel tax to aid the city’s schools were picking through the wreckage of their failed campaign Wednesday, trying to explain the “silent opposition” that defeated them at the polls.

Despite virtual across-the-board support from the city’s Establishment, Proposition A, which would have imposed a $98-a-year parcel tax for five years, fell more than four percentage points short of the two-thirds majority it needed in Tuesday’s special election.

The final count was 2,851 for the tax and 1,728 against it, or 62.3% to 37.7%.

At a gathering in a South Pasadena home on Election Night, School Supt. Lou Joseph was already trying to figure out how the district would make up for a budget shortfall by cutting jobs and programs. The first to go on the block, he said, would be eight teaching positions he was seeking to cut class sizes and to beef up services for students with special needs.

“I didn’t believe the voters would let us down,” said Joseph, shaking his head. The district has cut the school budget by $1.2 million in the last two years.

Opponents of the measure, who kept a low profile until the last week of the campaign, attributed the defeat to an instinctive resistance to new taxes, no matter what the consequences.

“Regardless of the time, money and effort spent,” said tax opponent Victor Minjares, “this indicates that the people are going to vote against additional taxes, no matter what.” He added that voters still largely support “the ethics of Proposition 13.”

Supporters of Proposition A had expressed high hopes because of the widespread support it had drawn. Endorsements had come from groups as diverse as the teachers union, local Democratic and Republican clubs, and the South Pasadena Taxpayers Assn., a perennial critic of city spending policies. The campaign was staffed by a small army of parents and teachers.

But last-minute publicity about huge state surpluses and Proposition 98, a state school aid measure approved by voters last year, increased the perception that the parcel tax was unnecessary, campaign leaders acknowledged.

“The surplus sure didn’t help,” said Jessica Katz, a mother of two schoolchildren, who directed the campaign for Proposition A.

At the same time, proponents of the tax were stung by a flyer distributed last week by a group identifying itself as South Pasadenans for Integrity in Government. The flyer, which was folded into a local newspaper, suggested that the tax was unnecessary and accused the district of maintaining “a swollen bureaucracy of 21 administrators.”

The flyer also said parents of 100 students from outside the district who are permitted to attend schools here would, in effect, be exempt from the tax.

The flyer, which did not include the name of its authors, was “inherently unfair,” said Katz. In the first place, he said, the opposition group failed to register as a political committee with the county registrar-recorder, as required by the state Government Code. A spokeswoman for the registrar confirmed that there was no record of the group on a list of registered political committees.

Katz added that the flyer misrepresented the district’s financial situation. There are fewer than 16 administrators in the district, and nonresident students each bring in about $2,600 a year in state funding, she said.

“We never heard from any of these people during the campaign,” said Katz.

“Obviously, a big block of voters express themselves only at the polls,” said school board member Ellen Hervey.

But campaign leaders conceded that they may have failed to convince many of the city’s senior citizens, who not only constitute more than a quarter of the population but who also vote in disproportionately high numbers.

“If I had it to do over again,” said Katz, “I think I would have strongly recommended that we give senior citizens an option to apply for an exemption from the tax.” Proposition A would have exempted only low-income or elderly property owners with moderate incomes. “If we had given them all an option, many would have chosen to pay,” said Katz.

Meanwhile, once-optimistic administrators and school board members face the future with grim determination, despite the prospect of some new state money.

“We’ll just have to cut until the budget balances,” said board member Margaret Ann Abdalla. “It’s not going to be fun.”

FINAL RESULTS South Pasadena Unified School District School Improvements Tax Measure

(2/3 Majority Required)

Yes 2,851 62% No 1,728 38%