user warning: Table 'hjta_prod.cache_similarterms' doesn't exist query: SELECT data, created, headers, expire FROM cache_similarterms WHERE cid = '1:136' in /var/www/hjta.org/public_html/includes/database.mysqli.inc on line 156.
user warning: Table 'hjta_prod.cache_similarterms' doesn't exist query: LOCK TABLES cache_similarterms WRITE in /var/www/hjta.org/public_html/includes/database.mysqli.inc on line 156.
user warning: Table 'hjta_prod.cache_similarterms' doesn't exist query: UPDATE cache_similarterms SET data = 'a:3:{i:0;O:8:\"stdClass\":26:{s:3:\"nid\";s:2:\"43\";s:3:\"vid\";s:2:\"43\";s:4:\"type\";s:4:\"page\";s:6:\"status\";s:1:\"1\";s:7:\"created\";s:10:\"1232493734\";s:7:\"changed\";s:10:\"1233181916\";s:7:\"comment\";s:1:\"0\";s:7:\"promote\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"sticky\";s:1:\"0\";s:18:\"revision_timestamp\";s:10:\"1233181916\";s:5:\"title\";s:60:\"Help Stop Illegal Government Spending For Political Activity\";s:4:\"body\";s:8280:\"Warning to California Taxpayers\r\nIn the last few weeks, we have been informed of numerous instances of taxpayer funds being used for political purposes. In most cases, local school district resources are being used to support local bond measures.\r\nOUTRIGHT ADVOCACY OF THIS NATURE IS ILLEGAL AND YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEMAND THAT SUCH ACTIVITY STOP!\r\nAs a service to all of our members and taxpayers throughout California, we have set forth below two separate versions of a form letter that you can use to warn local governments and school districts that the use of taxpayer funds for political advocacy is prohibited by state statute and the United States Constitution and can result in civil and criminal sanctions. You should adapt these forms as necessary to apply to the facts in your district.\r\nTaxpayers may wish to provide a \"cc\" of any letter to HJTA. This serves the dual purpose of letting the offending agency know that HJTA\'s attorneys have been made aware of the transgression as well as keeping us informed with respect to the nature and frequency of this activity around the state. Taxpayers may also wish to \"cc\" local media. While some voters may be sympathetic to an agency and its revenue requests, they may not be sympathetic to the illegal use of taxpayer funds.\r\n \r\n<table border=\"0\" width=\"100%\" bordercolor=\"#FFFFCC\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"12\" bgcolor=\"#FFFFCC\">\r\n<tr>\r\n<td width=\"100%\">FORM LETTER FOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS\r\n<code> \r\nSuperintendent ____________ \r\n_____________ School District \r\n1234 Ripoff Avenue \r\nAnytown, CA 91313\r\nRe: Taxpayer Dollars for Political Advocacy\r\nDear Superintendent ___________,\r\nThe enclosed material was handed out to parents attending open houses at schools in the ___________ School District. It is apparent that the material was printed at School District expense and distributed on school grounds during an official school function. \r\n[and/or]\r\nOn [date], district employees, on district time, [describe campaign activity]. \r\nUnder California law, including Education Code Â§ 7054, school districts are strictly prohibited from engaging in political advocacy using public resources. No use may be made of school property, funds, personnel, supplies or equipment \"for the purpose of urging the support or defeat of any ballot measure.\" Violation of this provision can either be a misdemeanor or felony and is punishable by fines and/or imprisonment. Â§7054(c). \r\nSchool districts may make public statements of an informational nature, provided they are factual and impartial. Statements that are not factual, that are not impartial, or that address subjects beyond the scope of the limited legislative authorization in section 7054, are prohibited both by statute and by our state and federal Constitutions.\r\nThe Free Speech clauses of the federal and state Constitutions prohibit the use of governmentally compelled monetary contributions (including taxes) to support or oppose political campaigns since \"[s]uch contributions are a form of speech, and compelled speech offends the First Amendment.\" Smith v. U.C. Regents (1993) 4 Cal.4th 843, 852.\r\nMoreover, \"use of the public treasury to mount an election campaign which attempts to influence the resolution of issues which our Constitution leaves to the \'free election\' of the people (see Const., art. II, Â§ 2) ... presents a serious threat to the integrity of the electoral process.\" Stanson v. Mott (1976) 17 Cal.3d 206, 218.\r\n The activity/materials at issue violate these core democratic principles in the following manner:  [Describe in detail how the materials or activity either express support for the measure or how the materials or activity are so one-sided that they would fairly be characterized as advocacy as opposed to informational].\r\n It is a serious breach of the public trust when government officials spend public funds to create an advantage for one side of a political campaign. We have informed the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association about this activity. As you may know, HJTA has successfully sued individual officials in similar circumstances for an accounting and personal reimbursement of mishandled public funds.\r\n In order to avoid litigation over this matter, we demand that the __________ School District immediately cease using its funds, school property, personnel, supplies or equipment to influence the election. Printing of the material must cease and any remaining offending material not yet distributed must be destroyed.\r\n If we receive written confirmation from you within the next ten days that these demands have been met, we will take no further action.\r\n Sincerely, \r\n \r\n I. Rate Taxpayer \r\n Anytown Taxpayers Association \r\n \r\n cc: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Legal Department \r\n Local media \r\n </code>\r\n </td>\r\n</tr>\r\n</table>\r\n \r\n<table border=\"0\" width=\"100%\" cellspacing=\"6\" cellpadding=\"12\" bgcolor=\"#FFFFCC\">\r\n<tr>\r\n<td width=\"100%\">\r\n FORM LETTER FOR CITIES, COUNTIES AND SPECIAL DISTRICTS\r\n<code> \r\n[Mr./Ms.] \r\n[Name of Chief Administrative Official Here] \r\n[Name of Local Government Here] \r\n1234 Ripoff Avenue \r\nAnytown, CA 91313\r\nRe: Taxpayer Dollars for Political Advocacy\r\nDear [Mr./Ms.] _______________,\r\nOn [date], employees of your agency, on agency time, [describe campaign activity].\r\nUnder California law, local governments are strictly prohibited from engaging in political advocacy using public resources. Local governments may make public statements of an informational nature, provided they are factual and impartial. Statements that are not factual, or that are not impartial are prohibited both by our state and federal Constitutions.\r\nThe Free Speech clauses of the federal and state Constitutions prohibit the use of governmentally compelled monetary contributions (including taxes) to support or oppose political campaigns since \"[s]uch contributions are a form of speech, and compelled speech offends the First Amendment.\" Smith v. U.C. Regents (1993) 4 Cal.4th 843, 852.\r\nMoreover, "use of the public treasury to mount an election campaign which attempts to influence the resolution of issues which our Constitution leaves to the \'free election\' of the people (see Const., art. II, Â§ 2) ... presents a serious threat to the integrity of the electoral process." Stanson v. Mott (1976) 17 Cal.3d 206, 218.\r\nThe activity/materials at issue violate these core democratic principles in the following manner. ____________________________   [Describe in detail how the materials or activity either express support for the measure or how the materials or activity are so one-sided that they would fairly be characterized as advocacy as opposed to informational].\r\nIt is a serious breach of the public trust when government officials spend public funds to create an advantage for one side of a political campaign. We have informed the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association about this activity. As you may know, HJTA has successfully sued individual officials in similar circumstances for an accounting and personal reimbursement of mishandled public funds.\r\nIn order to avoid litigation over this matter, we demand that the [Name of Local Government] __________ immediately cease using its funds, property, personnel, supplies or equipment to influence the election. Printing of unlawful material must cease and any remaining offending material not yet distributed must be destroyed.\r\nIf we receive written confirmation from you within the next ten days that these demands have been met, we will take no further action.\r\nSincerely,\r\nI. Rate Taxpayer \r\nAnytown Taxpayers Association\r\ncc: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Legal Department \r\nLocal media\r\n </td>\r\n</tr>\r\n</table>\r\n \r\n\";s:6:\"teaser\";s:405:\"Warning to California Taxpayers\r\nIn the last few weeks, we have been informed of numerous instances of taxpayer funds being used for political purposes. In most cases, local school district resources are being used to support local bond measures.\r\nOUTRIGHT ADVOCACY OF THIS NATURE IS ILLEGAL AND YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEMAND THAT SUCH ACTIVITY STOP!\";s:3:\"log\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"format\";s:1:\"3\";s:3:\"uid\";s:1:\"3\";s:4:\"name\";s:6:\"jmonma\";s:7:\"picture\";s:0:\"\";s:4:\"data\";s:6:\"a:0:{}\";s:4:\"path\";s:62:\"tools/help-stop-illegal-government-spending-political-activity\";s:4:\"tags\";a:1:{i:1;a:5:{i:12;O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:3:\"tid\";s:2:\"12\";s:3:\"vid\";s:1:\"1\";s:4:\"name\";s:10:\"California\";s:11:\"description\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"weight\";s:1:\"0\";}i:17;O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:3:\"tid\";s:2:\"17\";s:3:\"vid\";s:1:\"1\";s:4:\"name\";s:10:\"government\";s:11:\"description\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"weight\";s:1:\"0\";}i:60;O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:3:\"tid\";s:2:\"60\";s:3:\"vid\";s:1:\"1\";s:4:\"name\";s:10:\"Homeowners\";s:11:\"description\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"weight\";s:1:\"0\";}i:51;O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:3:\"tid\";s:2:\"51\";s:3:\"vid\";s:1:\"1\";s:4:\"name\";s:12:\"Legal Action\";s:11:\"description\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"weight\";s:1:\"0\";}i:62;O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:3:\"tid\";s:2:\"62\";s:3:\"vid\";s:1:\"1\";s:4:\"name\";s:5:\"Waste\";s:11:\"description\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"weight\";s:1:\"0\";}}}s:22:\"last_comment_timestamp\";s:10:\"1232493772\";s:17:\"last_comment_name\";N;s:13:\"comment_count\";s:1:\"0\";s:8:\"taxonomy\";a:6:{i:74;O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:3:\"tid\";s:2:\"74\";s:3:\"vid\";s:1:\"6\";s:4:\"name\";s:5:\"Tools\";s:11:\"description\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"weight\";s:1:\"0\";}i:12;r:25;i:17;r:31;i:60;r:37;i:51;r:43;i:62;r:49;}s:10:\"page_title\";b:0;}i:1;O:8:\"stdClass\":26:{s:3:\"nid\";s:2:\"41\";s:3:\"vid\";s:2:\"41\";s:4:\"type\";s:4:\"page\";s:6:\"status\";s:1:\"1\";s:7:\"created\";s:10:\"1232484342\";s:7:\"changed\";s:10:\"1235771486\";s:7:\"comment\";s:1:\"0\";s:7:\"promote\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"sticky\";s:1:\"0\";s:18:\"revision_timestamp\";s:10:\"1235771486\";s:5:\"title\";s:41:\"How to Defeat Prop. 39 Bonds in Your Area\";s:4:\"body\";s:22175:\"[Printable version in <a href=\"/doc/HowToDefeatProposition39Bonds.doc\" target=\"_blank\">Microsoft Word</a> or in <a href=\"/pdf/HowToDefeatProposition39Bonds.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">PDF</a> format.]\r\nBACKGROUND\r\nFor 121 years, the California Constitution required a two-thirds vote for local bonds that are repaid exclusively by property owners. By placing the two-thirds vote requirement in the California Constitution of 1879, the framers acknowledged that not everyone who voted was obligated to repay the bonds. Proposition 46, a 1986 constitutional amendment, also required two-thirds voter approval to increase the property tax rate above 1% of a property\'s assessed value in order to repay local bonds.\r\nUnlike state bonds which generally do not have a corresponding tax increase to repay the debt, local bonds are accompanied by a tax increase to repay the debt. Thus, when a local education bond is approved by voters, it is accompanied by a separate property tax increase to repay the debt. \r\nThe property tax rate is increased above the 1% tax rate limit of Proposition 13 (1978) in order to repay the debt. The amount of additional property tax paid by a particular parcel is determined by multiplying the applicable property tax rate increase by the assessed value of the parcel. Property tax rates to repay local bonds are often expressed in dollars per $100,000 assessed valuation (e.g., a tax rate of $100 per $100,000 assessed valuation).\r\nIn November 2000, a small <a href=\"/propositions/who-wants-homeowners-pay-higher-taxes\">group of Silicon Valley dot.com multi-millionaires and billionaires</a> spent more than $32,000,000 and succeeded in passing Proposition 39, lowering the vote requirement for local school and community college bonds, and the corresponding property tax increase to repay the bonds, to 55%. This new lower vote threshold means that virtually every local school and community college bond will pass, regardless of merit, unless local citizens campaign actively in opposition. \r\nTHE PROBLEM\r\nWhen a two-thirds vote was required, the burden was on the proponents to convince voters that a bond, and its accompanying property tax increase, were really needed. In the five year period prior to the passage of Proposition 39, voters were quite generous, approving more than 60% of local education bonds with a two-thirds vote, for a sum total of more than $15 Billion!\r\nWith the new 55% requirement, nearly all bonds will pass easily. In the first three years since the passage of Proposition 39, about 90% of local school and community college bonds passed under the reduced 55% passing standard. Seeing this, school officials can be expected to confront taxpayers with even more bonds for higher amounts, saddling homeowners with billions of dollars of additional debt. In just the first three years since the passage of Proposition 39, more than $20 Billion in local school and community college bonds passed under the reduced 55% passing standard.\r\nTHE CHALLENGE\r\nWhile the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is committed to reversing the damage done to property taxpayers from Proposition 39 by restoring the two-thirds vote, this could take several years. In the meantime, the only way taxpayers will be able to defend themselves is to take a more active role in opposing these bonds in their local communities. \r\nWhile the focus of this document is on defeating local Proposition 39 bonds that are subject to 55% voter approval, most of the information contained in this document is just as applicable to defeating two-thirds vote bonds placed on the ballot by local school and community college districts. Since the passage of Proposition 39, a small percentage of local education bond measures have been subject to a two-thirds vote. These measures generally involve bonds where the estimated property tax rate to repay the debt exceeds the allowable Proposition 39 \"tax cap\" for the district.\r\nOpposing and defeating a Proposition 39 bond will not be easy. First of all, the bond proponents will be well organized and will usually have extensive financial and manpower resources at their disposal. School and community college districts frequently hire expensive consultants to tell them the best way to pass bonds. \r\nConsultants often tell local education officials not to publicize the bond election to the entire community, but to target only their supporters. This means running a stealth election, communicating only with administrators, the local teachers union, the PTA, and parents who have children in school. \r\nSince it is illegal for education officials to use public resources (including public funds) to urge a vote for or against a political issue, consultants frequently counsel bond backers on the best way to wage \"information\" campaigns. This means putting up signs or sending out material stating all the good things a bond measure will do, but stopping just short of telling people how to vote. For example, in an effort to help pass a $1.25 billion local Proposition 39 bond measure, the Los Angeles Community College District spent $750,000 of public funds on a media campaign talking about the importance of community colleges.\r\nWhen addressing the public, bond backers are frequently encouraged to put the cost in simple, friendly sounding terms that usually begin with \"it\'s only.\" \"It\'s only a few cents a day,\" or \"it\'s only a few dollars per month.\" (The Los Angeles CommunityCollege District Chancellor compared the cost of its bond to the cost of a \"latte a month.\") Officials try to make it sound like the coming property tax increase is trivial and that anyone who is opposed must be a cheapskate who doesn\'t care about children.\r\nNothing could be further from the truth. The vast majority of taxpayers are not anti-education or against students having decent facilities in which to learn. Taxpayers have shown repeatedly that they are willing to approve local education bonds for a good cause. Even the dysfunctional Los Angeles Unified School District was able in 1997 to pass a record setting bond under the two-thirds vote rule. \r\nHowever, many districts are taking advantage of the fact that local education bonds are now so much easier to pass. For example, the Los Angeles Community College District asked property owners to pay higher taxes for projects like sports stadiums, swimming pools, and a simulated driving range where students can work on their golf swing. These projects would not have been included in the bond unless district officials were confident that the lower 55% voter approval requirement virtually guaranteed passage. \r\nNewspapers can be another problem for taxpayers. While editors at some papers may be sympathetic to the taxpayers\' cause, education writers are almost universally hostile. Why? Because they constantly talk to teachers and administrators. In a short time, these reporters tend to adopt the values and perspective of those they cover. Their stories will tend to present a bond in a more favorable light.\r\nTAKE ACTION!\r\nNow that Proposition 39 has stacked the deck against taxpayers, should taxpayers give up? Absolutely not! These bonds can be defeated if opponents are willing to work, but it will take hard work.\r\nMONITOR LOCAL BONDS\r\nThe first step is to monitor local school and community college district news. Try to find out in advance if your school or community college district is considering placing a bond on the ballot. The local newspaper is one source of information. Another is calling your school or community college district administrative offices. They should be able to tell you the agenda for upcoming board meetings. Upcoming board agendas may also be posted on the district website (if it has one), so you may also want to visit the district website.\r\nIf you learn that a bond will be discussed, alert friends and neighbors to the fact that property taxes may be going up and encourage them to join you in attending the local board meetings at which the bond is discussed. Take advantage of the public comment portion of the meeting to express your concerns and objections. \r\nOne of the few advantages taxpayers have with Proposition 39 bonds is that the law requires these bonds to be put on the ballot during either a regularly scheduled local election or during a statewide election. This simplifies monitoring for these bonds and prevents backers from attempting to sneak bonds through during special elections at which there is usually a low voter turnout, although some Proposition 39 bonds have been approved with voter turnouts of less than 20%. \r\nNote that under California law it takes a two-thirds vote of the governing body to place a Proposition 39 bond measure on the ballot. With a typical five member governing body, this means that four affirmative votes are needed to place a Proposition 39 bond measure on the ballot instead of the usual three votes.\r\nIf the local board approves a Proposition 39 bond for the ballot — a bond requiring only a 55% vote — please <a href=\"mailto:info@HJTA.org\">inform the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association</a>. There are over 1,000 school and community college districts in California, and although HJTA will usually learn of bonds in the larger school districts, members can help by making certain HJTA is informed of bond measures in smaller districts.\r\nSUBMIT A BALLOT ARGUMENT\r\nIf your school or community college district decides to place a Proposition 39 bond on the ballot, you should write and submit an argument against the measure for publication in the voter information pamphlet that will be sent to all voters in the district. The ballot opposition argument is often the only opportunity bond opponents will have to reach all voters in the district to make their case against the bond.\r\nStart by contacting the clerk of the school board. The clerk should be able to help you obtain the written rules covering all local requirements for submitting ballot arguments. You should also contact your county registrar of voters for requirements applicable to submitting ballot arguments. Under California law, county election officials (generally the county registrar of voters) conduct nearly all school and community college district elections. \r\nIndependent verification of the applicable legal requirements, such as using a law library to review California Election Code sections 9500-9509, is always advisable. California Election Code sections can also be viewed online at the <a href=\"http://www.legislature.ca.gov/\" target=\"_blank\">website of the California Legislature</a> or <a href=\"/tools/statutes-relating-school-district-ballot-arguments\">right here on the HJTA site</a>.\r\nIt is important to follow all requirements applicable to the drafting and submission of ballot arguments since the failure to do so can result in election officials not accepting an argument for publication.\r\nUnder California law, arguments submitted by public officials are generally given first priority, followed by citizen groups, and then followed by individual voters. However, it is rare to see public officials submitting arguments against new spending. \r\nBe sure to find out when the arguments are due. Contact your local elections official for the ballot argument deadline. The deadline is set by local election officials and will vary from county to county. \r\nIt is very important to note that the initial ballot arguments are generally due shortly (usually 7 to 10 days) after the deadline for placing a measure on the ballot, which is generally some three months prior to the election. Hence, you must move quickly after a bond measure is placed on the ballot in order to write and submit a ballot argument in a timely manner.\r\nBond supporters will be given an opportunity to rebut an opposition argument, but bond opponents will also be given the opportunity to rebut the ballot argument of the bond supporters. The rebuttal arguments are generally due 10 days after the deadline for filing the initial arguments. \r\nArguments can be signed by up to five persons. If possible, recruit others to sign. Officers or members of local homeowner, neighborhood, or taxpayers associations are good candidates. If none of these are available, don\'t hesitate to have signers use the title \"homeowner\" or \"taxpayer.\"\r\nArguments should focus on the cost of the bond, including interest, and the fact that bonds place a lien against property until the principal and interest are paid off. This can take as long as 40 years but will vary with the individual bond issue. Property owners should be warned that their property taxes will go up and renters should be reminded that they risk higher rents if the bond passes. \r\nIn ballot arguments it is not a good idea to attack the schools or local officials without pointing to specific acts of mismanagement that demonstrate that local board members are unqualified to handle the bond money and/or the various construction projects involved. \r\nBe sure you are able to document any and all accusations of this kind. If an argument is challenged in court, bond opponents do not want to risk having a judge rule that the argument is \"false and misleading\" and have it removed from the ballot or otherwise modified. If this occurs, those submitting a \"false and misleading\" argument may be liable for court costs and even the attorney fees for the other side that challenged the argument. If there is any doubt about the content, keep arguments focused on the damage that the additional bonds and debt can do to homeowners. \r\nProposition 39 requires that the bond measure list the specific projects that are to be funded. Review the list. If any projects are superfluous to educating students, they should be condemned and brought to the attention of the public in the ballot argument and during the campaign.\r\nIf the district has passed other bonds recently, including any two-thirds vote bonds prior to the passage of Proposition 39, mention this as evidence that a new bond may be unnecessary. Note that it is not uncommon for a district placing a Proposition 39 bond measure on the ballot to have previously passed a bond, and in some cases to have even passed several bond measures in recent years.\r\nArguments are usually limited to about 300 words and rebuttals to 250 words. Arguments should always be clear, simple, and direct. They do not have to be the maximum length allowed. \r\nThere is generally no charge to file an opposition argument or a rebuttal argument. Costs of printing the ballot arguments are generally paid by the local district as an election cost.\r\nGET THE WORD OUT\r\nEvery political movement begins with only a few people. Your friends, neighbors, relatives, co-workers, fellow club members, and members of homeowner associations are always an excellent source of support for taxpayer issues. Share the information you gather with them. Many people don\'t keep up with what is happening in politics, especially local politics, but it is a rare person who doesn\'t want to know if their taxes are about to go up. Once people are informed, the word will spread.\r\nASK FOR VOLUNTEERS\r\nSome people will be willing to volunteer their time to help fight the bond. Make up a fact sheet that describes the issues and ask them to distribute copies in their neighborhoods. When making up a fact sheet, just like the ballot argument, make it clear, simple, and direct. Try and limit the length to one page, and use a type size that is large enough for voters to read, especially for those voters who are senior citizens.\r\nFor those who are less ambitious, set a realistic goal. Ask them to talk to at least five other voters in the district before election day. Keep the discussion short and simple, with an emphasis on the fact that property taxes will go up if the bond passes.\r\nLETTERS TO THE EDITOR\r\nAnother cost-effective way to get out the word and help protect taxpayers is through letters to the editor in your local newspaper. Reader surveys show that the letters to the editor section is one of the most read sections of the newspaper. It is an excellent forum for taxpayers because it allows you to bypass reporters and editors and to express your message directly.\r\nThe following are some suggestions for writing and submitting letters to the editor:\r\n<ul style=\"margin-top: 0;\">\r\n<li>Keep your letter short and to the point — 250 words maximum.</li>\r\n<li>Stick to making one major point in your letter. For example, \"Passage of the school bond will result in much higher taxes for homeowners.\"</li>\r\n<li>Tying the letter to a recent story in the newspaper will increase the chances it will be published. If the newspaper editorializes on the bond, either for or against, consider this too an opportunity to send in a letter to the editor.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\nFORM AN OPPOSITION CAMPAIGN\r\nConsider forming an opposition campaign (or joining the campaign if one has already been formed), especially if it appears that there is widespread community opposition to a bond measure. A formal opposition campaign can enhance the credibility of the opposition which can lead to such things as greater newspaper coverage and participation in campaign forums. A formal campaign can also help to focus and coordinate the activities of those who are against the bond, including the receipt of campaign contributions.\r\nNote that under the California Political Reform Act, campaign filing obligations will generally be incurred if $1,000 or more is received or spent in a calendar year in connection with opposing a local ballot measure. For additional information and/or forms in connection with campaign filing obligations, you can contact your local county elections official. You can also contact the California Fair Political Practices Commission. The FPPC website is at: <a href=\"http://www.fppc.ca.gov\" title=\"http://www.fppc.ca.gov\" target=\"_blank\">http://www.fppc.ca.gov</a>.\r\nCAMPAIGN FORUMS\r\nCampaign forums are sometimes held in connection with a local bond measure. At such forums, the proponents and the opponents have an opportunity to present their case to the public and debate the merits of the bond measure. Such forums are often covered by local newspapers and are sometimes televised on local cable television. \r\nConsider participating in a campaign forum if one has been scheduled. It is a cost-effective way to make your case to the electorate. It is important to make certain that you are adequately prepared on the issues. \r\nStrong preparation will enhance the chances of success.\r\nNote, however, that the proponents of bond measures in many districts do not want to schedule campaign forums for the very reason that it might give \r\n\"undue\" public attention to the measure, or give bond \r\nopponents a forum to make their case. If there is a formal campaign opposition group, the opponents should not hesitate to push for a campaign forum if one has not been scheduled, or if the bond proponents refuse to debate the merits of a bond measure. If a bond measure truly is meritorious, bond proponents should not hesitate about debating its merits.\r\nRADIO TALK SHOWS\r\nRadio talk shows are another excellent way to get the message out. By calling programs devoted to current affairs and politics, your views will be heard by thousands of potential voters. This approach can be particularly effective in some of the larger districts that propose bond measures, especially in community college districts.\r\nEDITORIAL REBUTTALS\r\nRadio stations that air editorial comment usually offer free time to members of the public with differing viewpoints. Those selected by the stations are usually those who call first and can demonstrate knowledge of the issue. As a taxpayer, you are as qualified to talk about tax issues as any other citizen.\r\nWHAT ELSE CAN TAXPAYERS DO?\r\nSUPPORT GOOD LOCAL CANDIDATES\r\nAn excellent way to help taxpayers is to become involved in local school board elections. Find out where the candidates stand and support only those who pledge to support the two-thirds vote for local education bonds. Proposition 39 does not require all local education bonds be subject to 55% voter approval. Local districts still have the discretion to place two-thirds vote bonds on the ballot if they so desire.\r\nSTART A LOCAL TAXPAYER ORGANIZATION\r\nAs you work, you are likely to find that others are as fed up as you are with out-of-control spending and the little respect most local officials and bureaucrats show for the taxpayer. Consider forming your own local taxpayer group to coordinate efforts in dealing with city councils or county boards of supervisors, as well as school boards. If you start with only a few members, don\'t worry — as local tax issues become more prominent, membership will expand.\r\nJOIN HJTA\r\nJoin the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. HJTA is California\'s foremost taxpayer advocacy organization. HJTA is dedicated to the protection of Proposition 13 and the advancement of taxpayers\' rights. Your membership will assure that you are kept informed of developing issues that concern taxpayers throughout the state. In addition, HJTA can assist local individuals and groups with political advice and legal opinions that can be invaluable in local battles against unreasonable taxation. <a href=\"/join-us/\">You can join online right now.</a>\r\n\";s:6:\"teaser\";s:236:\"[Printable version in <a href=\"/doc/HowToDefeatProposition39Bonds.doc\" target=\"_blank\">Microsoft Word</a> or in <a href=\"/pdf/HowToDefeatProposition39Bonds.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">PDF</a> format.]\r\nBACKGROUND\";s:3:\"log\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"format\";s:1:\"3\";s:3:\"uid\";s:1:\"3\";s:4:\"name\";s:6:\"jmonma\";s:7:\"picture\";s:0:\"\";s:4:\"data\";s:6:\"a:0:{}\";s:4:\"path\";s:40:\"tools/how-defeat-prop-39-bonds-your-area\";s:4:\"tags\";a:1:{i:1;a:5:{i:12;O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:3:\"tid\";s:2:\"12\";s:3:\"vid\";s:1:\"1\";s:4:\"name\";s:10:\"California\";s:11:\"description\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"weight\";s:1:\"0\";}i:17;O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:3:\"tid\";s:2:\"17\";s:3:\"vid\";s:1:\"1\";s:4:\"name\";s:10:\"government\";s:11:\"description\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"weight\";s:1:\"0\";}i:60;O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:3:\"tid\";s:2:\"60\";s:3:\"vid\";s:1:\"1\";s:4:\"name\";s:10:\"Homeowners\";s:11:\"description\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"weight\";s:1:\"0\";}i:51;O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:3:\"tid\";s:2:\"51\";s:3:\"vid\";s:1:\"1\";s:4:\"name\";s:12:\"Legal Action\";s:11:\"description\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"weight\";s:1:\"0\";}i:62;O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:3:\"tid\";s:2:\"62\";s:3:\"vid\";s:1:\"1\";s:4:\"name\";s:5:\"Waste\";s:11:\"description\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"weight\";s:1:\"0\";}}}s:22:\"last_comment_timestamp\";s:10:\"1232484376\";s:17:\"last_comment_name\";N;s:13:\"comment_count\";s:1:\"0\";s:8:\"taxonomy\";a:6:{i:74;O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:3:\"tid\";s:2:\"74\";s:3:\"vid\";s:1:\"6\";s:4:\"name\";s:5:\"Tools\";s:11:\"description\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"weight\";s:1:\"0\";}i:12;r:94;i:17;r:100;i:60;r:106;i:51;r:112;i:62;r:118;}s:10:\"page_title\";b:0;}i:2;O:8:\"stdClass\":28:{s:3:\"nid\";s:3:\"139\";s:3:\"vid\";s:3:\"139\";s:4:\"type\";s:9:\"hjta_blog\";s:6:\"status\";s:1:\"1\";s:7:\"created\";s:10:\"1219700503\";s:7:\"changed\";s:10:\"1234302174\";s:7:\"comment\";s:1:\"0\";s:7:\"promote\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"sticky\";s:1:\"0\";s:18:\"revision_timestamp\";s:10:\"1234302174\";s:5:\"title\";s:55:\"Report to Taxpayers from the Front in the Budget Battle\";s:4:\"body\";s:5238:\"Last week saw several significant clashes in the budget war between those who have vowed not to raise taxes and those who would raise taxes in a heartbeat. Both sides lost some and won some but, on balance, the taxpayer defenders came out better and stronger.\r\n\r\nThe biggest fight, of course, occurred on Sunday when an actual budget vote was taken in the Assembly. Not only did the Republicans hold firm, but one Democrat refused to vote for the budget -- Nicole Parra -- because she vowed to hold out for a water deal for her Central Valley district. She was immediately banished from the Capitol by Democrat leadership and she now occupies a small office in a decrepit office building across the street.\r\n\r\nLike Lou Correa, another Democrat punished last year by party bosses, Parra immediately secured hero status in her district. What the new Speaker, Karen Bass, failed to grasp is that the Legislature is so reviled by voters now that if a member is being punished, they must have done something right. Bass, despite her friendly outward demeanor has, by this action, shown that it is going to be politics as usual. And, by punishing Parra, Bass has also demonstrated that she is politically tone deaf.\r\n\r\nThe week also saw Governor Schwarzenegger slide a little further into irrelevancy. Trying out the tough guy image one more time, he commanded the Republicans to \"come out of their ideological corners\" and meet in the middle. At least that\'s what he says. What he actually means is that he wants the Legislative Republicans to do as he has done -- move completely to the Democrat side. California taxpayers are fortunate that the legislative Republicans are not disposed to accept his invitation. They actually take their campaign promises not to raise taxes seriously.\r\n\r\nSpeaking of Arnold, I was cleaning my office last week and I came across a 3-ring binder entitled Phil Angelides Tax Increases. Produced by the Reelect Arnold campaign 2 years ago, it was a slick, very effective compendium of all the tax increases Californians would likely suffer if Angelides were elected governor. The document was produced to remind everyone that the very centerpiece of Arnold\'s reelection campaign was based on his hard pledge never to raise taxes. Some of those very proposals we were warned against are now being pushed by Arnold himself.\r\n\r\nTurning to media coverage, the Sacramento Bee, in an effort to describe how we got into this budget mess, had a full page spread including a graphic with various \"milestones\" in recent California history that contributed to the fiasco. First, of course, was Proposition 13. Ah yes, the seminal cause of California\'s decline into fiscal insanity. The only problem is that, even adjusted for inflation and population increases, California has far more revenue than it did in the \'60s and \'70s. (Remember those days, when we had education and transportation systems that actually worked?)\r\n\r\nMissing from the Bee\'s \"milestones\" was what happened in 1968. That year marked the passage of the Meyers-Milius-Brown Act, legalizing collective bargaining for public sector workers. Virtually all our budgetary ills today can be traced to the inordinate political power of the public employee unions.\r\n\r\nAlso absent from any discussion of the budget from the Democrats and the Governor is the extraordinary level of waste, fraud and abuse with how we spend our tax dollars now. The Governor who launched the long-overdue \"California Performance Review\" project has said nary a word this past year about government efficiencies. That\'s too bad, because it wasn\'t just Republicans pushing this idea. Hundreds of long serving state employees working in concert with experts from some of California\'s best think tanks produced comprehensive studies -- with specific recommendations -- on how to get much more out of government and bring performance-based management to public agencies. The whole CPR project was dropped and all those who worked so hard are still bitter.\r\n\r\nAlso, in a bizarre twist of \"Tax Me More, Tax Me More,\" 48 wealthy Californians signed a letter saying they are willing to pay higher taxes. Good for them. We invite them to whip out their checkbooks and start writing. As for the rest of us, we see no reason to feed an already overfed government behemoth. Good government at a fair price is not too much to ask. Other states have it -- why not California?\r\n\r\nFinally, at the end of the week, a handful of business organizations publicly supported the Governor\'s proposed tax increase. No comment here is necessary about how the Governor and his top policy folks use a combination of carrots and sticks to get the business community to say what they want them to say. The carrot here is some minor changes (albeit good) for workplace rules and the modification of the 40-hour work week.\r\n\r\nWith all due respect to our friends at the Chamber of Compromise, they, like all folks on the private sector side of the ledger, ought not to settle for such table scraps.\r\n\r\nJon Coupal is President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association -- California\'s largest taxpayer organization -- which is dedicated to the protection of Proposition 13 and promoting taxpayers\' rights.\";s:6:\"teaser\";s:262:\"Last week saw several significant clashes in the budget war between those who have vowed not to raise taxes and those who would raise taxes in a heartbeat. Both sides lost some and won some but, on balance, the taxpayer defenders came out better and stronger.\r\n\r\";s:3:\"log\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"format\";s:1:\"3\";s:3:\"uid\";s:1:\"6\";s:4:\"name\";s:8:\"gforster\";s:7:\"picture\";s:0:\"\";s:4:\"data\";s:24:\"a:1:{s:7:\"contact\";i:1;}\";s:4:\"path\";s:58:\"california-commentary/report-taxpayers-front-budget-battle\";s:12:\"field_byline\";a:1:{i:0;a:1:{s:5:\"value\";s:13:\"by Jon Coupal\";}}s:22:\"field_featured_content\";a:1:{i:0;a:1:{s:5:\"value\";s:2:\"no\";}}s:4:\"tags\";a:1:{i:1;a:6:{i:12;O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:3:\"tid\";s:2:\"12\";s:3:\"vid\";s:1:\"1\";s:4:\"name\";s:10:\"California\";s:11:\"description\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"weight\";s:1:\"0\";}i:17;O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:3:\"tid\";s:2:\"17\";s:3:\"vid\";s:1:\"1\";s:4:\"name\";s:10:\"government\";s:11:\"description\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"weight\";s:1:\"0\";}i:95;O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:3:\"tid\";s:2:\"95\";s:3:\"vid\";s:1:\"1\";s:4:\"name\";s:23:\"Governor Schwarzenegger\";s:11:\"description\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"weight\";s:1:\"0\";}i:78;O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:3:\"tid\";s:2:\"78\";s:3:\"vid\";s:1:\"1\";s:4:\"name\";s:11:\"Legislature\";s:11:\"description\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"weight\";s:1:\"0\";}i:64;O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:3:\"tid\";s:2:\"64\";s:3:\"vid\";s:1:\"1\";s:4:\"name\";s:12:\"State Budget\";s:11:\"description\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"weight\";s:1:\"0\";}i:62;O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:3:\"tid\";s:2:\"62\";s:3:\"vid\";s:1:\"1\";s:4:\"name\";s:5:\"Waste\";s:11:\"description\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"weight\";s:1:\"0\";}}}s:22:\"last_comment_timestamp\";s:10:\"1234302174\";s:17:\"last_comment_name\";N;s:13:\"comment_count\";s:1:\"0\";s:8:\"taxonomy\";a:7:{i:37;O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:3:\"tid\";s:2:\"37\";s:3:\"vid\";s:1:\"3\";s:4:\"name\";s:21:\"California Commentary\";s:11:\"description\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"weight\";s:1:\"0\";}i:12;r:169;i:17;r:175;i:95;r:181;i:78;r:187;i:64;r:193;i:62;r:199;}s:10:\"page_title\";b:0;}}', created = 1268969913, expire = 1268973513, headers = '' WHERE cid = '1:136' in /var/www/hjta.org/public_html/includes/database.mysqli.inc on line 156.

The Pork Express

September 15, 2008 by Jon Coupal and Tom Schatz

For six years in a row, Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Foundation (HJTF) have published the California Piglet Book to spotlight waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayers' dollars. Modeled after the Pig Book, an annual analysis of Federal spending conducted by CAGW, we have found the state Piglet an excellent method of embarrassing California officials into better performance and a higher respect for the public's money.

In a target rich environment, this year we have chosen to focus our attention on the misuse of public transportation dollars.

An examination of public transportation projects commonly reveals misspent taxpayer funds. This is because high profile projects at the local, state, and federal government levels are a favorite of politicians who see in them numerous career building opportunities, which become an end in themselves. Elected officials enjoy the photos and speeches, while control of transportation dollars can be turned into massive clout, which in turn generates campaign contributions and votes. The goal of bringing home the transportation pork is often at odds with proper planning and management of high dollar projects.

The 2008 California Piglet Book includes a special section on high speed rail with excerpts from The California High Speed Rail Proposal: A Due Diligence Report, which challenges the many assumptions advanced by the proponents of this massive project. California's high-speed rail system, on which politicians and special interests want to spend -- with apologies to Carl Sagan -- billions and billions of taxpayer dollars. All this at a time when the state has already run up a record $17 billion budget deficit, and is over two months late in passing a spending plan to reconcile that problem. The full study, authored by transportation experts Wendell Cox and Joseph Vranich, was jointly sponsored by the Reason Foundation, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Foundation and Citizens Against Government Waste and can be found at www.hjta.org, www.cagw.org or www.reason.com.

We also have sought to show examples of other misspent transportation-related dollars, including:

- California recorded $98 million in fuel costs for its 50,000 state-owned vehicles in 2007, but that's only 60 percent of total fuel costs; the state cannot account for the other 40 percent;

- The California Air Resources Board plans to spend $36 million in 2009 to expand a zero-emission bus program even though the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority has found that its three zero-emission buses cost more than $51 per mile to fuel and maintain, versus $1.61 per mile for a diesel bus; and,

- The California Highway Patrol spent $1 million to buy 51 vans, and then used 46 of them sparingly over two years, averaging only nine miles driven per van.

Make no mistake -- CAGW and HJTA are not automatically opposed to all public transportation. The issue is the tremendous subsidies that most plans require from all taxpayers and the official mismanagement and corruption that result in massive cost overruns.

Most egregious are proposals like the California high-speed rail plan where voters are being sold "a pig in a poke" -- no pun intended. Promoters are trying to lure taxpayers into buying their $54 billion project, but like the customer of old who got the bag home from the market only to find that, instead of the pig they thought they purchased, they had been fooled into buying a cat, taxpayers will be unpleasantly surprised when they discover that the new train system could actually cost them nearly $30 billion more.

Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. Tom Schatz is president of Citizens Against Government Waste. The 2008 California Piglet Book can be downloaded by clicking here (PDF).