Sonoma County Democratic Party

February 10, 2010
My name is Stephen Gale. I live in Rincon Valley and my son graduated from Maria Carrillo High School. I am speaking tonight as the Chair of the Sonoma County Democratic Party.

The Sonoma County Democratic Party's support for issuance of Certificates of
Completion is already known to you based on our previous correspondence and testimony. I have come tonight to address two specific issues.

First, I ask you to consider whether it is reasonable to require all English Language
Learners who are "on track" students to pass the state's Exit Exam. While over 99.4% of regular education students passed the Exit Exam, only 81.9% of ELL students achieved the same result.

Research published in Education Policy Analysis Archives in 2008, concluded that it takes five to six years of English Language Learning in order to achieve a skill level required to pass the word problem section of a standardized test. This research was based on an analysis of the entire San Francisco Unified School.District's student database.

If this research is even remotely accurate, you are asking ELL students who have less than five to six years of English language experience to pass a test that is invalid for this category of students. If this research is even remotely accurate, you are asking many ELL's in Santa Rosa to do the impossible.

Unfortunately, the students who are being stigmatized are predominantly non-white, including members of the Eritrean and Latino communities. While your policy is not racially motivated, it has the unintended consequence of stigmatizing racial minorities disproportionately.

I also come before you tonight to take public note of your very unusual decision to prominently post, on the home page of the publicly funded website for the Board, the Sonoma County Democratic Party's letter and a reply that included false and misleading information, apparently intended to denigrate those who are asking for this policy change.

On February 9, one day before this hearing, you sent a letter to the local party acknowledging your false statements and admitting that this is the only School District in the County that does not issue Certificates of Completion.

Unfortunately, taking such an unusual action in the first place and waiting until yesterday to privately acknowledge your public lie means that the damage has already been done.

The posting of false information by Elected Officials in an attempt to discredit members of the public is repugnant in a Democracy and unacceptable to the voters of Santa Rosa.

To compensate for this unfortunate behavior on the part of the School Board, I ask that you post, on your home page, in a location of equal prominence, a link to this statement and a link to a true and accurate transcript of tonight's proceedings, including both public testimony and the statements of members of the Board. Further, I ask that you similarly post the exact wording of the motion ultimately enacted on this issue (whether tonight or in the future) along with the names of those voting yes, those opposed, those abstaining and those absent. The voting public needs to know how you choose to treat children with special needs, in light of evidence that you are asking them to do the impossible.

The Sonoma County Democratic Party urges you to issue Certificates of Completion and allow participation for students who complete all graduation requirements except passing the exit exam. We ask that you undo past injustice by making this policy retroactive.

Thank you for the hard work you do on behalf of our children.

Statement delivered by Stephen Gale, SCDP Chair, at the February 10 meeting of the Santa Rosa School Board

Sonoma Dirty Trick

By: Jose Martinez with SEIU Local 1021

In this historic moment of staggering financial collapse, Sonoma County is intensifying its own fiscal crisis—and the impact on its most vulnerable residents—in order to cheat former employees out of the health care the County promised them in return for years of loyal public service. It’s a complicated story that County taxpayers have a right to understand.

The County is cutting public services across the board. County Administrator Bob Deis has ordered department heads to budget for cuts in public services as deep as 15%. Programs slated for elimination include veterans’ services, the Orenda Center’s drug and alcohol diversion program, domestic violence services, and the helicopter-borne paramedic and rescue program to which many County residents owe their lives. Other County programs are slated for significant reductions.

The County’s proposed health care scheme will increase costs by $20 million a year. Contrary to the natural assumption of most County residents that cuts are required by the nationwide recession, the County’s cuts to services are due Mr. Deis’s recommendation to voluntarily restructure health care for employees and retirees. Currently, the County pays a significant percentage of employee health care premiums, but the new scheme converts over half of the County’s health care dollars to direct employee stipends. The County would cap its health care contribution at less-than-full coverage but pay active employees a cash bonus to supplement their insurance payments. This blows a huge hole in the County’s budget because the combination ($500 in premiums + $600 cash bonus) costs about 50% more than the County’s current health care system. Unlike health benefit dollars, cash bonuses would be subject to federal payroll taxes and retirement payments. Also, about 300 County employees who had formerly waived County coverage now will receive cash bonuses equaling $7200 a year. Astonishingly, this increase amounts to more than $20 million annually—just about the amount of the shortfall the County announced for 2009-2010.

Residents lose and retirees lose. Why would the County Administrator recommend that the County pay for health care benefits with cash? The answer lies in Mr. Deis’s dogged determination to make reneging on the County’s promise of health care coverage to County retirees his legacy. Under the County’s current plan, retirees receive the same health benefits as active employees. A state administrative law judge upheld retirees’ right to equal benefits, acknowledging that they had given up pay raises and other benefits for the promise of affordable quality health care in retirement. Deis’s plan is an end-run around this entitlement and a dirty trick on the former public servants of the County who would receive the limited premium payments, without a cash bonus. Unfortunately, retirees are not the only victims. Since the new scheme costs more than the previous system, County residents—especially its most vulnerable—would also suffer.

The County’s well-worn rationale for this move is the financial liability in unfunded future health benefits. Even acknowledging the prudence of pre-paying future liability, this justification rings hollow. The Press Democrat has reported that pre-funding the County’s future obligation to pay retiree benefits would cost $15.7 million a year in addition to what the County was paying current retirees. It is hard to believe, but it’s true: at over $20 million annually, the cost of the proposed scheme is greater than the cost of fully funding future retiree benefits and continuing to provide affordable quality health benefits to active and retired employees.

What can you do? Over the next month and a half, there will be four public town hall meetings at which Sonoma County citizens will have the opportunity to tell their Supervisors which public services should be cut, and which maintained, as part of the County’s strained 2009-2010 budget. In this case, the Board of Supervisors cannot rely on County Administrator Deis for sound advice. It’s up to taxpayers to inform the Board that a “cash bonus” health care scheme that enriches employees who need less health coverage at a cost to working families is not in line with responsible financial and employment practices and that by rejecting that costly scheme the County can preserve critical public services in this time of extreme financial hardship.