Look Out For This Lessen

Constant Readers,

Those of you who have been reading me for a while know that I love history.

Maybe it stems from growing up in the South where every goddamn rock is a designated Civil War memorial because "Jessup 'Bunky' Edwardsmunson, Jr. IV bravely stopped in this very spot to steal the metal fillings from a dead Union soldier." Moment of silence.

Or maybe it's because reading history reminds me that things have always been a little crazy and a little sane, too. But we have managed. Perspective needs to be checked. And so it follows that I dig reading old SF voter guides.

And my Mom wonders why I'm single.

As current issues arise, I find it useful to go back to the original text (the arguments pro and con are interesting, too) of laws passed by the voters. Back in ye olde 2003, when the conflict in Iraq still had that New War Scent, voters in SF did something shockingly rational: people elected to plan for the future. Like Grownups. No shit. This actually happened.

2003's Proposition G, established a "Rainy Day Fund" made up of half of the money collected by the City in excess of 5% of the year before. So, if the City collected $100 in 2005 and $150 in 2006 - $22.50 would go into the Rainy Day Fund. (SF Charter, sec. 9.113.5(b).) (5% of $100 is $5.  $150-$105 leaves us with an $45 excess, half of which is $22.50. Good Lord, my friend Derek had to do the math on that one.)

How much is in the fund? Reportedly, $122 million.

What is defined as a "Rainy Day"? (aka - when can we get our grubby little hands on that moolah?) According to Proposition G, whenever we have a year in which the Controller projects that the City's revenue will be less than it was in the previous year, we can spend up to 50% of the fund, but not more than the amount of the budget shortfall. (SF Charter, sec. 9.113.5(f).)

Also - if per pupil spending in any year will be reduced and "the San Francisco Unified School District has noticed a significant number of layoffs," up to 25% of the Rainy Day fund (but no more than the amount of the shortfall) may be used to make up for the shortage. (SF Charter, sec. 9.113.5(k).)

With an estimated $40 million dollar budget shortfall due to funding cuts at the State level, the SFUSD issued 535 layoff notices on March 15.

But even before that, on February 8, Mistermayor issued a press release entitled, "Mayor Newsom Pledges Rainy Day Funds To Support Public Schools." The first line reads:

"Today, Mayor Gavin Newsom announced his intention to use Rainy Day Reserve funds to support the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) in the current fiscal year as a response to the Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s deep cuts to education programs in order to offset the state’s $14.5 billion budget deficit."

Initially, at a February press conference, Mistermayor announced support for $29.5 million from the Rainy Day fund to the SFUSD. (25% of $122 million is $30.5 million.) In April, Mistermayor announced that the SFUSD would get likely get somewhere between $18 and $19.7 million. (In truth, we won't know the real extent of the shortfall until the Governor submits a revised budget in May.)

One teensy problem, though.   

The Board of Supervisors has to approve the Rainy Day fund expenditure, too. And while Supervisor Ammiano has been at the Mistermayor's side in expressing support for the spending of funds, it doesn't look like the other Supes have been involved at all. On May 6, the Board unanimously passed a resolution agreeing in principle to support a Rainy Day Fund expenditure but it is not clear whether there will be another Board vs. Mayor's office battle here. (Supervisor Elsbernd, for one, was altogether peeved at being left out of the Rainy Day Fund process.) Obviously no politician in their right mind would vote against a Rainy Day Fund disbursement whose amount has already been announced by Mistermayor. However, there is more than one way to negotiate the total...

The Public Education Fund, which was established by Proposition H in 2004, requires specific amounts of money to be set aside each year for educational priorities. This year, the City is obligated to contribute $45 million to the fund. However, there is a provision in Prop H that allows a reduction in contributions to the fund in a year where the City is facing a budgetary shortfall of $100 million or more. (SF Charter, sec. 16.123-8(a).) Because our budget shortfall is reportedly $305 million, this provision could be invoked to offset part of the Rainy Day Fund expense if the Board disagrees with the amount promised by Mistermayor. 

Who would do well to make nice with the Board on even a seemingly unassailable issue like school funding. Any Southerner can tell you what happens to a house divided...   

--Melissa

Comments

[Greg]

good catch, mel!

I think people too easily forget past initiatives and these things start to collide....

but for real fun go back to I think 1992 when they literally ran out of letters for the ballot initiatives. I think that was the year we actually voted on whether an SFPD patrol officer could be allowed to carry a wooden dummy to use for outreach in the community (the SFPD said no and supporters of Officer O Smiley rallied to la causa!)

[sfmike]

My Dearest Melissa: I think you meant "Lesson" in the title rather than "Lessen" unless you actually were referring to the amount of money from the Rainy Day Fun being lessened.

[Sweet Melissa]

sfMike, Indeed, I did purposefully spell it "Lessen" for the reason you astutely identified. Misspellings on my site are usually unintentional, so I appreciate your comment - please don't hesitate in the future!

[rpnorton]

The plot sickens. Thanks for parsing all of this, Melissa.

[Beth Spotswood]

I'm just here to keep it real. And to make Melissa frighten her assistant when she watches THIS:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9lq8oaK5Mw