Sign In
Help


Poll and the CCTimes

As Gary mentioned in his post below, there is a fanatical, anonymous "Lone Ranger" harassing us about the poll results, Buttercupgate and other matters that have erupted from his/her imagination. Let's set the record straight on the matter of the poll results.

1. The poll was conducted by EMC Research.
2. EMC was not hired by me, Gary, any other board member or the district.
3. EMC was hired by an independent committee of citizens from our community, formed for the purpose of supporting ballot measures that support the district.
4. EMC is an expert in polling.
5. EMC presented the conclusions it reached from the poll at a public board meeting.
6. The board openly and publicly discussed the conclusions presented by EMC.
7. EMC did not provide the underlying poll to Gary or to me (I don't believe the other board members received it either, I just have not checked with them).
8. Anyone who wanted to had an opportunity to comment on the presentation at the board meeting.
9. The powerpoint presented by EMC was available to anyone who asked for it.

So, what is the big secret? That Gary and I did not independently assess the poll results? We did not audit and attempt to second guess the conclusions of the polling expert? I guess in the future, we should perform the actual polling ourselves. How dare we rely on an expert when we could just call hundreds of local community members and interview them ourselves.

Let's keep in mind the purpose of the poll. The poll was to assess public support for a bond measure. The presentation by EMC was to provide us with conclusions showing whether or not a bond would be supported. The presentation made by EMC did that. As a side note, the poll results were right and the bond passed, but the purpose was to allow us some confidence that we were not wasting money on the election (not campaign, the election, which we have to pay the county for).

So, SUCCESS! No conspiracy, no secrets, no hide the ball. The CCTimes has the presentation (and the reporter was most likely at the meeting as she usually is). For those of you who don't have it, CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD IT.

As for complaints about Mr. Rolen's response to the CCTimes. I will agree that lawyers often speak in a manner foreign to non-lawyers, but there is nothing wrong with his response. The law provides exceptions for producing material and this is one of them. There is a typical process for disputes about public records act requests. When a request is denied, the burden is placed on the requesting party to provide a basis for release. When the request comes from a "sophisticated" entity, it is typical for the requesting entity to send a letter providing a legal basis for the release of the information. The CCTimes did not do this - they just took the initial letter and made some news out of it.

I also find the CCTimes positions somewhat amusing - in her blog, Theresa Harrington says:

"The district appears to want to have it both ways: it wants to claim voters chose a more costly option overall to fund the $348 million bond measure, but it doesn’t want to show the public any poll results that back up that claim."

The clear implication from this and all of her reporting is that the community might have preferred the other tax rate - in other words, the vote on the ballot would have been HIGHER for the other tax rate. While she has absolutely zero evidence to support this position, from her best position, there would have been more yes votes. But the threshold for the bond is 55%. It passed. more than 55% of the community supported the bond the way it was put on the ballot.

She also says:

"If the board and Superintendent Steven Lawrence had been open and transparent about the
List View
Most Popular
MDUSD - Mt. Diablo Unified School District Blog

MDUSD - Mt. Diablo Unified School District Blog