Reiner's initiative would make three hours of daily preschool available to all California children in the year before they enter kindergarten. It would establish state standards for pre-K education, including a mandate that teachers have a bachelor's degree, and give jurisdiction to the state Department of Education.
The funding would come from a 1.7% tax on household incomes over $800,000. This would boost those taxpayers' top marginal rate to 11% and yield about $2.4 billion a year by 2010.
No one disputes that such a program would be a good thing in principle; overwhelming evidence shows that children benefit from preschool, and disadvantaged kids benefit the most. Business, concerned about lagging student performance, is getting behind the initiative (judging by support from some local chambers of commerce) as are public employee unions and civic leaders.
The issue for taxpayers and policymakers, however, is more complicated: How else might the state spend $2.4 billion in annual revenue? Might any of that spending be equally necessary — or more so?
How about arranging for every child in the state to be medically insured? Or providing every child access to textbooks, supplies, qualified K-12 teachers, a nutritious lunch and a safe learning environment?
That $2.4 billion would pay the annual interest on a $53-billion infrastructure bond (at 4.5%), allowing Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to almost double his infrastructure plan. It could rebuild the Sacramento Delta levees, the condition of which threatens the lives, homes and livelihoods of millions of Californians.
Incidentally, the 1.7% levy would raise the top state income tax rate to a level not seen since 1995; after this, squeezing more money out of these wealthy stones will be almost impossible. (Earners of more than $1 million are already charged an extra 1% of the excess to fund a mental health program, so their top rate would be 12%.) If the Reiner initiative passes, not a dime of that money would be available for anything but preschool. Ever.
Not only would the principle of free preschool be enshrined in the state Constitution, but so would a particular approach to preschool. Suppose educational experts determined down the line that the most effective program combines preschool with smaller primary-school classes, or that the most appropriate teacher training might not require a BA? Tough. The rules will be written into the Constitution and, accordingly, hard to change. State educational practice will be embalmed, the clock stopped at 2006.
Yet, even today's educators disagree about the right approach. Some contend, like the initiative campaign, that the only sure way to reach the neediest children is to make preschool available to all children, not just the most disadvantaged.
"There's never been a targeted program that reaches 100% of the children who are eligible," says Karen Hill-Scott, an education consultant working with the campaign.
Others say that targeted programs yield the best results and that preschool gains rapidly fade if primary schools don't pick up the slack, perhaps via full-day kindergarten (not common in California) and follow-up services for four or five years (not part of the Reiner initiative).
The proper place to weigh these disagreements is in a legislative hearing room. The initiative's sponsors chose not to go the legislative route; they have their own vision of preschool and want us to believe it's the only option.
Promoters of initiatives love to portray their projects as silver-bullet cures. That's already happening in this case. The Reiner team claims that Rand Corp. researchers have "found" and "confirmed" that, for every $1 spent on preschool, the state will get $2.62 back.
We'll undoubtedly hear this figure repeated ad nauseam for the next four months. But it's a subtle misstatement of the Rand study.
The study's author, senior economist Lynn Karoly, based her calculations largely on a Chicago program aimed almost exclusively at black children in the city's poorest neighborhoods. She called that program "the most relevant to an analysis" of a universal program in California.
But the two programs are hardly identical. Chicago's serves a homogeneous disadvantaged population; California's goal is to reach all economic classes within the state's uniquely diverse population.
As Karoly observes in her study, the Chicago program also provides "health screening, speech therapy services and meals," along with home visits and training for parents and continued support for some students in primary school. None of these elements is specifically funded by the Reiner initiative.
Researchers have calculated the fiscal return from Chicago's program at $7.14 for every dollar spent. Not only are the subjects less likely to repeat grades, drop out or land in jail; they also earn more over their lives than others raised in similar circumstances but unexposed to the program.
But these are empirical data, derived by carefully tracking ex-preschoolers through age 20 or older; by contrast, Karoly's figure is an extrapolation applied to a program that doesn't yet exist. Accordingly, Karoly told me, she tried to be "as conservative as possible," and her study should be seen as a projection, not a measurement.
The initiative promoters may not be so circumspect. The debate over our children's educational future risks being turned over to electioneering press releases and TV spots featuring heart-tugging slogans. Are we about to be led down the wrong path?
TV Ads Put Focus on Reiner
Some ask whether the tax-funded spots helped tout the producer's June preschool initiative
By Dan Morain, Los Angeles Times, February 21, 2006
SACRAMENTO — Police sirens wail as a scruffy teenager, clutching a bag, runs frantically through the streets. Entering a schoolyard, he reaches into the bag. Out comes … a graduation gown, which he dons to receive a diploma.
The scene is from a television ad, paid for with tax money and made by consultants close to Hollywood producer Rob Reiner. It aired across California this winter, touting the benefits of preschool. "When kids go," the narrator says, "we all benefit."
The release of the ad, and two others, by a state commission Reiner heads coincided with his launch of a ballot initiative that would tax the rich to fund preschool for all California 4-year-olds.
Although Reiner did not directly approve the spots, their timing and substance highlight ties between the public commission and his private political campaigns and raise questions about whether the state-funded commercials were used to boost the initiative's prospects.
State law generally prohibits the use of public funds for campaign activities. Reiner's campaign attorney said the ads were legal and not political.
Reiner heads the First 5 California Children and Families Commission, a panel of seven members appointed by the governor and legislative leaders. It was created by an initiative Reiner sponsored in 1998 to promote early childhood development.
The measure, which raised cigarette taxes by 50 cents per pack, has generated $4 billion so far, much of it used for childhood healthcare, preschool and anti-tobacco efforts. Under Reiner's leadership, the commission has:
- Spent $23 million for the "Preschool for All" ads, which ran from November to mid-January, making it one of the largest state-funded advertising campaigns ever in California. In January, Reiner's new initiative, also called "Preschool for All," qualified for the June ballot as Proposition 82.
- Given $230 million in advertising and public relations contracts — including the preschool ad blitz — to firms that helped Reiner create the First 5 commission. As companies competed for the business, Reiner wrote a letter recommending one firm, which won.
- Paid $206,000 of the tax money to three political consultants, though they had no contract. One of them — Benjamin Austin, a former Los Angeles deputy mayor — said they helped coordinate the government activities of Reiner, the First 5 commission and the media consultants. Austin and the others subsequently joined the Proposition 82 effort, with Austin as campaign manager.
The contracts for the ads and the public relations work were awarded legally. But given the winning companies' relationship with Reiner, "there is a question of … who really has a chance of getting a contract," said Bill Whalen, a Hoover Institution fellow and former Pete Wilson administration official. "Insider connections are rewarded."
The twinning of First 5's ads and Reiner's initiative campaign troubles state Sen. Gloria Romero (D-Los Angeles).
"Taxpayer dollars should not be used to sway election results," she said. "Do that with campaign money."
Reiner campaign attorney James Harrison said the ads were legal.
In particular, he cited a court ruling in late December, which stems from a Salinas ballot measure and is being appealed, saying government can use tax money for campaigns as long as it doesn't expressly urge people to vote for or against an issue or candidate.
"The ads were legal and entirely proper," Harrison said.
Reiner, who noted that government staffers — not First 5 commissioners — chose the recipients of the ad contract, said the commercials were not related to the Preschool for All ballot initiative. Rather, he said, he concluded that the timing for such a measure was right, there was voter support and universal preschool would help California's children.
"I want to do things right for kids," Reiner said in an interview at a location he chose: a preschool funded by First 5 in South Los Angeles. "I want help to fix the school system."
Reiner, 58, gained fame for his role in the 1970s TV series "All in the Family." He since has produced, directed or acted in dozens of movies, including "Rumor Has It," "A Few Good Men" and "This Is Spinal Tap." For more than a decade, his political cause has been childhood development, though he and others say he has no personal financial stake in it.
To finance his vision, Reiner sponsored Proposition 10, which created First 5. The proposition gives counties 80% of the tobacco tax proceeds. Reiner's panel gets the other 20% — $800 million since the commission's creation in 1999.
Written to his specifications, the law dictates that 6% of the tax revenue be allotted to communications efforts.
"This is a big state," Reiner said, noting that ads are costly. "We knew the programs weren't going to be successful unless people knew about them and how important they are."
The law does not specify that any ads focus on preschool. It says the money should be used to "encourage proper childhood development"; good parenting; information about child care, health and social services; the prevention of tobacco and drug use by pregnant women; and information about the "detrimental effects of secondhand smoke on early childhood development."
First 5's lead public relations consultant is the Rogers Group of Los Angeles. The firm billed the Proposition 10 campaign $230,000. Its First 5 contracts extend to 2008 and will total $62 million. The company must distribute about $30 million of that amount as grants to community organizations.
The commission awarded Rogers an initial contract in 1999 without soliciting bids and two later ones in a competitive process. In its written bid for a new contract last year, Rogers noted that its president, Lynne Doll, was "a lead strategist on the communications efforts" for the Yes on 10 campaign.
Asked whether Rogers' work on Proposition 10 helped it secure commission work, Doll said, "I'm sure it didn't hurt."
She added that the company won its competitive contracts because its bids were lowest, its work has been effective and it has "experience in the anti-smoking world … and in early childhood issues."
Rogers long has held the public relations contract for the state Department of Health Services' tobacco-control program.
The Reiner commission's ad firm is GMMB — formerly Greer, Margolis, Mitchell & Burns. It has a 12-person office in Santa Monica and is a subsidiary of Fleishman-Hillard Inc., headquartered in St. Louis.
One of GMMB's partners, Roy Behr, was a key consultant to the Yes on 10 effort and led a successful statewide fight in 2000 against a ballot measure that would have overturned Proposition 10. GMMB billed the two political campaigns $3.2 million in 1998 and 2000. It has won $169.5 million in state contracts through 2007 from the First 5 commission.
The bulk of the money has been used to buy air time and ads in newspapers, including The Times. Some went to subcontractors.
Like other bidders seeking to do First 5's advertising in 2004, GMMB submitted a thick binder detailing its finances, subcontractors and vision for the ad campaign. Unlike its competitors, GMMB came highly recommended by the First 5 chairman.
Reiner wrote the cover letter for the firm's bid package, praising its work on his public and private endeavors. The letter, dated March 10, 2004, said the commission tapped GMMB to write First 5's "long-range Preschool Advocacy Plan" in 2003.
"Preschool for All is our top priority and we knew that nobody else had a better understanding of our goals and how to accomplish them," Reiner wrote.
Behr said the company's "knowledge of the issues" was partly why it won the contract. He added: "We certainly talked about [the firm's political campaign work] as one of the things that gave us the credentials."
In the interview, Reiner said both firms "have shown expertise and tremendous effectiveness."
"If I know somebody can do a job and do it well, it wouldn't be very smart of me not to go and see if I could get those people to do the job," Reiner said, adding that he hopes "people think we are hiring the best."
The panel that selected GMMB included three employees of the First 5 commission and a fourth member who works for the California Department of Health Services. The four reported being unimpressed that GMMB's bid enjoyed Reiner's backing. "The cover letter from Rob Reiner was considered inappropriate and showed bad judgment on the part of Mr. Reiner and GMMB," the panel wrote in an otherwise glowing assessment of the firm's bid.
The panel "chose not to be influenced either way" by Reiner's letter, said Colleen Stevens, the Department of Health Services official who served on the panel.
First 5 met its legal obligation by publicly inviting companies to bid on its ad contract. Only three did. It was surprising, some advertising executives said, given the contract's prestige and size: $67.5 million over three years.
Some ad executives said privately that they assumed the incumbent would win, and that the laborious bidding process would waste their time.
As part of its latest First 5 work, GMMB produced three TV commercials, including the one with the running teenager. A second ad featured a mound of clay morphing into a child and a schoolhouse, then into a business tableau, as a narrator intoned that when children go to preschool, they stay in school, "and our businesses end up with a better-educated workforce."
In a third commercial, a school principal lamented that too many children who don't attend preschool enter kindergarten unprepared, "get discouraged and drop out." Part of the commission's money was spent to air a fourth ad, made earlier and not focused on preschool.
Reiner and Behr said they have taken pains to avoid conflicts. Behr said he would not work on the June initiative.
"While it is true that First 5 cannot and should not advocate on behalf of the potential initiative," GMMB wrote in a document submitted to the commission last year, "it is equally certain that the goals of the Preschool for All campaign can only be achieved through legislative or electoral action."
Others affiliated with GMMB and the First 5 commission are involved in the campaign for Proposition 82, which would raise income taxes by $2.4 billion a year on wealthy Californians.
Austin — the former deputy mayor — worked for GMMB on First 5-related matters in 2002 and 2003, then moved to Reiner's political team, then returned to consulting for GMMB and received bimonthly First 5 commission checks.
During an 11-month period ending in April 2005, GMMB billed First 5 California $206,000 to pay Austin and two other aides. Austin's share was $111,000, invoices show. All three returned to the Reiner campaign payroll in June.
Proposition 82's office is at the same Beverly Hills address Austin gave when he was consulting for GMMB and the state.
Austin and the other aides did not have contracts with First 5. Austin said his duties were outlined in multiple conversations with the commission's staff and Reiner. His work was part-time, and he said he had no involvement in the First 5 ads.
"Literally the only thing we have been motivated by," Austin said in his office last week, "is preschool for kids."
Meanwhile, William Deaver, a former member of the Fair Political Practices Commission, which enforces campaign laws, has asked his former agency to investigate whether the juxtaposition of the preschool ads and the Proposition 82 initiative effort violated the law.
An FPPC spokesman declined to comment.
Deaver, a Republican who served on the FPPC from 1999 to 2003, said the promotion of preschool is "admirable" but added: "I don't think you can use public money to support a ballot measure. I don't care what it is."
TOP
Reiner takes leave from commission on children
Film director at center of flap over use of public funds
By Janine DeFao, San Francisco Chromicle, February 21, 2006
Director Rob Reiner has taken a leave as chairman of a state children's commission amid concerns that it may have improperly spent public funds to promote the universal preschool campaign he is heading.
In a letter to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger Friday, Reiner said he would step down from the First 5 California Children and Families Commission until after the June election on Proposition 82 "to avoid any political distractions."
At issue is $23 million that First 5 spent on television and other ads promoting the value of preschool and parent education between November and January, when the initiative qualified for the ballot. The proposition would tax the state's wealthiest wage earners to provide a free year of preschool to all California 4-year-olds.
Reiner and First 5 staff have said there was nothing improper about the media campaign, which included three television ads on preschool.
But after a story in the Los Angeles Times last week that also questioned the propriety of First 5 contracts awarded to people and firms with ties to Reiner, several politicians called for audits of the commission, which was created by the Proposition 10 tobacco tax initiative for early childhood programs that Reiner also spearheaded.
The proposition mandated that 6 percent of the tobacco money, which totals $550 million a year, be spent on public education on topics ranging from early childhood education to anti-smoking.
But recently, "the entire (media) budget has been spent on ads about preschool. It raises the question of whether people were manipulating the use of those ads to help push an initiative, a political agenda, and that is against the law," said Assembly Ma
jority Leader Dario Frommer, D-Glendale, a candidate for state controller.
Frommer, Republican controller candidate Tony Strickland and state Senate Republican Leader Dick Ackerman of Irvine all have called for independent audits of the commission.
Yusef Robb, a spokesman for gubernatorial candidate Controller Steve Westly, said the controller's staff is reviewing the matter, as is the state Fair Political Practices Commission.
"The controller is concerned about this. ... We have zero tolerance for any misuse of taxpayer dollars," Robb said. He said the review will determine whether an audit is warranted.
Reiner was traveling in Colorado on Saturday and could not be reached for comment.
In a letter to Westly on Friday, he called the charges "politically motivated and baseless," and said Ackerman has the support of tobacco companies that opposed Prop. 10 and of the California Chamber of Commerce, which opposes Prop. 82.
Kris Perry, executive director of First 5, said the commission has been spending money on preschool programs and promotion since 2002. It also funds health initiatives, child care and other programs for children 5 and under.
She said the commission was aware that there could be an appearance of a conflict of interest, so decided to run the preschool ads only until Prop. 82 qualified for the ballot.
Perry also said that the commission already is audited annually by an outside entity, and an "expanded audit" in 2003-04 showed compliance with all state contracting rules.
"For taxpayers to pay for yet another audit when one was done six months ago may not yield any new answers," she said.
Perry said First 5's vice chairwoman, Dr. Alice Walker Duff, will handle Reiner's duties until June.
TOP
Perata changes mind on Prop. 82
Preschool ballot measure has fatal flaws, Senate leader says
By Kevin Yamamura and Jim Sanders, Sacramento Bee, March 1, 2006
Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, one of the state's leading Democrats, on Tuesday withdrew his support for a universal preschool ballot proposal in another blow to actor Rob Reiner's initiative.
Perata, at a breakfast meeting with The Bee Capitol Bureau, said his reversal on Proposition 82 was unrelated to mounting criticism of Reiner's dual leadership roles with the First 5 California Commission and the political campaign to pass the $2.4 billion initiative.
Instead, the Oakland Democrat said his own analysis determined the plan has fatal flaws.
Proposition 82 would increase income taxes on the state's highest 100,000 earners to pay for free preschool for all California children.
"Upon reflection, I believe Prop. 82 would become yet another obstacle impending prudent governance of the state," Perata wrote in a letter sent Tuesday to Reiner.
Perata said he is concerned the plan will impair state government's ability to pay for K-12 education and other public services by locking up $2.4 billion annually for preschool. In the past, legislators have proposed using the same tax increase to help balance the state's budget.
He also said it will most benefit middle-and upper-middle class families while hurting private and nonprofit schools that target ethnic communities.
And he said he fears K-12 schools could suffer by losing teachers to preschools.
"I was sort of caught up in the need and the value of preschool," Perata said of his previous endorsement. "I should have thought about it or analyzed it."
Nathan James, a Yes on 82 spokesman, said all children are eligible for free preschool under the initiative and that it does not benefit students from any particular income level.
He also said county offices of education will administer the program at the local level and that they have a history of working with private and nonprofit schools.
"We welcome the debate over Proposition 82 and the debate over the fact that half of all fourth-graders can't read at grade level," James said. "Proposition 82 will help kids get ready to learn. Don Perata can either be part of the solution or part of the problem, and that choice is up to him."
Reiner has come under fire for serving as chairman of the First 5 commission at the same time he directed the effort to place Proposition 82 on the ballot.
As first revealed in The Bee, between November and January the commission spent $23 million on television ads promoting the benefits of preschool, using tax money received through a 50-cents-a-pack charge on cigarettes.
The ads did not mention the ballot initiative, and First 5 Executive Director Kris Perry said that Reiner had recused himself from advertising discussions.
Reiner last week took a leave of absence from the First 5 commission until after the June 6 election in an attempt to deflect criticism.
But Republican activists have called for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to replace Reiner altogether. And inside the Capitol, Republican lawmakers have criticized Reiner and the First 5 commission.
State Sen. Dave Cox, R-Fair Oaks, asked that the Joint Legislative Audit Committee authorize a formal inquiry into the use of First 5 funds.
Senate Republican leader Dick Ackerman of Irvine and Assemblyman Dario Frommer, D-Glendale, also asked state Controller Steve Westly to audit the First 5 commission last week.
Assembly Republican leaders proposed legislation Tuesday to redirect the commission's annual statewide advertising funds and a portion of administrative funds - $42 million in all - for use in extending a Kern County preschool program statewide.
Assembly Republican leader Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield denied that the new proposal, Assembly Bill 2150, is motivated by opposition to Proposition 82 or by partisan politics. He said he had been looking for a funding source to extend the Kern County program before the Reiner controversy arose.
State Sen. Chuck Poochigian, R-Fresno, asked state Attorney General Bill Lockyer on Monday to investigate whether the commission's advertising funds were spent illegally to benefit signature-gathering efforts for Proposition 82.
Perata said concerns that First 5 misused state funds for political purposes are legitimate and that he finds the ads "troubling."
"You know, it wasn't even cleverly disguised," Perata said of the commercials. "It was just blatant.
"And I didn't know then and I still don't know how that happened."
Perry, the First 5 executive director, said the commission did not coordinate with the preschool initiative campaign.
"I wasn't tracking or aware of any work going on with any initiative," Perry said. "I knew what our goals were, and what message we wanted to convey to the public, and we felt that the (money) we're mandated to spend on public education would be best spent teaching and helping educate parents and caregivers in California about the benefits of preschool."
So far, Perata's about-face on Proposition 82 hasn't extended to other leading Democrats who have endorsed the initiative. Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, D-Los Angeles, continues to support Proposition 82, said his spokesman, Steve Maviglio.
Perata's decision conceivably could slow the initiative's momentum, said Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg, a Los Angeles Democrat who remains supportive.
"I understand the criticism. It's not perfect; it's not the way I would have written it," she said. "But the folks doing this got off their back ends, brought groups together and got a consensus."
TOP
Prop. 82 boosts powers to state superintendent
By Anthony York, Capitol Weekly, March 2, 2006
Proposition 82, the initiative backed by Rob Reiner that would provide
universal access to preschool for California four-year-olds, would
dramatically increase the power of the state superintendent of public
instruction, while circumventing the state board of education in creating a
new $2.7 billion preschool program.
Under the plan, the state superintendent would be responsible for setting
the money counties will receive per eligible pupil. Individual counties can
choose to divide their money how they see fit--directing more money to
special needs children or English learners, for example. But those county
plans must be okayed by the superintendent.
"Decisions about per-pupil spending are made by the governor and the
Legislature in the budget process," says Dede Alpert, former Chairwoman of
the Senate Education Committee who was a champion of state-funded preschool
in the Legislature. "That would be a new power for the superintendent."
But Alpert said that given the current convoluted system of California
education governance-which is split between the state board of education,
the administration's education secretary and the superintendent-putting
responsibility for the new program in the superintendent's office "probably
makes the most sense."
"There are definitely new responsibilities," said state superintendent Jack
O'Connell. "It's an expansion of responsibility. But we are currently
engaged in oversight for state preschool, and we get very high marks for our
work. We're prepared."
The department currently oversees about $200 million in state preschool
programs. The Department of Social Services also runs some state-sponsored
programs for pre-kindergarten students.
Prop. 82 would be a dramatic boost in the superintendent's budget. If
passed, the initiative is expected to raise about $2.7 billion annually for
preschool.
In addition to determining the per-pupil spending level for every eligible
preschool student, the superintendent would have unlimited power to use
money for "outreach," to raise awareness about new preschool programs. But
critics of the initiative and of Reiner say that is a recipe for misuse of
public funds, allowing the state superintendent to promote themselves using
state money.
The decision to give jurisdiction over Prop. 82 funds to the state
superintendent had to do with accountability, says Yes on 82 spokesman
Nathan James. "The goal was to make sure there was one person who was
directly accountable for the success of the program," he said. "Since the
SPI is a statewide elected official, it made the most sense to have that
accountability rest right at the top."
O'Connell has been a vocal proponent of the Reiner initiative. He has joined
Reiner on campaign stops around the state advocating for the initiative,
which will appear on the June ballot. O'Connell was the only statewide
candidate to receive financial support from Reiner last year. Reiner
contributed $1,500 to O'Connell's reelection campaign last June.
O'Connell says his strong support for the measure is based on new data about
early childhood development that shows preschool is vital to a child's
future. "If we wait until high school to address the achievement gap, it's
too late," he said.
But the measure lost support this week from Sen. Don Perata, who had
endorsed the measure. "Upon reflection, I believe Prop. 82 would become yet
another obstacle impending prudent governance of the state," Perata wrote in
a letter to Reiner this week.
Perata's endorsement reversal caps what has been a bad week for Reiner.
Reiner stepped aside as head of the First 5 Commission after coming under
fire over from critics who say he inappropriately used state money set aside
in a tobacco tax initiative to promote the new preschool initiative. Now,
some of those same critics say the same potential for missue of state money
exists within Prop. 82.
"Is there a risk that the superintendent would use these funds for self
promotion? You better believe it," said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard
Jarvis Taxpayers Association and a member of the No on 82 campaign
committee. "The question is, is that an appropriate use of taxpayer money?"
Prop. 82 would levy a new 1.7 percent income tax on individuals who make
more than $400,000 per year, or couples who make more than $800,000 per
year. The money would be used to provide free preschool for every
four-year-old in the state.
James says there has been an attempt by initiative opponents to conflate
criticisms of Reiner's Prop. 10, which created a new tobacco tax to fund
early childhood development programs, with Proposition 82, but he says "the
initiatives are very, very different."
James said unlike in Prop. 10 each individual county must come up with its
own plan of getting the word out to parents that their children would be
available for free preschool through the state. That plan must also be
approved by the state superintendent.
County outreach programs would fall under the 6 percent cap on
administrative costs set by the initiative. The Legislative Analyst
estimated that by 2010-11, those costs would total about $175 million,
growing over time as the program is phased in.
But the initiative also gives power to the superintendent to conduct
additional outreach above and beyond what is authorized under the county
plan. According to the LAO's analysis of the measure, any state-sponsored
outreach program would be outside of the 6 percent cap on administrative
costs.
The inititive gives the superintendent wide latitude to spend money on
"targeted outreach … especially [to] parents in underserved communities
about the importance and availability of preschool." There are few
limitations on what that outreach could entail, or how much the state could
spend on those outreach efforts.
Coupal says that section of the initiative is an invitation for the state
superintendent to promote him or herself at taxpayer expense.
"There's a precedent for that," says Coupal. "I was part of a lawsuit
against [former superintendent] Bill Honig for using state money to promote
himself, sending out 8.5-by-11, glossy, expensive mailers."
The initiative would give all of the power over these new programs to county
education officials and the superintendent, while limiting the role of the
state Board of Education, which is appointed by the governor.
Empowering the state superintendent has generally been supported by teachers
unions, who have found champions in the office, from Bill Honig to Delaine
Eastin to current superintendent Jack O'Connell. Unions and their allies in
the Legislature, led by Assembly Education Chairwoman Jackie Goldberg and
Sen. Martha Escutia, have introduced legislation trying to shift power away
from the state board to the superintendent's office or to local officials.
The tension between the administration and the independently elected
superintendent gets to the heart of California's complex system of education
governance. The board's power has been on the rise since the 1990s, when a
series of court decisions weakened the superintendent's office and empowered
the board.
TOP
Preschool initiative crafted like a Hollywood production
By Laura Mecoy, Sacramento Bee, March 6, 2006
The cast of characters at movie director Rob Reiner's home was like no other.
Labor leaders sat across the table from the state's business elite. Republicans chatted with Democrats, and multimillionaires schemed with early childhood education experts in the screening room of Reiner's Brentwood home in September 2004.
Reiner gave his hand-picked cast his directions: They were to work out their differences and craft an initiative paying for preschool for all of the state's 4-year-olds.
Thus began an innovative, seven-month process that produced Proposition 82, the measure on the June 6 ballot seeking to raise taxes on wealthy Californians to pay for universal preschool.
"There were a lot of contentious moments and people struggling with the issues," Reiner said. "But at the end of the day, people's better angels came through."
He contends this "painstaking" process produced the "most scrubbed piece of legislation" ever for an initiative.
Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata disagreed last week, saying he was withdrawing his support from Proposition 82 because of its "fatal" flaws.
The Oakland Democrat called the initiative a "boon" to middle-and upper-income families because it would provide free preschool to all 4-year-olds by 2010.
He also complained that it would lock up $2.4 billion a year in potential tax revenue that could be used for K-12 education and other public services.
Perata knew of Reiner's drafting team but said they shouldn't replace lawmakers, who are elected to "make representative decisions."
"A bunch of people who get together and can figure out how to agree with each other, that's wonderful," he said. "But play poker, play canasta. Don't do initiatives."
Joel Fox, co-chairman of the Stop the Reiner Initiative campaign, said Reiner reached out to different groups "for political reasons to try to limit the opposition" rather than to develop good public policy.
Reiner said enlisting business, labor and others produced "better public policy." But even those who helped write the measure say it isn't perfect.
"Is it exactly everything the (California Teachers Association) wanted? No," said CTA President Barbara Kerr. "Is it exactly what everyone else wanted? No. But it really will work."
The Proposition 82 campaign is putting teachers at the forefront because of their credibility on the education issue. But opponents want to keep the focus on Reiner, and that's where it's been the past two weeks.
Reiner came under so much criticism that he took a leave of absence Feb. 24 from his chairmanship of the First 5 commission.
The commission, which oversees programs funded by another Reiner-backed initiative, Proposition 10, spent $23 million from tobacco tax revenue on ads promoting preschool in the months leading up to Proposition 82 qualifying for the ballot.
First 5's executive director has said Reiner wasn't involved in the ad campaign decisions. But some conservative activists have called on the governor to replace him. Several lawmakers are seeking audits or investigations of the commission's finances, and one has called for redirecting the panel's ad dollars and part of its administrative costs into extending a Kern County preschool program statewide.
Assemblywoman Cindy Montañez, D-San Fernando, and other Democratic lawmakers held a press conference Thursday to denounce that proposal as an attempt to circumvent Proposition 10's education mandates.
Reiner required 6 percent of Proposition 10's revenue to go to education when he drafted the initiative. With that measure and a subsequent one in 2004, Reiner consulted a small group of allies. Proposition 10 passed by a scant 1 percent of the vote, and the second initiative generated so much opposition that Reiner abandoned it before it hit the ballot.
"The lesson learned from the last initiative was we have got to be inclusive," Reiner said. "We have got to bring all parties together to work together to find common ground."
He tried to do just that, starting with the 2004 meeting at his home. Representatives of the teachers association and the Service Employees International Union sat across the table from Michael Milken, the former junk bond king turned educational entrepreneur and philanthropist.
Republican multimillionaire Richard Riordan, a former Los Angeles mayor and state secretary of education, and his Democratic wife and education advocate, Nancy Daly Riordan, were there alongside early childhood education experts.
Each agreed to the governing principles Reiner outlined that day: The initiative had to provide high-quality preschool to all 4-year-olds; it had to give parents a choice between public and private preschools; and the program had to be fully funded, so a tax increase was essential.
Over the next seven months, over sandwiches and soft drinks in conference rooms around the state, business representatives butted heads with labor leaders over unionizing the preschool work force.
The teachers fought with Milken and others who wanted a voucher system to pay for preschool, and business leaders negotiated the tax increase terms.
At times, some threatened to walk away from the negotiations.
None did, but Milken lost the fight on vouchers and hasn't endorsed Proposition 82. He said through a spokesman that he doesn't take positions on initiatives.
"There were a lot of hard feelings around the table and a lot of people had sacred cows they had to give up on," said Phil Halperin, Silver Giving Foundation president and one of the Proposition 82 negotiators. "The more people talked, the more they understood the other side's point of view."
Labor preferred public preschools with a unionized work force to private ones. But business wanted to inject "competition" into education.
Kerr, the teachers association's president, said labor ultimately realized public schools didn't have the capacity to provide preschool to all, so they agreed to include private providers in the program. But labor retained the right to organize the private preschool work force.
For business, the biggest hurdle was the tax increase.
Rusty Hammer, the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce executive director, worked over the phone and e-mail to shape the tax provisions to restore a tax rate former Republican Govs. Pete Wilson and Ronald Reagan had imposed to balance their budgets. It would be a 1.7 percent increase in the tax rate for the state's top earners.
"This is the least objectionable and onerous of tax increases because it's not a tax on business," Hammer said.
From the winter and into the spring of 2005, the negotiations continued among the cast of characters that gathered at Reiner's home, their representatives and others who joined later.
"There were points at which it felt like we were going in circles ... because certain groups weren't giving things up," said Edward Condon, California Head Start Association executive director.
Reiner stepped in to break up the logjams and urge compromise. By spring 2005, the negotiators had agreed on a final draft.
Reiner's staff then sent the draft to the legislative analyst's office and 100 groups for further comments. About 50 of the groups offered further refinements and some were adopted.
On April 19, along with some of those who had helped write the initiative, Reiner held a teleconference announcing his new "Preschool for All" initiative.
"In the end, people realized there was this bigger goal," said Catherine Atkin, Preschool California president. "The fact that everybody who was at the table at the beginning was there when the initiative was finalized is a testament to them and their commitment to kids."
TOP
New boss for Prop. 82 drive
Previous manager was casualty of uproar over preschool ad campaign
By Laura Mecoy, Sacramento Bee, March 6, 2006
The campaign manager for Proposition 82, the universal preschool initiative on the June 6 ballot, is stepping aside from his position amid a growing controversy about tax dollars spent on ads supporting preschool.
Campaign manager Ben Austin became a source of controversy for collecting $110,000 as a consultant for First 5 California, a commission chaired by Proposition 82's leading backer, movie director Rob Reiner.
Austin plans to stay with the campaign, according to Nathan James, Proposition 82 spokesman.
"Any campaign is going to see changes along the way," he said. "Each time you enter a new phase of the campaign, you want the best people possible."
Chad Griffin, another Los Angeles-based political consultant who has been working as a strategist for Proposition 82, is taking over as campaign manager.
Griffin has also worked as one of Reiner's advisers and was the First 5 commission's interim executive director shortly after its creation in 1999, a spokesman for the commission said.
The Proposition 82 campaign has been roiled by controversy over the past two weeks as lawmakers and opponents took aim at the commission's $23 million ad campaign promoting preschool.
The ad campaign aired statewide in the months leading up to the initiative qualifying for the June ballot.
Reiner recently took a leave of absence until after the election from First 5 California in hopes of defusing the criticism.
But lawmakers and the initiative's opponents have continued to fan the flames.
The Joint Legislative Audit Committee is scheduled to vote today on a request for it to audit First 5 California's preschool ad campaign and its contracting practices.
The committee's chairwoman, Assemblywoman Nicole Parra, said she expected the panel to support the audit requested by Sen. Dave Cox, R-Fair Oaks, and Assembly Majority Leader Dario Frommer, D-Glendale.
"Obviously, what I have read in the press is not good," Parra said.
In their audit request, Cox and Frommer called the $23 million ad campaign one of the largest state-financed ad campaigns ever and questioned whether the expenditure was a use of state tax resources for a political campaign.
"There have been numerous reports in the media detailing the very questionable use of tax dollars by the First 5 commission, and we hope the members of the committee will recognize that these expenditures don't pass the smell test for most Californians," said Peter DeMarco, Cox's spokesman.
The ads never endorsed the initiative, which would raise taxes on upper-income Californians to pay for preschool for all the state's 4-year-olds. But the ads made the case for universal preschool.
Kris Perry, First 5 executive director, has insisted Reiner played no role in the decision to launch the ad campaign.
Reiner wrote Proposition 10, the 1998 initiative that created the First 5 commission and raised tobacco taxes to fund its programs for preschoolers and their families. He's been the commission's only chairman.
DeMarco said the lawmakers requesting the audit want the auditors to "pay particular attention to what appears to be more than a cozy relationship between Mr. Reiner and his consultants and Proposition 82."
First 5 hired Rogers Group of Los Angeles, which had worked on the Proposition 10 campaign, and an advertising firm where Roy Behr, one of the Proposition 10 consultants, was a partner.
Perry, First 5 executive director, said Tuesday that she would be at the audit committee hearing today and would offer the agency's "support and cooperation."
She said she'd already provided the committee with previous audits of the commission's operations.
Perry said First 5 decided to focus on preschool in 2003 and started funding preschool programs in 2005. In 2004, she said the commission financed a media campaign aimed at reaching out to those who weren't aware of the benefits of preschool.
"Our goal was to have all Californians be aware," she said.
In addition to auditors, Sacramento County District Attorney Jan Scully has been asked to investigate First 5's use of tax dollars for the preschool ads.
Sen. Charles Poochigian, a Fresno Republican who is running for attorney general, initially asked Attorney General Bill Lockyer to investigate the matter.
Lockyer referred the inquiry to Scully because First 5, as a state agency, is one of the attorney general's clients.
Insert: 3/9/06 Strange goings on at the legislative Audit Committee hearing today on the First 5 money. The committee did vote to proceed with the audit, which even Rob Reiner at this point says he supports. But the commission's director, Kris Perry, oddly said that the attorney general's office, which normally represents the agency, had bowed out due to a conflict of interest. Yet earlier this week, Atty. Gen. Lockyer declined a request to investigate First 5 and referred it to the local DA because, he said, he represents the agency and so investigating it would be a conflict. So now he has declined to investigate and declined to represent it, saying both times that doing so would be a conflict. The upshot was that Perry refused to answer questions from the committee because, she said, she will have to hire outside lawyers to represent her and, in the meantime, the attorney general had advised her (depsite its conflict) to say nothing.
Unfortunately, the audit is going to take four or five months from the time that it starts, and no one knows when it will begin. A vote to expedite the audit fell one vote short of passage in the committee.
"We will evaluate the complaint and make any appropriate initial inquiries," said Lana Wyant, Sacramento County special assistant deputy district attorney.
Amid the inquiries, a nonprofit advocacy group released a new report Tuesday that argues most of California's working families can't afford quality preschool.
Fight Crime: Invest in Kids California, a group of law enforcement officials, released the report showing preschool costs an average of $4,022 a year in California.
At that price, Brian Lee, the group's deputy director, said preschool costs more than a year's tuition at a California State University campus.
"The high cost, together with limited public funding, help explain why most low-and middle-income families don't enroll their kids in preschool," he said.
The group releasing the report doesn't plan to take a position on Proposition 82. But some of its leaders have endorsed the initiative.
TOP
Voters Widely Back Measure on Preschools
Some early childhood educators and others, however, aren't so sure that Hollywood activist Rob Reiner's ballot initiative is a good idea
By Carla Rivera, Los Angeles TImes, March 13, 2006
A ballot initiative that would guarantee a year of free preschool to all California children has attracted strong support from the state's voters. But the measure, the most ambitious attempt to expand the boundaries of public education for young children since the movement for universal kindergarten at the beginning of the last century, is drawing fire from some early childhood educators.
Hollywood activist Rob Reiner's Preschool for All initiative, Proposition 82 on the June ballot, would provide nearly $23 billion over the coming decade to enroll 70% of the state's 4-year-olds in free, voluntary, half-day preschool programs.
Proponents, including business, labor and education leaders, say the initiative would help close the achievement gap between disadvantaged children and their middle-class peers as they enter kindergarten. They cite research findings that quality preschool decreases dropout rates, reduces crime and would save the state money on its investment.
That argument may be resonating with voters: A recent statewide survey by the Public Policy Institute of California found that 66% of Californians support Proposition 82.
As with the kindergarten movement that came before, however, not everyone is convinced. Initial opposition by anti-tax groups centered on the initiative's funding mechanism, which targets the wealthiest Californians and imposes a 1.7% tax increase on individuals earning more than $400,000 and couples earning more than $800,000.
But there also is a growing body of dissent among early childhood education advocates who question whether a new government-run program for preschoolers, operated by the same troubled school systems that control kindergarten through 12th grade, is a good idea.
Many private community-based providers, meanwhile, believe that the measure, while well-meaning, is flawed and could end up forcing them out of business if they choose not to participate or don't qualify. And they worry that it would lead to a standardized, one-size-fits-all academic curriculum that is inappropriate for young children.
Other opponents argue that the measure, expected to bring in $2.4 billion annually, would subsidize preschool entitlement for affluent families rather than specifically target poor children who gain the most from quality programs. The state would be taking on the burden of educating middle-class children whose families now shoulder those costs, the argument goes. And since an estimated 62% of the state's roughly half a million 4-year-olds already attend preschool, the funds generated by the initiative probably would likely boost the enrollment rate by only a few percentage points.
"I think Reiner's aim is virtuous, and he's highlighted a fundamental problem, especially in terms of the limited access to quality preschool for lower-income and blue-collar families, but is this the right blueprint and the most cost-effective way to help these families?" said Bruce Fuller, a professor of education and public policy at UC Berkeley who is critical of many aspects of the initiative. "I think initially this was cast as the good guy against the anti-tax people, but I think now many observers are coming to see that it's not so black and white."
Under Proposition 82, the state superintendent of public instruction would oversee programs and establish standards, with county superintendents distributing funds and implementing plans. The program would be available to any child one year before entering kindergarten, beginning in 2010.
In Los Angeles and San Francisco counties, which already have committed public funds for preschool programs and created independent boards to run them, those same boards would be permitted to administer the new funds rather than county superintendents.
The measure mandates that preschool teachers be paid "similarly" to K-12 teachers and provides the right to collective bargaining. The state legislative analyst's office has estimated that the program would generate enough funds to provide about $6,000 per pupil, compared with current state spending of about $6,650 per student in kindergarten through 12th grade.
But the measure is a "wolf in sheep's clothing" that would exclude many excellent programs from public funding, possibly causing their demise, said Pamela Zell Rigg, who operates a Montessori preschool and teacher education center in San Leandro. The initiative calls for classes of no more than 20 children taught by teachers with a bachelor's degree and early learning credential within a decade.
By contrast, Rigg notes, Montessori schools teach multiple age groups, under the philosophy that older children will share their knowledge with younger ones, and they adhere to larger class sizes. Montessori teachers receive specialized training and credentials that are not always recognized by state accrediting agencies, Rigg said, which might prove another barrier.
"We're serving 100,000 children in California, and parents see us as a strong, vibrant educational choice. But by the standards of the initiative, we will not be one of the choices," said Rigg, who also is president of the California Montessori Council. Many preschool teachers in the state, who generally are paid considerably less than public elementary schoolteachers, don't have college degrees or formal training.
Many faith-based providers said they are concerned that private, independent preschools would be absorbed into school districts, becoming accountable to county superintendents.
Elizabeth Sholes, director of public policy for the California Council of Churches, worried that even if some of the state's private preschools were to become part of the program, under its mandate they would not be able to use state money to renovate existing facilities or buy new ones without giving up ownership of them.
The measure, she said, also mandates a curriculum "aligned with statewide standards for elementary education," which might lead to inflexible curricula and testing.
"We are gravely disappointed at how ambiguous this initiative is, because we have such hopes for preschool," said Sholes, a former preschool teacher.
Some school officials also are uncomfortable with the measure, fearing that the equivalent addition of a new grade level would add burdens that would not be fully funded.
But such concerns are vastly overstated, said Amanda Stangis, executive director of the California Assn. for the Education of Young Children. The group says it represents more than 11,000 educators, providers and preschool teachers, and has endorsed Proposition 82.
The measure is designed to include private providers as well as school-based programs, and would provide financial aid for teacher training and money for colleges and universities to develop courses in early learning, Stangis said.
"This is an historic opportunity for a whole new movement focused on early childhood education and a chance to get the public and parents to understand how important it is," she said.
Dennis Vicars, chief executive of the Professional Assn. for Childhood Education, a group of private providers, said the measure's guarantee of parental choice and involvement would force all sides to work cooperatively. County educators and provider groups already are meeting to discuss how to make the initiative work, should it pass, he said. The initiative requires county superintendents to submit plans of action by July 2007.
"If the school districts don't play fair, everybody is going to court and we will see lawsuit after lawsuit," Vicars said. "It behooves everyone to do the right thing so that we help more kids."
For Barbara Beatty, an associate professor of education at Wellesley College and historian of early childhood education, the preschool debate bears striking parallels to that preceding the expansion of public kindergarten.
Many fractious issues of the time, such as whether to teach children math and letters or focus more on socialization, echo today, Beatty said.
In 1830, a petition to incorporate "infant schools" into the Boston public school system was rejected on the grounds that too much early stimulation was damaging to children.
Then along came Bessie Locke, a middle-class daughter of a printer who took up the kindergarten cause and solicited support from prominent people such as Phoebe Apperson Hearst. She got Thomas Alva Edison's studio in 1905 to film a short movie revolving around a kindergarten teacher named Miss Gray, who rejects a marriage proposal from her wealthy boyfriend unless he agrees to support the kindergarten cause.
Locke's success in California in 1913 propelled the movement forward. And Beatty sees in Proposition 82 a chance for California to regain its luster as a leader in education reform.
"California was the model for states in kindergarten," Beatty said, and "has a tradition of commitment to public education that is unique."
TOP
Reiner's bad analogy
Rob Reiner doesn’t get it
By Daniel Weintraub, Sacramento Bee California Insider Web Blog Entry, March 15, 2006
At a speech and Q and A with the Sacramento Press Club today, he insisted there was nothing wrong with the First 5 commission he chaired using tax money to persuade the public to embrace his belief in universal, state-funded preschool.
Reiner compared the two-year ad campaign, which totaled tens of millions of dollars, to other state efforts to promote health insurance for kids, paid family leave or a program that allows new mothers to abandon their babies at a safe harbor, such as a fire station or emergency room, with no questions asked.
“We wanted people to know about the program,” he said.
But there is a fundamental difference between those ad campaigns, whatever you might think of them, and the campaign the First 5 commission ran, which was approved when Reiner was chairman and designed in part by his own political consultant.
The other campaigns were all meant to inform people about policies or programs that were in place and which the people who saw the ads might be eligible to take advantage of.
The preschool campaign was something else entirely. It was designed from the beginning to change public opinion in order to “create demand” for a new program and bring pressure on policymakers to approve such a program, or lay the groundwork for the very kind of initiative that Reiner is pushing now as Proposition 82 on the June ballot.
That was spelled out in this strategy memo, which discussed polling and focus groups and described how an advertising campaign could change minds. And it was mentioned in the contract for one round of the ads, according to this Bill Bradley item.
Reiner seems completely sincere about preschool and even about the ads, which he suggests were intended merely to inform people about the options available to them. He notes that $1 billion of the commission’s funds were used to expand preschool, and he says the ads were supposed to direct people to those programs.
But the strategy memorandum and the contract make clear that the ads were about much more than parent education. They were even targeted to non-parents because polling had shown that those people might be even more supportive of public preschool than parents of young children.
It’s difficult to believe that Reiner was not aware of the strategy behind ads developed under his direction by his close associates to promote his vision. If he was ignorant of the intent, then he was an incompetent chairman. And the fact that even now, as the issue has exploded around him, he still does not see a problem with the campaign suggests that he is blinded by his belief in the goodness of his own policy preferences.
In a nutshell, here’s the problem: If the people who control the purse strings can use that money for a televised propaganda campaign designed to persuade voters to give them more power and more money, then there is no limit on the use of public funds for political purposes.
A governor might allot $100 million in public money to pay for television commercials to advocate for policy changes he believes in but which the Legislature is reluctant to adopt.
Lawmakers might spend public money to soften the ground for a ballot initiative they are thinking of proposing but which a governor opposes.
And other state officials unhappy with either the Legislature or the governor might approve the use of public money to fight the decisions of those policymakers.
Imagine if the University of California, a semi-autonomous public agency, was unhappy that the Legislature would not approve a fee increase the system’s leaders believed was necessary to preserve their programs. Suppose the university concluded that the reason the Legislature wouldn’t budge is that the public did not understand that higher fees would be paid mainly by the wealthy, that low-income students would get financial aid, and that the policy change would allow the system to admit more students than it otherwise could.
Under the Reiner Rule, the university would be free to use public money – as much as it liked - for an ad campaign explaining the value of higher education and the wisdom of the higher fees needed to preserve and expand access to the university.
We all know the university would not and could not do such a thing. But there is little or no difference between such a campaign and the campaign waged by Reiner and his allies to win support for universal pre-school.
TOP
REINER: Revealing The Reiner Commission Operation
Revealing The Reiner Commission Operation
By Bill Bradley, LA Weekly Web Blog Entry, March 7th, 2006
Revealing The Focus of the Reiner-led First Five Commission’s media campaign: Targeting “populations who clearly understand the benefits of Preschool for All, but for whatever reason, have not yet come to the conclusion that the state should do more.”
Documents can be very revealing. The June 28, 2004 contract for media services — which commits the state to $67.5 million of advertising and related services — between the Rob Reiner-led California Children and Families Commission and the GMMB ad agency, founded and headed by former Bill Clinton media consultant Frank Greer, reveals that the principal focus of the so-called First Five Commission’s activities had already evolved into creating public demand for more state spending on preschool programs. Which happened to coincide with the emergence of Reiner’s universal preschool initiative, Proposition 82, now on the June California ballot.
“Preschool has evolved into the Commission’s number one priority,” states the contract, signed by commission chief deputy director Joseph Munso and GMMB partner Roy Behr. GMMB is also Rob Reiner’s campaign media firm. “Unless the Commission changes this direction, we assume that preschool will remain as the core focus of activities in the next few years.”
The document refers to polling and focus group research by Peter Hart Research, famed for its work on Democratic political campaigns, which I do not have, then states: “We recommend launching Phase 2 of the plan (building support for Preschool for All by educating people about the societal benefits of preschool) in Year 1 of the contract. As we spelled out in the preschool narrative (Editor’s Note: A document I do not yet have.) our target audiences are those groups with relatively low levels of support for Preschool for All, such as middle and upper income populations, and people with no children in the house.”
Just as in a political campaign, the contract then lays out the allocation of advertising dollars: 70 percent to television, 20 percent to radio, 10 percent to print, with further breakdowns within each category for general market advertising and specialty advertising in the Spanish language, African American, and Asian language markets.
The contract then discusses the next phase of the Preschool for All campaign. “During this phase, our primary targets are those with high support and low demand for Preschool for All, such as Latinos — especially Spanish speaking Latinos, and low-income populations with young children.”
“As a reminder, these are populations who clearly understand the benefits of Preschool for All, but for whatever reason, have not yet come to the conclusion that the state should do more.”
In Phase 3 of the campaign, which we just saw during the signature gathering for the Reiner universal preschool initiative, the media mix is ratcheted up for electronic media and down for print media.
Interestingly enough, a lower level of anti-smoking advertising outlined in the contract seems to have disappeared in 2005, when approximately a year’s worth of advertising was jammed into one quarter of frantic activity. This quarter happened to coincide with the time period in which commission chairman Rob Reiner had his political campaign organization out gathering signatures from registered California voters to qualify his latest initiative, calling for increased taxes on high-income earners to fund “Preschool For All,” for California’s June primary election. The taxpayer-funded advertising jammed into this quarter was, as it happens, on the same theme as Reiner’s new political campaign, “Preschool For All.”
Welcome to the world of publicly-funded private political campaigning. In which taxpayer dollars are used to create the demand for more taxpayer-funded services.
Looking through the various contracts between the Rob Reiner-created and led commission — which is in reality a highly-funded state agency with little if any oversight — and the advertising and public relations firms with which it has contracted over the past several years, several things are apparent.
The commission regularly entered into highly lucrative contracts for advertising and public relations services with advertising and PR firms which have ties of political alliance and friendship to the movie director/initiative promoter. These contractual arrangements contained few if any measurable requirements regarding their effectiveness in promoting early childhood development. And they were virtually free from oversight scrutiny from other agencies or bodies of state government.
As I reported earlier, of the $230 million spent on advertising and public relations over the past several years by the Reiner-headed Children and Families Commission, also known as the First Five Commission, some $62 million went to public relations services. This is far more than most people supposed based on earlier news reports.
The public relations firm in question is Los Angeles-based Rogers & Associates, now the Rogers Group. The firm is a spin-off of the legendary Hollywood PR firm, Rogers & Cowan. Rogers head Ron Rogers is the son of Rogers & Cowan founder Henry Rogers. The elder Rogers was described by the New York Times as “the father of Hollywood PR.” His firm represented many of Hollywood’s classic stars. A legendary figure in show biz circles, he is credited by many with virtually inventing Hollywood publicity, and was a friend of Carl Reiner, who is the father of Rob Reiner.
Like Henry Rogers in the field of Hollywood public relations, Carl Reiner was a huge pioneer in television comedy. Their sons, Ron and Rob, are second generation Hollywood aristocracy, in publicity and talent, respectively.
The Rogers firm, which also
