Poll commissioned by opponents of Idaho Props 1,2,3 shows big lead for 'no' campaign

Last week's poll by Grove Insight of Portland, Ore., overlapped with an Idaho Statesman poll that showed opponents leading by small margins on two of three propositions and slightly behind on the third.

The survey was conducted for "Vote No on Propositions 1, 2, 3," which said pollsters talked to 500 likely, registered voters. The margin for error was 4.4 percentage points, said the Vote No group.

On Proposition 1 (unions), 48 percent said they would vote "no," 31 percent "yes," and 20 percent undecided.

On Proposition 2 (performance pay), 47 percent said "no" to 34 percent "yes," and 19 percent undecided.

On Proposition 3 (laptops), 53 percent said "no" to 29 percent "yes," and 18 percent undecided.

In the Statesman poll,
"no" voters led 42 percent to 38 percent on Prop 1, with 20 percent undecided.

"Yes" voters led 42 percent to 39 percent on Prop 2, with 19 percent undecided.

On Prop 3, "no" voters led 47 percent to 40 percent, with 13 percent undecided.

The Statesman's pollster was Mason-Dixon Polling & Research of Washington, D.C. Surveys were conducted Oct. 8-10 of 625 likely, registered voters, with a margin for error of 4 percent. The Grove poll was conducted Oct. 9-11.

Mike Lanza, chairman of the 'no' campaign, said, "This confirms what we've believed all along: voters want to repeal these laws." He added that Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Luna "wrote these laws without asking any parents or professional educators to weigh in on what our schools need. That's why the Luna laws are a failure."

Ken Burgess, who leads the YES for Idaho Education campaign, declined to disclose any internal polling by proponents.

On Tuesday, Burgess said of the Statesman poll: "After eighteen months of the union maligning this education reform (with some help from media and editorialists); After six weeks and One million-plus national union dollars pummeling the airwaves talking about how bad reform is: The propositions are: 1. Statistically even, and 2. Still 19-20% are undecided. And we (the YES campaign) haven’t even run an aggressive campaign to date. That should be concerning to the opponents."

Burgess added: "Having not the access to a bottomless pit of national union money, we have strategically kept our powder dry...but that ends this week."

I sent Burgess a copy of the Grove poll Tuesday afternoon and this morning he weighed in on the second survey, writing, "...(I)f we assume their info is statistically sound…. It would indicate we’ve got some work to do. There is still a large number of undecided voters according to this poll, and I am confident that over the next few weeks we will move most of those voters to the YES column. We don’t have the benefit of the crosstabs, but I’ll bet they show liberals and democrats have made up their minds with very few undecideds left for the opposition to capture from their reliable demographic."

You can follow Idaho Statesman Politics on Twitter.

1350491522 Poll commissioned by opponents of Idaho Props 1,2,3 shows big lead for 'no' campaign Idaho Statesman Copyright 2014 Idaho Statesman . All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

as opposed to

the bottomless pit of Frank VanderSloot money.

Teachers' union billing Idaho Taxpayers for political activities

If you're an undecided voter then consider the following:

I'm an Idaho taxpayer. I have a son attending Boise School District. I firmly believe the teachers' union is responsible for the biggest drain on education funding even as they use deceptive claims to decoy from the real issues. Consequently, I have a vested interest in seeing the union's influence taken out of the public school equation. Just how entrenched is the teachers' union in the Boise School District? Judge for yourselves. Read the BSD Master Contract with the Boise Education Assn (local teachers' union):


K. Professional Leave

"Official delegates of the Association will be granted up to two (2) days of paid leave to attend the Delegate Assembly of the Idaho Education Association. In addition, the Association may send representatives to other local, state, or national conferences or onother business pertinent to Association affairs. These representatives may be excused with pay, upon Association request, and with District approval. The Association shall give ten (10) days prior notice to the Superintendent or designee, except in extenuating circum-stances."

Why are taxpayers paying teachers to attend union meetings?

"The Association president shall be allowed a leave of absence for his/her term of office with salary and benefits to be paid by the Association for the time that the president is released from teaching duties. The District shall reimburse the Association the cost of salary and benefits of a first year teacher (B.A., 1.0 experience). Said leave of absence shall count towards retirement and all other purposes of the Master Contract. All rights of renewable contract status, retirement, accrued sick leave, salary schedule placement and other benefits provided herein shall be preserved and available to the Association President in the event he/she chooses to return to the District as a professional employee at the conclusion of his or her term of office. If the Association President chooses to return from his or her leave of absence, he/she shall be assigned to a position at the same school, the same teaching field, if available, as that which he/she held before becoming the Association president."

Why are Idaho taxpayers funding the union president's job? Did voters know the Boise School District pays teachers from your tax dollars to attend union activities?

What does the Idaho Education Assn's Delegate Assembly do with taxpayers' money during their 2-day "Delegate Assembly" retreat?


"Delegates voted Friday afternoon to back the referendum campaigns to overturn the harmful Luna laws, and many teachers fanned out across Boise that evening to begin collecting signatures."

Why, they're stealing taxpayers' money to become political activists!!! Shouldn't the union fund its own political activities? Not if they can do it on taxpayers' dime they won't.

The primary reason union members have a problem is because they can't stand to have their dirty laundry, i.e., the amount of control they have over the school district, displayed for all voters to see. Their worst fear is an informed voter. Now you know the truth!

Vote YES on Props 1, 2 & 3!!!

Your constant barrage of talking points indicate you have

something riding on this. I'm betting someone in Luna's office. Especially given that this the only political subject you tend to pay attention to.

"No his mind is not for rent, to any god or government." Neil Peart

All parents have "something

All parents have "something riding on this."

Your constant second guessing...

...indicates you have a problem with my point of view.

I have nothing more riding on the outcome than my son's education and the fact I'm a taxpayer.

You don't really believe Idaho's public education system was just fine before the SCF laws, do you?

You don't really believe the teachers' union would propose any education reforms themselves, do you?

When the school district is paying union members for union activities with my money well that makes me a stakeholder in this discussion.

BSD actually tried to hide the Master Contract. Go ahead, search for it in Google and try the link. Where does it take you? What are they trying to hide?

Obviously, they're trying to hide how much control the union has over the school district.

Vote YES on Props 1, 2 & 3!!!

Why are you making bones about standard professional leave?

Don't most if not ALL districts have time outs for training and professional meetings?


Celebrating five years and one screen ID >|<

What's professional about a union meeting?

Answer: Nothing.

Check Meridian School District's master contract. It's quite different than BSDs.

Tow, I understand and

Tow, I understand and appeciate your concerns about the Master contract for the Boise school system, but I think you need to look at other factors besides the BEA for an explanation.

-In the last school board election, out of approximately 100,000 registered voters, less than 2000 people voted, and you can be pretty sure that many of those were teachers and their spouses. Where were all the parents and grandparents who now claim to be experts on laptop technology? Why does the BEA not encourage parents to participate in school board elections the way they do bond and mil levy elections?

-Quite often we see that the school board candidates are teachers or former teachers. That's like electing a fox to guard the chickens.

-The Boise school board has a pattern of scheduling elections on dates that assure low-voter turnout. They do little to publicize these elections or the polling places. They could not make it more obvious that they don't want their patrons to vote in these elections or attend school board meetings.

-The Idaho Statesman used to send a reporter to every school board meeting and publish an article the next morning on what was discussed and decided. Budget meetings were given advanced publicity as were other topics that were of more than passing interest to parents. Likewise, school board elections used to be as exciting and competitive as the races for county and state offices, and indeed they should be since over 60% of our state and local tax dollars are spent on education.

No matter how this goes,

the fact is that polling shows that a large number of the population does not approve of this legislation.

What does this say about our legislators that hurredly pushed this through and then affixed an "emergency clause" to it to set it into motion?

No matter how the vote eventually ends up- no one can dispute that representation has failed the people of Idaho. Otherwise there would have been more consideration given to the obviously very present opposition to the bills, rather that citing a "silent majority" which turns out to be a totally imaginary creature. The views of constituents were ignored and the issue was ram-rodded for political agendas (union busting, etc.) and for possible financial gain by controlling parties.

In no way, shape, or form was this legislation introduced with any real concern for the students or future economy of Idaho.

Personally, I will be voting NO on all three propositions- but even if you are not in agrement with me on that- if you are any kind of American at all, you will consider the names of the legislators who ignored the voices of those they represent and vote them out of office when possible. The disparity in the voices of the people and the actions these legislators have taken in this regard is NOT what Democracy is about, and is absolutely unforgivable.

Teachers' union has failed our students...

The polling isn't nearly as meaningful as the actual vote tally but you knew that.

Interesting how you twist this into "representation has failed the people of Idaho".

Never mind the union paid signature collectors to gather signatures just to get the props on the ballot. Never mind the teachers' union used taxpayers' money to gather signatures (as shown above).

Did you see the vote Yes campaign's new ads? Wow, they really tell it like it is!!!

Vote Yes on Props 1, 2 & 3!!!

"wow" is right.


Vote Yes campaign got it right

The context was union power. Whether or not the SCF laws existed at the time doesn't imply the quote was taken "out of context".

Besides, how does it compare to the vote No campaign's falsehoods "laptops are replacing teachers" and "laptops are an unfunded mandate"?

Vote Yes on Props 1, 2 & 3!!!

nijm, pay attention

You need to pay attention to the fine print and significant information about the poll. "Registered" voters were polled. Therein is the bias of the poll. I am sure you are well aware of the number of people who did not vote because they did not wish to register. Accordingly, the poll is tainted and without merit as to representation of the voters who will be voting in November.

What part of

PAID BY THE ASSOCIATION did you not understand, or choose to ignore? You also missed that when on these meetings the Association reimburses the districts the costs for the substitute teachers. Be as angry as you like, but you might consider reading for comprehension rather than fault assigning.

Reimbursement from taxpayers' money...

What part of "will be granted up to two (2) days of paid leave to attend the Delegate Assembly of the Idaho Education Association" did you not understand?

What part of "The District shall reimburse the Association the cost of salary and benefits..." did you not understand?

No doubt about it, taxpayers' are funding the union's political activities.

Vote YES on Props 1, 2 & 3!!!

the proof of the argument and the degree of relevance

will not be found in the Master Agreement, but rather in the actual expenditures of the District and the reimbursements by the Association. Look there for the real issue, if one remains.

Deflect much?

It's IN THE CONTRACT. Why? Because it was negotiated specifically to include it!

That's the real issue and, yes, it remains.

Vote YES on Props 1, 2 & 3!!!

quid pro quo?

unless your looking at the actual dollars and cents the way an auditor might, your claim of the largest drain of education's dollars remains supposition.

550 Teachers attended the Delegate Assembly

Yep, try and explain that away. Of course, all weren't from BSD but I'll bet a significant number were!

Rather difficult to cover their tracks when they make it so obvious by placing the verbage in the Master Contract.

Vote Yes on Props 1, 2 & 3!!!

hiding in plain sight

It's all out there now, isn't it....but these contacts have been maters of public record...just like a tax payers paying for the cost to run elections for two of the other unions in Idaho...the closed GOP primary and the Democratic party primary....a comparison of how they are organized, funded, and operate is virtually identical to the NEA.
But, I digress. These laws came to be at the expense of all of us as citizens and a flagrant abuse of authority on the part of the GOP whose party line vote in the Legislature was compounded by bringing the bills back after the referendum drive began to attach the emergency moniker. That too, was in plain sight and also cannot be hidden. The real question is...can it be allowed to stand that the GOP deny the citizens of Idaho their civil process and impose rule without consequences?

Voting no is not a rejection of educational reform as much as it should be a repudiation of being treated as subjects instead of equal members in a democratic, republic.

Matter of public record or a s-h-e-l-l game?

Go ahead and Google the following "Boise School District Master Contract".

Where does it take you? www.boiseschools.org/benefits/documents/master.pdf

It's a dead link.

Why is that? Why move the link just before the SCF vote? Because BSD and BEA don't want anyone to see the truth.

Comparing the Rs and Ds to the NEA is quite a stretch in logic. Two of them are political parties and the third is a special interest group.

I'll leave figuring out which is which as an exercise to the reader. HINT: It's intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer.

Vote Yes on Props 1, 2 & 3!!!

M8ter, don't have a freakin' coronary over nothing.

I get the feeling you are just lost.


Celebrating five years and one screen ID >|<

Obsess much?


Celebrating five years and one screen ID >|<


Poll commissioned by...

Let's just stop there.

You may wish to read the survey as linked in the initial blog -

it has the actual wording of the survey.

I personally did not find it to be biased, and I don't believe the administering entity could maintain its status or reliability as an objective research firm if it fudged data in favor of whomever might be paying for surveys. The 4.4 reliability number coincides with the number the Statesman quoted with its survey which had a similar outcome, and 4.4 is a reasonable number for this type of research.

This is more than I can say for the wording in the push-poll commissioned (with tax dollars) by the proponents of the laws. That one may never see the light of day, do to ethics concerns over the insertion of persuasive language into tax dollar-funded "research."