Sorry, folks, but these aren’t the bad old days when it comes to government.

Go back to 1977.

It was before Proposition 13.

School financing in California was fairly simple.

A school district decided how much money they needed to operate.

The state gave them some money, but most was pulled from local property taxes.

The superintendent came up with the final budget number, deducted state funding, and recommended the school board adjust the property tax rate accordingly.

You read that right.

School boards set the property tax rate.

Cities and counties operated the same way, but a tad more simplistic.

City managers would come up with general fund expenses, look at revenue, and then increase the tax rate to cover the difference.

What would happen in the case of small cities, as opposed to larger jurisdictions, are elected council members would run into constituents throughout the day at their business/workplace, at the store, dining at a restaurant, at the barber shop, and places such as their kids’ school and church.

That meant they would get face-to-face feedback throughout the day and into the night for decisions they made.

And if you don’t think a raise in their property tax bill or water/sewer rates wasn’t at the top of the rant list, then you’re the perfect buyer for oceanfront property in Death Valley.

This often led to bad decision making.

In the case of Lincoln in Placer County, it meant potholes were filled with clay that washed out after significant rain and delayed maintenance almost making the sewer treatment plant inoperable.

It was because cutting corners and not adequately funding essential needs was a way to stop the non-stop complaining about raising taxes and fees, although people still complained about government costing too much.

That was in addition to how property was assessed in California.

Basically, anything within roughly a two-block area of your home sold, the assessed valuation by law on your home had to be adjusted according to the market rate.

How tax rates were set and property assessed let to the period in the late-1960s to mid-1970s, where many areas of California experienced property tax bill hikes in excess of 30 to 40 percent over stretches as short as five years.

Proposition 13 capped annual property assessment rate increases at 2 percent.

It also forced a massive overhaul in how schools as well as local and county governments were funded.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I voted for Proposition 13 in 1978. 

I was a 22 year-old serving on the Western Placer Unified School District Board that I had been elected to in 1975.

I was not a property owner and wouldn’t be for another 12 years.

I did rent and huge jumps in property tax assessments were passed on.

It was clear what was in place was not sustainable.

Government suffered as well in the pre-Proposition 13 world.

Western Placer, as an example, was what was known as a high tax, low wealth school district.

It meant local property taxes could barely cover the basics even though they were maxed out in terms of what could legally be charged without overrides passed by voters. The district couldn’t compete for teachers.

What has happened since, has stepped up the level of education, especially in middle class and working class communities.

The immediate aftermath of Proposition 13 being implemented was telling.

Many districts, including Western Placer, dropped summer school.

It was an “add-on” paid by the state, if a district offered it for basic subject remediation, and not by local taxes. 

The reason for dropping summer school was because the state cut, not dropped, reimbursement. 

Now for the kicker. 

Prior to Proposition 13, the state as an incentive reimbursed 125 percent of the cost of running a summer school program. Then Gov. Jerry Brown cut it back to 100 percent.

The same thing happened to other state funded programs such as behind-the-wheel driver’s education.

I was more than incredulous when the superintendent recommended dropping summer school, given actual costs of the program per se would drop down to 100 percent and be covered.

His response was administrative staff time was not worth it as the district would no longer be getting extra income it could use to cover other needs.

I, or I should say students, lost on a 3-2 vote.

This queues up a backlash Thursday directed at a member of Congress speaking in favor of returning to the pre-President Carter era by returning functions of the federal Education Department to agencies that were originally taken from.

That includes sending the student loan program back to the Treasury Department and civil rights enforcement back to the Department of Justice.

The congresswoman made the argument that the main goal of the federal government should be effective programs and “not jobs.”

The blowback was harsh on social media.

Whether you believe the Department of Education should be sustainably dismantled or not, government’s primary function is to deliver services first and foremost, not to create jobs.

You need people to do the jobs. They are extremely essential and extremely valuable.

That said, you need to maximize effectiveness of programs. 

Judging by the responses, there are more than a few out there who equate cutting an education bureaucracy job is the equivalent of cutting education.

Back in 1979, when I was still on the school board, we were faced with the decision of charging for extra-curricular busing for sports and education enrichment trips or dropping it.

Given at the time well over a third of the district had families living in poverty, the community rallied to pay for school buses, but it was only enough to cover football and track team transportation.

Everyone else would need to fend for themselves.

Then a science teacher took it on his own to get a driver’s license that allowed him to drive a school “bus” van. He had paid for the class required and the actual license fee.

It was so he could continue to take students to science museum venues.

When a basketball coach got a group of fellow coaches to ask the district if they got licenses, drive the vans for free, and raised the money for gas if they could do the same as the science teacher. The only district cost would be reimbursing the coach/teacher for the cost of the class and the license,

The request came to the board after the superintendent said no.

After I noted we were elected to make sure students were educated first and foremost and,  here comes the incendiary three words — “not provide jobs” — the board unanimously overruled the superintendent.

The next board meeting every bus driver was in attendance.

I was asked to explain why I didn’t think bus drivers were important and why was I after their jobs.

First, I noted, no one was losing their jobs as there were still home-to-school-to-home routes every school day.

Second, we did not have the money to pay for the gas and a driver for anything beyond basic school transportation so they weren’t losing out on additional paid work.

Third, bus drivers, just like janitors, teacher aides, clerical staff and such — and of course teachers — played an important part in helping educate students.

Fourth, and most important, the school district exists first and foremost to educate students and we needed to do make that happen as effective as we could with what we had.

I then doubled down on the fact the purpose of schools is not to generate jobs per se.

Two board members flipped but the majority held fast.

The coaches driving vans for baseball, softball, basketball, cross country and several teachers for enrichment opportunities, continued for two years until we were in a financial position to shift the work back to the preferred manner of having paid bus drivers donor.

It all comes down to mindset.

Job One of government should always be about providing the service and not jobs per se.

Government will always need workers, but what it doesn’t need is a culture where there is no ongoing thinking of how resources are deployed instead of just adding bodies.

This column is the opinion of editor, Dennis Wyatt, and does not necessarily represent the opinions of The Bulletin or 209 Multimedia. He can be reached at dwyatt@mantecabulletin.com