(music playing) - Welcome to The Aaron Harber Show, Your Decision 2022 , a special election series exclusively here on PBS12.

Today, I'm honored to have four guests presenting their positions on Proposition FF, a proposal to create a program to serve healthy school lunches to every Colorado public school student.

Joining me are Ashley Wheeland and Patience Kabwasa, who are for the proposition, and Richard Holtorf and Michael Fields, who are against it.

Thank you all for joining me very much.

We have on the screen right now a slate which describes the proposition.

And it's actually a proposition for not just lunches but for breakfast, as well, for students who really would benefit from them.

Ashley, tell me a little bit about the key reasons people should support Proposition FF.

- Yeah so.

With Proposition FF, every school district can participate, and they can provide school meals to any child who needs it, and get reimbursed for it.

A lot of our districts have meal debts or other things that--or end up with meal debt, or parents end up with meal debt because they're struggling to cover the costs of their kids' food.

This proposal ensures that no kid will go hungry and will be able to learn.

And it basically wraps around the federal programs in place.

There are a lot of kids that don't qualify for those programs that still need help in Colorado.

Last year, it was in place, and we actually saw over 67,000 kids eat lunch a day.

We saw it worked.

And that federal relief ended.

And it's time for Colorado to make this permanent and make sure every kid can have the food they need to learn.

- So, what you were referring to is, the state received extra pandemic money so that we could expand the program, but that expansion to help additional kids was only temporary.

- It was temporary.

Yeah, it ended in June.

We saw a 19% increase in participation across the state when school meals were available to every kid.

- Patience, add onto that.

What do you think is critically important for voters to know about this proposition?

- Sure.

I have the incredible privilege of working in a community food systems solution-based organization where we're working to cultivate a more equitable food system in Colorado Springs.

And we served close to 50,000 people last year.

And two-thirds of those families were families with children.

I get to see firsthand every day folks coming in to the line, and to see how fresh food affects their life.

Families are working two to three jobs, and they're still not able to make ends meet.

We also saw during the pandemic that safety decisions were delayed because often school meals are the only meal that students get in the course of their day.

And so, this would enable, regardless of income, it would take away the stigma.

Children should not be left to negotiate with the lunch lady their school balance to access a meal.

And we shouldn't be burdening teachers with trying to educate children who are not able to eat.

- The proposal--And Richard, I want to come to you in a minute.

The proposal is to increase taxes on people making more than $300,000 a year.

And is that on a joint return, is that individual return?

Where does the 300,000 take place?

- Yeah, it's both on individual and joint.

But it's actually reducing tax deductions that folks over 300,000 can take on their taxes.

Standardized and itemized tax deductions, those would be reduced for folks who make over that amount.

- All right.

If you file a Schedule A of itemized deductions, we're now limiting how much you can take for a deduction if your combined income in a family is over 300,000.

It looks like the initial cost of this will be about $100 million.

And obviously, that number will go up over time, as well.

Richard, tell me why this is not a good idea.

- First of all, Aaron, thank you for inviting me to the program.

And thank you for letting me explain why this may not be a good idea for Colorado.

First of all, Aaron, I believe we're in a post-COVID environment now.

This was a COVID program, and we are moving on and moving back to what I would consider more of a normal state in our country.

That's the first point.

The second point is, we already have a very strong and robust federal reduced and free lunch program.

Also, during the Obama administration, Michelle Obama, the first lady, worked very hard and aggressively to make sure that the United States and every state in the union was on the right trajectory.

And I will tell you, I think we have a very good program.

I would consider that the argument that most kids only get one meal a day is not correct.

There may be some kids, but it is not the preponderance of children.

Now, when I was in committee and this was presented, I had some very big issues with the way this program was put together and this legislation was put together.

The first thing I'd like to point out is that the cost for Colorado taxpayers, they bear the burden of the cost of this very expensive program.

And I would argue, and do today before Colorado citizens, that the lawyer in Cherry Creek, the accountant in Arvada, or the airplane pilot in Aurora, who makes north of $100,000, $150,000, and their spouse, who also may be a professional who works, that have kids in school, they can pay for their lunch.

They don't need a free lunch.

Now, if you combine the income of those folks, either jointly or individually, many Colorado citizens are going to find themselves north of that 300,000 AGI.

And they bear that burden.

But here is the other problem.

I used myself as example, Aaron.

I said, for a Colorado rancher, cattle feeder and farmer, who's also a public servant, who makes north of $100,000, I should pay for my kids' lunches.

And I did.

All four of my children went through the Akron school district here in Colorado.

And I figured, for over 20 years, I was paying for those school lunches.

And I think that's an important component.

I don't think the taxpayers should be burdened directly with this type of program.

I have some other points, but I'm going to turn it back to you, sir.

- All right, well, I'm actually going to let Michael have a few comments.

Michael, why do you think this is not a good idea?

- Well, thanks for having me on, Aaron.

It's great to be here.

I look at this from a perspective of somebody who has children in our district schools.

I'm somebody who was a teacher of fourth and sixth grade at a charter school in Aurora.

And we dealt with this issue of meals, both breakfast and lunch, in the classroom in that school.

In thinking about this and saying, you know what, we do have a robust federal program, a state program on top of that, a much smaller one, that makes sure that low-income families, families that need to have meals, get them.

And I think that should be the case.

I think we need healthy meals.

I think that we really need to make sure that kids are eating, eating healthy at school.

The question is, what is the impact of this specific ballot measure?

And if you think about the fact that this is--When we're talking about lowering these deductions, you know what's in there is charitable giving.

And so, when I think about this, there's always going to be give and take with what's going on.

And so, if you lower the deductions for charitable giving, does that impact nonprofits in our state?

People respond to incentives.

If nonprofits get less money, do they need that more if they're helping homeless people or people who have drug addiction?

Versus me, who my wife and I can afford to pay for our children's lunch, and a lot of people across Colorado can.

Is that tradeoff worth it?

And you think about it, another state actually tried something similar, Hawaii did about a decade ago.

And they lowered the deduction on charitable giving.

And a couple years later, they came back and said, "Wow, we lost a lot more money to charities than the government got in revenue," and they reversed it.

They reversed that measure.

So, I think we need to study it more, understand the impacts it could have on charities, before we do anything like this.

- Ashley and Patience, I'd like you to respond to that.

And a couple thoughts.

One is, on the surface, it seems one of the things this does is we end up giving free meals clearly to students from families who already can afford to pay for their lunches.

That's kind of one concern I'd like you to address.

And the other is, if we have--Do we have--My understanding is we do have programs in place to address the meal needs, not just lunch, but breakfast and lunch, for kids who come from families, and the reality is they're not getting good nutrition at home.

Some of them literally get one meal a day at home.

And that's going to affect their development, their educational abilities, etc.

Do we have programs in place that adequately address this but don't meet their needs?

Because a lot of those kids are not enrolled in their programs.

And then, the last question--I'm sorry--is, you mentioned, Patience, the stigma issue, which I think is really significant.

You don't want kids going up to get lunch and being told, "I'm sorry, your account is zeroed out," or, "your parents haven't paid this month," or whatever the case may be, or just being seen as someone who gets a free lunch versus someone who couldn't.

Couldn't we improve the system so that that's all automated and we remove the stigma?

That's a lot of questions.

I apologize.

Tackle those, and respond to what Richard and Michael had to say.

Do you want to go first, Patience?

- Sure.

I'm going to keep all of that in.

- I'm sorry, my apologies.

- That's OK. That's OK.

I'm going to hit the stigma issue first.

Particularly, I think, with BIPOC children, who are already stigmatized in public school and who often are receiving free and reduced lunch, even if they are attending--I was a mom.

I chartered my children, as well.

Even if they are attending an affluent school, being the poorer children of color in that school, you are singled out.

You are singled out when you are standing in the line for free and reduced lunch.

And if there isn't enough money on your account, because we also didn't talk about--There are gaps here.

There are children in our state, almost 60,000+ who are in the gaps.

Maybe their parents make a dollar or two more.

They can't really afford to buy more healthy meals for their children, but they still don't qualify for free and reduced lunch.

Those children, again, are left to negotiate with the lunch lady.

And if they can't come to a resolution, often get an alternative lunch, which is some form of cheese and crackers.

And so, it would be unconscionable for us to send children to school without a pencil or be able to provide a pencil for them.

Why do we feel like children can perform without fresh food?

It's ridiculous.

And so, I think that another reason that this is helpful is, if you can afford to feed your child, you don't have to opt in.

You can bring food to school.

You can pack a lunch for your child.

You don't have to take advantage of something that doesn't benefit you.

But I think that creating a system where everyone can just--Kids need to eat to learn, I think is our duty.

And Colorado voters, the last polling numbers agree with us.

It's up to 60% of folks who agree that kids should eat to learn.

- Ashley, I'd like you to address some of the issues.

I served lunch at my daughter's school for a decade, so I really appreciate your perspective on how it impacts kids, young kids individually.

And at that age, even something like this, that to adults may not seem like a big deal, it can be a huge deal to an individual child.

So, I really appreciate that.

But Ashley, respond a little bit to what Richard and Michael said, and then I'm going to turn it to them.

- Yeah.

The program is set up as a reimbursement model, not a every kid gets a meal.

It's the kids who need the meals that are going through the lunch line and participating.

They eat, and then the district will get reimbursed.

And we didn't see a ton of rich kids running-- - But not the individual families don't get reimbursed.

- No, the school district gets reimbursed for the-- - Is... Will it work that if I'm in school, no matter who I am or income, every student can simply go through the line without paying?

- Go through the line and be treated equally and be able to get a meal.

- Which addresses your stigma issue.

- It addresses the stigma issue.

And we didn't see a rush to have a ton of wealthier families participate.

We saw families who needed it, those families Patience mentioned that either face shame or stigma.

40% of folks in the free and reduced lunch program don't participate for their own reasons.

And a lot of that is shame and stigma.

We also saw those families who make a little too much to qualify for free and reduced lunch, we saw more of them eating.

Like I said, we saw 68,000 more students a day in Colorado eating lunch.

And it actually helps our school nutrition departments be able to have the dollars to be able to afford to focus on their staff, focus on the things that they should be doing when they're feeding kids, rather than worrying about being in the red, about covering the costs.

That's what a lot of our districts have had to do.

And this moves away from them dealing with meal debt, kids dealing with shame, and families dealing with the cost that they just are struggling to cover.

- All right, Michael, do you have anything to add?

- Yeah.

I think on the stigma issue, I've dealt with this both as a teacher in the classroom and as my kids are in school in Douglas County.

And I just don't think the system--And if it is working this way in certain areas, it's to change, but basically, the system works in that my kids, certain days, want to go and have the meal that's at school.

And so, they do that.

And we get charged later on on an account.

There are kids that have the money to pay for it and don't have the money that go through that system.

Nobody knows which one is which.

My kids are picking it based on what--Is it pizza that day?

And they really like pizza.

But also, on the teacher side of this, I've dealt with this with our school where we're not stopping kids from eating if their account is over.

We, as a school, decided we're going to--If people can't pay it, we're going to forgive that.

The districts can decide to do that.

There's a lot of leeway that you have in order to make sure that kids can have lunches, have healthy lunches, currently, without any kind of stigma.

And so, I just don't agree that this is as big of a problem.

You don't pass $100 million plan because of this reason when there are ways for kids to have no idea who doesn't have the money to do it or not.

I think good districts, good schools are already dealing with the stigma problem that's not an issue.

- Richard, I want to come to you in a second.

But Michael, I think your district-by-district approach doesn't solve the problem because, obviously, some districts will address the problem the way you described.

Others won't.

Why not have--and not necessarily through this proposal--but why not have a statewide policy where everybody--If there are already programs, federal and state, if there are already resources, and this doesn't pass, why not have a policy where every qualifying kid can eat and not worry about the stigma issue?

And maybe we move that number that you were talking about, kind of the shoulder people, the people between qualifying based on income and having a little too much income to qualify, move that number up so we address the problem, Patience, that you raised.

So, it seems to me there are existing solutions to this problem.

But this certainly is a blanket--The proposal, Proposition FF, is a blanket approach which costs $100 million or more over the years, but eliminates a lot of the issues that are of concern to Ashley and Patience.

Richard, please.

- Aaron, I want to point out a couple things that the public need to know in Colorado.

Numbers went up in a COVID environment because many small businesses were closed.

Those little mom and pop restaurants and shops, where you go and get your burrito or your hoagie or your sub and other things, just weren't available.

The numbers had to go up, statically.

And they did.

But we're in a post-COVID environment now.

I want to point out that it's $100.7 million in one year for this program.

And I will tell you, if we have a process problem, and we do have kids that feel bad, let's address and fix that.

You know how we can do that?

We can streamline the way kids are handled in the lunchroom so it's transparent.

And that's really easy and doesn't cost in one year $100.7 million for Colorado taxpayers.

I also want to point out one thing that I continually talk about at the State Capitol as rural legislator.

Ladies and gentlemen, one size does not fit all.

Many school districts, many counties across Colorado are different.

They're diverse.

And one hand does not fit every glove.

And one boot does not fit every foot.

You need to have the autonomy for school districts and those communities to solve their problems.

Now, if this fails, and I hope it does fail, I want to get with my democrat friends, and I want to solve the problem at 10 cents on the dollar, and say, "Let's streamline the process."

Let's provide a system for the schools to use that they can scan those kids in and out, and nobody knows the difference.

Your socioeconomic position shouldn't matter as a kid when you go through the lunch line.

And if there is a delta or a deficit, they never get called out.

The administration can then, perhaps, go back at a much reduced cost, by the way, and say, "We have this shortfall.

We don't want to hurt these families that are struggling.

Can we make up the difference?"

And we can actually put money aside.

And I'm not even talking about the grant issue yet, which is a whole other issue I'd sure like to discuss with you about, that can make up those shortfalls seamlessly, quietly, and discreetly, so those kids never have to worry about that.

That's a real solution that I'd like to bring, and keep those districts with some of their autonomy.

Because I constantly battle the fact that one solution in Colorado does not help rural eastern Colorado.

It's the wrong fit.

It might fit urban Colorado, but it doesn't fit the western part of the state or the eastern part of the state, the people that I represent, sir.

- All right, Ashley, please.

- Yeah, I wouldn't call this--I know you called it blanket.

I would call it comprehensive.

- A much better word.

- Yes, yes.

We got input from school nutrition directors across the state, got a lot of information.

And the proposition is actually supported by over 100 organizations, including the Colorado School Nutrition Association, the folks that are on the ground, doing this work.

And those folks support making sure that every kid can get a meal, that they know that they can serve that kid no matter what.

And so, there are also a couple other components of the program.

There's the school meal reimbursement, but there are also some resources to help districts be able to buy healthy food from our local farmers and ranchers, putting that money back into our economy, and putting food that's grown and folks like Senator Holtorf's ranch, be able to get their beef on the plates of our students.

And there is a grant program for technical assistance to help train folks on how to cook healthy meals and help with professional development.

And we also continue to see a struggle for frontline staffing.

And so, there are some grant resources for that, as well.

It's really looking at the comprehensive need in our school nutrition departments so that we have strong school nutrition departments that aren't always operating in the red and are able to serve every kid a meal who needs it, so that every kid has the food that they need to learn that day.

- Just a quick aside.

Are there any metrics planned to actually see, if this gets approved and implemented, if kids are actually healthier?

- Yeah, there's reporting in it.

And the Department of Education is implementing it.

- OK. Patience, did you-- - Because I work in health equity, we urban farm at my organization and nonprofit.

For me, this is a real opportunity to turn the cafeteria into a learning space.

Children are so disconnected from growing food and where food comes from that I feel like this would be an opportunity that we can create a learning center in the cafeteria, support frontline workers.

Childhood diabetes is an epidemic right now, and it's because kids are disconnected from where actual, real food comes from.

This initiative can help to support frontline cafeteria workers, the technological support that they need, and also help us to bolster local economies, bolster our rural farmers, as well as create that environment, again, where children can learn.

- My Cheetos and root beer diet would not qualify for this program.

- No.

- No.

We would give you some vegetables.

- Vegetables?

- And another point is, I know we have--We're moving on from COVID, but the fact of the matter is, is that the cost of living is at an all-time high.

And if you have an upper income, maybe it's not a problem for you.

But if you're in the vanishing middle class, or you're the person who is making $1 to $2 more, and you can't qualify for free and reduced lunch, or you're not able to qualify for SNAP benefits, you've never caught up from 2020.

And so, we are seeing--I work on the frontlines of feeding people every day.

We're only seeing those numbers increase.

People are struggling to get food into their homes.

- Given that we have a state program and a federal program to address this, what if we simply raise that limit?

- I'm all for that.

But that's something that needs to be done at the federal level.

And in the meantime, we have gaps.

- But couldn't we close that gap at the state level on our own if we wanted to?

- And that's what this does.

- We certainly could.

- I think this is a larger point.

And I was listening to Governor Polis talk about this issue, and he said he was unsure about what he thought of it, but he did say that one of our fundamental problems is we don't pay teachers enough.

And if we're going to end up raising up taxing in this way, is it better spent on teacher pay or some other thing, as opposed to my kids getting lunch when they don't need it?

And so, I think it is a larger discussion about how money's spent.

Should we grow a program a little bit instead of making it eligible for everybody?

And really, we have a lot of problems in our education system.

Where should money be going?

Is this the best use of it?

And I think people need to educate themselves.

And voters get to weigh in, thankfully.

- All right, we only have a couple minutes left.

Richard, I want to give you a last word on the con side.

- There are two things I'd like to mention.

It's too bad we don't have more time.

But one of the big concerns is the undocumented workers' kids.

Nobody talks about that very much.

But there is certainly a way for Colorado to help subsidize that issue in school lunch programs that doesn't cost $100.7 million and can be done through legislation, and instead of this grossly large, heavy tax program that's going to cost north of 100 million a year.

- All right, very little time left.

But Patience, give me a last word, and I'll save a few seconds for Ashley.

- Kids need to eat to learn.

And I think this initiative just makes sense.

We are supporting--Again, you don't have to opt in.

If you can afford to feed your family, great.

But remember, there are several Coloradans, thousands, tens of thousands of Coloradans, who are not able to do that.

And I think it's our job--To that point, earlier, talking about supporting teachers, putting teachers in a position who are already underpaid.

And I am all about making sure that we are paying our teachers adequately, but putting them into the position to deal with additional behavioral issues, learning challenges for students who are hungry, just doesn't make sense.

- All right, last word, Ashley.

- Yeah, kids will do better academically, behaviorally.

We have proof over the last year that we saw when school meals are available to everyone, no matter their income.

More kids eat, and then more kids learn.

And we need to make sure that's happening in our state.

- All right, well, I want to thank my guests, Michael, Richard, Patience, and Ashley, for joining me today.

Keep in mind that you can see a very thorough discussion of this in the Colorado blue book.

I think we even are able to put a link for that on the show.

This is just 1 of 15 programs we're doing, special election series programs, here at PBS12.

Be sure to watch all of them.

They'll also be available online, as well.

And your questions are welcome.

If you'd like to send in a question that you'd like me to consider asking one of the candidates, don't hesitate to do that.

Just send it to producer@harbertv.com.

I'm Aaron Harber.

Thanks for joining me.

We'll see you next time.