Comments on: Late MDUSD campaign contributions reveal nearly $100,000 in donations

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 15:44:21 +0000

MDUSD lawyers are charging driving time from Chico at over $1000 per trip — all contracts are up for approval on the agenda for Tuesday. Some lawfirms are not charging travel from their out of town offices. I didn’t see any competitive bidding. Were all these contracts approved last year ?

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 13:01:49 +0000

How much was travel time between Chico and Concord ?

By: tharrington

tharrington — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 02:31:07 +0000

In response to another Public Records Act request, I have learned that Juhl-Darlington’s firm was paid $405,458 in the 2009-10 fiscal year. However, the firm hasn’t been paid anything yet in relation to the bond contract.
The district’s total legal services costs in 2009-10 were $915,556.42.
Edrington, Schirmer & Murphy was paid $94,335.26.
Ruiz & Sperow were paid $43,358.51.
Crosby & Rowell was paid $1,654.80.
The Law Office of Peter Bonis, which didn’t contribute to the Measure C campaign, was paid $104,034.70.

By: Wait a minute

Wait a minute — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 17:19:15 +0000

We have major PAYOLA going on here folks!

This is SO typical of Steve Lawrence and Greg Rolen’s arrogance and their undermining of the district and board. Its no wonder that Attorney Peter Strange is bailing off the board before these unethical actions come back to bite him and possibly his law license.

Realia hit it on the head, Schreder and Associates from the Sacramento Area, the former stomping grounds of Stevie Lawrence are getting a pretty good return on their investment. Money mouth Cha-ching!

Not to mention all the bond counsel and other legal counsel who “donated” and are being “rewarded” and are buddies of Greg Rolen!

I wonder what Turner Construction’s (with their connection to Steve Lawrence through his former district) $25k investment will turn into???

I think Peter Scheer of the First Amendment Coalition in the CC Times online chat regarding this bond had it right when he said that is sure smacks of the same stupidity as the CalPers pay to play insider scandal that is currently doing so much damage to that institution and all of us taxpayers.

Maybe the CC Times should also do a salary and pension cost analysis of the MDUSD management to see if their is anything else untowards like happened in Bell, CA?

No wonder this country is in such bad shape with all these people in power. I hope someone in Contra Costa has made a Grand Jury request for investigation and hopefully a new MDUSD board member or two after the November election will break the “group think” going on in there and really shake it up.

By: Realia

Realia — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 16:16:48 +0000

Jack Schreder and Assoc. certainly received an excellent return on its investment! I wonder, if I returned my teacher salary to the district, would I receive over ten times that in return? Or is that program only for out of town consulting firms? I can’t believe other firms can’t offer the same services. According to its website, school closure planning isn’t even listed among the firm’s areas of expertise. I suspect we’ll be seeing much more district money finding its way in Sacramento area companies, and more people from that area being hired by the district (such as Mr. Nugent). It was hoped that with the departure of McHenry and the cronies he brought in with him that the culture of the district would improve, but it looks like the district traded one corrupt superintendent for another. At least the school board is consistent.

By: tharrington

tharrington — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 02:01:51 +0000

Competitive bidding.
Tomorrow, the board is set to award a $25,000 contract to Jack Schreder & Assoc. of Sacto, which gave $2,000 to the campaign: http://esbpublic.mdusd.k12.ca.us/public_itemview.aspx?ItemId=2806&mtgId=272.
The staff report doesn’t give any indication that this contract was competitively bid. It also doesn’t explain whose idea it was to request a school closure study or how Schreder & Assoc. was chosen for the contract.

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 21:51:45 +0000

So how does Peter Scheer propose to stop the appearance of a “pay to play” culture ? If MDUSD wants to reward the campaign contributors, won’t they find a way ?

By: Inquiring Mind

Inquiring Mind — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 20:58:28 +0000

Unless people read this blog, how would people know who contributed? CUES is separate from the district so contributing to CUES is to help the campaign. IF the Times is suggesting that anyone who contributes to a campaign should not be considered for anything, then any PFC or PTA that contributed should be eligible to have work done at that school.

I doubt if board members go out seeking who contributed to the campaign. Maybe you should ask them if they know about it.

By: tharrington

tharrington — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 17:38:21 +0000

In our live chat regarding Measure C and the solar projects to be built, First Amendment Coalition Executive Director Peter Scheer wrote: “Well, a law firm that gave money to the bond measure campaign should be the last law firm considered for the job of bond counsel. Same for the bond underwriters. At minimum, these firms and others should be subject to a competitive bidding process to protect tax payers.
I’m troubled by the appearance of a ‘pay to play’ culture governing selection of contractors, consultants, legal, banking and other services for this huge project. This is similar to the culture of pay-to-play that has recently been exposed in CalPERS’ selection of investments.”
Here is a link to the complete chat: http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_15606906?IADID=Search-www.contracostatimes.com-www.contracostatimes.com&nclick_check=1

By: Realia

Realia — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 00:14:57 +0000

According to the list, Turner is not the only non-local business that contributed to the bond measure election. One must wonder why they would give – for the good of district students or in hopes that their investment will pay off with district contracts? It seems local businesses would have some priority, since more local jobs means increased tax revenue for the area, which, in turn, would help the district. The situation already feels not right to me.