Comments on: Oak Grove MS parent sad to lose McCormick

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 18:45:47 +0000

@G, Its dated July 29 but not sent out until last night — I’m sure it was edited since it is so disjointed. Obviously a CYA letter. And probably had to be “approved” by “his partner” the Board President. How coincidental that this letter and Pete Pedersen’s “doctored” PowerPoint came out on the same day ? I just haven’t figured out yet who the driver of the get-away car is.

By: g

Tue, 02 Aug 2011 18:35:43 +0000

It probably won’t go up on the District’s site until Pedersen and Rolen get a chance to “edit” it yet again.

By: Theresa Harrington

Theresa Harrington — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 18:19:27 +0000

I have posted the superintendent’s latest Measure C and budget update on my blog, since it’s not yet available on the district’s website: http://bit.ly/phsNQY

By: Easy Answers

Easy Answers — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 17:02:08 +0000

Doctor J and G, will you be running for the board when the next vacancies come up? You two seem to have lots of great ideas to fix all the ills of MDUSD.

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 13:58:26 +0000

How do taxpayers hold public officials accountable for lying ?

By: g

Tue, 02 Aug 2011 06:52:51 +0000

From the 2002 Measure “C” Home Page, touting what a great job they did, the Closing Report states:

“All Measure C projects have been certified by the Department of the State Architect (DSA) and have been formally accepted and closed-out by the State.” Hmmmmmm? Say What?

Two years later Pete says: “Over 50 projects were closed without certification, and it’s going to cost at least another $90K to fix that!”

Thank goodness you kept back that little unaccounted for $3.3million, huh Pete?

A.J., is it possible that Pete fudged just a wee bit to you and your 2002 Committee? Is that why you didn’t stick around to keep an eye on this “C”? It would be nice to have at least one watch-dog member that didn’t support the Measure! But alas, if you didn’t support the measure, you will not very likely get to be on Pete’s Committee!

I wonder; what does Chairman Ferrante have to say about it? He is yet again, it seems, riding shotgun for Pete.

By: g

Tue, 02 Aug 2011 06:21:16 +0000

There is obviously a big difference between what you get for your management dollars with professional management like Vanir and what you are likely to get from an in-house-money-sponge who doesn’t mind stroking the back end of a lie to get what he wants, and pretends to have not learned anything while playing high priced “facilities team boss-man” for 2002′s Measure.

By: Theresa Harrington

Theresa Harrington — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 01:16:37 +0000

According to the committee’s bylaws, meetings are supposed to include “an annual organizational meeting to be held in July.”
No such meeting was held.
The bylaws also state that the committee is authorized to “Review the district’s efforts to maximize use of bond proceeds in ways designed to: (1) reduce costs of professional fees or site acquisition…”
The financials include nearly $13.2 million for “other operating expenses” which weren’t explained and more than $2 million for “bond issuance.” Every time the district issues bonds, its financial advisor, bond underwriters and bond counsel get paid.
At the June 16 meeting, the committee was told the district issued another $10.7 million in bonds. Pedersen said he had a seven-year cash-flow plan, but he didn’t share it with the committee.
One committee member said: “You don’t want to be issuing $10 million every few months, otherwise you’re going to be racking up issuance costs.”
Jay Bedecarre said the 2002 Committee had been given a cash flow report. Pedersen said he was hoping to bring back similar reports at the next quarterly meeting.
Here’s a link to the last quarterly report posted online for the 2002 Measure C bonds: http://www.mdusd.org/Departments/AdministrativeServices/MeasureC/Documents/report/3q0708/quarterly.pdf
This 81-page report is much more comprehensive than the financial information the 2010 committee has received.
Page 14 includes a note to “Respond to OPSC financial audit inquiries.” No subsequent quarterly reports were posted, although they were mentioned in the minutes of subsequent meetings.

By: Anon

Anon — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 00:26:53 +0000

Where is the Oversight Committee? Why aren’t they upset? Why aren’t they calling for an emergency meeting? Don’t they have a fiduciary responsibility to the community? While the Board appoints the members this is not a District Committee, this is a committee commissioned by law to serve the taxpayers and provide oversight over $348 million. They need to take their job seriously, this isn’t a bake sale committee.
If the committee doesn’t require an accounting of the line item expenditures, project lists, and appropriate audits then they are simply aiding and abetting.

By: Doctor J

Doctor J — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 23:06:30 +0000

Well, can’t wait to see if the draft minutes are accurate as to what was said, or doctored to conform to the signficantly changed powerpoint ! Who can the public trust ? Who protects the public from being deceived ?