MDUSD Bond Oversight Committee meeting is tonight
By Theresa Harrington
Thursday, March 15th, 2012 at 1:52 pm in Education, Mt. Diablo school district.
The Mt. Diablo school district’s 2010 Measure C Bond Oversight Committee will meet tonight. Since the district’s website does not provide a distinct URL link for the agenda, I am posting the agenda below:
“AGENDA
2010 Measure C Citizen’s Bond Oversight Committee
Thursday, March 15, 2012
1936 Carlotta Drive
Board Room, Dent Education Center
7:00 PM
• Call to order
• Public Comment
• Review/Approval of Minutes of December 15, 2011 (action item)
• Review/Approval of Minutes of February 23, 2012 (action item)
• Annual Report
• Vacant Committee Seat
• Request for volunteers for 2002 Measure C CBOC
• Solar Project: Status Report
• Mechanical (HVAC) Project: Status Report
• Technology Project: Status Report
• High School Enhancements
• Quarterly Report
• Annual Report: Minority Report
• Other Committee Concerns
• Public Comment”
At the last meeting, Chairman John Ferrante pointed out that action items should be clearly identified on the agenda. In the past, they have not been.
In addition, materials already provided to the committee should also be posted with the agenda (such as the draft minutes and annual report). Unfortunately, the district still is not providing this backup material to the public before the meeting.
Do you think the district should post attachments and Powerpoints to be reviewed at the meeting before the meeting begins?
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
March 15th, 2012 at 2:08 pm
Since the law clearly says they must post attachments, then yes, I think they should too.
I also think if Ferrante wants to be Chairman, he should stand up for his committee and demand, not hint around, for what the committee wants.
March 15th, 2012 at 2:20 pm
So where are all those posts Pete Pedersen was supposed to post ?
March 15th, 2012 at 2:23 pm
The agenda does indicate they plan to review/approve minutes for a meeting of 2/23??
I seem to recall a meeting on 2/16, which isn’t listed. Not aware of a 2/23 meeting. Is that a tipsy-typo on the district site (or is it just me)?
March 15th, 2012 at 2:28 pm
You’re right. The meeting was Feb. 16. I wonder if they can still approve the minutes, since that item was improperly noticed.
March 15th, 2012 at 2:49 pm
Since they (supposedly) only met once in Feb., I think it would be appropriate to just indicate an agenda typo when that item comes up tonight, and make sure tonight’s minutes are very clear on what was done. The thing they absolutely should not do is go in and correct/alter the agenda at this late time.
Then again, if there was a back-room meeting on the 23rd….
March 15th, 2012 at 2:58 pm
Any government agency that seeks to be open, accessible, keep the public informed and build community goodwill adopts business practices that serve these goals. Such business practices include things like:
- Using interactive websites, to which users can subscribe to specific meeting notices of interest;
- Timely posting of meeting agendas, which include embedded hotlinks to all staff reports and attachments;
- Prompt posting of approved minutes;
- Televised or audio recording of all board meetings and prompt posting on the agency website (i.e., posting immediately following the meeting);
- Making the public feel welcome at meetings, explaining meeting protocols and inviting public comment when appropriate;
- Prompt response to public records requests;
- Posting of key organizational and frequently-requested documents on the agency website (which is also efficient, because it eliminates the need for staff to respond to individual public records requests).
To their credit many public agencies follow these business practices. MDUSD has made progress in some areas, but it appears that there is room for improvement.
There is no question that public agencies seeking to build positive community relationships and foster meaningful citizen involvement will make agendas and all attachments available online at least 72 hours in advance of all public meetings. This is a fundamental step to building public trust.
Given the ease of use of modern technology, public agencies that fail to make such information available online are outliers — and, as such, are viewed as suspect (whether justified or not). This Committee could boost its public image by making all meeting materials available online five days in advance.
Coincidentally, March 11-17 is “Sunshine Week” which is a nonpartisan, non-profit initiative that was started by journalists to raise awareness about the public’s right to know what its government is doing, and why.
I posted a brief blog article about this topic at:
http://www.halfwaytoconcord.com/let-the-sunshine-in-your-rights-to-government-records/
March 15th, 2012 at 3:06 pm
Ten bucks Pederson had a “behind the scenes” meeting with the evil-doers of the MDUSD and mistakenly confused the dates when he wrote up the agenda.
Pete should remember that the more lies you tell the harder it becomes to keep them all straight.
March 15th, 2012 at 3:18 pm
Wendy Lack, you are correct. However those agencies who do things properly are not being led around in circles by someone with a 10 yr old mantra of “I’ll look into it”.
Speaking of journalists, sunshine and records, I found the below report interesting, just not convenient. Theresa, how about asking Mr Peele to publish this seminar/guide online?
http://www.marinij.com/ci_20175613/class-access-public-records-offered-by-bay-area
March 15th, 2012 at 4:58 pm
“In addition, materials already provided to the committee should also be posted with the agenda (such as the draft minutes and annual report). Unfortunately, the district still is not providing this backup material to the public before the meeting.”
Theresa, do I correctly understand you to mean that the District refuses to provide agenda materials upon request prior to meetings? It is my understanding that no public agency is required to post agenda packet materials online (though many or most do so). However, they are legally obligated to release agenda packet materials in advance of meetings, upon request.
Have you or other members of the public requested the agenda packet materials and been refused?
Also, is it expected that the committee will take action regarding the “Annual Report” item this evening? The agenda doesn’t make this clear. Hopefully the District will have copies available at tonight’s meeting, since it would be nice to read it.
March 15th, 2012 at 5:55 pm
@G #6:
Tuesday’s workshop is full, but you can ask to be placed on the waiting list for future ones by sending an e-mail to:
mreynolds@bayareanewsgroup.com
Thanks for the heads up about this workshop.
March 15th, 2012 at 6:02 pm
Wendy, No, I didn’t request the annual report and minutes, but I will. At the last meeting, the annual report was not available for inspection and some members of the committee said they didn’t have it. Apparently, Ferrante had sent it to them much earlier and they were expected to discuss it based on memory (if they hadn’t brought it with them). Some of them asked him to resend it, I think.
Also at the last meeting, committee members said the annual report must be presented to the board by the last meeting in March (which would be March 26). However, it was unclear whether the committee expected to take action on it. Minyen has asked about including a minority report or opinion.
March 15th, 2012 at 6:45 pm
@ TH #11: thank you for your ongoing commitment in providing an unbiased report of the happenings in MDUSD; for those of us that can’t attend meetings, it provides us info that we can share with our neighbors and community to appropriately vote for board members in November and the repercussions our vote will have in providing our children with board members and dent center administrators (including the superintendent) who will advocate for what is in the best interest of students l.
March 16th, 2012 at 1:39 pm
Anon: I will post information about the BOC meeting later. The committee agreed to hold a special meeting April 19 to review the annual report, before submitting it to the school board.
On another note, I have just added a new post with a link to the Meadow Homes Elementary and Oak Grove MS School Improvement Grant applications, which were approved by the CDE: http://bit.ly/xdr1u1
March 16th, 2012 at 2:39 pm
@TH: i look forward to reading about the BOC meeting. In regards to the April 19 special meeting, I would personally like to request from the committee that unlike Bryan Richards’ financial reports/Power Points, that the contents of the annual report be translated into a format that can be easily understood by all community members–not all of us are CPA’s or financial analysts. I often think that one of the reasons that the public does not speak up at board mtgs when budgets are discussed is the info is presented in a way that is not community-friendly. it’s next to impossible to participate in the Public Comment part of the mtg because there are no attachments provided with the agenda. It takes courage to get up in front of the board to begin with, but not having attachments with the agenda doesn’t allow the pulic to prepare intelligent comments.
March 16th, 2012 at 2:53 pm
I agree that the district should post Powerpoints before meetings so the public has a chance to formulate questions. I also told Pete Pedersen that the draft annual report should be posted online, since it has been distributed to all committee members and has been discussed as an agenda item at three meetings.
A few notable items from the meeting:
I have been told that Trustee Gary Eberhart informed Trustee Cheryl Hansen that he has replaced her as the board liaison. Unfortunately, I missed this exchange, but I was told that Hansen was unaware of the change. I don’t know what authority Eberhart had to replace her, but I intend to look into this.
Alicia Minyen had to leave early. In her absence, the committee voted not to create a minority report.
Pedersen said the district intends to use what he considers a common practice of circumventing the lowest bidder requirement by entering into lease-leaseback agreements. Apparently, in these types of agreements, the district can select its own contractor instead of having to go with the lowest bidder.
Pedersen also said the quarterly report lists all the money spent, but does not list who was paid.
Pedersen told the committee members they did not have to fill out form 700s. These are normally completed to disclose potential conflicts of interest.
The above practices seem to invite the possibility of awarding contracts to unnamed contractors based on criteria that may not be publicly disclosed. Pedersen said the practice allows the district to select quality contractors. In the past, he said, the lowest bidder has not always been the best contractor.
March 16th, 2012 at 3:25 pm
My jaw is on the floor!
March 16th, 2012 at 3:52 pm
@G (#16)- so is mine. I’m probably naive, but how does Pedersen and MDUSD get away with this? “the quarterly report lists all the money spent, but does not list who was paid”…it’s like a new sequel to The Godfather-it’s absolutely corrupt.
@TH (#15): please continue to try to find out how/why/ and what authority Eberhart has to appoint himself as the board liaison. The “only moms” group whose faith and trust is Hansen are very interested to know. Every time Hansen says something, makes a motion, or attempts to speak, she is actually being bullied by Eberhart and Whitmarsh. Eberhart might think he’s gaining votes by doing something like this, but he’s actually adding more reasons why he needs to be voted out in November. And, by the way, the “only moms” group all have husbands who are registered voters.
March 16th, 2012 at 4:31 pm
Are the moms registered voters?
Speaking of the election, Mike Langley told me that he has been approached by three potential candidates who are interested in running for the school board. He said he couldn’t disclose their names yet. But, if three people run, there would be a contested election. Eberhart and Whitmarsh are up for re-election.
Regarding how/why all of this is permissible, I intend to continue to try to find out.
Initially, Ferrante wanted to present the annual report to the board without any official vote of the committee, based on the fact that no one except for Minyen had expressed any objections to it when he sent it to them about six months ago. After Minyen objected to this, the committee agreed that they should vote on it next month.
When I initially asked Mitchell Stark if the annual report was posted online, he said it wasn’t because it hadn’t yet been finalized. I explained that it should be posted anyway, since it is being publicly discussed, much like the draft strategic plan.
The committee members appeared to be discussing the report based on fuzzy recollections of what they recalled seeing months ago. It’s unclear why Ferrante didn’t bring a copy to refresh everyone’s memory.
When I asked Pedersen why it wasn’t posted, he said he would need to get it from Ferrante. He said it was his understanding that anything that was salient that had been distributed to the committee should be posted. Previously, he said Ferrante sent him every email the committee had ever received, a lot of which didn’t seem to be substantive. So, he hadn’t yet gone through them all to figure out which ones he should post.
March 16th, 2012 at 4:41 pm
@#15 As I recall incumbent Board members have to indicate whether or not they will run before new candidates have to declare. Its possible that if neither Gary or Sherry declare [unlikely] that only two new people may run, resulting in no election.
March 16th, 2012 at 5:06 pm
That is possible. I have seen uncontested elections in other districts, such as Walnut Creek.
March 16th, 2012 at 5:24 pm
@TH (#18): in response to your first question: yes, absolutely, all the “only moms” ARE registered voters. My point was that there will be 2 from each of our families who will be using our rights as voters to support the transparency and honesty of Hansen by advocating against the re-election of Eberhart and Whitmarsh, and the election of Brian Lawrence.
March 16th, 2012 at 5:39 pm
Another interesting discussion at the meeting revolved around a new technology advisory committee that has apparently been formed, led by Rose Lock. It sounded like Trustee Gary Eberhart is on the committee. Pedersen asked BOC member Faye Mettler if she would like to be on the committee. She was very adamant about the need to have good infrastructure and updated technology. She said it takes 10 minutes to access some things online at Walnut Acres, where some teachers are trying to pilot new technology.
Pedersen said bond expenditures for technology weren’t scheduled until about 2007, but he agreed it makes sense to start planning now.
Also, Pedersen said the district will need to issue more bonds soon, since it is running out of cash. It has already committed about $77 million to solar.
March 16th, 2012 at 5:55 pm
Very interesting Tech committee — word has it that some staff have been turned down for the committee, that the “deadline” for application has passed, and now Pete Pedersen is offering positions on the committee. Wait until the “turned down” staff hears that !! Funny how the district didn’t reach out to parents, many of which probably have rich IT backgrounds in industry, but chose once again for the “secret committee” structure — no accountability to the public.
March 16th, 2012 at 5:56 pm
If it’s uncontested, then we’ll have to start showing up to Board Mtgs; but, it’s difficult to do so when Board Mtg minutes are a month behind and attachments to the upcoming agenda are not accessible so that we have current info that we can respond to during the Public Comment session. Does anyone think that it’s intentional that the minutes are vague and a month behind, and that attachments to agenda items are not accessible? When I read that Alice Minyen was the only committee member to object to the Annual Report (which stopped Ferrante from sending it forward), it sounds like there needs to be more folks stepping up to the podium follow Ms. Minyen’s example. Especially, if there’s an uncontested election.
March 16th, 2012 at 7:25 pm
Pedersen said that Rose Lock asked him if a BOC rep would like to be on the committee. It is interesting that there didn’t seem to be any formal invitation to the community to participate. I wonder if the district will allow the public to attend the meetings.
March 16th, 2012 at 8:03 pm
Yet again, Pedersen picking and choosing who HE wants on committees. Is Ms. Mettler particularly well educated or just naturally gifted in the TECH world? Or has she just consistently stood behind every decision Pedersen and the board majority has made for the last 10 years?
March 16th, 2012 at 10:53 pm
@Theresa #15 – You state “Pedersen said the district intends to use what he considers a common practice of circumventing the lowest bidder requirement by entering into lease-leaseback agreements. Apparently, in these types of agreements, the district can select its own contractor instead of having to go with the lowest bidder. ”
This is so disturbing! I wonder how many of these lease-leaseback agreements were awarded to parties who gave campaign money to Measure C? Sounds like this is another loophole that needs to be closed ASAP via Legislation.
March 16th, 2012 at 10:55 pm
So did the district arrange a lease-leaseback agreement with Sunpower…because Sunpower was not the lowest bidder.
March 17th, 2012 at 1:04 pm
@Seriously #28:
Has anyone done meaningful, in-depth research into Sun Power and its grip on taxpayers, via CA public schools?
March 17th, 2012 at 2:17 pm
Wendy, and anyone willing to take the question further: I’ll give you something to start with.
The spit-swapping that goes on around this district is appalling. Let’s start with Eberhart and Mayo, who should recognize the names that repeat rat-a-tat company-to-company throughout contracts for many years. Contracts overseen by Pedersen, who has built his own empire in construction and maintenance at MDUSD–then let’s ask about people like:
Kevin Hennessy–Current: VP, Power Plant Systems at Alion Company (a SunPower subsidiary)
Past: Director, Construction Services at SunPower Corporation,
AND–Construction Program Manager at Mt. Diablo Unified School District.
Just how big was the Hennessy reward?
Also moving silently from MDUSD to SunPower:
Then there is Greg Michael Brandt, associated with Seward L. Schreder by way of Schreder & Brandt Manufacturing — things like portable school buildings.
Can this be the same Greg Brandt that was also a Construction Manager at MDUSD for many of the 2002 Measure C projects? —AND who is now the Sr. Project Manager at SunPower Corporation?
Eberhart can probably answer a question or two. Let’s start by asking him to confirm exactly how high up these rewards can go
Of course—there is absolutely nothing illegal about having a hand full of companies swapping out their employees from time-to-time–especially when one of the companies is a construction gold mine like MDUSD.
March 17th, 2012 at 3:02 pm
In Minyen’s absence the committee decided not to create a minority report…..any member of the committee may submit a minority report. The concept of a minority report is that the minority need not have the approval of the majority to submit a minority report. So. Ms. Minyen doesn’t need the blessing of anyone to submit a minority report.
At a recent MDEA meeting one rep commented that in mythology the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse were Famine, Death, Pestilence, and Desteuction. In MDUSD, the are known as Eberhart, Whitmarsh, Mayo, and Lawrence.
March 17th, 2012 at 3:27 pm
#18 TH — Theresa, your “who’s on first” description of trying to get a copy of the Annual Report would be comical, if there weren’t so much money at stake. To think that committee members are trying to use “fuzzy recollections”, instead of the actual document, in their decision-making is almost too amateurish to believe. But of course, by now, we all know to reduce our civic expectations to all-time lows when it comes to MDUSD.
It’s a little disconcerting that board candidates feel they have to go to Mike Langley so early in the process. It’s fine for candidates to want to understand union positions, in the interest of creating a more collaborative relationship post-election. Teachers have a lot of unheard, constructive input to offer MDUSD, since they serve on the front lines and have to deal with so much of the dysfunction firsthand. But I hope it hasn’t become a prerequisite to “kiss the pope’s ring” at MDEA before deciding to run. One of the great sources of corruption in American public education has been the role that school unions play in school board elections — essentially determining who their own “managers” will be. It is not at all healthy.
March 17th, 2012 at 3:34 pm
Mike Langley retires at the end of June — maybe he will run himself !
March 17th, 2012 at 4:30 pm
Mike Langley would be a good candidate as well as other retired teachers, many office managers, SE aides, site maintenance, and other support personnel. These people who have actually worked in the schools have much more knowledge than those who haven’t.
MDEA spent thousands of members’ dollars for EberMarsh in the ’08 election and got nothing from the two of them in return. MDEA sat out ’10 but they need to get back in and start recruiting some candidates, some who are demonstrably untouched by EberMarsh politically or by philosophy. Even if Eberhart and Whitmarsh don’t run – and Eberhart clearly is- the community needs to get a clean slate on board to get some new leadership at the Board level and superintendent’s office
March 17th, 2012 at 6:06 pm
@ The Observer:
From my limited observations to date, MDUSD qualifies as a poster child for low-morale, dysfunctional organizations.
My years in organizational development taught me that, if you improve the quality of management, you improve employee morale and organizational performance. Thus your “clean slate” comment is well-taken.
March 17th, 2012 at 6:42 pm
I’m confused: obviously, eberhart needs to go because of his corrupt morals. But, if Whitmarsh also runs and this leads to an uncontested election, what is the point of encouraging others to run? I’d also like to see retired office managers,site principals, and Mike Langley run. But, is this even possible if both Eberhart and Whitmarsh declare their intention to run?
March 17th, 2012 at 8:20 pm
You can have as many people run as want to. If both Eberhart and Whitmarsh declare they are running other people can run too. They don’t have a lock just because they are incumbents. What we don’t want is to just have
those two – Eberhart and whitmarsh- running unopposed. We need people who will run against them. If they don’t run and leave two seats open then if only two others run, those two will win by default. The main thing is to get them off the board.
March 18th, 2012 at 8:43 am
@29 – Wendy Lack: I don’t know if anyone has done such research, but I do know Sunpower has formed partnership with school districts across the state. See the article regarding Sunpower’s partnership with CSBA: http://www.csba.org/en/NewsAndMedia/News/NewsReleases/2011/072611_SunPowerPartnershipAnnouncement.aspx
Sunpower also has a dedicted department to structuring financings for government entities, like schools, so that schools can receive investment tax credits that otherwise they are not eligible to receive.
March 18th, 2012 at 9:41 am
Also, Gary Eberhart was recently appointed to CSBA. The CSBA IRS Form 990 can be found at the California Attorney General website: http://rct.doj.ca.gov/MyLicenseVerification/Details.aspx?agency_id=1&license_id=1018611&
I suspect only the auditors and insiders to CSBA would be able to know whether there is any compensation to or from Sunpower.
March 18th, 2012 at 9:43 am
In reviewing the IRS Form 990, it is amazing that CSBA, non profit, is paying its executive director over $400k per year. I don’t blame Eberhart for wanting to partner and serve with CSBA.
March 18th, 2012 at 9:55 am
Which goes back to the question whether CSBA dues are worth the cost? How much does MDUSD pay and what is the benefit, given that the board skipped CSBA training for years and slow tracks the CSBA mediators’ mandate for a strategic plan? The CSBA director salary and lack of accountability was a major scandal in 2010 . . . http://blog.sfgate.com/rnorton/2010/07/25/csba-whats-next-after-director-departs
March 18th, 2012 at 10:15 am
The CSBA has other affiliate organizations such as CSBA – District Services. It is interesting that their IRS Form 990 states that they offer services to school districts e.g., to assess their electricity, gas bills for over-charges. Perhaps CSBA knows the district’s real PG&E costs.
March 18th, 2012 at 10:20 am
Anon#41 – It’s amazing how many millions in revenue CSBA is bringing in from dues and education classes. CSBA also acts as the intermediary financing corporation for Certificates of Participations and leases/leaseback arrangements. I’d imagine now with the Sunpower partnership, CSBA’s financing corporation may be receiving investment tax credits that otherwise school entities cannot have. It all seems suspicious.
March 18th, 2012 at 10:48 am
Sunpower has created a foundation, “Sunpower Foundation” to provide energy solution education to students K-12 around the globe. You can see their Form 990 at:
http://rct.doj.ca.gov/MyLicenseVerification/Details.aspx?agency_id=1&license_id=1368015&
G – Do any of the officer names sound familiar? Your points about Hennessy and others who have served on the in-house Measure C team raise several concerns. Were any Measure C team members considering employment with Sunpower during the bidding process and/or during contract negotiation? If so, what influence did that have on the ultimate price the taxpayers will pay? Pedersen has always said an in-house team will save the taxpayer money. However, if their is no independence between the Measure C team and contractors, it places any cost saving hopes at risk. In reviewing the Sunpower contract, it states that Sunpower will be paid $902,491 for construction management. So of this amount, how much is being paid to those Measure C team members that are now working for Sunpower?
March 18th, 2012 at 1:52 pm
@ Seriously & Anon:
Thanx. Good leads.
March 18th, 2012 at 2:46 pm
Jim: I believe that the committee wanted Ferrante to send them his most updated version of the annual report so they can vote on it April 19.
Regarding candidates’ approaching Langley: MDEA typically holds candidate panels to decide whether to endorse any candidates. I believe the potential candidates were approaching him to be included in that panel and to inform him that they intended to run. I don’t think it amounted to a “kiss the pope’s ring” type of conversation.
g: Pedersen asked Mettler if she wanted to be on the committee after she voiced strong concerns about the need to make sure the infrastructure can support the latest technology, so district students won’t get left behind. Pedersen then said that Lock had asked him if a BOC member would be willing to serve on the technology committee, but he didn’t want to impose on anyone’s time. Since Mettler seemed to have a strong interest in advocating for state-of-the-art technology, he asked if she would be willing to serve. Apparently, she is aware of the piloting that is going on at Walnut Acres and she seemed to know a lot about what other districts were doing. No one else voiced any objections to her being on the committee.
Speaking of extra duties, Pedersen also asked the members of the 2010 Measure C BOC who did not term out on the 2002 Measure C BOC if they would be willing to serve on a new 2002 Measure C BOC. He said they could meet on the same evening as the 2010 committee, either immediately before or after the 2010 committee meeting. Committee members asked him to send them an email about this and said they’d get back to him. Pedersen pointed out that some members of the 2010 committee wouldn’t qualify, because they have served on the 2002 committee. Some even served on the Measure A committee, he said. He said there is about $4 million left in from the 2002 Measure C, which will likely be spent on the HVAC project. So, he estimated the new 2002 committee would have to meet for about a year, before the money is gone.
March 18th, 2012 at 3:47 pm
Did Pedersen mention anything about those who applied to the Measure C 2002 committee? I believe there were two. Will they be chosen to serve on the committee also?
March 18th, 2012 at 4:00 pm
LL: No, Pedersen didn’t mention anything about others having applied. He gave the impression that it was difficult to find anyone willing to do it. He also said both committees need senior reps.
Also, regarding the committee assignments, I have heard from Trustee Cheryl Hansen that Board President Sherry Whitmarsh informed trustees in an email that she had made the assignments based on feedback she received from board members in the order it was received. Hansen said she believes this violates board policy and the Brown Act, since there was no opportunity for public comment.
With other public agencies that I have covered, such as City Councils, committee assignments are discussed publicly after the change in leadership. It is very surprising that the MDUSD board appears to make these assignments completely behind the scenes with no public discussion.
March 18th, 2012 at 5:02 pm
Theresa; again, you are too polite. It is NOT surprising that the MDUSD board makes assignments (and other decisions) completely behind the scene.
It is also not surprising (but it is equally disturbing) that with $4 million dollars left in 2002 ‘C’, they would use upwards of $93K of 2010 ‘C’ funds to clean up after all of the unfinished business of 2002, knowing that the $93K will now be financed out for 25years when they could have just paid cash!
Of course having the very same legal team that is making new money off of the new sale of bonds tell them all of that is kosher is not surprising at all.
March 18th, 2012 at 5:11 pm
The committee wanted Ferrante to provide the most “up to date” annual report.
It seems an annual report, presumably using 12 months as the only proper definition of “annual”, would run from x-date to x-date–period. How does one “update” it month after month for 9 more months? That sounds too remarkably like Richards style of bookkeeping.
March 18th, 2012 at 5:18 pm
g: The time-period would remain the same. However, some committee members said they wanted to be sure it included comments about questions arising over the use of bond proceeds to pay for COPS and leases. Since the original draft prepared by Ferrante has never been posted on the district’s website, I’m not sure if that represents a revision or not. When I used the phrase “up-t0-date,” I meant based on committee feedback.
March 18th, 2012 at 5:30 pm
Yes, and one committee member in particular has good reason to question the report.
When a committee chair arbitrarily decides to delete certain questions and comments and written reports from meeting minutes, simply because he didn’t like them or feel that they were appropos, then I for one, do have a problem in trusting anything that comes out of committee reports.
March 18th, 2012 at 5:45 pm
The committee agreed that if a committee member disagrees with the final report, he or she can express his or her opinions as part of public comment to the board.
March 18th, 2012 at 6:01 pm
@G #52:
Providing the Board with an accurate and complete factual record of the Committee’s activities is the point of the annual report, no?
Yes, a committee report should accurately reflect a summary of its discussions. In that sense the annual report is a document that should simply report the facts – what the committee did and what the effects were of those committee actions.
The annual report is not supposed to be somebody’s “spin” or to re-write history.
To the degree that the committee had discussions on topics on which there was no group consensus, the fact that those discussions took place and concerns were raised remain factual items that properly would be included this report.
Minyen’s recommendation was on point as re the need for the annual report to accurately reflect the extent and rigor of the Committee’s efforts in various areas. For example, if the Committee relied on anything other than direct review of primary sources, the report should so state.
How else will it be possible for the public to evaluate the credibility of the Committee’s findings?
March 18th, 2012 at 6:34 pm
Wendy, When I arrived at the meeting, the committee was discussing the scope of the report and Minyen said it was important to include what the committee did or did not do. Eberhart appeared to be questioning whether that was really necessary. But, unfortunately, I arrived a bit late, so I did not hear the full discussion.
March 18th, 2012 at 10:21 pm
@ Theresa Harrington:
My audio of the meeting is missing the first few minutes, so it begins with the meeting in progress. However, most of the meeting is available here: http://snd.sc/AuR2Vf
If you listen to the audio, it may help you to recall the conversation. Note that it was about a two-hour meeting.
At the ~20:00 mark Committee Member Alicia Minyen describes the required elements of the annual report based upon her research and understanding of the law.
School Board Board member Gary Eberhart interjects at about the 27:00 mark, expressing an opinion that additional legal research is necessary to ascertain what elements the report should contain. I understood his remarks as an indication that he disagreed with Minyen’s viewpoint.
After ~ the 28:00 mark Minyen states her expectation that her memo — which was provided to Committee members last fall, in response to Chairman John Ferrante’s circulation of the draft report — should be included in the report (presumably as an exhibit, though the discussion was not explicitly clear). I did not hear a clear response to this from the Committee or Chairman, so presumably the Committee will make a determination about this question when it approves the final report on April 19th.
Thereafter Eberhart reiterates his opinion that additional [legal] research is necessary in order to clarify for the Committee what elements should be included in the annual report. I understood that he was doing so because he disagreed with Minyen’s views, thus sought to defer the Committee’s decision about the scope of its report until a future date, when additional information could be made available.
March 18th, 2012 at 11:45 pm
This seems to be a blatant attempt by Ego Eberhart to impose his own influence on the (so called) Independent Citizen’s Oversight Committee.
One could wonder if this particular back room assignment of the board liaison position might be intended to directly fly in the face of protocol, where that member would generally be expected to only “observe and report back to the board”—but now is directly intended to stand shoulder to shoulder with management to subjugate the all too rare free-thinking committee members?
March 19th, 2012 at 7:08 am
G-I second your motion. Eberhart has puh-lenty of board experience and when he plans to usurp a committee then he should bring his personal legal advisor Rolen to the meeting. But perhaps that would be too blatant, when bullying and misinformation and confusion work just as well.
March 19th, 2012 at 7:46 am
G and John Q,
I could not agree more.
I will be walking door to door for Eberhart’s opponent in November. I urge everyone to do the same.
March 19th, 2012 at 8:14 am
Wendy, Thank you very much for publicly posting your audio recording of the meeting. The district doesn’t provide this service and minutes are often not posted until months after the meeting.
Since it’s difficult for me to videotape the entire meeting, I appreciate your efforts to provide a record of what happened to the public.
March 19th, 2012 at 8:43 am
This move by EberMarsh to replace Cheryl Hansen (as the ONLY Board Member who takes her role of Independant Oversight seriously) by Eberhart himself as the liason for the BOC shows how PRIME this Measure C/Solar is to EberMarsh.
Since Eberhart at least indirectly benefits from the Solar through his job as VP of Solar for Schreder Construction (the Schreder Family Empire).
It is probably more sinister then this. It is almost certain that just as Eberhart set himself up for a job with the Schreders by pushing Measure C/Solar and hiring Schreder friend Stevie Lawrence, Eberhart is now setting himself up for something bigger like a job with SunPower.
Alicia Minyen’s doing her Due Diligence as a BOC member has really made Eberhart and his co-conspirators nervous here so he illegally replaced Cheryl as the BOE liason in order to further squelch Alicia and protect his investment in his future.
“Where Failed Administrators and Board Members Come First”!!!
March 19th, 2012 at 8:55 am
Eberhart’s invasion onto the BOC is like the fox guarding the henhouse. The BOC is supposed to ensure the Board is properly spending the bond money, and inclusion of any board member on the committee seems like a conflict of interest and destroys the independence of the committee. Likewise, inclusion of Rolen, Counsel to the Board, has the same conflict. The Board and Rolen cannot be reviewing their own actions.
March 19th, 2012 at 10:18 am
I have not been able to get to the Measure C website for two days now. Anyone else able to get in?
March 19th, 2012 at 10:48 am
I can get to the Measure C home page, but not to the Oversight Committee page. I hope they’re uploading the Powerpoint, if they haven’t already.
March 19th, 2012 at 11:30 am
The WCCUSD is having a joint meeting with the San Pablo City Council on Wednesday: http://www.wccusd.net/22771063163054707/lib/22771063163054707/Agenda/2011-2012/20120321_BOE_AgendaJt%20MtgSanPablo.pdf
The Walnut Creek City Council meets annually with the Walnut Creek School District. But, it’s been years since the MDUSD board has held joint meetings with local city councils.
March 19th, 2012 at 12:07 pm
The CDE has formed an Education Technology Task Force that doesn’t include any East Bay school reps: http://1.usa.gov/wienYx
It does, however, include California Now and the Chabot Space and Science Center, along with strong representation from Silicon Valley and SoCal.
March 19th, 2012 at 12:57 pm
Eberhart’s jumping into the BOC and demanding “legal opinions” closely follows several closed session meetings about “potential litigation” which is apparently related to investigationS [emphasis noted] of Measure C. Word is he demanded Sherry appoint him Baord representative to the BOC so he can protect his Measure C empire. Its no coincidence the Measure C site is partially down.
March 19th, 2012 at 1:03 pm
In the absence of the Measure C site and in addition to the audio posted by Wendy Lack, I have posted several video clips from the meeting on my Qik and You Tube accounts.
Qik: http://qik.com/tharrington
You Tube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tunedtotheresa
Unfortunately, I haven’t had time yet to review all the clips and write more detailed descriptions.
March 19th, 2012 at 1:06 pm
Here is the board bylaw that Hansen said has been violated through the appointment by email process, instead of publicly noticing committee appointments on a board agenda and making those appointments as the result of a board vote:
“Board Bylaw 9140 – Board Representatives
The Governing Board may appoint any of its members to serve as its representatives on district committees or other public agencies or organizations.
When making such appointments, the Board shall clearly specify, on a case-by-case, what authority and responsibilities are involved. Board representatives shall not grant district support or endorsement for any activity without prior Board approval.
If a committee discusses a topic on which the Board has taken a position, the Board member may express that position as a representative of the Board. When contributing individual ideas or opinions on other topics, he/she shall make it clear that he/she is speaking as an individual, not on behalf of the Board.”
March 19th, 2012 at 1:20 pm
I hope Trustee Hansen takes her case of Brown Act violation to the CoCo District Attorney. They won’t be able to ignore her ! I would hope Theresa will demand copies of the emails that President Whitmarsh was referring to — they are public record !
March 19th, 2012 at 1:36 pm
I have filed a PRA asking for the emails, as well as Ferrante’s email to the committee with the draft annual report (which should have been posted online when it was discussed as an agenda item).
In addition, I am still trying to find out exactly how much has been paid in soft costs to the financial adviser, bond underwriters and bond counsel.
March 19th, 2012 at 1:49 pm
I guess Gary isn’t technologically adept enough to know that everything that has been posted on the MDUSD Measure C site is retrievable with Google Cache.
His old blog where he liked to threaten communities with retribution for supporting the CVCHS initiative is there also.
March 19th, 2012 at 2:42 pm
Theresa, can we also get a formal quote from Pedersen stating that he personally has decided to throw out CBOC Bylaws and just “do it his way”, and a formal statement from the Committee Chairman that he concurs.
Case in Point:
5.3 Ethics; Conflicts of Interest.
By accepting appointment to the Committee,
each member agrees to comply with Articles 4 (commencing with Section 1090) and 4.7
(commencing with Section 1125) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code and
the Political Reform Act (Gov. Code §§ 81000 et seq.), and to complete the Form 700 as
required by all “designated employees” of the District. Additionally, each member shall
comply with the Committee Ethics Policy attached as Attachment A to these Bylaws.
AND let’s not leave out Attachment A of those Bylaws—The Ethics Policy Statement, of which the bottom line is:
• COMMITMENT TO DISTRICT. A Committee member shall place the interests of the District above any personal or business interest of the member.
And if I could just push the point–by District, this does not mean District Management! It means the taxpayers of the District!
In other words Kissing A on the Committee to further your own personal Ego and desires to be on yet another advisory council is frowned upon.
March 19th, 2012 at 2:44 pm
Apparently the district’s general counsel has determined that the committee members don’t need to fill out Form 700s.
March 19th, 2012 at 2:58 pm
So let’s see where he put that in writing and directed the Committee to ignore their own Bylaws. Perhaps he has personal reasons to not want a particular committee member’s info published.
While our current DA might be loathe to do or say anything that might negatively affect his good buddy Eberhart’s Measure C, I do not believe he holds Rolen in that same regard.
March 19th, 2012 at 3:02 pm
Perhaps the BOC will amend its bylaws.
March 19th, 2012 at 3:35 pm
Ah, yes, I would like the Grand Jury complaint to include the fact that General Counsel has directed the CBOC to disregard Government Codes and the Political Reform Act.
Theresa and Wendy: Thank you for being there for us at the meeting, the clips and audio are priceless. Since both of you were a bit late in beginning your recordings, do you know if they did, in fact, approve minutes from Dec and Feb meetings? They have not posted them yet. Dec 15 was over 6 months ago, and when the Draft minutes were emailed to the committee they could/should have been published as “draft”.
March 19th, 2012 at 3:50 pm
I don’t know if they approved the minutes, but I’ll find out.
March 19th, 2012 at 4:01 pm
@73 G – The BOC’a Bylaws should say that committee members should place the interests of the public before the District. There are some members who work in partnership with the district on other committees and this compromises their ability to think objectively and apply any appropriate skepticism in a watchdog role.
March 19th, 2012 at 4:36 pm
Theresa, thank you. Seriously, you are correct, but in reality WE are the District. Everyone else is either our appointee or employee.
Love getting the chance to correct myself. I said Dec was over 6 months ago—meant to say, it has been over 6 months since we’ve had any Minutes published!
March 19th, 2012 at 5:03 pm
Here is Pedersen’s emailed response (I think he thought I was asking for the Annual Report and not the minutes and meeting Powerpoint):
“I don’t have it yet. John (Ferrante) was out Friday and he indicated that he would send it to me today. I will follow up as others are asking as well.”
March 19th, 2012 at 5:12 pm
@ G #77:
Yes, at the March 15, 2012 CBOC meeting, minutes for the December 15, 2011 and February 16, 2012 meetings were approved without changes.
March 19th, 2012 at 5:25 pm
@TH#74 — That’s a violation of the Fair Political Practices Act that can be filed as a Complaint with the FPPC. They love to fine people — Arnold just got fined last week for about $40K.
March 19th, 2012 at 6:04 pm
How to file a Complaint with the Fair Political Practices Commission http://www.fppc.ca.gov/index.php?id=498
Note: they do not handle Brown Act violations, but do handle Form 700 violations and a variety of other violations, including misleading campaign advertisements.
March 19th, 2012 at 8:29 pm
Remember when communication was king? Before the secrecy uprising on the board? Of course everything wasn’t rosy then either, but we at least felt included without a fight for every little bit of info. These old newsletters are kind of hard to find, but you can open the first one, and then just go to the URL and carefully change the Vol. and No. numbers.
If there were older ones, they’ve been deleted. Just a thought or two–check it out. They start at:
http://www.mdusd.k12.ca.us/superintendent/mtdiablodigest/7-1.pdf
This is my favorite:
http://www.mdusd.k12.ca.us/superintendent/mtdiablodigest/8-1.pdf
What? You mean they held Community Meetings at all 6 High School Patterns without violating Brown Act? They let parents and students and staff AND the board actually TALK TO EACH OTHER?
March 19th, 2012 at 8:39 pm
Or, easier yet: http://www.mdusd.k12.ca.us/superintendent/digest.php
I was looking for he Community Meeting Report mentioned in Vol.8 No.1 (“A compilation of all the Spring 2008 community meetings, including questions and responses provided to attendees, is available on the District website home page at http://www.mdusd.k12.ca.us. (See “Community Meeting Report.””), but found that it has apparently also been deleted from the District Website.
March 19th, 2012 at 11:38 pm
@ Theresa Harrington #74:
The committee’s bylaws require a 2/3 vote of the committee to be amended. To my knowledge no such vote has been taken. Do you have any info about this?
It appears that the Form 700 filing requirement is something the CBOC voluntarily adopted, as a local policy. So even if the FPPC does not require CBOC members to file Form 700, the District’s own rules do. (If you have a written legal opinion to share re FPPC code applicability to CBOC’s, please share.)
The District’s ethics policy was incorporated into the CBOC bylaws and the Form 700 filing appears to have been instituted by the District as a means of emphasizing the importance of ethics policy compliance.
While I have not researched the issue to learn the rationale and intent behind development of the CBOC bylaws, the way the rules read seems like sound policy. I also don’t know whether bylaws for other District CBOCs read the same way — in other words, is there a longstanding pattern and practice ? Don’t know.
It does appear that having the Form 700 on file for every committee member is simply a matter of emphasis — a way to drive home the requirements of the District’s ethics policy with every committee member.
So regardless of whether or not CBOC members are required by state law to file Form 700, they are required to do so by the District’s local rules. And it follows that District rules should be followed until such time as they are changed per the normal process.
Further, I submit that relaxing ethics rules is ill-advised for a chronically troubled organization plagued by Board infighting and numerous concerns re handling of certain aspects of the bonds (e.g., utility savings generated from solar project used to fund operating budget rather than pay off bond debt).
Reading your blog is one indication of the poor quality of the District’s relationships with the public. Suffice it to say that there are “trust issues” between the District and the public — as well as within the District itself, between District leadership and the staff.
The cavalier way this small, relatively obscure Form 700 issue is being handled doesn’t offer assurance that ethics is anything more than lipservice in this organization . . . which is unlikely to give anyone a warm, fuzzy feeling inside.
March 20th, 2012 at 7:07 am
@Wendy #85 All the laws and rules mean nothing if there are widespread violations and no enforcement — which is exactly the situation that has existed for the last few years. Its time for some strict enforcement.
March 20th, 2012 at 8:16 am
Wendy, I have no knowledge of any plans to change the bylaws and I don’t think they have been changed. I was just suggesting that perhaps they could be changed, if the committee wanted to comply with its own bylaws.
This is not the first time the committee has violated its bylaws. Last year, the committee failed to hold its required June organizational meeting because Chairman John Ferrante said it wasn’t necessary. This year, however, Ferrante has said he plans to hold that meeting and he is asking people to think about volunteering for the chairman position, since he will be termed out of it.
I believe the committee bylaws were approved by the board. So, if the committee wants to change them to eliminate the form 700 requirement, I believe the board would also have to approve that change.
No one mentioned the bylaws when Pedersen told committee members they didn’t have to fill out the forms.
Regarding trust, Trustees Linda Mayo and Sherry Whitmarsh said during a Strategic Planning Study Session several months ago that they did not believe the district had a problem with public trust. As I recall, Trustee Cheryl Hansen suggested language something like: Build public trust. They said that implied that it didn’t exist, so they wanted to change it to something like: Strengthen public trust. (I don’t have my notes in front of me for exact quotes, but that’s my recollection.)
The possibility that distrust could exist within the organization was not mentioned.
March 20th, 2012 at 8:48 am
Yes Theresa@89,
Denial is an ugly thing and prevents any positive change from occuring.
I have a feeling that Trustees Whitmarsh and Mayo, along with Eberhart will find out the level of the publics distrust of the district’s leadership in about 8 months at election time.
Positive change is coming to the MDUSD!
March 20th, 2012 at 12:16 pm
@ Theresa Harrington #89:
You’re right. I misread the bylaws. The Committee bylaws were created by the Board of Trustees and amendments require a two-thirds majority:
“Section 10. Amendment of Bylaws. Any amendment to these Bylaws shall be
approved by a two-thirds vote of the entire Board.”
So the issue at hand is that, absent a bylaws amendment, the Form 700 requirement remains in effect. It is likely that the current committee members have already filed the Form 700, in which case the only outstanding compliance issue would be for newly-appointment members.
It is expected that the Committee will at all times follow its by-laws. If it fails do to so, Committee members have an obligation to speak up. Clearly the Board members who serve on the Committee as liaison with the full Board of Trustees have a duty to take corrective action in the event the Committee fails to follow its by-laws.
My remark regarding distrust was my own opinion, based upon my personal observations and input received from the parents with children in District schools.
In the District’s 2010-2015 Strategic Plan Draft, under Strategic Initiative #2, “Supportive Family and Community Involvement” (http://www.mdusd.org/Community/Documents/strategic-plan/strategic-plan-draft.pdf) one of the bullet points states the following:
“2.5 Collaborate and communicate with cities, businesses, and the community to build public trust and foster positive relationships with our district.”
I believe this is a essential goal that is worthy of universal support.
The public outreach efforts undertaken by the District, with more planned, are an important element of achieving this goal. Communication is key to building and maintaining good working relationships.
This blog is one avenue through which community conversations about the District’s organizational performance take place. Thank you, Theresa, for your continuing efforts in blogging and moderating this site — by doing so you are providing an important community service that allows the District to receive feedback.
March 20th, 2012 at 12:21 pm
FYI, the Contra Costa County Office of Ed CBO is recommending the County Board vote against the Clean Water Initiative, due to “a significant annual fee which increases each year by the consumer price index, or 2 percent, whichever is less.”
His staff report states: “This initiative would create an adverse financial impact on schools in Contra Costa County at a time when districts are struggling to maintain basic school instruction.”
County Board will meet Wednesday: http://bit.ly/GDnX30.
The MDUSD board expects to vote on this issue March 26, since ballots are due by April 6.
March 20th, 2012 at 12:43 pm
@WL#91 – The Form 700 is filed annually for each calendar year. The 700 due on April 2, 2012 is for 2011 calendar year. A 2/3 majority of the 5 member Board of Trustees would be 4 of 5. Even if the By-laws were now amended, the Form 700 for year 2011 must be filed — or subject to sanctions from the FPPC. I would like to see the Form 700′s posted for every MDUSD required person, and compare the prior year’s with the current year. The public is entitled to inspect and copy the Form 700 at the District office upon demand — no ten day waiting period.
March 20th, 2012 at 12:50 pm
On another note, it sounds like Concord PD is cracking down on parent drivers before and during pickup time at Silverwood Elem.: http://bit.ly/GESaSB
March 20th, 2012 at 12:55 pm
@WL It would be helpful if someone went to Dent and made a list of everyone who DID file a Form 700 for year 2010, and then complaints can be filed now with the FPPC for failure to file. Then after April 2, another list can be compiled for who filed and who did not for year 2011. Lets get this mess cleaned up now !
March 20th, 2012 at 1:09 pm
The long list of MDUSD employees and consultants who must file a Form 700 are listed in the MDUSD Conflict of Interest Code identified in Board Policy 2310, http://www.gamutonline.net/DisplayPolicy/380903/
Lets have full disclosure according the law of California, not according to the law of Eberhart or Rolen or Pete Pedersen.
March 20th, 2012 at 1:18 pm
At the last meeting Maria Vassileva asked for a second confirmation of whether or not she needed to file Form 700. She was told (again) it was not necessary. She (and Ralph Austin) were appointed to the CBOC prior to 9/22/11 meeting. Six months should be enough time for the Board to have required evidence of their own mandates.
That means she/they/others have been kept out of Board compliance illegally by direction and influence of the Measure C Director of Construction, Pete Pedersen.
Ex Board President Gary Eberhart, who was not afraid to be out of order by interjecting his personal opinions on the legality of other matters of the Committee, sat mute while Maria was being given wrong information.
Shameful.
March 20th, 2012 at 1:23 pm
When requesting to inspect and copy Form 700′s, your annonymity is guaranteed. Government Code 81008 (a) says “Every report and statement filed pursuant to this title is a public record open for public inspection and reproduction during regular business hours. . . . No conditions whatsoever shall be imposed upon persons desiring to inspect or reproduce reports and statements filed under this title, nor shall any information or identification be required from these persons. . . . A request for more than one report or statement or report and statement at the same time shall be considered a single request.” BTW @G, Gary might make quite a jailhouse lawyer.
March 20th, 2012 at 1:23 pm
When Pedersen initially brought up the Form 700′s a few meetings ago, he admitted that the committee had been out of compliance and asked everyone to fill out the forms so they would be in compliance.
At the next meeting, the senior rep refused to do it and said she would quit if she were required to fill out the form.
Pedersen later told everyone they didn’t need to fill it out after all. It appeared that he was trying to appease the senior rep so she wouldn’t quit. I don’t recall anyone else complaining about it.
Now that the senior rep has quit anyway, perhaps the committee could just comply with the bylaws by filling out the forms after all.
March 20th, 2012 at 1:26 pm
@G #97 I guess if Maria Vassileva doesn’t file a Form 700 by April 2, a FPPC Complaint should be filed against her and Board Trustee Gary Eberhart can be listed as one of the witnesses.
March 20th, 2012 at 1:33 pm
@TH#99 – As I read it, the “senior rep” who quit is still required to fill out the Form 700 for the years that she served, even if she only served “one day”. Quitting does not relieve her of the obligation to file the Form 700. It could be quite an expensive fine and since Alicia had to pay her own “copy” costs, it would follow that members who are fined by the FPPC will have to pay their own fines.
March 20th, 2012 at 1:42 pm
How much of a fine ? “Jeffrey Kongslie served as Santa Cruz Downtown Commissioner, a designated position in the conflict of interest code for the City of Santa Cruz. He failed to timely file an assuming office Statement of Economic Interests, a 2007 annual Statement of Economic Interests, a 2008 Statement of Economic Interests, and a leaving office Statement of Economic Interests. $4,000 fine.” Taken from the FPPC June 10, 2010 press release that contains several cases of failing to file a Form 700. http://www.fppc.ca.gov/press_release.php?pr_id=717
Go ahead Pete Pedersen and keep giving out your legal advice — you’ll really make some people happy when they get fined ! And you might end up there too !! BTW, Pete did you file your Form 700′s ?
March 20th, 2012 at 1:46 pm
Dr J: Personally, from what I’ve seen and heard, Maria may be one of only two or (possibly) three people on the committee who is actively interested in maintaining honesty and compliance on the committee. The rest, are at best, habitual seat warmers, or at worst, shills.
March 20th, 2012 at 1:54 pm
@G Looks like every committee member must file, or be significantly fined, an “assuming office”, “annual statement” and a “leaving office” Form 700. Lets clean up and prevent corruption in MDUSD by getting the statements on file, REVIEWING the statements for completeness and accuracy, and enforce all of the “open government” laws. Its about time.
March 20th, 2012 at 2:09 pm
Wow, the FPPC records are fascinating. Did you know that Tom Torlakson had the Barona Band of Mission Indians contribute $5000 on 11-20-2008 to the Mt. Diablo High School Serendipity Program for school supplies ?
March 20th, 2012 at 2:29 pm
When the 2002 committee was first seated, they were given packets showing them what their duties and responsibilities were, as well as legal requirements. I wonder if the same was done in 2010. I wonder if new members are provided the same packet upon admission.
I’ve posted the below before, but hopefully newer members of the committee will see this.
Enacted in 2005, AB 1234 requires formal Ethics training for all local “Legislative Bodies”. (some courses are available online)
We know Gary refused to attend his required training a couple of years ago—because, as he said when asked, he already “knew it all”.
CA Gov’t Code 54952 defines “Legislative Bodies” as:
“(a) The governing body of a local agency or any other local body created by state or federal statute.
(b) A commission, committee, board, or other body of a local agency, whether permanent or temporary, decisionmaking or advisory,
created by charter, ordinance, resolution, or formal action of a legislative body.
(a) The governing body of a local agency or any other local body created by state or federal statute.
(b) A commission, committee, board, or other body of a local agency, whether permanent or temporary, decisionmaking or advisory, created by charter, ordinance, resolution, or formal action of a
legislative body. However, advisory committees, composed solely of
the members of the legislative body that are less than a quorum of the legislative body are not legislative bodies, except that standing committees of a legislative body, irrespective of their composition,
which have a continuing subject matter jurisdiction, or a meeting schedule fixed by charter, ordinance, resolution, or formal action of a legislative body are legislative bodies for purposes of this chapter. Standing committees of a legislative body, irrespective of their composition, which have a continuing subject matter jurisdiction, or a meeting schedule fixed by charter, ordinance, resolution, or formal action of
a legislative body are legislative bodies for purposes of this chapter.
March 20th, 2012 at 2:43 pm
If I can remain anonymous while requesting Form 700. Who do I ask the front desk lady at Dent?
What should I do if she refuses?
March 20th, 2012 at 2:49 pm
@MDBW#107 File a FPPC Complaint against her !
March 20th, 2012 at 2:57 pm
@MDUSD Board Watcher #107:
If your request is refused, put it in writing:
http://www.firstamendmentcoalition.org/category/resources/access-to-records/
Then follow-up to inquire about the status of your request.
This approach should yield good results.
March 20th, 2012 at 5:11 pm
So….the long awaited minutes are posted now…and Pete states that since Prop 39 doesn’t spell out a requirement for Form 700, they do not have to file them, and any he has already received will be shredded, and HE (the real boss of the INDEPENDENT Oversight Committee) will go to the board to have the Bylaws changed. That was in December.
Has the board changed the CBOC Bylaws? When? Who among them will first decide to poo poo the FPPC and State Ethics Codes, by agreeing that Prop 39 is the definitive authority?
March 20th, 2012 at 5:17 pm
When Vanir3DI was the 2002 Construction Manager, did Vanir3DI control every decision the committee made as well as all communications and board presentations?
I can assure you, having an in-house manager is not the least expensive way to go. It may cost a smaller percentage of dollars (although I doubt that will be true in the long run), but equally important to the process is integrity, and this set-up is sorely lacking in integrity.
March 20th, 2012 at 5:29 pm
One has to wonder how much attention anyone, particularly the filer, pays to those Form 700 filings. A quick search on the FPPC site showed that a local city councilman of mine signed and filed a Form 700 for 2010, yet it includes no schedules nor any financial items — no sources of income, not a single financial asset, not a single lunch or gift from anyone all year. Just one page filled out with his name and the office held. I had no idea that our elected representatives lived such ascetic lives!
March 20th, 2012 at 5:46 pm
Jim, some people list everything, but are only required to list what “might be construed” as controversial, so a blank form may be OK.
Tom Torlakson does it best by listing receipt of every free meal and lodging given to him by anybody and everybody, including those during our bid time from SunPower in Sept and Nov 2010. We have a right to know who else from our district was wined and dined during that time.
The point isn’t always so much what is on a report as it is that the report was made in furtherance of the people’s laws.
March 20th, 2012 at 7:09 pm
Sit Down—The Bylaws have already been changed on the Measure C site.
March 20th, 2012 at 7:15 pm
Sorry–I take it back–I read the wrong thing.
oops.
March 20th, 2012 at 7:27 pm
And here’s what’s going on with the WCCUSD Bond Oversight Committee: http://www.contracostatimes.com/top-stories/ci_20217958/west-contra-costa-school-board-blocked-well-known
March 21st, 2012 at 1:31 pm
I must say though, that district does have a really great website. Their home page seems a bit overladen, but beyond that there is no comparison to ours. Theirs actually has purpose and makes sense; easy links to all sub-committee sites, bond committee sites where you find obvious access to committees’ goals, agenda, minutes, rosters, pictures. All clean and tidy and user friendly.
MDUSD should be embarrassed.
March 21st, 2012 at 1:35 pm
WCCUSD also has an Office of Community Engagement, which helps provide information and outreach to the community: http://www.wccusd.net/22771063163056800/site/default.asp
MDUSD has no such department.
March 21st, 2012 at 2:49 pm
I guess maybe we should all band together and request that mdusd reinstate the web position so that there is someone on staff who is responsible for the content of the district web site. It costs a few dollars to staff that position, but it is one that is vital to the communications function of the district.
March 21st, 2012 at 3:40 pm
Although Trustee Gary Eberhart has asked that agendas and minutes for all committees be easily linked from the home page, the district does not appear to have made on progress on that.
As I have previously mentioned, the Digital Safari Academy at Mt. Diablo High could probably help the district improve its website and help keep it updated. This would be good hands-on learning for students that would also help the district.
March 21st, 2012 at 3:49 pm
@ Anon #119:
I’d prefer to see a parent or other community volunteer with expertise assume responsibility for updating the website.
Alternatively, this could be a job training project for IT students, if there were an instructor willing to make it happen.
My point is: If the District is truly incapable of absorbing this function and getting this done in-house, I’m loathe to suggest that additional staffing is necessary. It’s just not that big a deal, time-wise. It just takes a commitment to good communication.
Updating websites is not rocket science. All that is required is an conscientious effort to communicate with employees, students, parents and the community-at-large; someone to draft web content; and someone to take responsibility for getting it posted in a timely manner.
March 21st, 2012 at 4:27 pm
I also note that WCCUSD prepares a written report for the board with it’s Second Interim Report, instead of merely posting a Powerpoint at the last minute like MDUSD does.
The written report is a summary of the Second Interim Report that is easy to understand and stands alone, giving the public an opportunity to see what will be discussed and to formulate questions or comments before the meeting.
It is on pages 100-119 of the WCCUSD agenda packet: http://www.wccusd.net/22771063163054707/lib/22771063163054707/Packets/2011-2012/20120321_BOE_PacketJtMtgSanPablo.pdf
March 21st, 2012 at 4:39 pm
I believe that West Contra Costa has a web site manager who dedicates significant time to managing their web site. I can’t think that there are any $260 million a year private sector organizations that have their web sites operated by volunteers, but we expect the school district to do that? No wonder school districts struggle. I think the district needs a professional person that will consistently operate the web site. That’s the only way to ensure that it gets done well. It’s not a volunteer position, but if everyone is willing to accept lower quality and will agree not to complain, I guess a volunteer is OK.
March 21st, 2012 at 7:32 pm
@ Anon #123:
If jobs can be restructured to incorporate this activity into the District’s work plan, without adding headcount, that would be the first choice.
If that is not possible, there may be other no-cost or low-cost options that could be not ideal, but meet basic needs. That’s what I was trying to get at.
I am operating on the premise that the District is not in a financial position to consider staff enhancement options.
I agree with you that a complex organization of this size and reach should have a communications plan supported by professional staff resources. If this were a private company, there is no doubt this vital function would be treated as a high priority.
March 21st, 2012 at 7:50 pm
The WCCUSD’s March 7 PowerPoint shows a list of “Board Priorities” for the budget (on page 6), which were shared during several community meetings asking for feedback: http://www.wccusd.net/2277106316311100/lib/2277106316311100/Budget%20Information/2011-2012%20Budget/Budget%20Update%203-7-12.pdf
Does the MDUSD board have such a list? I note that “furlough days are restored per contracts” is number 6 on the list.
March 21st, 2012 at 11:00 pm
Note that Slide #5 in the ppt refers to “parcel tax revenues that the State cannot take away”. (That concept has always eluded the folks at MDUSD, of course.) Perhaps this kind of transparency and communication with the community is why WCCUSD was able to pass a parcel tax in the first place.
WCCUSD serves some of the most challenged communities in the Bay Area, and yet they were able to convince voters to raise local taxes to support their schools. It shows what can be done with genuine leadership, rather than the whining and excuse-making that is so commonplace at MDUSD.
March 22nd, 2012 at 1:59 am
MDUSD has a Director of Technology: Joe Estrada; why is it not possible for him to keep the website up to date? Every other employee in this district has had to take on more responsibilities with less pay, due to budget cuts. So, what is the reason that the Tech Department cannot do the same? BTW: look up the salary of the employees in the Tech Dept.
Also: @Dr. J (#84): I am intent on getting a petition going to file with the Fair Political Practices Commission regarding the failure of the bond committee members’ submitting a form 700 for 2010. But, having read from the above bloggers, will my efforts be in vain if the bylaws were changed to find that the 700 Forms need not be submitted?
March 22nd, 2012 at 7:53 am
@**Anon — Even if the Bylaws are changed in the future, they were in effect previously when the required reports should have been filed. Also, read the Conflict of Interest policy I mentioned, because that applies also, and that seems to include the BOC also, and at least all of the members of Pete Pedersen’s circle. I think perhaps you should name Pete Pedersen and Steven Lawrence for conspiring to avoid the Form 700 filing.
March 22nd, 2012 at 8:59 am
Can someone explain why furlough days save the district money when they also lose ADA revenue on those furlough days. Is the savings from accrued benefits?
March 22nd, 2012 at 6:35 pm
The board will consider a SunPower change order that I don’t recall being mentioned at the BOC: http://esbpublic.mdusd.k12.ca.us/public_itemview.aspx?ItemId=5152&mtgId=340
March 22nd, 2012 at 6:39 pm
The board also expects to confirm bond issuance costs: http://esbpublic.mdusd.k12.ca.us/public_itemview.aspx?ItemId=5192&mtgId=340
March 23rd, 2012 at 10:26 am
Theresa: In Dec, Pedersen presented BOC with a “packet about Measure C staffing” that supposedly described his fiefdom and their place in the scheme of things.
Neither the “packet” or any tid-bit of information from it was published with the minutes of the meeting.
Does that packet break down what they are paid/budgeted, or even define how their payroll is determined?
Am I correct that pay for Pedersen and crew seems to be based on a “percentage” of the “budget/costs” for each school/project?
If so, then of course it is very beneficial to those in-house boys and girls to not only push for, but also create the need for as many change orders as they can possibly get by with.
Also, if I am correct, even things like frequent small issues of bonds, and their subsequent costs of sale being added to the budgets would financially benefit Pete and crew.
March 23rd, 2012 at 10:50 am
Many people have been saying many times, that this whole Measure C project is just a way for Pedersen and crew to line thier already well lined pockets at tax payer expense.
March 23rd, 2012 at 11:10 am
@G&MDBW – What do Pete’s 2009, 2010 and 2011 Form 700′s say ?
March 23rd, 2012 at 1:22 pm
Pleasant Hill Education Commission will meet Wednesday: http://www.ci.pleasant-hill.ca.us/archives/41/Education%20Commission%20Agenda%20(3-28-2012).pdf
March 23rd, 2012 at 1:49 pm
Here are highlights on Monday’s board agenda: http://bit.ly/GSYQt6
March 23rd, 2012 at 9:07 pm
I’m glad to see they finally plan to dump several tons of the rust off of the bus lot as I asked for last year, but I wonder how much they have really looked at the deal.
I’m wondering why they are slipping it in on the Consent Agenda, and that agenda does not indicate how much they will pay for the auction. What do scrap auctions cost? More than the $65K they think they will get for the vehicles? Do you think the Board will even notice? or ask? or care?
They estimate none of the 27 vehicles to be worth more than $2500.ea? How about taking the effort to part them out? A set of half-way good bus tires should be worth that much.
-Scrapping five 2000 85-passenger buses??
-Didn’t we just purchase a bunch of used buses?
-Were those we just bought even older that these?
-Or are we scrapping what we just bought?
-Is Somebody making money under the table!
March 23rd, 2012 at 9:34 pm
Funny how they can do all that work and still not produce an inventory.
March 29th, 2012 at 9:11 am
Ten years ago, the MDUSD Board established a Community Based Committee to study and recommend options for managing growth in Bay Point. The CONTRAST between the 2002 broad based community based committee, and the 2012 Eberhart/Lawrence “secret committee” of consultants is ENORMOUS ! The report indicated that the District was negotiating then to buy a K-8 site in Bay Point. Interestingly A. J. Fardella was one of the presenters of the report to the Board. Take a look and you will see the contrast and the irony of the situation. Its the difference between a democracy [2002] and a dictatorship [2012]. http://www.ohcg.net/MDUSD/HSgrowthRepPPT.pdf
March 30th, 2012 at 4:47 pm
Here is an indepth description of the “lease-leaseback” arrangement that allows the district to avoid hiring the lowest bidder: http://esbpublic.mdusd.k12.ca.us/public_itemview.aspx?ItemId=5016&mtgId=338
March 30th, 2012 at 5:50 pm
Mt. Diablo HS science teachers are urging the MDUSD board to consider devoting more Measure C money to science facilities at the school: http://bit.ly/HpfOG9
March 30th, 2012 at 8:38 pm
If the district was required to “hire the lowest bidder” they would not have SunPower on the field. Out of four in the final running it was the second highest bidder with the second lowest net savings.
They like lease/leaseback because it allows the least cash up front, very long and renegotiable payback, they can choose the company most likely to contribute to the next campaign, and if they are really lucky, maybe the builder will donate to help pass another bond in 5 or 6 years to pay back and float the costs out to an even longer payoff.
Lease/Leaseback is for when you are relatively broke and have emergency needs. This district just closed two schools and pissed away another one for lack of decent management. They aren’t exactly in an emergency lack of space situation.
March 30th, 2012 at 9:19 pm
Mt Diablo High School is at 4200 Concord Blvd??? They can’t even type a contract correctly!
March 30th, 2012 at 9:23 pm
As I see it, this “Preliminary” contract is using the apparent bottomless pit of Prop 55 to hire Meehleis to do what Pedersen Inc. is contracted to do under Measure C (Plan the Project). Since they will very likely transfer Measure C funds over to clean out Prop 55 in a couple of years (again, as ususl), why isn’t Pedersen Inc. just doing this all in the first place?
March 31st, 2012 at 8:51 am
@G#144 Pedersen & Crew are unlicensed contractors, and by law cannot be legal “construction managers” and thus their work will not be accepted by the State architects office, so they need to hire it out.
March 31st, 2012 at 9:27 am
TH#141-You describe the issues with inadequate planning and communication at MDHS. The public should realize this is the same for all the district schools. With these millions the district needs comprehensive planning. This may be the last bond for decades. Mayo has stated the district needs more and more and more bond measures but the public may not agree once they see their new property tax bill.
March 31st, 2012 at 4:46 pm
When Pete Pedersen throws Supt Steven Lawrence under the bus like he did with the promised Mount science labs, you have to wonder whether Lawrence’s habitual lack of communication is more than just intentional. Why would solar on two closed schools be more imporant than promised science labs for high school students ?
March 31st, 2012 at 5:09 pm
Solar at two closed schools? Can you say multiple binding contracts with no escape clause. If they have to pay for it, and they ARE paying for it monthly, they might as well go ahead and build it. If nothing else they can use the panels as “spares” someday.
March 31st, 2012 at 9:58 pm
G#142, who were the two lowest bidders on the solar project?
March 31st, 2012 at 10:29 pm
Roebbelen and Solar City were lowest bids and highest net benefit.
March 31st, 2012 at 11:29 pm
Pedersen and the committee he assembled to evaluate the solar RFPs made their recommendation based on a variety of criteria, including experience on large solar projects, age of the company and their opinions about whether the companies were likely to remain in business for 30 years. They gave many reasons for their decision not to go with the lowest bidder.
Regarding Pedersen’s responses for my story, I don’t believe he was “throwing Lawrence under the bus.” Pedersen said he wasn’t present at the PTSA meeting where Lawrence solicited input. But, no one has said that a science building was ever promised. McClatchy said she doesn’t think there is enough money.
The unanswered question is: who directed Pedersen to pursue the IHTA expansion, since it was not part of the $1.5 million allocated by the board for high school improvements? Does this mean that other high schools could also start asking for additional improvements above and beyond their allotted $1.5 million? And what about middle and elementary schools, which haven’t seen much improvement beyond solar panels?
Pedersen said he couldn’t estimate how much a new science building would cost because he didn’t know the parameters for such a project. He said he would be willing to discuss such a project with the teachers, if he was given direction to do so. But, he said he wouldn’t want these discussions to give anyone the idea that such a project was necessarily feasible, since he doesn’t have the authority to make that decision.
However, it’s difficult to understand how the district can definitively say it would be too expensive, if no one has explored how much it would cost. Pedersen said that in his meetings with the teachers about the three new labs, no one mentioned the idea of a new science building.
However, if the district continues to dip into its contingency fund for the Bay Point master plan, questions could continue to be raised about whether the money could be better spent on improving MDHS. Some Bay Point parents and students said they wanted Bay Point teens to be able to have the opportunity to attend the MDHS academies instead of a new Bay Point high school. Others disagreed.
Regarding the process for identifying projects, it has been vague and ambiguous for all schools. As part of the community coalition’s idea for raising the tax rate (which the board will discuss Monday), that group wants a more definitive list of projects. It should also include estimated costs and funding sources.
The public should also be told how much money the district has in developer fees and Prop. 55 money that could be used to pursue other projects, such as the IHTA faciliity.
April 1st, 2012 at 1:07 am
Dr. J. @145: On June 28, 2011 the board approved PHd Architects for “engineering, design and construction administration services required for the approval and satisfactory completion” of a total of 5 Smart Science/Chemistry lab buildings at Mt.D and CVHS. The contract specified DSA work.
Per what Pedersen presented to the board, all expenses for this $3million dollar project were to be borne by Developer fund Fees (11) and Measure C (17)
As a by-the-way, that PHd contract is the screwiest one I’ve seen yet. It reverts from Mt.D and CVHS to Concord High and College Park, and then back to Mt.D and CVHS. Tim Cody and Pedersen seem to have just photocopied bits and pieces from an old 2008 contract, and then were too lazy to clean it up. Also btw, Pedersen asked the board to approve $136K, but PHd’s quote was just $120K—hmmm. And of course the board approved all of the mistakes without question!
Now 10 months later we are supposed to forget the Developer Fee and ‘C’ Funds that were set aside for these school “enhancements”, to build these promised science labs, and we can assume that Meehleis Modular Co., who pretty much “wrote the book” on lease-leasebacks, is indeed happy to take our money and follow Pedersen’s plans:
1)”…services include, but are not limited to management and coordination services, (Pedersen’s job)
2) plan/specification constructability reviews, value engineering reviews (–since when have we paid a third party to review PHd’s designs-they’ve done about 2/3 of all Architect work in the district for 10 years–).
3) recommendations necessary to optimize project quality and delivery, project budget development assistance, project scheduling, construction planning and bidding tasks”.
(–Pedersen’s job again–) Now there is the BIG BS. He is paying them $32,900.00 to write what will probably be their own lease/leaseback contract.
So now, we can’t say we’re surprised when they slip a 40 YEAR LEASE/Leaseback in on a consent agenda in the next few weeks.
Just like every item on Measure C–these will be warn out long before they’re paid for.
40 years to pay for plastic buildings, which, according to current standards, will have to be replaced in 20 years!!!
April 1st, 2012 at 1:26 am
Sorry Theresa I didn’t see your #151 before I submitted. My point was that they do not have to hide behind a Lease/Leaseback to avoid hiring the lowest bidder on any project. I believe the correct wording is that they will hire the Lowest-Best, not just lowest, and that gives a lot of leeway, even when using state funds/rules.
April 1st, 2012 at 9:20 am
Shoddy, at best, management by Pedersen & Cronies. My comment about Pedersen “throwing Lawrence under the bus” was Pete’s statement he was never told by Lawrence what happened at the meeting where the science labs were discussed, pinning the culpability on Lawrence.
April 1st, 2012 at 10:26 am
Pedersen didn’t say Lawrence didn’t tell him “what happened” at the meeting. He said he didn’t attend the meeting and that he was unaware of the science building request. Clearly, he was told about the need for new science labs, since that’s what the school is using its $1.5 million to pay for.
Regarding the solar RFPs, Pedersen told me it was not correct to refer to them as “bids.” He said they were more complex than bids because they allowed the companies to submit proposals based on less specific guidelines from the district than a true “bid” for a project would entail. The district was able to evaluate the quality of the proposals, as well as the quality of the companies’ qualifications, in making its decision, Pedersen said.
Another interesting tidbit: Pedersen told me the idea for new middle school science labs did not come from the middle schools. Those were Lawrence’s idea, based on his opinion that the middle school facilities were insufficient. When I spoke to one middle school science teacher, he said he was surprised to see that on the list and that he had no complaints about his current classroom. But, when he found out about all the enhancements the planned new classrooms would provide, he was pleasantly surprised and said he would certainly be grateful for them. Similarly, I heard from some teachers that other things on the list, such as door hardware, were not necessary, in their opinion.
Now that Glenbrook is closing, the district will not have to spend Measure C money on a new science lab and many other upgrades at that school. It is unclear how the money originally set aside for Glenbrook and Holbrook will be reallocated. As has been pointed out, the district is still pushing forward with solar on those sites.
April 1st, 2012 at 11:12 am
Theresa #140 –
Ed Code 17406 applies to legitimate lease/leaseback arrangements only, and should not be used as a loophole to circumvent the lowest bidder requirement. (Although I’m not sure that a lowest bidder requirement exists in this district as evidenced by the solar bidding process.)
Item 9.9 on the Consent dated 2/27/12, failed to justify and explain WHY the lowest bidder should not be selected. It is likely that bond proceeds will not be preserved in such circumstances. Also my concern is that staff may be encouraged to rely on Ed Code Ed Code 17406 to avoid the effort of obtaining multiple competitive bids to simply hire who they want, when similar quality work can be done by another party for a lessor fee…but I guess we will never know.
April 1st, 2012 at 11:16 am
@#147 – The bond oversight committee was essentially told that solar was being placed on the closed schools for general fund revenue benefits. We were told that the district wanted to take advantage of once in a lifetime PG&E rebates and IRS rebates from Clean Renewable Energy Bonds.
April 2nd, 2012 at 9:33 am
Theresa asked #151: who directed Pedersen to pursue the IHTA expansion, since it was not part of the $1.5 million allocated by the board for high school improvements?
What is the answer ?
April 2nd, 2012 at 10:22 am
The district’s process for identifying projects to fund with developer fees and Prop. 55 funds is even less transparent than its process for identifying Measure C projects. MDHS teacher Dan Reynolds said he didn’t know the school was planning an IHTA expansion until he saw the architects’ contract on the Feb. 27 agenda: http://esbpublic.mdusd.k12.ca.us/public_itemview.aspx?ItemId=4998&mtgId=338
According to Pedersen’s staff report: “Programmatic needs associated with the International Hospitality and Tourism Academy at Mt. Diablo High School have resulted in a need to upgrade/renovate the existing Home Economics Lab.”
It appears that science teachers are arguing that programmatic needs associated with the expansion of the Medical Bio-Tech lab Academy are resulting in the need to construct a new science building. Science teacher Carol Mishler said the program could offer all sorts of expanded courses, such as nursing, if it had more space. She also said that most of the equipment in Colin Jones’ room belongs to the County ROP program, not MDHS.
The teachers also told me that Pedersen and his team spent a great deal of time asking Sandy Johnson-Shaw about what she would need in a portable classroom, giving the science teachers the impression the expansion was going to occur in her classroom. Later, when they spoke to an IHTA teacher, they found out the expansion is actually occurring in Jones’ classroom. So, it appeared there was some miscommunication and wasted work preparing to convert the wrong classroom.
April 2nd, 2012 at 10:49 am
@TH, so who directed Pedersen to pursue the IHTA expansion ?
April 2nd, 2012 at 10:50 am
He hasn’t answered that question. But the staff report is also signed by Superintendent Steven Lawrence.
April 2nd, 2012 at 12:14 pm
Check out this twitter post and photo from Brian Lawrence: https://twitter.com/#!/briantlawrence
He says: “The solar panels at Walnut Acres have left a giant swamp- #wecandobetter #mdusd”
So far, he’s the only would-be candidate to tweet his messages to would-be voters.
April 2nd, 2012 at 12:35 pm
Why would the solar panels create a swamp ? There are just a few holes for the panels.
April 2nd, 2012 at 12:37 pm
Could it be from runoff and poor drainage?
The panels might be dropping the water in greater quantities in specific spots, instead of water being more evenly distributed via rainfall.
Did SunPower anticipate this?
April 2nd, 2012 at 1:34 pm
More important, why kind of environmental hazzard has SunPower created that might endanger the children with mosquitos and West Nile virus ?
April 2nd, 2012 at 1:38 pm
Can’t wait for the April 23 BM when the first Board Action report by the staff is due ! Who wants to bet that staff will flake out saying there is not enough time to get it done [passed Feb 27] because of Spring Break ? [BM=Board Meeting, but I did chuckle as I read my post!]
April 2nd, 2012 at 1:46 pm
Which board action report are you referring to?
April 2nd, 2012 at 2:06 pm
No matter how often they get a project approved stating it will be paid from Developer Fee Funds, when it comes down to writing a check, it seems to me that Jack Schreder is the ONLY company being paid out of those funds. Then, all too often, they say something will be paid from Prop 55/Measure A funds, but sooner or later, they transfer Measure C money over to cover those 55/A promises, and nobody questions that.
On the other hand, if we can follow the money here for free, it seems like someone on the board would at least look at what we question and then ask for an explanation. I thought Hansen was going to follow the money last meeting, but she just barely touched on asking about payments to Wells Fargo, and then let them get by with saying, “we have lots of Wells Fargo accounts”. She needed to be specific, and the Wells Fargo checks were not the screwiest checks written last month–she needs to see what is being put right under her eyes.
April 2nd, 2012 at 2:17 pm
Whenever Alicia Minyen asks about Prop. 55, she is told that’s not the BOC’s purview. But, when there is so much co-mingling of funds, it would seem logical to have some sort of overview report that shows the public what is being built and how it is being funded — especially when money is being transferred back and forth.
The Schreder consultants said the Bay Point projects would likely be funded partially with developer fees and Prop. 55 funds. Just because the district isn’t mandated to have an oversight committee for those funds doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be transparent about how that money is being spent.
April 2nd, 2012 at 2:35 pm
@ Theresa Harrington #71:
Have you obtained the e-mails yet?
BTW, the District has now confirmed that the “Draft Annual Report” dated October 11, 2011 as issued by CBOC Chairman John Ferrante is, in fact, the same powerpoint presentation that was recently posted on the CBOC website.
Upon review, I now appreciate the concerns some committee members have expressed re the completeness of this “report” — which is nothing more than a few bullet point statements in ~28 point font. These powerpoint slides read more like a brief status report than a comprehensive statement of the committee’s activities and findings.
The report includes no explanation of the committee’s activities, e.g., specifically what (documents, project sites, etc.) the committee relied on in making its findings.
Is there a template or model “best practices” CBOC report available, that could be used to assist this committee in preparing an appropriate report — if not for 2010, then at least for future reports (for 2011 and thereafter)?
From the recent committee discussions, it does not appear that committee members have a common understanding of what an “annual report” should look like. A sample of a really good CBOC report from another agency might be helpful, since it’s tough to visualize something without a mental picture of what it should look like.
Lacking a “best practices” sample report, I would think that the report format used by the county civil grand jury would suffice. At least the GJ reports clearly delineate the scope of the report and the research sources/methods used, as well as a concise statement of findings.
April 2nd, 2012 at 2:50 pm
@TH#167 The Board Action Report February 27, 2012 Item 16.14 Passed 4-1-0 http://www.mdusd.org/boe/Documents/minutes/2012/02-27-12.pdf
April 2nd, 2012 at 2:54 pm
Oh, yes, thanks for reminding everyone of that.
According to the minutes: “Mayo moved, Eberhart seconded, and the Board voted 5-0-0 to approve the Board Action Progress Report be piloted through December 31, 2012.”
I wonder if the district will audio record tonight’s meeting.
April 2nd, 2012 at 3:10 pm
Wendy, no, I have not received the emails. However, I received an email from Trustee Cheryl Hansen with attachments showing that committee assignments for 2006, 2008 and 2009 all appeared on board agendas.
Most surprisingly, the minutes show that then-Board President Linda Mayo made the committee assignments for 2006. Yet, Mayo told me committee assignments have always been done by email and that no one has ever complained in the past. Board President Sherry Whitmarsh told me she was relying on Mayo’s assurances when she assumed there was no need to place the committee assignments on the agenda.
Hansen said she met with General Counsel Greg Rolen about her two Points of Order and has asked for a written response, which she expects by the end of this week.
April 2nd, 2012 at 3:26 pm
Its so ironic that Rolen, as the General Counsel to the Board of Education, is almost always erroneously listed in District reports and other official publications as a member of the “Administration” under the direction of the Supt. instead of under the Board of Education as their “General Counsel” — which shows complete ignorance by the Supt. and his staff of the Grand Jury findings that Rolen, as General Counsel, doesn’t work for Lawrence. When do you think they will get it right ? Can’t wait until we see Rolen’s response to the two points of order !
April 2nd, 2012 at 3:28 pm
@TH #71 More than 10 days have passed. What’s the next step to enforce the PRA’s when you are refused by silence ? Seems like a common occurance.
April 2nd, 2012 at 3:40 pm
@TH#173 Linda Mayo’s memory must be failing her — sad to see that. She has always had such a good memory in the past. It pains me to suggust that such a faithful public servant as herself might need to evaluate her ability to function in her position if her memory is failing her. It was also very sad to hear last year about Hall of Fame Coach Pat Summitt of Tennessee who noticed a series of memory lapses that led to an unfortunate diagnosis.
April 2nd, 2012 at 3:59 pm
Wendy Lack, after all of the go-around at the BOC meeting, Alicia’s very smart refusal to have her name associated with it, and Ferrante saying he had it “almost done” and then presenting that pitiful Power Point took a lot of gall on his part. Then he joins the coalition to go ahead and sell the bonds right away? Is he just very confused?
I am convinced though that he works at Pedersen’s right hand, so Pedersen must see some personal advantage to what the coalition asked for.
April 2nd, 2012 at 4:19 pm
Theresa, as for Alicia asking for an accounting of Prop 55 funds, in light of the many projects “attributed” to both Measure “Cs” in reporting out to the public, but then paid for by prop 55, then frequent funds being “swapped” out of “C” to reimburse 55: Somebody needs to break out all of those items and look again.
I believe it is the duty of the State Allocations folks to oversee Prop 55 spending. Maybe the State needs to look at this one:
It “appears” that Prop 55 funds may have been used to buy off/pay off a Lawsuit?? Hard to figure out though. In regards to Bid 1561 (the smart classrooms at CHS and CPHS in 2010-11) Golden State Lumber sued our Contractor, Magnum Construction, and also named MDUSD and Insurance Co of the West as defendants. Then, one month before final judgement, MDUSD cut a check to Insurance Co of the West/Magnum for $61,231.00. Coincidence? I think whether I have that one figured out or not, whatever the case is, Prop 55 was improperly used.
April 2nd, 2012 at 4:46 pm
G#150,
I guess it’s a good thing that mdusd had the foresight not to use Roebbelen:
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/iteam&id=8601204
It’s funny, as bad as you all think mdusd is, there are many districts that are much worse..
April 2nd, 2012 at 4:48 pm
G @ 177,
Don’t be fooled. Ferrante is Pedersens’s right hand man.
My own personal theory is that Pedersen senses and upcoming change in the board (post election) and knows his reign of terror is just about over.
He therfore asked Ferrante to accelerate the bond sales so that he can complete the lining of his pockets.
April 2nd, 2012 at 4:51 pm
@G#178 We need a copy of the settlement agreement which should describe what the money was paid for. Also, I wonder why it wasn’t approved by the Board ? Clearly its public record.
April 2nd, 2012 at 5:22 pm
SunPower from $65M to $75M in 16 months ! That’s a worse record than the Pentagon ! Golden Fleece Award nominee !
April 3rd, 2012 at 8:33 am
The increase in the SunPower contract was mainly due to the increased load after the district added the amount needed to run the planned new HVAC systems.
Last night, Pedersen and Lawrence said the district had originally estimated the total cost of the solar project would be $111.8 million, but that it will actually cost about $80.5 million, so the district is saving about $30 million that it could use for more new projects at high schools.
I don’t recall ever seing an estimated cost of $111.8 million. I do recall an estimated cost of about $95 million including soft costs and overhead.
Lawrence also revealed what could happen to MDHS if the district opens a Bay Point HS. He said the district needs to plan for the Concord Naval Weapons expansion. Right now, students in that area would have to attend Concord High or MDHS, which are both full, he said. If a new Bay Point High opened, MDHS could have the capacity to accept the Naval Weapons area students.
April 3rd, 2012 at 9:40 am
Oh please, L&P always knew what the new HVAC systems would require in power load — they just hid it from the public. These new numbers are either just fabrications or numbers that were known and concealed from the public. No economic forcasts anywhere for large subdivision expansions anyplace in California in the next 20 years — housing prices now at 20 year lows. And with the increased taxes of Meas C ? And with the Seeno empire on trial ? Don’t kid yourself. Lawrence = secret committees. Ten years ago == community based public committees.
April 3rd, 2012 at 9:50 am
The most ironic thing about last night’s meeting is the fact that the district now plans to ask voters the question it claimed it asked two years ago: Would you rather keep your tax rate the same or double it?
As you probably recall, the district tried to withhold the campaign poll from the public. When it was finally released, it showed that voters were never actually given that choice. Instead, they were merely asked if they would support Measure C if their tax rate remained the same. So now, the district doesn’t know if they’d support an increase or not.
April 3rd, 2012 at 10:31 am
@#185 Just Gary & Sherry getting a free campaign poll — who is paying for the poll ? Meas C ?
April 3rd, 2012 at 10:34 am
They didn’t say who would pay for it, but they estimated it would cost $10,000-$15,000.
The PAC agenda for tomorrow is posted: http://bit.ly/He085f
I wonder if anyone will mention doubling the tax rate under the budget discussion.
Trustees Gary Eberhart and Sherry Whitmarsh were adamant two years ago that voters didn’t want their tax rates raised.
April 3rd, 2012 at 11:22 am
Late posting of the PAC agenda is a blatant Brown Act Violation — its a Board established committee: BP 1220. Lawrence is such a hypocrite–attempting to change the name of the committee to make it appear to be something it isn’t to avoid the Brown Act. And the agenda itself is Brown Act deficient since it doesn’t provide for public comment. Lawrence cannot rewrite history.
April 3rd, 2012 at 11:33 am
When you know what outcome you want, you merely word the questions in a manner that can only lead to your desired conclusion.
My favorite: “Have you stopped beating your wife?” Yes–means you have beaten your wife. No–means you still beat your wife.
The question to the district has to be: “Do you intend to stop lying to the taxpayers”?
April 3rd, 2012 at 12:02 pm
As the district decides to approach “re-negotiations” with the taxpayer, and as we, the taxpayers approach the time to vote for new board members who will hopefully not hold private strategic meetings with Eberhart’s shill Superintendent, it is time to revisit Theresa’s story from July 2010.
http://www.ibabuzz.com/onassignment/2010/07/29/why-the-mdusd-poll-and-project-lists-are-important/
I can only suggest that we VOTE wisely, and question any Poll that does not allow for true choice.
April 3rd, 2012 at 12:10 pm
g: Thank you for finding that post. I had planned to link to it myself.
Now, the district wants to have it both ways again. It has revealed that its previous promise was never a legal obligation. And it wants to tell voters that they can have more projects than originally expected if they will agree to raise their tax rates.
My question to Jon Isom last night was: Why didn’t you ask voters to choose between the two options two years ago?
His response: “I had nothing to do with the poll.”
As you probably recall, the district relied on a campaign consultant for that.
April 3rd, 2012 at 12:52 pm
Any district, whether school or other, who can come back after an election and say “we don’t have to keep campaign promises” needs to be politically tarred and feathered!
Tarring and feathering has been my goal for two years. Every time I hear Bonilla, Torlakson or any City leader woo and coo around Eberhart puts just one more gallon of tar in their political bucket too.
April 3rd, 2012 at 12:52 pm
Voters will be loathe to both approve the Governor’s Tax Increase for Schools, and be happy about doubling the tax rate on their homes and businesses. Gary and Sherry are already certain to take a beating on exceeding the District promise of a $60 cap — they are searching for a way out of that mousetrap. I don’t care if its “legal” to break your campaign promise — it certainly isn’t ethical or moral. Don’t forget what happened to Pres. Geo. H.W. Bush’s promise of “Read my lips: No new taxes” and then he was suckered into breaking it in the “national interest”. I would rather see an independent poll taken — perhaps sponsored by the CC Times or a taxpayer group, not a campaign consultant paid to produce a particular result.
April 3rd, 2012 at 12:58 pm
The district also plans to hold community forums. At first, it appeared that Lawrence was suggesting these may be sufficient, since polls only involve about 400 people.
But, Eberhart insisted that a poll would be useful because it would sample random voters, whereas people who show up to public meetings tend to be more involved in the district.
April 3rd, 2012 at 5:39 pm
Let’s all go back and read this old post too:
Remember the missing slides? Does Isom really want to contend that he had “nothing” to do with the poll—how about editing the results?
http://www.ibabuzz.com/onassignment/2010/07/27/online-chat-regarding-mt-diablo-district%E2%80%99s-measure-c-at-11-a-m/
VOTE wisely.
April 3rd, 2012 at 5:50 pm
g: Thank you so much for finding that post. I had also planned to link to that.
In answer to your question: No, Isom was not responsible for the poll or for the board presentation. That was done by EMC Research.
It appears that EMC Research convinced the campaign committee and board that it would have the best chance to pass a bond measure if it promised to keep the tax rate the same as it was for the 2002 Measure C. So, EMC didn’t even bother to ask voters whether they would be willing to pay higher rates.
Polls by most other districts are more comprehensive and test several different tax rates with voters. Now, MDUSD has to go back and ask the questions EMC should have asked the first time around.
Here’s my story about last night’s meeting: http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_20319191/mt-diablo-school-board-will-poll-district-residents
April 3rd, 2012 at 6:19 pm
I greatly question any district assertion that indicates that EMC put their poll together without input from Eberhart, Lawrence, Isom and probably Whitmarsh and maybe even buddy Paul Strange.
Note that Isom gets $90 grand EVERY time bonds are sold. It is not in his best interest to have us make one big sale all at once.
Note also that he got $35 grand for his duties shown in Exhibit A of his contract under “Public Information Services”
-Create, review, and edit public information materials including letters, presentations,
flyers, and electronic correspondence as needed
- Assist in the preparation of a bond election resolution including preparing ballot language and detailed bond project list.
http://esb.mdusd.k12.ca.us/attachments/ebedf2d4-de00-4fe6-9958-2340fda8ecce.pdf
April 3rd, 2012 at 7:47 pm
If anyone thinks the Measure C campaign in 2010 was a “real” choice they are really in an alternative reality. The campaign had been planned from before the parcel tax defeat. Two very prominent board members sat on their hands during the parcel tax, and, behind the scenes, moved to defeat it while planning with their other “friends” the passage of a bond issue which would bring millions of dollars to, not teachers, staffs, and the immediate classrooms, but to their “friends” in the various trades, bond sales, oversight, etc.
As Deep Throat said, “Follow the money”.
April 3rd, 2012 at 10:15 pm
The district has posted the Powerpoint from Monday’s meeting: http://esb.mdusd.k12.ca.us/attachments/162e8255-a090-4517-8df7-30b7b632a526.pdf
April 3rd, 2012 at 11:09 pm
Thanks Theresa! I don’t understand a lot, but (between option 1 and option 3) I really don’t understand how you can cut interest by 12% and only cut debt service by 6%. Is that CABs portion in option 1 the main culprit?
Option 1, part deux–how can they speculate on what the interest will be in 2015?
Option 2– much higher and 30 years–no way!
While Option 3 seems to be the only sensible one, even if it costs more in current tax dollars, I wonder why there is no status quo Option 4, with dollar references that shows the current 40years that’s hanging over us right now. Hmmmm.
April 4th, 2012 at 9:57 am
g: That’s exactly what I asked Isom for yesterday, but he said he hadn’t calculated that yet. I told him this is not an apples-to-apples comparison until the public can see the difference between what the district is doing now and these new options. Isom said that information will be presented at the public forums, which he thinks will be held April 17, 18 and 19.
Also, the district should release similar numbers showing how they structured the first bond issuances.
I agree that it’s difficult to understand why the numbers change so dramatically in the different variables.
I also noticed that even Isom and Stone & Youngberg’s estimates for issuing $150 million in current interest bonds for 25 years varies by $22 million in total debt service!
The slide entitled “Capital Appreciation Bonds” shows a total debt service cost of more than $276 million, compared to Isom’s estimate of $254 million on the “Issuance Options” slide.
Isom said his firm’s calculations are specific to the Mt. Diablo district, while Stone & Youngberg’s were more general.
I also suggested that options 4 and 5 (do nothing or issue more expensive bonds now) could cost more than $1 billion, according to Stone & Youngberg’s estimate for capital appreciation bonds. But, Isom said he would never advise the district to issue that amount of debt and that Stone & Youngberg’s estimate was for “illustrative purposes.”
He said it’s possible for two different estimates to vary by $40 or even $50 million, based on a variety of factors.
April 4th, 2012 at 10:21 am
So, Isom has walked away with $395,000.00 in fees (so far) for 4 piddling issues totaling $127million, and has not “calculated that (debt) yet”? Anyone can see from what he did present that CIB interest nearly doubles the debt, but CABs more than sextuple the debt.
Do we even know which, or what portion of, the first four issues were CIBs vs Cabs?
April 4th, 2012 at 10:27 am
Oops, not a piddling $127 million—$121 million. Also, didn’t the board just approve a new 5th issue? Did that happen yet or not?
April 4th, 2012 at 10:39 am
I have asked Isom to provide me with the following information related to the four MDUSD bond issuances that have already occurred, which total about $120.9 million in principal:
Year issued, type of bond, principal amount, financing term, total interest and total debt service.
According to the “Measure C Background” slide, the series B and C bonds included federal subsidies, so I assume they are the CREBs and the QSCBs. I believe the series A bonds are GO. So, it’s possible the series D bonds, which totaled about $7.1 million, could have been capital appreciation bonds. Isom called and said he’ll try to get me that information today.
April 4th, 2012 at 11:02 am
Then we have what I believe to be the most recent $22million in Refunding Bonds to redeem part but not all of the 2002 Bonds (which were themselves refunding bonds covering even older Mello Roos bonds).
This most recent agreement seems to say that Stone & Youngberg can “negotiate” to sell them as either CABS or CIBS at their discretion. Maybe S&Y hasn’t sold them yet–but something about them should have been included in this most recent report–otherwise, the dollar figures cannot add up.
We also need to know more than just the difference in interest. We need to know the breakdown of costs of “expenses incidental to the issuance of the Series 2011 Bonds, including financial advisory and bond counsel services, bond insurance and rating agency fees, paying agency fees and the costs of issuance and registration of securities”.
How might these “expenses” be affected by the different “options”, 1,2,3, etc.
April 4th, 2012 at 11:10 am
On another topic, I noticed that Trustee Gary Eberhart appeared as the board liaison at last night’s CAC meeting and Trustee Linda Mayo attended as “an observer.”
Eberhart sat at the table and Mayo sat in the audience. It did not appear that anyone new had been appointed, per Board President Sherry Whitmarsh’s “secret” email to the board (which has still not been produced by the district in response to my PRA).
April 4th, 2012 at 11:23 am
Very interesting that suddenly Eberhart is on:
1)”THE” BOARD
2) CSBA representative
3) Facilities Subcommittee
4) CBOC Board Rep.
5) TECH Advisory Committee
6) CAC Advisor
Did I miss any?
He obviously has no home life, and would appear to not have time for much Paid employment either. Maybe the reports of unemployment were not exaggerated after all.
April 4th, 2012 at 1:16 pm
@105 g….The district and board instruct the underwriter whether to sell the bonds on a negotiated or competitive bid process. The board should substantiate and inform the public why it would pursue either of these methods since there are advantages and disadvantages to negotiated vs. Competitive bidding process. In looking at S&Y’s contract, Cabs are more costly to issue than Cibs.
April 4th, 2012 at 1:24 pm
Alicia, do you know how much the district has issued in CABS?
I received information from Isom’s office that reported the district sold about $50.4 million in GO bonds in 2010 and about $7.1 million in GO bonds in 2011, but it didn’t say if they were CIBS or CABS.
April 4th, 2012 at 1:32 pm
The Series C bonds were CIBs, as QSCBs issued under ARRA regulations, and the Series D bonds were issued as both CABs and Convertible CABs. But I could not find out how much of each.
April 4th, 2012 at 1:34 pm
Were the Series A bonds CIBs?
Isom told me after the Monday board meeting: “I’ve always said: ‘We’ll never do 40-year CABs.’”
April 4th, 2012 at 1:51 pm
Series A= $2,997,216.20 Capital Appreciation Bonds, showing maturity in 2022, and $47,459,258.80 Convertible Capital Appreciation Term Bonds, showing maturity in 2035.
Series B= CREBS–$25,880,000.00 at 5.548% Term Bonds due August 1, 2027
April 4th, 2012 at 2:03 pm
Where are you getting this info?
Isom’s office told me the district issued about $59.4 million in CREBS maturing Aug. 1, 2027.
April 4th, 2012 at 2:03 pm
I left out the best part, Series A were sold at 12% interest thru 2021, and drops to 9.7% in 2022.
See here:
http://esb.mdusd.k12.ca.us/attachments/98e53d24-edc6-468d-bfa0-936036b50053.pdf
April 4th, 2012 at 2:07 pm
Another interesting detail: cost of issuance for $110 million in bonds was “$1,781,511.06 or less.”
What it doesn’t say is how much went to each company involved in the issuance.
April 4th, 2012 at 2:20 pm
No, and I found the info on random search. If it was actually included as an agenda Attachment, I did not find it. I did find how Richards set it up for banking/drawdown purposes though. http://esb.mdusd.k12.ca.us/attachments/199f381c-00e0-477b-a2d7-3a58eb93b41b.pdf
I wonder if this drawdown schedule has been followed–if it MUST, by some law, be followed, and how is the drawdown schedule affected by more recent bond sales.
This is the only drawdown schedule I’ve seen, so I’m wondering if there is such a document out there for the newer Series.
April 4th, 2012 at 2:48 pm
I’m assuming the difference of $33,660,000.00 on the Series B bonds between the $25,880,000.00 on the Cost of Issuance statement and the total of $59,540,000.00 actually sold on Series B, is due to the Federal CREBS reimbursement?
April 4th, 2012 at 3:21 pm
Here’s what a principal in Isom’s office sent in an email:
“The District’s pursuit of seeking federal subsidy dollars through the issuance of ‘New Clean & Renewable Energy Bonds’ and ‘Qualified School Construction Bonds’ saved the District taxpayers a large sum of interest ($25,342,785.25 in interest savings). Also, I think it’s important to point out the District has financed $120,995,057 of par bonds at on interest cost of $108,974,866 for a total P&I of $229,969,923. This translates into a principal over total debt service ratio of 1.90%, which is very favorable compared to most school districts throughout the state.”
April 4th, 2012 at 4:30 pm
Maybe, (Isom person). But CREBs allotments are fully depleted! (hope they don’t make us pay them back for fraud) I believe QSCBs are too? Not sure. Let’s look forward at the next $227,000,000.00. Who’s going to bite that next interest bullet for us? Uncle Deep Pockets has closed up shop.
If you add about 1.6% “cost of issuance” to the bottom line, quoting 1.9% debt ratio starts to fall apart, and when you look at total cost to borrow on some of the bonds, for instance:
For those Refunding bonds, where we have to also pay the cost of “any redemption premium thereon, the costs of providing notices of redemption, the costs of paying for other agents to provide for the processing and payments of such Series 2002 Bonds and all expenses incidental to the issuance of the Series 2011 Bonds, including financial
advisory and bond counsel services, bond insurance and rating agency fees, paying agency fees and the costs of issuance and registration of securities”.
—
OK, talk to me some more about our great 1.9% debt ratio.
April 4th, 2012 at 5:16 pm
@209 Theresa….the district sold $50.4 million in Cabs on 9/30/10. $7 million in Cibs were sold in April 2011. I’ll send you the links to the debt service schedules later. They can be seen in the official bond statements at http://WWW.Emma.msrb.org. Just search on Mt. Diablo and click on the 9/30/10 bond.
April 4th, 2012 at 5:26 pm
@214 G The series A $50.4 in Cabs were issued under government code 53506, where 53532 allows the effective yield on bonds sold at a discount can be as high as 12%. 12% is the maximum effective yield. If the bonds had been sold following the education code 15146, the Cab bond would not be allowed. The district was required to inform the public prior to the election whether they would issue the bonds pursuant to the government code or the more conservative education code. Also, the board was required to disclose at the same time the bonds’ maximum interest rate as a percentage…which they did not do.
April 4th, 2012 at 5:30 pm
@215…I had asked for invoices for cost of issuance in a formal records request. I was told by Rolen that the district does not have invoices.
April 4th, 2012 at 6:48 pm
Here’s a blog post about what the Parent Advisory Council has been up to lately: http://bit.ly/HXFBnY
Meeting tonight will focus on budget, PE and strategic planning.
April 4th, 2012 at 9:22 pm
Alicia, it is unfortunate for the taxpayers that the Board allowed their advisors to use Govt Code instead of Ed Code. I doubt that at least three people on the board know the difference, or have ever looked it up.
However as part of Govt Code 53506 there is reference indicating that the district MUST follow Ed Code 15146 as far as certain reporting goes:
(4) Estimates of the costs associated with the bond issuance.
(c) After the sale, the governing board shall (not “may” but “shall”-g) do both of the following:
(1) Present the actual cost information for the sale at its next scheduled public meeting.
(2) Submit an itemized summary of the costs of the bond sale to the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission.
(d) The governing board shall ensure that all necessary information and reports regarding the sale or planned sale of bonds
by the school district it governs are submitted to the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission in compliance with Section
8855 of the Government Code.
—
In addition to Isom’s $35K contract to oversee dissemination of Bond information to the public, and his $90K per bond issue contract, the District did adhere to item (d) above, when it engaged him by contract on 3/29/11 for the sum of $5,000.00 to fill out a simple form for CDIAC reporting and compliance.
Isom may not feel obligated to answer to either you or Theresa, but the Board has a legal obligation to answer to us, and I have found NO indication that after the sale of ANY of the issues did the Board report out the “cost of sale” to the public at the “next scheduled meeting”.
April 4th, 2012 at 11:26 pm
Some other scary things about the District. Reading warrant reports I’ve wondered about the tons of payments to Ikon and Office Depot equipment leases.
I was shocked to see on the Issue C and D disclosure that we have leases for “computer equipment, copy machines and portable classrooms under various agreements” currently totaling $11,485,003.00!
I was also shocked to see the disclosure that a portion of the Series ‘D’ very high interest CABS money would be deposited into
the Debt Service Fund to pay a portion of the interest on the other Bonds. Talk about robbing Peter….
April 5th, 2012 at 8:18 am
G…where did you see disclosure to use Series D to pay interest debt service on another bond?
April 5th, 2012 at 9:06 am
Alicia, it’s on page 17 or the Preliminary Statement. Unfortunately, no details, such as dates or dollars, are filled in.
It says Series C will pay for HS classrooms and repair the two pools (pools that Prop 55 has been used on over and over again).
http://esb.mdusd.k12.ca.us/attachments/82656e9b-f8fa-46c7-9cc8-158e5f20610e.pdf
April 5th, 2012 at 9:59 am
g: I thought it was odd that the district claimed it was using the QSCBs for those projects too, since they were virtually completed by the time the bonds were issued and had already been paid for with Prop. 55 funds. Pedersen told me this was because the district had to have “shovel-ready” projects to qualify for QSCBs. But, it seems that it didn’t matter that the projects were already nearly done.
I also noticed that the most recent quarterly report includes the pool replacement at MDHS, but doesn’t have any information under “Project Schedule.” That may be because the entire project was done or nearly done before the district got the Measure C money.
April 5th, 2012 at 10:09 am
Theresa, Having Chevron back our application for CREBS a year before Measure C went on a ballot, and lying to get QSCBs seemed to me to be a sure shot to get both the Feds and State to come ask for their money back.
I guess the District counts on both of them to be too busy playing politics to notice.
But I thought for sure the Grand Jury would notice.
April 5th, 2012 at 12:46 pm
Theresa…I only asked for the CREB applications submitted to the IRS. Do you have copies of the QSCB applications?
April 5th, 2012 at 1:36 pm
Alicia take a look at the Premium and Issue costs on this one. I’m surprised they didn’t release it on April 1st! Was there any mention of this being in the works at the last couple of meetings about excalating sales of the bonds?
Today they are issuing for sale the Refunding Bonds for 2002 Series B-2. $40,540.00. First redemption due 7/1–they must need cash NOW? Last redemption 2026.
http://emma.msrb.org/EP612484-EP479182-EP879590.pdf
I remember the board approving something like $22million a couple of months ago. I don’t remember $40.5million??
April 5th, 2012 at 1:38 pm
Ooops, Last redemption on 2029, not 2026.
April 5th, 2012 at 1:41 pm
Cost of issuance: $350,245.42 for “Payment of Underwriters’ discount, Bond and Disclosure Counsel fees, Special Tax Counsel fees, financial advisory fees, rating agency fees, escrow verification agent fee and other costs of issuance.”
April 5th, 2012 at 2:01 pm
Plus they’re being sold at premium (Alicia can explain that waayy better than I), but I look at it as up-front-out-the-door cost is $5,168,827.00 before we ever see a dime in savings (if there truly is any) over just leaving 2002 alone to be paid on the original schedule at the original rate.
April 5th, 2012 at 2:03 pm
Plus, then there is the $-unknown Cost of Redemption, which I don’t think is included in the Cost of Issuance.
April 5th, 2012 at 2:56 pm
Brian Lawrence’s top priorities as the first candidate to announce (as far as I know) are: closing the achievement gap, financial accountability, transparency and staff: http://bit.ly/HTkUJv
April 6th, 2012 at 2:28 pm
I have posted the complete proposal submitted to the board by a coalition that is urging increasing the Measure C bond tax rates to accelerate bond sales, lower overall costs and speed up construction: http://www.ibabuzz.com/onassignment/2012/04/06/a-closer-look-at-proposal-to-increase-bond-tax-rates-in-mdusd/
April 21st, 2012 at 4:26 pm
three.Feasibility: analysis about how sensible the requirements are in conditions of hard work, time, fees.