BOUSD Puts $148 Million Dollar Bond On November Ballot!

BOUSD Board met last Monday evening and once again I’m turning to a Brea resident with special insight into the district, Connie Lanzisera. Connie has monitored the BOUSD for many years, holding them accountable on a wide variety of issues… mostly linked to money. The Board attempted to very quietly hustle a bond issue onto November’s ballot and almost got away with it. Here’s the backstory from Connie.

BOUSDI would like to thank the many Brea residents that attended the BOUSD Board meeting Monday night voicing their opinion on a possible $148 million dollar bond. Even though the outcome did not turn out as many had hoped, it was good to see the public become involved in the discussion.

For many hoping to at least delay the bond issue for a couple of years, the BOUSD Board’s decision to put it on the November 8th ballot appeared to have been decided before the meeting began.

Unfortunately, the School Board chose not to listen to Brea taxpayers who had legitimate complaints about, amongst many things, the lack of transparency thus far in this process.

Strong opposition voiced.

Every person opposing the bond measure told the board they would support a bond IF and only IF the District was truthful, transparent, and thorough in explaining how the $148 million dollars would be spent.

It seems both prudent and reasonable to ask for a detailed list of projects and costs the District wants to spend. However, the District has provided only a vague list in their attempt to define the scope of work to be performed.

They want the taxpayer to cough up $148 million dollars without any prior oversight from Brea residents… no questions asked.

BOUSDBOUSD – History repeats itself.

This mimics the Board’s strategy in 1999 when they duped voters into approving a $27 million dollar bond for which there has never been an adequate independent audit. We are still paying for it even though the money was spent many years ago.

In 2012 the Board tried to slip another $54 million dollar bond initiative onto the ballot but voters were smarter and the measure failed… much to the embarrassment of both district staff and the Board who assumed the measure would easily pass.

This year, attempting to gather public input, phone surveys were conducted on a very limited basis. Less than 300 taxpayers were contacted at a cost of $127,340 (those phone calls cost $425 each).

The consultant confirmed they called from a list of voters who had voted in the last two presidential elections because they had a high probability of voting this November. They called the week after their huge sob story postcard landed in Brea mailboxes. This is playing a numbers game, nothing else.

How many surveyed were homeowners or renters like you and me who will eventually be stuck paying the bill? Hardly a projectable sample.

Marketing vs. Engagement.

The District, rather than legitimately seeking public support, is relying on buzzwords tested by the financial interests in the bond industry. Rather than conducting broadly announced public hearings where community opinions might become part of the public record, the matter slipped onto last week’s agenda like a thief in the night.

Had sharp eyes not spotted the attempt to sneak the resolution through, there would have been little or no opposition expressed. A handful of teachers and PTA parents would have congratulated the Board for their forward thinking.

BOUSDBOUSD – A pattern of deception.

If the School District begins this process deceiving the community and trying to mask their intent, how can we expect them to be transparent and truthful when it comes to spending our money? Their flagrant disregard for truth is obvious.

The Board couldn’t (or wouldn’t) answer questions to how the $148 million dollars would be spent. Their answers, turning to those tested buzzwords, were generic phrases like fixing leaky roofs, upgrade wireless infrastructure, energy efficiencies and environmental upgrades and reinforce eroding hillsides.

This will raise the quality of education how?

Board member excuses ring hollow.

BOUSDBoard members spoke of their good stewardship and management of district assets, bragged about their success “saving” the district during tough financial times and took issue with comments from the audience to the contrary.

BOUSDBottom line, this is the Board that, in spite of millions of dollars in bond revenue and millions in profits from the sale of properties, has allowed our schools to deteriorate into a completely deplorable and unacceptable state of disrepair.

Our children and parents deserve better… so do those of us whose property taxes will take a big jump for another 30 years. The plan is not sufficiently clear or adequately detailed. The public has been disregarded.

The only reasonable choice is to vote no on the BOUSD school bond measure in November.

BOUSD

Markman & Murdock’s Sour Grapes Reactions.

sourgrapes_160

Sour grapes anyone?

Tuesday’s (03/04) “Matters From The Audience” found the Mayor and City Attorney spouting sour grapes over the recent loss handed to them by the California Fourth District Court of Appeals in the Vargas v. Balz litigation.

In response to a closed session item reviewing the case, Brea resident Connie Lanzisera (click to read transcript) clearly laid out the reasons why Council should slam the door on this and put a stop to the runaway legal expenses. In brief, they are:

  • The appeal was neither moot nor frivolous. Though the election had passed, the larger legal issue remains and the law deserved to be clarified for elections officials state wide. The city’s objection was dismissed and the appellant’s claims confirmed.
  • The court ruled that the City Clerk violated election law, twice. Any doubt that there were unlawful acts committed has been removed by a panel of judges.
  • The court’s opinion pointed out that the city refused to follow the law, ignoring requests to correct their offense at a point where resolution would have cost the city nothing. This brings into sharp focus the arrogant disregard for the law that seems to have become an embedded part of city management.

Lanzisera closed saying, “We can think of no rationale that would justify the city to pursue a further appeal.” I agree wholeheartedly.

Markman rants.

Sour Grapes

In response to Ms. Lanzisera’s comments, City Attorney Markman (click to read transcript) praised the judicial system then immediately said it was wrong.

Markman, though unable to produce evidence supporting his position, once again pretended that the City Clerk acted prudently. He forgot to mention she was operating under instructions from him and/or City Manager O’Donnell.

History proved otherwise.

Council Member Moore stated, in the special meeting Markman mentioned, his discomfort with delegating writing duties to Schweitzer and Murdock (who had already, prematurely, prepared arguments laced with character assassination) and giving up his right of review and approval. He abstained when the matter came to a vote. Simonoff was out of town but had registered his objections to what had already been penned.

Not long thereafter, Moore came out in favor of Measure U – The Open Governance Act and opposed Measure T – which, amongst other things, imposed salary limitations for Council and senior staff.

Clearly there was never unanimity within Council, precisely the illusion that was perpetrated by instructing the Registrar of Voters to print on all election materials the signatory implying that arguments and rebuttals against the measures had the support of the entire Council.

If this isn’t illegal electioneering, what is? How does the FPPC miss something like this?

Precisely the issue addressed by the Court of Appeals and why they thought it best to clearly warn election officials that this sort of behavior, long prohibited by law, will not be tolerated and may be litigated after the fact.

Markman still ranting.

Markman contended that the city defended in good faith (while running up a $200,000 legal bill) though he completely dodged having had multiple opportunities to settle the matter outside a courtroom and for zero cost to tax payers. He did admit that he never thought the money was well spent.

Maybe if he had given Council one chance to wade in with their opinion, we wouldn’t have flushed so much money down the drain.

Murdock whines.

sour grapesIn typical “ready, fire, aim” style, fueled by his embarrassment I’m sure, Murdock interjected, “Mr. Markman, to clarify, who filed the appeal?” Markman named Vargas and, again hinted at proponents of the measures.

Murdock then added, “And that appeal was filed after the election was long over, correct?” Again attempting to misdirect the public into believing the appeal had been moot though the Fourth District Court of Appeals clearly thought otherwise. A complete smoke screen and sour grapes again!

Adding insult to injury.

One must remember Murdock repeatedly reminded voters of candidate Vargas’s “costing the city so much” during the campaign, when it turns out the city bears the blame for driving up legal fees.

Line this up with Murdock getting sanctioned and fined $2000 by the FPPC (California Fair Political Practices Commission) for his undisclosed leadership of the Breans Against Measures T & U PAC.

I find this sort of behavior childish, sociopathic and vindictive. The unabashed willingness to spread half-truths and outright deceptions, to unfairly drag an opponent’s name through the mud, has become commonplace in the political arena.

Markman puts a lid on Murdock’s cheeky comments.

lawyerMarkman, “We raised the point of mootness with the Court of Appeals… they didn’t agree. We’re not going to sit here and retry it or whine about a court decision in this system.”

It’s a very rare moment when Markman and I are in synch. This was certainly one of them. Putting Murdock in his place will go down as one of my favorite Council moments.

I’m hoping Markman also had the good sense to point council away from perpetuating this in any way. This is the epitome of a lose-lose situation and we can ill afford continued expense or public embarrassment.

 

OC Register Says No On Measure E.

– – – – – Update: 06.06.12 – – – – –

Brea voters defeat Measure E, saving property owners millions in increased taxes and preventing a massive legacy of debt from being passed on to their children. Now it’s time to sweep out all the old deadwood from the School Board and put some creative thinking, fiscally responsible people in control.

– – – – – – – Original Post: 06.04.12 – – – – – – – 

The Orange Country Register strongly opposes Measure E, the $54 million General Obligation bond that will put Brea homeowners deeper and deeper in debt without offering anything remotely looking like a detailed plan to spend it. The 20 year plan on the school district’s website is woefully lacking project specific information.

Here’s what the OCR Editorial Board has to say, “Measure E – NO – This measure would increase by $54 million Brea Olinda schools’ bond burden to build facilities with a mere 55-percent vote. Taxes would increase $9 a year on each $100,000 of a property’s assessed valuation.

We calculate that to be $40.50 a year for a new homeowner. Homes purchased before about 2002 would be assessed less because of Proposition 13 protections. But costs could jump as high as $34 per $100,000 in fiscal year 2028-29, or $153 a year for a $455,000 home.

Government money is fungible, meaning this increase for “facilities” could be used to free money for any other purpose, including teacher and administrator salaries and operating expenses.”

To see what the OCR has to say about other ballot measures, go to: “Recommendations for June 5 ballot

Hopefully, tomorrow, cooler heads will prevail and the very expensive media blitz produced by the small special interest group feigning interest in our kid’s education will be foiled. They say it’s for the kids. It’s not.

Do the right thing, vote NO on Measure E.

Your kids and neighbors will thank you for years to come.