By Theresa Harrington
Contra Costa Times
Posted: 08/21/2011 12:00:00 AM PDT
This is an excerpt of On Assignment, education writer Theresa Harrington's blog on Contra Costa County schools. Read more and post comments at IBABuzz.com/onassignment. Follow her at Twitter.com/tunedtotheresa.
Aug. 15
In April, the Contra Costa grand jury released a report regarding the Mt. Diablo district's 2010 Measure C bond, organizational structure and finances. I recently obtained the district's response, which was sent May 24. I am posting both (excerpted) below:
"Grand jury report: Financial challenges persist at MDUSD
Mt. Diablo Unified School District, like other school districts, has suffered revenue losses.
The District has had ongoing budget deficits due to declining enrollment and reduced state funding.
The district continues to face increasing costs for salaries and benefits.
In an effort to address revenue losses and to complete identified projects not funded by a 2002 Bond, the district board of education sought passage of a bond measure that was later approved by the voters.
Four factors raised questions regarding the board's procedures and transparency:
An expedited bond initiation process.
A lack of open discussion at board meetings of the full range of costs for financing a
Advertisement
bond.
Revisions to the organization's structure within the district.
Continuing budget shortfalls.
Completed initial bond offerings suggest that bond interest expenses should be less than the worst-case scenario calculated by the bond adviser or reported in the news media.
A potential 42-year life of the 2010 bond could tie taxpayers to a long-term financial commitment that significantly impacts future boards' ability to address funding shortfalls.
... On March 9, 2010, a resolution to seek voter approval for a $348 million bond was unanimously approved by the board. Alternative bond financing measures provided by a financial adviser were reviewed by district staff.
However, these financing alternatives were not discussed at open board meetings.
The resolution was placed on the June ballot for voter approval.
The terms and conditions of the bond included maintaining the existing tax rate (currently $60 tax per $100,000 of property valuation), and extending the repayment duration for up to 42 years. In the judgment of the board, this scenario provided the best opportunity for voter approval.
... Some parents mounted a 'Yes on C' campaign that was funded by an assorted group of interested parties.
There was no formal rebuttal on the ballot measure filed with the Contra Costa County Elections Office.
The 2010 ballot measure does not state a range of costs to the taxpayers for the entire bond term. Voters approved the bond in June 2010.
The Bond measure, from inception to voter approval, took only five months. ...
Findings:
1. No discussion of the 2010 bond's possible financial ramifications took place at open board meetings before the board passed the resolution to proceed with a ballot measure. ...
Recommendations:
1. When contemplating future taxing measures, the board should allow sufficient time for full disclosure to the public of financial information including legal fees, underwriting costs and repayment obligations.
The board should develop a written process addressing discussion of the financial consequences of taxing measures in a public forum and share their proposal with the public in the next 180 days."
Here's the district's response (excerpted):
" '1. No discussion of the 2010 bond's possible financial ramifications took place at the open board meetings before the board passed the resolution to proceed with a ballot measure.'
Response:
The respondent disagrees with the finding and is unclear as to the factual basis there for. The board had an extensive conversation on March 9, 2010, concerning the possible financial ramifications of the bond.
The board discussed the tax rate extension, tax rate estimates, the par amount of the bond, and a possible bond proceeds schedule. There has been no allegation that the board neither was provided, nor failed to consider all legally required information. ..."
AUG. 17 UPDATE: I spoke to Lloyd Bell, the current civil grand jury foreman. I asked him about the district's response to finding number 1, since this directly contradicts the grand jury's finding. Bell said the grand jury does have options to follow up.
"It's very important that the public also has within its authority the ability to appear at a board meeting and question their response to the grand jury's inquiry," Bell said.
Do you believe the board should have discussed the report and response during a public meeting?
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_18718571
No comments:
Post a Comment