Why The Voters Within The Fullerton Joint Union
High School District Should Vote “No” On Measure I,
a $175,000,000 Bond Issue.
By Barry Levinson
Throughout this year I received three color brochures from the Fullerton Joint Union High School District (FJUHSD).
Each brochure mentioned that they are considering a new bond issue. Finally on
August 5th, the school board voted to place this $175,000,000 25-year
bond on the November 4, 2014 ballot. The added cost to the taxpayer
will be $19 per $100,000 of assessed property value. If your home is
assessed for $500,000, your added tax burden will be $95 per year for
25 years. Taxpayers must remember that the $175,000,000 price tag is
the principal value of the bond. We the taxpayers are on the hook for all
the interest as well, which easily doubles the total cost.
It was irresponsible that the board waited until the very last minute to
make its’ decision to place this bond before the voters. Taxpayers will
be saddled with this increase in property taxes for decades, while the
voters have only three short months to consider this huge bond issue.
What the district will not voluntarily mention is that we the taxpayers
will still be paying off the last FJUHSD bond approved in 2002 for
another 13 years.
 Marilyn Buchi |
 Andy Montoya |
 Robert N. Hathaway |
 Barbara Kilponen |
 Robert Singer Ph.D. |
The bond will be repaid over a 25-year period. However, the list of
things that the school district wants to use the bond money for are both
long-term and short-term projects. Finance 101 states that it is bad
economic policy to finance short-term projects with long-term money.
For example, a prudent person would not take out a 25-year loan to
finance the purchase of a new computer with a useful life of only 3 or 4
years.
A responsible board would have proposed this bond issue at least 3-6
months earlier in the year. It seems the board purposely waited until
the very last moment to spring this very large bond issue on the public.
A school board more concerned with transparency and openness would not have waited so long.
They still have not provided the public with
the details we will need to make an informed decision. According to one
current board member, the board members themselves have not been
given a specific accounting on how the money will be divided by school
and by project. Good governance requires better, and we the people
demand better from every member of this board and from our
Superintendent.
Do not attempt to adjust the resolution. Seeing things clearly is not my intention.
Under Superintendent’s Bond Resolution Remarks – August 2014,
Superintendent Giokaris states the following, in part:
“Bond financed projects will address facilities needs for repairs,
upgrades, and improvements in the following areas if approved by the
voters.” He goes on to state: “During the economic crisis that began in
2008/2009 and still continues, the District’s operating budget was
reduced by $14 million each year. While we have managed with 11%
fewer dollars to improve our programs and student achievement, there
is no money left to address facilities needs.”
The Superintendent is inferring that much of that $14 million yearly
reduction in the FJUHSD operating budget was taken from facilities,
including the repairs and maintenance the district now wants to
complete with part of the bond proceeds. If I do a little old fashioned
math, you will see that as much as $84 million ($14 million x 6 years)
has been diverted away from facility repair and maintenance. Now the
district wants the taxpayers to bail them out and to help cover up their
poor financial management for the last six years. I say to voters within
the FJUHSD, that we should not reward the district for their poor
decisions. Let the district acknowledge that they made poor choices in
the past and that going forward they will now live within their means.
Please note that the FJUHSD has one of the highest average payrolls of
any school district in Orange County.
There are 13 Bond Money Project Areas that are identified in the
Sample Ballot and Voter Information Pamphlet. For example one project
category is Competitive Athletic Facilities and Physical Education, which
includes to “Renovate/modernize/expand/upgrade existing facilities
district-wide”. Under Gymnasiums it includes painting. Under Sports
fields/tracks it includes all weather tracks, new and/or artificial turf.
Under Baseball/softball fields it includes field/infield renovation, newgrass and/or artificial turf.
None of the items that I have just mentioned
will last 25 years or more. Clearly repairs should have been done on a
regularly scheduled basis as part of a well thought out maintenance
plan. But your tax dollars to repay the new bond issue will be spent on
repairs and maintenance as well as long-term improvements. Why is this
important to bring up to the reader? The simple answer is that while
some of these repairs and maintenance projects will only last 5 or 10
years, we the taxpayer will be paying for it for 25 years. Does that mean
the board will come back again in another 10 years or so to ask for more
tax money to repair these items once again? Why has the district failed
to set aside the proper amount of annual funds to take care of the usual
repair and maintenance items that are very predictable?
The Superintendent states as I mentioned previously that there was a $14
million reduction in the district’s operating budget for the last 6 plus
years. Why hasn’t the district made the proper adjustments to take care
of these repair and maintenance needs of the district during that
time frame? The taxpayers deserve answers to these questions
While the school board is blindly following the new and unproven
Common Core requirements from state bureaucrats with virtually no
parental involvement or consent, the board at the same time wants a
boatload more of our hard-earned tax dollars.
I ask of you, as taxpayers, citizens and parents:
Does it sound fair that the same school board who is marching in
stride with state-wide bureaucrats to take away our local control of
our schools is asking us to give them hundreds of millions more of
our hard-earned tax dollars?
Does the fact that they either do not have or have not shared with the
public any detailed accounting of how the money will be spent by
school or by project seem open and transparent?
Does it make good fiscal sense that they have listed many projects
whose useful life will be long gone a decade or two before we finally
pay for the bond itself?
Does it make any sense that we the taxpayers should bail out the
district for their poor financial management of the school budgets for
the last six years?
The only logical answer to these questions is “No”.
Vote “No” on Measure I, the $175,000,000 FJUHSD bond issue.
From: George Giokaris <GGiokaris@fjuhsd.k12.ca.us>;
Subject: RE: Campaigning on School Property
Sent: Tue, Oct 7, 2014 12:08:56 AM
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 1:43 PM
To: George Giokaris
Subject: Campaigning on School PropertyDr. Giokaris,I heard something quite disturbing today and wanted to get your side of the story. What I heard would demonstrate a massive lapse in judgement which I just cannot fathom coming from you. I heard that you had Doug Chaffee advocating support for the bond on the Troy High School campus today and that you have PTA members using school facilities and equipment for phone banking and campaign organizing. Please let me know if any of this is true.Sincerely,
FJUHSD EMPLOYEE RANI GOYAL EMAIL CROSSES THE LINE
“Hello Indians!
I hope everyone has had a great start to their year and have settled in nicely to all that the Tribe has to offer. Attached to this email are some documents to help you understand Measure I that you will see on your ballot on November 4th. Please take a moment to look over the general information and the more specific information to FUHS. While not all the work needed at the school will get done if this measure is passed, a lot will be. This means that no matter the project, every student will benefit from the scope of work that is completed under this measure. Thank you for all you do for the school, your students and as always, Go Tribe!
Sincerely,
Rani Goyal
Principal”
______________________________________________________________________
By my reading of page 2 of this fact sheet from the California School Boards Association http://www.csba.org/Advocacy/~/media/CSBA/Files/Advocacy/ELA/2011_02_UseOfPublicResourcesForBallotMeasures.ashx, even CSBA interprets using the email list as crossing the line, and CSBA is probably one of the friendliest groups to the idea of school districts sending out school bond literature.
On page 1, CSBA notes there are three categories of activities designated by the State Supreme Court regarding public resources on election issues:
- Permissible informational activities
- Impermissible campaign activities
- Unclear activities which require further analysis based on the “style, tenor and timing” of the activity
Even if we generously interpret this document as falling in the “unclear activities” category (if we accept for the sake of argument that the email/attachment never expressly advocates). However, using the email list just two weeks before the election certainly causes “style, tenor and timing” problems.
A more reasonable interpretation that it’s impermissible campaign activities. That entire “The Why” section and possibly the last bullet of “District’s Facilities Needs” are express advocacy by my reading.
Under Education Code Section 7054, it appears either the FPPC or the DA could bring an enforcement issue against the district for this.
#1 by Barry Levinson on October 9, 2014 - 4:52 pm
With regard to Measure J, the $574,000,000 North OC Community College District Bond Measure. I have to say the Yes on J people are incredibly brazen. I say that because I just received a beautiful color mailer which states all the good things the District will do for our returning veterans. It is brazen because they said very much the same thing in 2002 to pass the last District bond. You know the one that we will be paying for until the year 2027. Unfortunately, the District spent virtually no money on the Veteran centers they were to build or remodel. In fact they closed down an older veteran’s facility on one of their campuses in 2003, supposedly for lack of funds.
Vote No. on J. If they did not follow through on their promises in 2002, I certainly would not bet on them following through on their promises in 2014.