Dear Editor,
No matter how one reads it, Jane Howard’s discussion of GUSD
school construction finances in relation to Measure I (Letters –
Aug. 12), is just another shuck-and-jive.
Dear Editor,
No matter how one reads it, Jane Howard’s discussion of GUSD school construction finances in relation to Measure I (Letters – Aug. 12), is just another shuck-and-jive.
After describing four projects underway she says she’s “chair of the GUSD Citizen Oversight Committee … formed in Feb. 2003 … to review the school district’s use of Measure I funds.” That’s no longer true! The original COC, formed under state law, has become a generalized COC because, she says, the school board “requested the (Measure I) COC … review all expenditures for school facilities including Measure J funds and state contributions.”
Where is authorization in state law for GUSD to “request” the Measure I COC to review anything other than Measure I funds? The law, AB 1908, states: “The purpose of the citizens’ oversight committee shall be to inform the public concerning the expenditure of bond revenues … and shall advise the public as to whether a school district is in compliance.”
Says Steve Brinkman, GUSD assistant superintendent for administrative services, in an April letter: “We (GUSD) now have 13 active projects the Citizens Oversight Committee oversees. These involve approximately $170 million in projected expenses.” How, Jane Howard, did Measure I COC become overseer of 13 projects, under direction of GUSD, rather than an independent COC?
The Education Code, article 15280, states: “The governing board of the district shall, without spending bond funds, provide the citizens’ oversight committee with any necessary technical assistance in furtherance of its purpose and sufficient resources to publicize the conclusion of the citizens’ oversight committee.” Why then did COC vice-chairman Ray Sanitize, at the March 17 COC meeting, claim: “the committee’s responsibility is to the Board of Education and not to the public.”
You close your letter stating “GUSD taxpayers are entitled to a complete accounting of the dollars approved in Measure I. The COC is committed to that role of accountability and distributing the information to the general public.”
When? How? You write: “Expenditures for the above … projects are not exclusively from Measure I …” How then will the COC provide accountability for Measure I money when it’s mixed with other funding? For the public to know if/how/where/when/why/to whom Measure I funds are spent requires detailed financial tabulations – listing each project, to whom assigned, that firm’s location, beginning and completion dates, amount paid, and a diminishing cash balance of Measure I funds. This is not being done. Says Steven Brinkman, “Because of this scope ($170 million oversight) and the incredible number of transactions it is not practicable to provide a detail of each expenditure …”
How convenient to avoid Measure I accountability! Neither a “letter to the editor”, a Web posting of COC meeting minutes, or quoting a GUSD “leader” fulfills the legal requirements for accountability, Jane Howard.
James Brescoll, Gilroy
