Dear Editor,
Your editorial (
”
GUSD Must Find a Way
”
– May 16) critically evaluates Gilroy Unified School District’s
failure to properly manage Measure I money leading to its current
crisis: a $39 million shortfall to complete the measure’s best
seller – a new high school. Belatedly it calls for accountability
which Measure I never had!
Dear Editor,
Your editorial (“GUSD Must Find a Way” – May 16) critically evaluates Gilroy Unified School District’s failure to properly manage Measure I money leading to its current crisis: a $39 million shortfall to complete the measure’s best seller – a new high school. Belatedly it calls for accountability which Measure I never had!
State law (AB 1098) requires a successfully passed bond measure have a COC (Citizens’ Oversight Committee) FOR THAT BOND MEASURE ALONE: “The purpose of the citizens’ oversight committee shall be to inform the public concerning the expenditure of bond revenues. (It) shall actively review and report on the proper expenditure of taxpayers’ money for school construction” and “shall advise the public as to whether a school district … is in compliance with the requirements of …”
Measure I, passed in November 2002, had a COC briefly chaired by Jane Howard. Almost two years following passage, she stated (Letters, Dispatch – Aug. 12, 2004): “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 that information to the general public.” It never has!
However Ms. Howard also indicated the school board, only months following passage, “requested the Measure I (COC) … review all expenditures for school facilities including Measure J funds and state contributions.” No Measure I COC no accountability!
What should have been a subservient Board of Untrustables under the dictates of the State Education Code- Article 15280: “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 conclusions of the citizens oversight committee” became the controller directing a generalized COC overseeing 13 projects. No Measure I COC- no accountability!
As seen by Assistant Superintendent for Administrative Services Steven Brinkman (personal letter, April 1, 2004): “Because of this scope ($170 oversight) and the incredible number of transactions it is not practical to provide a detail of cash expenditures …” With no Measure I COC as required by law, and thus no accountability, the current financial crisis is not unexpected.
Mr. Brinkman further stated “We along with our counsel, believe that the information presented (via varied means) fulfills our obligation under the spirit of the law…” – they have been, and remain, in violation of the law (AB 1098) and the Election Code.
Perhaps, had there been accountability from the beginning – an ever-changing listing presenting each expenditure, its purpose, to whom it goes (including firm/individual name, address, date project payment made and a declining bond balance) – an astute outside observer might have realized Measure I funds were diminishing while its priority goals were still undone.
James Brescoll, Gilroy
