Ninth Circuit says Sweetwater fired coach for demanding equal treatment of girls

Sweetwater board members got in trouble for having dinner with contractors, but who's going to hold them accountable for firing a coach because he demanded that the law be obeyed?

Monday, September 22, 2014

Link: Title IX-Violating High School Loses Appeal By REBEKAH KEARN      (CN) - A San Diego high school must face claims that it fired the softball coach for demanding equal treatment in the girls' sports program, the 9th Circuit ruled Friday.      The ruling stems from a 2007 class action filed by five girls on the softball team at Castle Park High School in Chula Vista. Among other things, the girls contended that Sweetwater Union High School District discouraged girls from participating in athletics by giving boys more opportunities to play sports; gave boys better practice facilities, locker rooms and equipment; publicizing boys' events more than girls' events; and giving boys' sports programs more funding.      They also claimed the school district fired Chris Martinez, the girls' softball coach, after two of the girls' parents filed complaints under Title IX, the federal civil rights law that prohibits sexual discrimination in education.      U.S. District Judge M. James Lorenz concluded      in February 2012 after a 10-day bench trial that Sweetwater had discriminated against female athletes and had retaliated against Coach Martinez in violation of Title IX.      A three-judge panel with the 9th Circuit affirmed Friday.      Sweetwater had claimed in its defense that the discrepancy between female and male participation in Castle Park athletics correlated to the school's lower female enrollment generally. It also said that girls' participation in sports was on the rise, but that Castle Park girls were not interested enough in certain sports to merit permanent teams.      In siding with the girls Friday, the 9th Circuit highlighted that the disparity between girls' enrollment at Castle Park and girls' participation in sports was never less than 6.7 percent, and was often as high as 13 percent.      As such, 47 girls could have played sports if opportunities were available to them, according to the ruling.      Since Sweetwater could not explain why 47 girls were not enough to maintain at least one competitive team, its defense fails, the court found.      Equal proportionality also would not help Sweetwater pass Title IX's "effective accommodation" test because it lacks a steady history of expanding girls' sports programs at Castle Park, the court found.      In fact, it cut the girls' field hockey team twice despite active interest in the sport and enough athletes to sustain a team, the ruling states.      Sweetwater also failed to show that testimony from two of its expert witnesses - retired superintendant Peter Schiff and assistant principal Penny Parker - had been improperly excluded. Neither could support their opinions with clear, reliable methodology, according to the ruling.      "Schiff and Parker based their proposed testimony on superficial inspections of the Castle Park facilities," Judge Ronald Gould wrote for the court. "Even if a visual walkthrough, without more, could be enough in some cases to render expert testimony admissible under Rule 702, it certainly does not compel that conclusion in all cases. Moreover, as the district court found, Schiff and Parker's conclusions were based on their 'personal opinions and speculation rather than on a systematic assessment of [Castle Park's] athletic facilities and programs.' But personal opinion testimony is inadmissible as a matter of law under Rule 702, and speculative testimony is inherently unreliable." (Emphasis and brackets in original.)      As for the exclusion of 38 Sweetwater witnesses, the court found that Sweetwater improperly waited 15 months after the conclusion of discovery to disclose them.      "The theory of disclosure under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is to encourage parties to try cases on the merits, not by surprise, and not by ambush," Gould wrote.      "That another witness has made a passing reference in a deposition to a person with knowledge or responsibilities who could conceivably be a witness does not satisfy a party's disclosure obligations," he added. "An adverse party should not have to guess which undisclosed witnesses may be called to testify."      It was neither justifiable nor harmless to spring a long list of new witnesses on the plaintiffs a mere eight months before trial, and the District Court did not abuse its discretion by excluding them, the ruling states.      Pointing to the trial court's finding, after reviewing some contemporaneous evidence, that improvements to the softball facilities were still inadequate, the appellate court said Sweetwater could not show an abuse of discretion.      In light of the "systematic problem of gender inequality" still present in Castle Park's sports programs, "an injunction based on past harm" was reasonable, Gould wrote. Sweetwater likewise could not show that the students did not have standing to bring Title IX retaliation claims for its firing of Coach Martinez.      This argument "misunderstands plaintiffs' claim, which asserts that Sweetwater impermissibly retaliated against them by firing Coach Martinez in response to Title IX complaints he made on [their] behalf," Gould wrote (emphasis in original).      After firing Martinez, Sweetwater took away the team's assistant coaches, canceled their awards banquet and "forbade them from participating in a Las Vegas tournament attended by college recruiters," injuries that affirm the girls' standing, the ruling states.      The timing of when the girls complained about sex discrimination, Coach Martinez's firing and the canceling of the awards banquet is enough to show requisite causation, the ruling also states.      Moreover, Sweetwater's "shifting, inconsistent reasons" for firing Coach Martinez imply that the reasons it gave for firing him - including that he allegedly allowed an ineligible student to play and that it wanted to replace him with an on-site coach - were pretextual, and the district court correctly identified them as such, the court found.      "We reject Sweetwater's attempt to relitigate the merits of its case," the ruling states. "Title IX helps level the playing field for female athletes. In implementing this important principle, the district court committed no error." [p. 46 last graf]      Paul Carelli IV with Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz of San Diego argued the case for the school district.      Elizabeth Kristen with Legal Aid Society Employment Law Center of San Francisco represented the plaintiffs, and Department of Justice attorney Erin H. Flynn, Fatima Goss Graves with the National Women's Law Center in Washington, D.C. and Kristen Galles with Equity Legal filed amicus curiae briefs in support of the plaintiffs.      Judge N.R. Smith and Chief U.S. District Judge Morrison England, sitting by designation from Sacramento, concurred.

Ninth Circuit says Sweetwater fired coach for demanding equal treatment of girls

Sweetwater board members got in trouble for having dinner with contractors, but who's going to hold them accountable for firing a coach because he demanded that the law be obeyed?

Monday, September 22, 2014

Link: Title IX-Violating High School Loses Appeal By REBEKAH KEARN      (CN) - A San Diego high school must face claims that it fired the softball coach for demanding equal treatment in the girls' sports program, the 9th Circuit ruled Friday.      The ruling stems from a 2007 class action filed by five girls on the softball team at Castle Park High School in Chula Vista. Among other things, the girls contended that Sweetwater Union High School District discouraged girls from participating in athletics by giving boys more opportunities to play sports; gave boys better practice facilities, locker rooms and equipment; publicizing boys' events more than girls' events; and giving boys' sports programs more funding.      They also claimed the school district fired Chris Martinez, the girls' softball coach, after two of the girls' parents filed complaints under Title IX, the federal civil rights law that prohibits sexual discrimination in education.      U.S. District Judge M. James Lorenz concluded      in February 2012 after a 10-day bench trial that Sweetwater had discriminated against female athletes and had retaliated against Coach Martinez in violation of Title IX.      A three-judge panel with the 9th Circuit affirmed Friday.      Sweetwater had claimed in its defense that the discrepancy between female and male participation in Castle Park athletics correlated to the school's lower female enrollment generally. It also said that girls' participation in sports was on the rise, but that Castle Park girls were not interested enough in certain sports to merit permanent teams.      In siding with the girls Friday, the 9th Circuit highlighted that the disparity between girls' enrollment at Castle Park and girls' participation in sports was never less than 6.7 percent, and was often as high as 13 percent.      As such, 47 girls could have played sports if opportunities were available to them, according to the ruling.      Since Sweetwater could not explain why 47 girls were not enough to maintain at least one competitive team, its defense fails, the court found.      Equal proportionality also would not help Sweetwater pass Title IX's "effective accommodation" test because it lacks a steady history of expanding girls' sports programs at Castle Park, the court found.      In fact, it cut the girls' field hockey team twice despite active interest in the sport and enough athletes to sustain a team, the ruling states.      Sweetwater also failed to show that testimony from two of its expert witnesses - retired superintendant Peter Schiff and assistant principal Penny Parker - had been improperly excluded. Neither could support their opinions with clear, reliable methodology, according to the ruling.      "Schiff and Parker based their proposed testimony on superficial inspections of the Castle Park facilities," Judge Ronald Gould wrote for the court. "Even if a visual walkthrough, without more, could be enough in some cases to render expert testimony admissible under Rule 702, it certainly does not compel that conclusion in all cases. Moreover, as the district court found, Schiff and Parker's conclusions were based on their 'personal opinions and speculation rather than on a systematic assessment of [Castle Park's] athletic facilities and programs.' But personal opinion testimony is inadmissible as a matter of law under Rule 702, and speculative testimony is inherently unreliable." (Emphasis and brackets in original.)      As for the exclusion of 38 Sweetwater witnesses, the court found that Sweetwater improperly waited 15 months after the conclusion of discovery to disclose them.      "The theory of disclosure under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is to encourage parties to try cases on the merits, not by surprise, and not by ambush," Gould wrote.      "That another witness has made a passing reference in a deposition to a person with knowledge or responsibilities who could conceivably be a witness does not satisfy a party's disclosure obligations," he added. "An adverse party should not have to guess which undisclosed witnesses may be called to testify."      It was neither justifiable nor harmless to spring a long list of new witnesses on the plaintiffs a mere eight months before trial, and the District Court did not abuse its discretion by excluding them, the ruling states.      Pointing to the trial court's finding, after reviewing some contemporaneous evidence, that improvements to the softball facilities were still inadequate, the appellate court said Sweetwater could not show an abuse of discretion.      In light of the "systematic problem of gender inequality" still present in Castle Park's sports programs, "an injunction based on past harm" was reasonable, Gould wrote. Sweetwater likewise could not show that the students did not have standing to bring Title IX retaliation claims for its firing of Coach Martinez.      This argument "misunderstands plaintiffs' claim, which asserts that Sweetwater impermissibly retaliated against them by firing Coach Martinez in response to Title IX complaints he made on [their] behalf," Gould wrote (emphasis in original).      After firing Martinez, Sweetwater took away the team's assistant coaches, canceled their awards banquet and "forbade them from participating in a Las Vegas tournament attended by college recruiters," injuries that affirm the girls' standing, the ruling states.      The timing of when the girls complained about sex discrimination, Coach Martinez's firing and the canceling of the awards banquet is enough to show requisite causation, the ruling also states.      Moreover, Sweetwater's "shifting, inconsistent reasons" for firing Coach Martinez imply that the reasons it gave for firing him - including that he allegedly allowed an ineligible student to play and that it wanted to replace him with an on-site coach - were pretextual, and the district court correctly identified them as such, the court found.      "We reject Sweetwater's attempt to relitigate the merits of its case," the ruling states. "Title IX helps level the playing field for female athletes. In implementing this important principle, the district court committed no error." [p. 46 last graf]      Paul Carelli IV with Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz of San Diego argued the case for the school district.      Elizabeth Kristen with Legal Aid Society Employment Law Center of San Francisco represented the plaintiffs, and Department of Justice attorney Erin H. Flynn, Fatima Goss Graves with the National Women's Law Center in Washington, D.C. and Kristen Galles with Equity Legal filed amicus curiae briefs in support of the plaintiffs.      Judge N.R. Smith and Chief U.S. District Judge Morrison England, sitting by designation from Sacramento, concurred.

Gandara released, consultant relationship dissolved…L Street property?

Busy week at Sweetwater school district
Gandara released, consultant relationship dissolved…L Street property?
By Susan Luzzaro
San Diego Reader
Sept. 6, 2014

On September 5, the U-T reported that former Sweetwater Union High School District superintendent Jesus Gandara was released from jail on August 26. Gandara was sentenced to seven months in the county jail on June 27 for felony conspiracy and accepting gifts of travel meals and event tickets in excess of $4000.

Additionally, the U-T reported that although Gandara was released from jail, he remains in custody in an undisclosed South Bay residence. Gandara will also “forfeit more than $65,000 in retirement benefits.”

In other Sweetwater news, on September 4, at a monthly board meeting, the district’s troubled land deals got some costly relief.

The district contracted with a consultant group, E2ManageTech, to entitle three pieces of district property for high-density development. The board voted on September 4 to dissolve the relationship and pay E2ManageTech $750,000.

The Reader queried the Sweetwater’s attorney, Randall Winet, via email, if this was a buy-out. Winet responded, “The District performed an analysis of their work performed and agreed to a payment commensurate with industry standard wages and the parties agreed to a mutual release.”

E2ManageTech was paid $82,500 for three consecutive years (2011, 2012 and 2013) to move the three district properties through design reviews, zone changes, environmental studies, and a general plan amendment.

To date, only one piece of property, located on Third Avenue, was entitled. When the property was put on the market for $7 million, there were no bids...

Rubio also indicated that the district would not solicit a new proposal for consultants until an independent analysis of the “asset property utilization plan” has been performed. The plan is the district’s proposal to dispose of district properties and purchase a new district office.

Also this week, on September 3, an announcement was sent out to all Sweetwater trustee candidates by the California Trust for Public Schools. The trust holds the title to the district’s L Street property in a complicated agreement that binds all the district’s “asset” properties together.

Because all five Sweetwater trustee seats are up for grabs in the November election, the trust will be holding an October candidate forum. Marc Litchman, the CEO of the trust, said in a September 4 interview that one of his goals in holding the forum is to acquaint the public with the trust’s soccer academy concept for the district’s L Street property...

[Maura Larkins' comment: It's sad that Mr. Lichtman is only interested in promoting democracy when he's involved in a real estate deal.]

To that end, he announced: “In conjunction with local, state, and national soccer organizations, the nonprofit California Trust for Public Schools is developing a proposal to build a state-of-the-art soccer training and development academy with conference facilities and a charter school on surplus property owned by the Sweetwater Union High School District in Chula Vista.”

The current asset utilization plan put forward by Sweetwater for the L Street property is the development of 869 residential mid-rise units.

Here's a look back at another story about Gandara from June 2014. I share the concern of some commenters that while a few scapegoats were prosecuted in the South Bay Indictments scandal, the underlying problems in San Diego County school districts continue to be ignored by the media and the justice system. Ed Brand's problems, for example, were not limited to South Bay. He had some unknown problems in San Marcos School Unified from which he resigned after only a year as superintendent.

Paula Meyer · University of California, San Diego
Well, these are the ones who got caught. We're not seeing the every-day mis-appropriation of funds and general incompetence within the administrative workings of the district. And, granted that Gándara was criminally corrupt and ineffective as at his job, a big question remains, and that is, Why, considering his past performance, was Ed Brand brought back to further degrade the district?

Gloria Smestad · Top Commenter · Creative Arts, San Francisco State University
Excellent question that many find themselves asking. It has been said that he already knew the playbook.

Jaime Mercado · San Diego State University
Gloria, Brand WROTE the playbook. When I was summoned to testify, I told the Court, the DA, and the Grand Jury that I ran for the SUHSD Board in 2004 to try to stop the corruption that was well underway. I had limited success when as Brand told the Grand Jury that I ran him out of the district. Unfortunately, the dark side proved to be too strong and they banded together and defeated me in the 2008 election. I tried to warn John McCann, Board President, about bringing back Brand. I prepared folders for him and the board regarding Brand's past actions, but he gave instructions not to distribute the folders. It appears that he and Cartmill had been planning to bring back Brand all along.

Matias Garcia
The new Sweetwater High cost $56 million and should have cost half of that. The bonds were in the range of $700 Million. The amount lost to this corruption, just at this one construction project, was in the tens of millions.

Why Two Convicted Sweetwater Union High School District Officials Can Run for Re-Election

See updates on South Bay Indictments.

Judge Ana Espana said that 24-year Sweetwater Union High School District trustee Jim Cartmill was among the "least culpable offenders" convicted in the South Bay school official scandal.

He and Bertha Lopez have decided to run for re-election.

It's fine with me. I don't think Jim or Bertha were more harmful to students than the average school official--which is not to say that Jim and Bertha aren't responsible for their support of business-as-usual behavior that keeps schools in failure mode.

Even if the bad behavior that got them in trouble were completely eliminated from every district, I don't think it would make much difference for students.  The most serious problems in school governance were never addressed in the scandal.  In fact, I think the reason there were no trials was that the District Attorney didn't want these small time crooks spilling the beans about how San Diego County Office of Education runs schools for the benefit of those in power.

Why Two Convicted Sweetwater Officials Can Run for Re-Election
Bianca Bruno
Voice of San Diego
July 22, 2014

Former [Sweetwater Union High School District] board president Jim Cartmill filed earlier this month for a spot on the November ballot. Cartmill is running for a seat representing District 3, which includes schools on the east side of Chula Vista. Former trustee Bertha Lopez, one of 18 officials convicted in connection with the scandal, said at a hearing last week that she plans to run for re-election but has not yet filed the official paperwork, according to the Registrar of Voters...
San Diego Superior Court Judge Ana Espana initially ruled that Cartmill and Lopez could continue to serve in their elected positions until the end of their respective terms  but later reversed that based on a California code that suspends public officials from office after they’ve entered a guilty plea.
At Cartmill’s sentencing, the judge ruled he could run for re-election.
Cartmill was sentenced in June to three years’ probation, 40 hours community service and just under $5,000 in fines.


See all posts re South Bay Indictments.

Former Sweetwater Superintendent Gandara to spend two months in jail

 See all posts on South Bay Indictments.

I was interested in this passage from Susan Luzzaro's story below:

In retrospect, some people still wonder how Gandara was selected back in 2006. The district initially paid a headhunter group $30,000 to select him.

Susan acts as though Gandara is significantly different from most other superintendents.  I would say that Gandara's mistake was getting involved in small-time corruption.  He should have stuck with the corruption that is sanctioned by San Diego County Office of Education.  I myself consider the crimes Gandara was charged with to be less harmful to the public good than the wrongdoing that is considered normal policy by SDCOE.

The fact is, it's both extremely difficult and extremely easy to know what you're getting when you hire a new superintendent.

First, the easy part.  You know you're almost certainly getting someone who goes along to get along because that's how a person becomes a candidate for most big jobs.  Sometimes you get a surprise, like the cardinals got recently when they chose Pope Francis, but usually you get someone who won't rock the boat.

Then there's the difficult part.  Your husband could have told you about this, Susan.  I remember in the eighties at Montgomery Elementary in Chula Vista when I taught with Frank Luzzzaro.  He was on the interview committee that chose a new principal.  The female candidate interviewed well, charming everyone.  But Frank soon regretted his choice, and said that he would never again sit on an interview committee.  He voluntarily transferred to another school.

As Frank learned, it's just not possible to truly know most of the people you meet in this world.  In fact, most of us don't even know how we ourselves will behave until we are tested.    

By the way, kudos to whomever it was who came up with the great headline for this Reader story:

Gandara to go on 60-day lobster fast

Former Sweetwater superintendent “earned the right to go to prison.”

By Susan Luzzaro 

San Diego Reader

June 27, 2014

The Sweetwater Union High School District corruption case crescendoed in the South Bay courthouse on June 27. Former Sweetwater superintendent Jesus Gandara was led out of the courtroom in handcuffs. He was sentenced to 220 days in custody; 60 of those days will be served in jail and the rest under house arrest. In addition, judge Ana España ordered Gandara to pay a $7994 fine and perform 120 hours of community service.

Gandara pleaded guilty to one charge of felony conspiracy and has admitted to accepting gifts of travel, meals, and event tickets in excess of $4000.

Prior to the sentencing, community members advocated for jail time.

Jaime Mercado, who served as a trustee during Gandara’s tenure, accused Gandara of “corruption, intimidation, and reprisal.” He said Gandara had “earned the right to go to prison.”

Frances Brinkman, one of the people who originally took corruption complaints to the district attorney, applauded all of the unsung heroes who dared to speak out while Gandara was superintendent. Brinkman recited names such as Katy Wright, Tony Alfaro, Diana Carberry, Nancy Stubbs, and more…all people, she asserted, were unjustly fired by Gandara.

Kathleen Cheers, another community member who took corruption complaints to the district attorney, said that the majority of Sweetwater students received subsidized meals.

Cheers said she doubted if many of them “had ever tasted lobster.” She reminded the court of the lobster dinners that Gandara and his family enjoyed, paid for by vendors who worked for Sweetwater.

Jesus Gandara and his lawyer, Paul Pfingst

Attorney Paul Pfingst, who represented Gandara, pointed to Gandara’s remarkable career in education and his “commitment to children.” Pfingst lauded Gandara for getting the voters to pass Proposition O and referred to design awards that Proposition O projects received.

On the other side, deputy district attorney Leon Schorr said Gandara’s story was about “greed and ambition” and that Gandara was “hired into a situation that was ripe for corruption.”

Schorr argued that by punishing Gandara, the judge was warning “every other public official in the county.”

España said she had reviewed the material Pfingst submitted about Gandara’s accomplishments. She referred to his earlier career in Texas, then asked, “What happened along the way?”

España said Gandara “used his power to personally insert himself into negotiations with the contractors who were giving gifts to get jobs.”

Perhaps the tipping point for Gandara’s career came in 2011 when the U-T reported that Gandara hosted a wedding shower for his daughter at Murrietta’s restaurant in Bonita. Former Sweetwater trustees Arlie Ricasa and Jim Cartmill and still-current trustee John McCann attended the party. Vendors doing business with the district were also invited. The shower invitation announced there would be a money tree available for those inclined to pin on some greenery.

In retrospect, some people still wonder how Gandara was selected back in 2006. The district initially paid a headhunter group $30,000 to select him. Then the district paid Ricasa and Cartmill, who have both pleaded guilty to misdemeanors in this corruption case, to travel to Texas to vet Gandara.

The curious things is, Gandara hailed from the same little part of Texas where former Sweetwater superintendent Anthony Trujillo had retreated to after Sweetwater gave him his walking papers — and pension. Trujillo left Sweetwater to become superintendent of a small school district in Ysleta Texas and Gandara served as assistant superintendent there for a while. Gandara even acknowledged Trujillo in his doctoral thesis.

Sweetwater’s current superintendent, Ed Brand, is stepping down in October. Turning toward the future, many are already wondering — how will the new superintendent be vetted?..

Ed Brand's replacement as Sweetwater Superintendent is, like Brand, closely connected to SDCOE

See all posts on South Bay Indictments.

Three Hurdles Facing Sweetwater’s New Superintendent

By: Bianca Bruno 

Voice of San Diego

July 7, 2014 

The Sweetwater Union High School District has a new interim superintendent it hopes will represent a clean slate after a seemingly endless scandal that ensnared four school board members and a former superintendent.
In a closed-door session last week, school board president John McCann and four temporary trustees [all of whom are also  board members of SDCOE] picked Tim Glover as interim superintendent after Ed Brand, who took the district helm after former Superintendent Jesus Gandara was indicted in a pay-to-play scheme, was put on paid leave.
Tim Glover:

Board members said putting Brand on leave was not a disciplinary move, the district “just wanted something different.”
Glover has a long-standing relationship with the SUHSD as well as the Chula Vista Elementary School District, having served as principal at multiple schools and in various administrative roles. His most recent job was at the San Diego County Office of Education as assistant superintendent of student services and programs.
Glover will lead as superintendent until December, when five newly elected school board members will hire a full-time leader for the district...

Sweetwater probe nets first jail sentence; Former Sweetwater board member gets 45 days

See all posts re South Bay Indictments.

Sweetwater probe nets first jail sentence
Former Sweetwater board member gets 45 days
By Greg Moran
San Diego Union-Tribune
June 20, 2014

Gregory Sandoval, a former Sweetwater schools trustee, on Friday became the first defendant in the South County schools corruption probe to be sentenced to jail for accepting fancy meals and other gifts from contractors seeking business with the district.

Sandoval, who is also a former administrator at Southwestern College, pleaded guilty in April to a felony conspiracy charge and a misdemeanor charge of failing to report gifts he received from school construction executives on required disclosure forms in 2008.

Superior Court Judge Ana Espana sentenced Sandoval to six months in custody. She ordered him to serve 45 days of that in jail, and serve the remaining 135 days on home detention.

He was also fined $7,995, ordered to perform 120 hours of community service and put on probation for three years.

Espana denied a request from Sandoval’s lawyer to reduce the felony to a lesser misdemeanor. She also ordered him into jail custody immediately, to begin his sentence.

Sandoval, 60, is one of 18 trustees, school officials and contractors who were charged in an expansive probe into the cozy relationships between school officials and the contractors angling for work funded by voter-approved bond programs.

The investigation focused on Sweetwater Union High School District but also included officials from Southwestern College and the San Ysidro School District.

Most have pleaded guilty and received sentences of probation or home detention, as well as fines and community service work.

But prosecutors with the San Diego County District Attorney’s office said that Sandoval was one of more corrupt of the defendants, receiving lots of gifts and meals.

For example Jaime Ortiz, a construction management executive with the firm SGI that was involved in the construction work, testified in front of a grand jury empaneled for the case that Sandoval demands for dinners and being treated to other social events was “constant.”

One time Ortiz said Sandoval called him when Ortiz was in SGI offices in Los Angeles and said he wanted to meet. He said he wanted to go to a luau at a Pacific Beach hotel that evening. Ortiz boarded a plane for the short flight then paid for the dinners for himself, his wife and Sandoval and his wife.

Sandoval was initially indicted on 29 charges including bribery and perjury. He ended up admitting in his plea deal to accepting $2,770 in gifts from another contractor, Henry Amigable, and not reporting those gifts on his state-mandated economic disclosure forms.

Jeremy Warren, one of his lawyers, said in court papers that Sandoval accepted responsibility for his acts. He said at the time of the wining and dining Sandoval recently had lost his job at the college in the wake of sexual harassment accusation that he was later cleared of, but he remained a Sweetwater trustee. Warren said he was at a low point in his life when he began being courted by Amigable and others.

In 2010 Sandoval got a new job as an administrator at Moreno Valley College, but resigned from that $151,811 job after his guilty plea in April.

Sweetwater approves campaign finance reform; all it took was a few indictments; now what about other school districts?

An image captured in January 2012, at one of the many heated meetings of the Sweetwater trustees.

Sweetwater School Board to Consider Campaign Finance Reform
Under the current rules, a board member can accept an unlimited amount of money from a contractor seeking or performing work with the district.
By Wendy Fry
NBCSanDiego
Jan 14, 2014

The Sweetwater Union High School District will vote on campaign finance reform Tuesday in the wake of a two-year criminal probe into relationships between contractors and South County politicians.

The community has been persistent in getting the item on the agenda, despite being blocked in the past by the board and superintendent.

The proposal would limit campaign contributions to $750 for a single election contest for candidates for the board of trustees.

It also seeks to ban candidates running for school board to take contributions from anyone other than individuals or political party committees.

...This comes after three Sweetwater Union High School District board members were accused of accepting thousands of dollars on gifts and meals, allegedly for awarding construction contracts to contributing companies.

No limits are currently in place. Under the current rules, a board member can accept an unlimited amount of money from a contractor seeking or performing work with the district. For example, during his 2010 reelection campaign, Board President Jim Cartmill accepted a $20,000 contribution from SGI Construction Management, which working at the time for the district under the voter-approved $644 million bond measure.

The proposed campaign finance rules would do nothing to curb the often big amounts of money spent on behalf of candidates through independent committees. A political party could, for example, spend as much as it wants independently to promote a candidate, as long as the campaign was not coordinated with the candidate.

Sweetwater board approves campaign reform
By Allison Sampite-Montecalvo
SDUT
Jan. 14, 2014

CHULA VISTA — The Sweetwater Union High School District school board, with three members facing criminal charges in a pay-to-play case brought by the District Attorney’s Office, voted unanimously Tuesday in favor of campaign finance reform.

The reform was supported by trustees Jim Cartmill, John McCann and Bertha Lopez. Trustee Pearl Quiñones was absent. Cartmill, Lopez and Quiñones have been indicted in the corruption investigation.

Many residents consider the reform decision a huge step forward in transparency and restoring trust. Community member Maty Adato said the vote was a move in the right direction.

“This is the fifth time this issue have been on the agenda in two years,” she said. “They’ve never wanted to adopt it.”

The decision limited campaign contributions that can be made to board candidates to a maximum of $750. Only individual donors would be allowed to make contributions. Previously there was no limit on the amount or type of campaign contributions that a school board candidate could accept.

The resolution makes it “unlawful for an individual to make, or for a candidate or a controlled committee to solicit or accept” a contribution more than $750 for a single election contest.

“The limit would apply to both campaign committees and also to legal defense funds, which are additional separate fundraising mechanisms that elected officials may use when they’re facing particular illegal matters related to their office,” said Christine Cameron, an attorney who works for the district. Cameron also said the knowing solicitation of district employees for contributions is prohibited.

“The resolution also provides that at a later time the board would develop procedures for investigating violations of the rules but in the meantime a complaint submitted to the superintendent and signed by the complainant would have to be investigated using an independent investigator,” she said.

A controversial item on how to fill a board seat vacated by a member who pleaded guilty in the corruption case didn’t make it to a vote Tuesday. Although the members present formed a quorum, a decision on the vacant seat issue requires the support of three or more board members, and that appeared unlikely, so the matter was delayed. Board members also felt it was important to include Quiñones in the decision.

The vacancy was created when Arlie Ricasa resigned after pleading guilty Dec. 19 to a misdemeanor charge of accepting gifts above state limits. The Sweetwater indictments were among others at the San Ysidro School District and Southwestern College.

The board decided it would try and get in touch with Quiñones as soon as possible and set another meeting to either decide on a process for a provisional appointment or go forward with a special election.

But the trustees are up against a ticking clock.

The school district’s attorney, Dan Shinoff, said that according to board bylaws, members must fill the vacant seat within 60 days, or Feb. 17. The more time that passes the more likely it is a special election would be held, which Shinoff said could cost up to $1.5 million for a nine-month appointment (when Ricasa’s term would have expired). Shinoff said the special election would cause “a significant fiscal impact on the district.”

Sweetwater scandal: Ed Brand’s claims contradicted

Sweetwater scandal: Ed Brand’s claims contradicted
Did he or didn’t he ask for $40,000?
By Susan Luzzaro
San Diego Reader
June 2, 2013

On May 30, the U-T published the testimony of Sweetwater Union High School superintendent Ed Brand, given to the San Diego County Grand Jury late last year.

In November–December 2012, the grand jury conducted secret hearings to inquire into the alleged corruption of trustees, administrators, and contractors in three South County school districts. Ultimately, 15 trustees, administrators, and contractors were indicted as a result of the proceedings.

Brand told U-T reporter Aaron Burgin on May 30, “If I knew what I know when they asked me to come back [as superintendent of the Sweetwater school district], I wouldn’t have done it.” (Brand's first stint as superintendent spanned 1995–2005; he returned in 2011.)

Brand also complained to Burgin that there was too much contractor influence in the district and that three trustees had asked him to go to the president of Seville Group Inc, Rene Flores, for campaign donations. (Seville Group Inc, or SGI, managed the district’s $644 million Proposition O bond until January 2012.)

The U-T reported: “He [Brand] said that within the first six to eight days of his arrival, [Bertha] Lopez, [Pearl] Quiñones, and John McCann asked him to solicit campaign donations from SGI President Rene Flores and Jaime Ortiz, the company’s bond manager.”


In the grand jury transcripts, deputy district attorney Leon Schorr asked Brand: “Did you ask him [Flores] on behalf of McCann, [Jim] Cartmill, [Arlie] Ricasa, Quiñones, or Lopez for any contributions?” Brand answers: “No. Never.”

But in another volume of the transcripts that have been officially released to the public (Brand’s were not) Flores tells deputy district attorney Schorr:

“I want to say something very quick. Dr. Brand in December asked me to give an additional $20,000 to both John McCann and Jim Cartmill and I didn’t do it right away during December for tax purposes. And so I didn’t do it. So he suspended us [SGI] without any reason…and subsequent to that there’s been evaluations done and we have been cleared — my company has been cleared of any wrongdoing.”

So, it seems there is a contradiction in the sworn statements.

UPDATED: Arraignments of fifteen defendants connected with South Bay schools

See all posts regarding South Bay school indictments.

JAN. 23,2013 UPDATE REGARDING SAN YSIDRO SCHOOLS' LAWYERS

TWO UPDATES REGARDING SAN YSIDRO SUPERINTENDENT MANUEL PAUL:

1) Civil lawsuit against the district
Jeff McDonald of the Union-Tribune reports on Jan. 15, 2013: "An $18 million lawsuit against the San Ysidro School District has been pushed back by at least three months because a key witness — Superintendent Manuel Paul — is facing criminal corruption charges.

Judge Steven Denton agreed to the delay after the district’s lawyer said Paul planned to invoke his constitutional right against self-incrimination and refuse to answer any more questions in depositions.

“Mr. Paul has been indicted, and I am informed and believe that the superintendent will be asserting the Fifth Amendment on every question posed,” attorney Arthur Palkowitz wrote in a motion to the judge...

2) San Ysidro school board decisions:
B San Ysidro School District parents forced the school board on Jan. 16, 2013 to reject a plan to pay $100,000 each for Manuel Paul's and Yolanda Hernandez' criminal legal defense. (Of course, Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz is still being paid to work with Mr. Paul regarding the civil case mentioned above.) The board also reversed its Jan. 8, 2013 decision NOT to put Mr. Paul on administrative leave.

ORIGINAL POST REGARDING JANUARY 7, 2013 ARRAIGNMENTS

I was surprised to see ubiquitous school attorney Gil Abed at the criminal court yesterday for the arraignment of fifteen individuals connected with three South Bay school districts.

Lawyers from Mr. Abed's law firm, Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, generally restrict themselves to the civil courthouse one block west.

Apparently San Ysidro taxpayers were paying Mr. Abed to sit next to San Ysidro Schools Superintendent Manuel Paul, providing moral support. Mr. Paul didn't have to testify, so he didn't need his lawyer to prepare him for testifying. In fact, Mr. Abed is Mr. Paul's civil attorney and wasn't directly involved with the arraignment proceedings.

Channel 10 News reports that the San Ysidro school board has shown remarkable generosity to Mr. Paul recently. Shortly after it was revealed that he'd accepted $2,500 cash from a contractor, they gave him a $10,000 raise! I trust that this isn't hush money. The day after his arraignment, the trustees announced that Mr. Paul's job is safe--for now, at least. Board member Yolanda Hernandez, a fellow defendant of Manuel Paul, was not at the January 8, 2013 board meeting.

The highlight of the event
for me was watching the arraignment
of former CVESD board member, and current Sweetwater Union High School District trustee, Bertha Lopez.
Bertha has provided a continuous stream
of fodder for my blogs for many years. Bertha and her fellow CVESD board members channeled a large number of dollars to Dan Shinoff of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz for civil court legal work when she was a CVESD board member.

I think that the type of corruption being dealt with in these indictments is penny-ante stuff.  There are much bigger problems that should be dealt with.

The real corruption is not so obvious. It's dressed up in legal language. Judges and juries often let the education establishment get away with running a corrupt system because no one likes to pick on schools.

The things that go on at San Diego County Office of Education are shocking, but no one except Jerry Rindone ever complains about it. SDCOE even approves indemnification of their lawyers, a rare policy that was much criticized when Otay Water District indemnified Jaime Bonilla.

DRAMA OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM

San Ysidro Schools employee Jimmy Delgado provided some drama after the hearing by aggressively pointing his finger in the face of Alex Anguiano, president of Sweetwater Education Association, and threatening to sue him if he said anything untrue about Delgado. Apparently Mr. Delgado was angry that Mr. Anguiano (and the large group of Sweetwater teachers accompanying Mr. Anguiano) were NOT supporting Pearl Quinones. The teachers were quite miffed with the arraigned board members and with former superintendent Jesus Gandara, another defendant.

UPDATE: The San Diego Reader has a video of the last few seconds of the encounter. The Reader reports that Jimmy Delgado heads the Latino Political Action Committee of San Diego, which contributed $1000 to Pearl Quiñones in the last election. Ironically, just a few months ago Jimmy Delgado was in court testifying on behalf of Sweetwater board member John McCann's unsuccessful effort to get a restraining order against parent Stewart Payne. Ed Brand says the taxpayers paid about $2,400 for that effort, but others estimate that the cost was over three times that amount. (See the short account of the TRO hearing at the bottom of this post.) Delgado testified that Payne “...aggressively pointed his finger in McCann’s face.” McCann thought this behavior warranted a restraining order, but the judge did not agree.



Indictments Rain Down Across South Bay
By Wendy Fry
Union-Tribune
Jan 7, 2013

More defendants have been snagged in the District Attorney's corruption probe into South Bay school construction projects.

The San Diego Superior Court docket for Monday lists a 2 p.m. appearance date for 15 defendants in the criminal probe. The corruption investigation has expanded in recent days to include new defendants from those originally charged with criminal complaints last year.

The defendants are current and former school officials, elected trustees, and contractors who did work at San Ysidro schools, the Sweetwater school district and Southwestern College. Many have already entered "not guilty" pleas on prior and identical complaints, including Gandara, Sandoval, Ricasa and Quiñones.

The Grand Jury began meeting in early November in a major "pay-to-play" public corruption case that now stretches across three South Bay school districts.

Prosecutors say the school officials traded their votes on multi-million dollar construction contracts for gifts and other favors.

Those who are scheduled to appear in court to be arraigned on indictments include:

Financier Gary Cabello, 53, who did work at both Southwestern College and Sweetwater. Cabello's home and former offices were raided in May 2012. As an underwriter, Cabello was tasked with calculating the size of the bond measure and the tax rate needed to finance the Sweetwater school district's wish list of building projects. His company, Alta Vista contributed $25,000 to the campaign to get the Sweetwater bond measure approved by voters, and then won a contract underwriting the bond. Cabello later worked for Cabrera Capital Markets, LLC., which had a contract with Southwestern College for financing on Proposition R bond funds. He could not be reached for comment, but his attorney said on Dec. 28 that she had not received any documentation that her client had been indicted by the Grand Jury.

Current Sweetwater trustee Jim Cartmill, the CEO of a nutritional supplement company. Cartmill received a $20,000 campaign contribution from a company doing work with the Sweetwater school district. The donation was allegedly procured by then-Superintendent Dr. Jesus Gandara while Cartmill and Gandara were on a trip to Mexico with others, according to court documents. Current Superintendent Dr. Ed Brand was an investor in Cartmill's company, according to bankruptcy documents with the Securities Exchange Commission. Messages left on Cartmill's voicemail since Dec. 28 have not been returned.

Jeff Flores, the president of Seville Construction Services, a construction firm that won a $2.7 million contract to do work under Southwestern College's Proposition R. Court records show Flores had an inside track working with Southwestern College officials on the project before it was officially bid. Some emails in the court affidavits indicate the contractor was allegedly involved in writing the request for proposals, or bidding documents for the college official. The court records also show he wrote the interview questions for the screening process. Flores' company has released repeated statements about the situation, including: "We believe SCS has operated and acted in good faith throughout our relationship with the (Southwestern College) district, including the termination of an employee a year ago for inappropriate actions that included violation of our corporate code of conduct. We believe the independent actions of individuals previously involved in the program are negatively affecting both organizations and the community.”

Former Sweetwater Superintendent Dr. Jesus Gandara. In 2006, Sweetwater trustees Jim Cartmill and Arlie Ricasa flew to Texas to interview Gandara for a position at the recommendation of the head-hunting firm Hazard, Young and Attea & Associates. His rocky tenure included borrowing bond money to pay off daily general fund expenses; inviting contractors to a "money tree" event for his daughter's bridal shower; hiding PR expenses from the board and a controversial exit strategy under investigation by state pension regulators. Prosecutors say he and several other board members spent night after night at expensive meals, sporting events, and trips, funded by contractors seeking work with the district. He has pleaded not guilty.

Current San Ysidro board member Yolanda Hernandez. Hernandez was the alleged recipient of a $2,500 cash drop-off made by a contractor to the San Ysidro Superintendent Manuel Paul in a restaurant parking lot. She also pays the majority of her campaign funds to a company she owns, according to state documents. She has declined repeated requests for comment.

Sweetwater trustee Bertha Lopez whose home was raided December 2011. Lopez was an early whistleblower, alerting officials to the corruption in the South County school districts. She was re-elected in November to her seat.

San Ysidro Superintendent Manuel Paul is listed in court documents accepting meals from contractors and dining with Sweetwater Superintendent Gandara. He also admitted in a June deposition to accepting thousands in cash from a contractor in a Chula Vista restaurant parking lot.

Sweetwater trustee Pearl Quiñones, 59, was an educator in the San Ysidro School District. Quiñones was also re-elected to her seat in November with strong support from Mayor Bob Filner. The long-time National City resident is listed in court documents for dining at expensive meals and allegedly soliciting a paid position on a state commission in 2006 from a contractor working for the district. She has entered a "not guilty" plea.

Sweetwater trustee Arlie Ricasa, 48, works as an administrator at Southwestern College. Court papers show Ricasa contacted a Sweetwater construction contractor with her college email account to arrange a $3,900 campaign contribution for a state Assembly bid. The contractor, Rene Flores, pleaded "no contest" in April 2012 to a misdemeanor of aiding in the commission of a misdemeanor. Ricasa also asked Flores to fund her daughter's $1,800 trip to the National Young Leaders State Conference, and did not disclose the gift on state-mandated forms, the court records show. She has pleaded not guilty.

Former Sweetwater trustee Greg Sandoval, 58, also worked at Southwestern College as an administrator. He served on the Sweetwater school board for 16 years until 2010. According to court records Sandoval allegedly asked a business development executive working for a Sweetwater district contractor to pay $500 to enter Sandoval's daughter in a Miss South County pageant. The prosecutor's affidavit used to obtain a search warrant at Sandoval's home states Sandoval “had his hand out asking for gifts or donations so often, even employees from SGI remarked that he ‘has no shame.’” He has entered a "not guilty" plea.

Former Southwestern college official Nicholas Alioto, 47, resigned in 2011 amid controversy after the UT San Diego reported on a Napa Valley trip with a construction contractor who weeks later won $4 million work with the district. When the search warrants were served in December 2011, Alioto was found living in the guest house of the Poway home of that contractor. Alioto has entered a "not guilty" plea.

Former Southwestern Superintendent Raj Chopra was brought to Southwestern College in 2007 by the same head-hunting firm that found Gandara for the Sweetwater district. In the wake of state budget woes, Chopra enraged the South Bay community college employees with deep budget cuts. He also presided over the passing of Proposition R, a $389 million bond measure for school construction. There are only scarce mentions of Chopra in the D.A.'s affidavits served in 2011. However, an internal college probe found commingling of funds between the bond campaign and the college's general funds.

Former Southwestern trustee Jorge Dominguez. Dominguez said on Dec. 28 he was unaware he had been indicted by the Grand Jury. He added he declined an invitation to provide testimony during the Grand Jury proceedings, after advice of an attorney.

Former Southwestern trustee Yolanda Salcido. Salcido was a political rival of Dominguez. Her romantic involvement with Southwestern official John Wilson was the subject of a citizen's Grand Jury report several years ago.

Southwestern official John Wilson recommended Seville Construction Services receive the $2.7 million construction management contract in 2009, and then went to work for the company a couple months later.

Last year, three contractors who did work at Southwestern and Sweetwater pleaded to lesser misdemeanor charges and agreed to cooperate with investigators. They were: business development executive Henry Amigable; contractor Rene Flores, and an architect Paul Bunton.


One year ago:

When the Trouble Started for Sweetwater Schools
Rob Davis
Voice of San Diego
January 23, 2012

...investigators have searched the home of Bertha Lopez, a Sweetwater trustee whose husband, Jose, is the Otay Water District's president. They've also searched the homes of two former Southwestern College officials, Nicholas Alioto and John Wilson.

Investigators have interviewed the mayors of Chula Vista and National City, county supervisors and a San Diego city councilman. Jaime Bonilla, another Otay Water District board member, is also mentioned in search warrants; Bertha Lopez and Seville employees had an appointment to dine at his house...

Concerned parents routinely went to board meetings throughout 2009 and 2010, criticizing the board for its oversight of construction spending and for accepting campaign donations from companies working for the district. One parent, Stewart Payne, said he thought the board's behavior was strange enough that he went to the FBI in early 2011. Then he and other parents went to the district attorney.

"I just said: Something's wrong here, I don't know what it is, but something's not making sense," Payne said. "Something was just wrong."


Sweetwater Activist Cleared of Allegations Made by Boardmember
By Susan Luzzaro
San Diego Reader
May 10, 2012

...Jimmy Delgado, an employee of the San Ysidro Elementary School District, provided a witness statement for McCann. According to Delgado, [Stewart] Payne “...aggressively pointed his finger in McCann’s face.” Delgado's description of Payne's gestures agree with Payne’s formal response.

Payne says he backed away from McCann’s advances that night: “I had retreated so far that I could feel other people on my heels…. At this point I became concerned that Mr. [John] McCann was becoming irrational and intending to do me harm. It is at this point that I extended my hand pointing my finger to establish my personal boundary and told him not to come closer or I would protect myself.”

Payne, who defended himself during the May 9 proceedings, said, “Have you ever seen anyone who was going to hit someone with their finger?”

McCann was represented by an attorney at the hearing. According to a May 10 U-T report, “Sweetwater superintendent Ed Brand approved the legal expense. He said the affair may cost the school district around $2,400 in attorney’s fees for McCann.”...

[Maura Larkins note: I've heard other estimates of the amount of money Sweetwater spent to intimidate Mr. Payne in the $8000 to $9000 range. Ed Brand has a habit of spending outrageous sums on lawyers. See articles on Sweetwater lawyer Bonny Garcia] (who appears in documents supporting board member indictments).]

Did Channel 10 deliberately misinform the public about Sweetwater trustee John McCann's "patriotism"?

10News and Sweetwater's John McCann, True Patriots?
By Susan Luzzaro
Sept. 13, 2012

Many people believe a 10News report broadcast at 5 p.m. on September 12 deliberately misinformed the public.

On September 10, the Sweetwater Union High School District held a special meeting with an ambiguous agenda that suggested controversial interim superintendent Ed Brand would be awarded a contract. After several hours of deliberation, the board had nothing to report to the public.

Approximately 20 speakers addressed the board prior to the special closed-session meeting. When Kathleen Cheers, a community advocate, gave her speech to the board, she pointed out that the trustees had forgotten to do the pledge of allegiance. About 15 minutes later, board member John McCann requested a pledge of allegiance. The audience laughed.

“They were laughing at Mr. McCann’s opportunism,” said Cheers in a September 12 interview. 10News quoted Stewart Payne, a member of Occupy Sweetwater, explaining the laughter as well: "The moans and groans you hear aren't about the Pledge of Allegiance. They're about John McCann making it about himself again.”

Nevertheless, 10News told the story differently. “Disrespectful laughter at the flag and victims of 9/11,” said news anchor Kim Hunt, leading into the story. “10News has obtained an audio recording of a recent local school board meeting where the crowd appears to laugh at a request to say the pledge and a moment of silence for 9/11…. Joe Little tracked down the people in the audience to get their take on the audiotape,” said Hunt, perhaps inadvertently suggesting the tape’s provenance was dubious.

The newscast included a four-second audio clip of McCann’s request being met by laughter. Before introducing the sound bite, 10News reporter Joe Little told the TV audience, “During the meeting, trustee John McCann realized the board forgot to say the pledge of allegiance.” Joe Little was not in attendance at the meeting.

Whether or not 10News had a recording of the entire meeting — including Cheers’s comment about the pledge being forgotten prior to McCann’s request for the pledge — is unknown.

Payne, a Sweetwater parent and one of the five people who took corruption charges to the district attorney’s office, sent the following message to Joe Little upon viewing the report: “I have watched the [10News] story of the board meeting held at SUHSD on Monday. While I feel the story was fairly reported, it is based on inaccurate and misleading information…”... Payne, who is one of those accused of disrespecting the flag, rarely speaks of his military career. He served 21 years in the Marines, was in three combat zones, and retired as a sergeant major. Following the 10News report, late on September 12, Sweetwater board member Bertha Lopez phoned Little, requesting that he retract his story due to the erroneous context presented. She emailed him today to follow up. As of late afternoon September 13, Little had not responded to Lopez’s messages or two phone calls left by this reporter.

Ed Brand wants to spend $4 million on iPads without training teachers on how to use them

You could pay for a lot of master teachers (see my plan) with $4 million. It's the teacher that makes the difference, not the expensive program imported from outside the district.

I enjoyed reading the comments section on this article.

The iPad Proposition
By Susan Luzzaro
San Diego Reader
Aug. 22, 2012

Last February, the Sweetwater Union High School District moved forward with a controversial initiative to buy 6300 iPads for its seventh-graders. The iPads cost $4.3 million. Several months later, the district purchased iPad covers, spending $27,000, and in July, learning-management software, costing $1.1 million over six years. The district faces a $27 million deficit. As the costly experiment with new technology unfolds, many question the district’s use of funds and planning to integrate iPads into the classroom.

Sweetwater began using iPads in a pilot program last November. A select group of Hilltop Middle School students were sold the devices. A current posting on the district’s website lauds the program: “Pilot programs such as the one being implemented at Hilltop Middle School in the Foreign Language and Global Studies (FLAGS) program have proven highly successful at engaging students and in raising academic achievement.”

Despite this claim, a public records request asking whether students’ grades had improved yielded this response: “The district does not have the requested information as this is not something we are tracking.”

Money for the iPads came from several sources, including $1.8 million from Proposition O construction bond money and $1.5 million from Mello-Roos funds. Mello-Roos is a special tax assessment paid by some California communities to fund infrastructure and construction of public facilities.

Many have argued that the money raised through construction bonds should not be spent on iPads. The use of Mello-Roos funds has also been criticized, as not all Sweetwater families pay Mello-Roos taxes.

Critics of Sweetwater’s iPad program claim the devices are offered to induce students to stay in the district rather than leave for charter schools. As school budgets continue to shrink, critics question where the money for iPads will come from next year and the year after.

Nick Marinovich, chair of the Proposition O Citizens’ Bond Oversight Committee, recently wrote to the district..."[W]e repeatedly asked the District to provide a comprehensive plan on how they would continue to fund iPads over the next five years as well as how they planned to measure their success,” he wrote. “...There was no apparent metrics to analyze the effectiveness of this investment.…”

Lack of planning has been a constant thread in the iPad discussion. Melanie, an English instructor who spoke on condition that only her first name be used, was part of the pilot program at Hilltop Middle School. She experienced a number of problems. She said that teachers received only two days of iPad instruction. “We had no training in how to effectively use the iPads in our own subjects,” Melanie said.

Where Borrowing $105 Million Will Cost $1 Billion: Poway Schools

"The bond...had considerable cachet, thanks to a coveted endorsement from the San Diego County Taxpayers Association. Indeed, association President Lani Lutar’s name was first on a list of five local dignitaries named on the ballot as supporting the bond. Lutar said had she known the full implications of the bond, she would not have recommended the association support it."

[Maura Larkins comment: Why didn't Lutar figure out the implications before she recommended it? The taxpayers association has a habit of giving awards and endorsements without investigating. A few years ago they gave Chula Vista Schools an award without looking at CVESD's budget! One might suspect that the association's decisions are political.]

Where Borrowing $105 Million Will Cost $1 Billion: Poway Schools
August 6, 2012
By WILL CARLESS
Voice of San Diego

“This is way worse than loan sharking.
...What they have done is absolutely insane.”
—Michael Turnipseed, executive director
of the Kern County Taxpayers Association...


“This is a perfect example of how something
that’s done today can adversely affect
the next generation and the generation after that.”
—Dan McAllister, San Diego County
treasurer and tax collector.

Last year the Poway Unified School District made a deal: It borrowed $105 million from investors to fund a final push in its decade-long effort to revamp aging schools.

In many ways, the deal was unspectacular. Some of the money was used to pay off previous debts from delayed and over-budget construction projects. The rest went towards finishing upgrades that Poway taxpayers had been promised as far back as 2002. To a casual observer, it was just another school bond.

But Poway Unified’s deal was far from normal.

In 2008, voters had given the district permission to borrow more money to finish its modernization, and they had received a big promise from the elected school board in return: No tax increases.

Without increasing taxes, the district couldn’t afford to borrow money in the conventional way. So, instead of borrowing from investors over 20 or 30 years and paying the debt down each year, like a mortgage, the district got creative.

With advice from an Orange County financial consultant, the district borrowed the money over 40 years in a controversial loan called a capital appreciation bond. The key point for the district: It won’t make any payments on the debt for 20 years.

And that means the district’s debt will keep getting bigger and bigger as interest on the loan piles up.

The bottom line: For borrowing $105 million in 2011, taxpayers will end up paying investors more than $981 million by 2051, or almost 10 times what the district borrowed. That’s wildly more expensive than a typical school bond, in which a district pays back two or maybe three times what it borrowed.

As well as being expensive, capital appreciation bonds work by tapping future growth in property values to pay today’s debts, a concept considered by many in the school bond business to be both risky and inequitable. In 1994, the state of Michigan banned school districts from issuing bonds like this, deeming them too toxic to taxpayers. Nevertheless, California’s ever-strapped districts have increasingly looked to capital appreciation bonds to raise money for improvements without increasing taxes on current residents. Across the state, districts have borrowed billions this way, using exotic financing to shift the burden for paying for today’s school construction to future generations of Californians.

Poway Unified, a district more accustomed to praise for its fiscal austerity, has found itself at the center of the debate over these bonds. For a year now, it’s come under fire from taxpayer groups and concerned elected officials around the state, for whom Poway’s bond has reached legendary status.

...Officials at the district and two members of the school board who approved it acknowledge that the deal is expensive. But they say Poway’s overall construction program has been a roaring success and a boon to local students and homeowners alike. District taxpayers should have understood that borrowing money over a longer period of time, without raising taxes, would be pricey, the officials said...

"We could have authorized more taxes, it would just have been breaking the promises we made to the community," said school board member Todd Gutschow.

But last year’s bond doesn’t just affect the taxpayers who voted on it. It also saddles their children and grandchildren with hundreds of millions of dollars in debt, and raises the risk that property taxes could spike once the district finally starts making payments on its loan.

In short: In order to keep its promises to current residents, the district entered into a deal that places a billion-dollar burden on future residents...

A Hard Sell

In 2008, Poway Unified’s school modernization plans were way off schedule. Construction costs had spiraled upwards, fueled by the region’s real estate boom. This, combined with other construction delays and cost overruns, meant the district needed more money to complete its ambitious renovation program.

Voters had agreed back in 2002 to allow the district to borrow $198 million to bring state-of-the art facilities to 24 schools. But by 2008, the district was asking for $179 million more to finish the job.

Traditionally, school districts in California fund renovation programs by borrowing money from investors and paying back those loans with small increases in local property taxes.

That’s what Poway Unified’s first bond did in 2002. With California’s economy starting to warm up from the boom-and-bust of the late-1990s, voters approved the district bumping local property taxes up by $55 for every $100,000 of home value. That revenue was then tapped to pay off the district’s construction loans.

By 2008, however, the economy was in trouble. The real estate market had already been tanking for a couple of years. Stocks were sliding downwards and unemployment was on the rise.

It was a tough time to sell a tax increase to voters.

But with some Poway Unified residents still waiting for the renovations they had been promised back in 2002, the district decided to approach voters once more.

"We knew the voters wanted these projects, and we knew they wanted them sooner rather than later," said Poway Superintendent John Collins.

This time, Poway Unified didn’t try to push a tax increase. Instead, it came up with a different way to pay for its new bond program, Proposition C.

Rather than increasing the tax rate, the district asked voters if they’d be willing to extend the life of the existing property taxes for an estimated additional 11 to 14 years.

That passed muster. Despite some vocal opposition, on Feb. 5, 2008, district residents voted 63.9 percent in favor of Poway Unified borrowing another $179 million.

But the bond’s supporters hadn’t made clear to the public just how they planned to borrow money without raising taxes, or how much that would end up costing taxpayers. In 2008, there wasn’t enough money coming in from the district’s $55 property tax levy to pay for all the new borrowing it wanted to do. All the cash being generated by the existing taxes was eaten up paying off old loans that had already been used for upgrading schools.

The district’s plan, then, was to borrow money against the future tax revenues it would receive by extending the life of the taxes. In other words, it would get the money now, but wouldn’t start paying it back for a long time.

Borrowing money in this way is possible for school districts, but it’s much more expensive than paying a loan back year-by-year.

Last year, the district put together its deal to borrow $105 million, without paying anything towards the debt for 20 years.

In two decades’ time, taxpayers will start paying about $50 million a year towards the loan. They’ll make those payments for the next 20 years or so. It’s a bit like a massive version of one of those exotic loans that got homeowners into so much trouble.

With one key difference: For the next 20 years, Poway Unified isn’t even paying the interest.

...But a voter reading the ballot statement for Proposition C in 2008 would have learned nothing about the overall cost of the deal the district was setting itself up for. The full 2,200 word statement makes no mention of capital appreciation bonds, and says little about how the borrowing would be paid back. The ballot arguments against the bond don’t mention the unusually high costs involved in borrowing money that won’t begin to be paid back for 20 years. The bond also had considerable cachet, thanks to a coveted endorsement from the San Diego County Taxpayers Association. Indeed, association President Lani Lutar’s name was first on a list of five local dignitaries named on the ballot as supporting the bond.

Lutar said had she known the full implications of the bond, she would not have recommended the association support it.

...Last month, the association changed its criteria for endorsing school bonds. In the future, it will ask districts how, exactly, they will finance their bonds. ...Glenn Byers, Los Angeles’ assistant treasurer and tax collector, said districts like Poway have been dishonest by issuing bonds without laying out the consequences and costs of the loans for taxpayers.



Find High-Interest School Bonds in Your District: A Five-Step Guide
August 8, 2012
By WILL CARLESS

Since publishing the story on the Poway Unified School District’s billion-dollar bond, we’ve had a bunch of inquiries from all around the state asking one question: Is this going on in my local school district?...

Step One: Find your district in our capital appreciation bond database...

[Maura Larkins comment: Here are some of the districts I found:

2006-0201 Bonsall Union School District 2/23/2006 8,920,243.00 General obligation bond
2007-1030 Bonsall Union School District 7/26/2007 4,698,309.00 General obligation bond
2006-1353 Bonsall Union School District 1/25/2007 3,381,128.00 General obligation bond

2001-0148 Capistrano Unified School District 2/28/2001 29,999,930.00 General obligation bond

2000-1370 Cardiff School District 7/19/2000 10,999,035.00 General obligation bond

2011-0482 Carlsbad Unified School District 6/7/2011 52,998,238.00 General obligation bond
2009-0237 Carlsbad Unified School District 5/12/2009 79,998,017.00 General obligation bond

2011-1278 Escondido Union High School District 10/6/2011 20,000,451.00 General obligation bond
2009-0981 Escondido Union High School District 8/18/2009 34,216,905.00 General obligation bond
2009-1391 Escondido Union High School District 12/1/2009 26,996,392.00 General obligation bond
2002-0430 Escondido Union School District 7/18/2002 46,299,622.00 General obligation bond

2008-0504 Grossmont Union High School District 7/22/2008 88,159,578.00 General obligation bond
2006-0779 Grossmont Union High School District 5/31/2006 124,999,225.00 General obligation bond
2004-0710 Grossmont Union High School District 6/3/2004 60,841,197.00 General obligation bond

2010-0902 Lakeside Union School District 9/22/2010 12,982,209.00 General obligation bond
2009-0034 Lakeside Union School District 4/23/2009 21,833,149.00 General obligation bond

2010-1239 Lemon Grove School District 9/23/2010 7,999,480.00 General obligation bond
2002-1813 Lemon Grove School District 10/18/2002 2,191,178.00 General obligation bond
2000-1769 Lemon Grove School District 11/30/2000 2,560,587.00 General obligation bond

2012-0447 Oceanside Unified School District 4/11/2012 14,999,282.00 General obligation bond
2010-0235 Oceanside Unified School District 5/5/2010 29,999,991.00 General obligation bond
2008-1062 Oceanside Unified School District 2/19/2009 49,995,054.00 General obligation bond

2010-0094 Poway Unified School District 3/10/2010 24,998,007.00 Bond anticipation note
2010-1369 Poway Unified School District 8/3/2011 105,000,150.00 General obligation bond
2008-1217 Poway Unified School District 1/9/2009 3,698,554.00 General obligation bond
2008-1216 Poway Unified School District 1/9/2009 73,998,936.00 General obligation bond
2006-1091 Poway Unified School District 10/19/2006 119,300,766.00 General obligation bond

2007-0692 Ramona Unified School District 6/13/2007 24,333,360.00 Certificates of participation/leases

2008-0412 Rancho Santa Fe School District 7/22/2008 1,959,042.00 General obligation bond
2008-0413 Rancho Santa Fe School District 7/22/2008 33,997,571.00 General obligation bond
2004-1209 Rancho Santa Fe School District 7/30/2004 2,836,419.00 General obligation bond

2012-0397 San Diego Unified School District 3/1/2012 65,434,442.00 General obligation bond
2012-0485 San Diego Unified School District 5/10/2012 149,998,824.00 General obligation bond
2010-0997 San Diego Unified School District 8/5/2010 163,869,783.00 General obligation bond
2009-0232 San Diego Unified School District 4/23/2009 131,157,581.00 General obligation bond
2004-1372 San Diego Unified School District 8/19/2004 199,996,373.00 General obligation bond
2005-1469 San Diego Unified School District 8/18/2005 195,024,802.00 General obligation bond
2002-1426 San Diego Unified School District 8/22/2002 274,995,346.00 General obligation bond
2003-1434 San Diego Unified School District 8/7/2003 349,993,599.00 General obligation bond
2001-1770 San Diego Unified School District 11/8/2001 199,995,712.00 General obligation bond
2000-1584 San Diego Unified School District 12/6/2000 149,999,084.00 General obligation bond

2012-0109 San Ysidro School District 1/31/2012 10,409,715.00 Certificates of participation/leases
2011-0496 San Ysidro School District 6/15/2011 17,599,623.00 General obligation bond
2007-1350 San Ysidro School District 11/15/2007 33,952,741.00 General obligation bond
2004-1729 San Ysidro School District 1/14/2005 24,619,363.00 General obligation bond

2004-1742 Sweetwater Union High School District 11/4/2004 96,999,415.00 General obligation bond]



Kudos to Michigan Journalist on the Poway Bond Story
August 8, 2012
By ANDREW DONOHUE
Voice of San Diego

We've gotten more national attention on our Monday story about bonds at Poway Unified School District than we imagined. While it's been great, today a retired reporter and blogger in Michigan is upset with us for taking credit for breaking the story...

Joel Thurtell is a retired Detroit Free Press reporter who has a long history of great reporting on this type of borrowing. He now keeps his own blog called Joel on the Road and did important work on Poway’s expensive borrowing back in May, long before we wrote about it...

First, there’s no doubt Thurtell’s work deserves highlighting. Here are three tremendous stories he did on the Poway financing in May: CABs = Compound Trouble in California, Disaster Shadows Poway and CAB Scam in Poway...