SCV Talk · Archive
Nine years of the Valley’s town square · 2006–2015
SCV Talk
February 2, 2011· scvtalk.com · WordPress (SCVTalk 3.0) · Wayback capture

Insulting and Offensive

By Jeff — Jeff Wilson

I have never seen such an obtuse, insulting response from a public agency over how money has been spent as I saw in today’s Signal report on the Hart District’s $300 million in Measure SA money,.  Checkitout:

I’ve been a blogger for almost five years now and I’ve called, interviewed, emailed, and informally chatted with several public information officials and behind-the-scenes movers and shakers in our valley and the region.

And I can tell you this: if I had ever received a response like this, it’d immediately make my blogger antennae perk upright. I’d think to myself, “Hmmm. That’s odd. I asked a PIO for a simple statement and instead I got carefully-worded text verbatim from a lawyer. What are they trying to hide?”

It’s also insulting because it appears they lawyered up before The Signal even reported this story. It’s like they knew there’d be questions about how they spent the money, so they brought in a lawyer as part of their communication strategy.

Like you need a lawyer when dealing with The Signal!

Well now, guess what? It is an issue. Because the District’s reflexive need for secrecy over the years has built to such a point that I no longer give them the benefit of the doubt, nor should you. If they want to communicate to us through lawyers, then we should escalate it above their heads. That’s just what the woman in the article, Michele Lecravian, is doing, and I support her.

Next step is to get you know who involved. Where da Tea Party at? Taxpayer money is on the line and the District has lawyered up. I’d say that calls for some protests up Centre Pointe Parkway way. Is there some sort of bat signal that alerts the local Tea Party to trouble? For that matter, why isn’t Joe Messina doing something about this?

Comments (24)

  1. navigatorFebruary 2, 2011 at 10:40 am
    Messina is too busy creating a political empire with another well known SCV official and attempting to discredit someone who doesn’t agree with that process.
  2. spineflower2February 2, 2011 at 11:14 am
    While I agree some correspondence and expenses should be confidential until finalized (such as considering purchase of land, disclosure of which would increase the market price), this is the exception, not the rule. We were promised Castaic HS and transparency, after the prior measure’s wasteful and deceitful handling. If they can’t keep their eye on the ball then it’s time to bring in the second string. This is the test they invited when the measure was sold to the public. Pass or fail, time to grade it and either flunk or promote them on that basis. Any delay is a de facto admission of wrongdoing.
  3. PetzFebruary 2, 2011 at 1:25 pm
    Petz got on the phone this afternoon and asked Joe to comment on the Measure SA kerfluffle referenced above. Joe, basically dropped what he was doing to provide me and the SCVTALK audience a response. So this is what Joe is doing about it and anyone can pick up the phone to discuss it with him. Thanks for your service Joe ! C/P so the format is choppy. Steve As I told you on the phone. I actually started looking into this when I was on the Measure V committeeI was upset because the district had approved borrowing of 10 million from misc accounts including measure V funds that had already been raised on bond and where allocated but not needed at that time.I raised it in public session and was told they were looking the legality of borrowing the money. When I got on the board we still didn’t have a response from our attorney. I had been pushing from last December. We got a preliminary “opinion letter” From our attorneys, I felt there was no real meat in it. It left us where we were before I asked for a stronger letter . We got a “Stronger Letter” .. Basically it said that Prop 39 funds were to be used only for the purposes as stated in the bond language.and that it can never be used for salaries or purchase of vehicles. HOWEVER there is also a state education law that says we can borrow from any account we have funds in (with very few exceptions)As long as we return the money by the end of the fiscal year. At this time the district has adhered to that. The second opinion letter basically stated that it was untested and that there Were no cases to compare to see if it was actually ILLEGAL to borrow the money Especially since some of the money could/might be used on salary and vehicles. My take is that we stay away from it. The vote we take to “Borrow funds” is a general vote Stating that The board gives the Administration permission to borrow up to XX million dollars As prescribed and in accordance with the law. As far as accounting goes… BOTH accounts Measure V and Measure SA have a PERFORMANCE audit done yearly, the committees check them out and report back to us and we can except of reject the report. These reports are posted and available to the public. The Accounting portion is done in that performance review. And there is a secondary report and audit done along with the general audit Of district funds. That report was recently presented and apparently not good enough for some Residents. At this point I am content with the way Measure SA funds are being monitored. The board is getting frequent updates on the both measures. You also can go anytime to the Measure V or SA meetings and request information. The person claiming to have made several requests has done so verbally at the podium during public session. BUT should make them in writing as she did recently with a specific request and delivery address. I am not done with this issue. BUT at the moment I don’t believe there is any Hanky Panky happening.. I hope that helps. Feel free to post this, BUT I don’t want to hear about my grammatical or spelling errors. just trying to inform the people Joe Messina William S Hart Union High School District Member, Governing Board 661-257-9250 jmessina@hartdistrict.org http://www.hartdistrict.org
  4. CCFebruary 2, 2011 at 1:48 pm
    While I appreciate Joe’s response, I am disturbed at the ‘borrowing’ language. I wonder if you could borrow from one fund to pay another. Then, what happens when the district can’t pay it back. The reason California approves these bonds is so that it will be used for a very specific purpose but once again the district has found away around the intent.
  5. spineflower2February 2, 2011 at 3:26 pm
    I do not remember any disclosure that the bond money for Castaic High School could in any way, shape, or form be used for anything but the purposes in the bond measure. I voted yes, but might not have had this fact been disclosed. TRANSPARENCY OR BUST!
  6. Coastal SageFebruary 3, 2011 at 3:43 pm
    CC: The easiest-to-read official “bond document” is the Official Statement, which the bond underwriters (i.e. re-sellers) are supposed to give to their customers to make critical disclosures before the bonds are purchased by investors. Usually, there is one subtle line of text, in the Official Statement, which describes how a public agency can divert bond proceeds from what the public agency said they were going to use them for, to something else. For example, CLWA’s Official Statements typically contain a chart listing what they will spend the bond money for, but then the subtle sentence says that CLWA can change what it is going to spend the money for as long as they send a written notice to the bond trustee telling them about the change. As a result, use of the term “borrowing” is a polite nuance at best. My bet is that the Hart District bond documents you are referring to say that the promised use of the bond proceeds can be changed, permanently, without anyone’s consent…just by notice to the bond trustee. By the way, as a technical matter, sometimes “bonds” are called “certificates of participation”, so if you are ever asking for “bond documents” make sure to refer to “bonds or certificates of participation”. Public agencies like CLWA and Hart District sometimes use certificates of participation to borrow money because voters are not required to approve the borrowing because certificates of participation are structured as sale/leasebacks or sale/installment purchase backs of the public agency’s assets.
  7. Coastal SageFebruary 3, 2011 at 4:35 pm
    Joe, as an FYI, the California case law says that an ORAL Public Records Act Request is legally sufficient, so the stonewalling of this lady in terms of the documents she asked to see WAS illegal.
  8. PetzFebruary 2, 2011 at 2:06 pm
    It appears to me that Joe favors a conservative interpretation of the attorney’s opinion letter and no borrowing has taken place to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
  9. PoliticoFebruary 2, 2011 at 4:04 pm
    Speaking of wasting the public’s money, Bruce Fortine is getting ready to make his annual junket to the National Trustees’ Conference in DC. That’s cabfare to and from the airport (both here and in DC), hotel, all meals and incidentals, as well as the cost of the conference itself (which is about $600). Just can’t see it when the college is being forced to cut back on classes due to the budget.
  10. OccassionalPosterFebruary 2, 2011 at 4:47 pm
    The people to call here is the Los Angeles County Office of Education. They audit the school budget and have access to all of the school financials. Filing a public records request with them for say the last three years financials will probably due the trick.
  11. Phil EllisFebruary 3, 2011 at 5:00 pm
    The LACOE budget review is nothing compared to a true audit which all school districts get. While bond funds are covered in the general audit, it is the specific bond audit that checks to ensure proper expenditure of bond funds. No FOIA request is needed. The reports are on the districts website. Further, with respect to bond funds (at least for prop 39 bonds) a citizens oversight committee is appointed and has the responsibility to review these audits and other district records and report to the community as to whether or not bond funds were spent appropriately spent. These reports are also available on the district website.
  12. Occassional PosterFebruary 6, 2011 at 8:21 am
    The LACOE “budget review” – I would prefer to call it an audit – was instituted under a state law that requires annual audits of school districts. This came in reaction to a Bay Area school becoming insolvent and needing to borrow money from the state to continue operating. The aforementioned budget review probes the solvency of the district in the near term, the upcoming fiscal year and the three-year projections. Those budget reviews would include examination of debt service, cash flow and expenditures. A failure of to show sufficient cash flow, or evidence that the district can’t handle its debt service or that it expenditures are too large, will result in a rating the effect the district’s ability to borrow money in the future. In the worst case scenario, the district would deemed insolvent and not allowed to enter into short term borrowing needed to make payroll and is taking over by the state.
  13. Bill ReynoldsFebruary 3, 2011 at 12:24 am
    “Where da Tea Party at?” So now out of the clear blue Master Blogger Jeffrey seeks Tea Party assistance on this matter… WTF! And there’s not even a blue moon blasting our landscape!? Did somebody spike Master Blogger’s koolaid!?
  14. ReaderMamaFebruary 3, 2011 at 7:31 am
    There really should be a sarcasm font.
  15. Timothy Myers SRFebruary 3, 2011 at 10:21 am
    Isn’t one of the symptoms of Aspergers an inability to decode sarcasm?
  16. ReaderMamaFebruary 3, 2011 at 3:19 pm
    You may be on to something there, Tim. That would explain the lack of empathy, social difficulties and the repetitive use of certain language as well.
  17. PetzFebruary 3, 2011 at 5:42 am
    At a minimum, you have to give Joe Messina credit for responding in a timely manner. He has kept trust with those of us who supported his candidacy.
  18. ToddFebruary 3, 2011 at 8:17 am
    Lol, exactly. Bill might demand that all posts should be done in English only because sarcasm is not an official language of these United States… Only English is!
  19. Phil EllisFebruary 3, 2011 at 12:08 pm
    No, not even English is the official language of the US. Joe is correct about Measure V. We on the oversight did question the propriety of borrowing between funds (mostly to cover cash flow issues only, so repayment was never an issue, just what was legal) Even though the Oversight Committee for Measure V did observe (and reported) accounting “irregularities,” no Measure V funds were found to have been spent on impermissible items. The prior Measure V Citizen Oversight reports should still be on the website. If you read them in chronological order you can you were the Committee was quite critical and where the District finally paid heed to the Committee’s findings.
  20. leslieFebruary 3, 2011 at 12:18 pm
    As a result of the state budget mess, the state has delayed payment on the money it sends to schools districts. So money that should be received in July actually comes in September and so on. This results in serious cash flow issues for a lot of school districts. The districts then have to borrow money in order to meet payroll and pay its bills . They then pay that money back when the state finally sends the money. Districts can borrow from themselves (ie from the bond accounts) or they can participate in a program that allows them to borrow elsewhere. They pay the money back with the state funds when they arrive. It is not to “scam” the system and use bond money for something it is not allowed to be used for.
  21. ReaderMamaFebruary 3, 2011 at 3:22 pm
    Some of us are grateful for a little cash flow leeway. We only get paid once a month as it is. Waiting 3 or 4 months for a pay check would be impossible for most of us.
  22. Coastal SageFebruary 3, 2011 at 4:19 pm
    “It’s also insulting because it appears they lawyered up before The Signal even reported this story. It’s like they knew there’d be questions about how they spent the money, so they brought in a lawyer as part of their communication strategy.” About 8 or 9 years ago, Superintendent Bob Lee was refusing to respond to California Public Records Act Requests for documents concerning construction of 2 new schools, even though the documents clearly were not exempt from disclosure. We filed a California Public Records Act lawsuit against the District, to get the documents. The “penalty” to the District for not making the documents public would ultimately be a court order that the District pay the plaintiff’s attorneys fees and court costs. Back then, the District’s lawyer’s response to the lawsuit was to contact Bob and tell him that he had to make the documents public. The matter was resolved with no effort on our part (other than writing the complaint and paying to file it). The District copied the documents for free, to offset the cost of the court filing fee, and everyone went home happy. I graciously didn’t bother seeking a court-ordered award of attorneys fees. As a result, I am not willing to assume, at this point, that the non-disclosure of the documents Ms. Lecrivan wants, is policy of the Hart District designed by its lawyer, who is the same person I dealt with years ago. It may just be a stubborn layman driven policy. Anyone who is being stonewalled in WRITTEN Public Records Act Requests to the Hart District should phone its lawyer, Wendy Wiles, at (949) 851-1300, and politely put her on notice that the person requesting the documents will file a lawsuit against the District if they are not immediately made available. That phone call should be followed up with a letter to Ms. Wiles, politely threatening the lawsuit, and attaching the WRITTEN request for documents made to the District itself. If Ms. Wiles can’t get the District to cough up documents pronto, then the requester will know that it IS a Hart District Board policy to break California law by stonewalling on California Public Records Act requests. The filing of a lawsuit under the California Records Act will be required under that circumstance, but most contingency fee plaintiffs lawyers I know will be more than happy to run up an hourly bill which a court will require the District to pay. One time, about 7 years ago, someone advising the City of Santa Clarita thought they were being clever in stonewalling TMC aka Cemex in producing the City’s public records concerning the Soledad Canyon mine. An LA Superior Court judge found that the City Attorney had no lawful basis for advising the City staff to withhold the documents, and the City got hit with a judgment of $50,000 or more in TMC/Cemex’s attorneys fees. The incurring of double attorneys fees in connection with a California Public Records Act lawsuit is a sign of immaturity on the part of elected officials, and the response by the electorate should be to criticize the elected officials as “law breakers”. The other fun thing about a California Public Records Act lawsuit is that if the plaintiff and his/her want to spend the money, they can subpoena any of the public agency’s staff or elected officials for a deposition taken under penalty of perjury. The topic of questions at the deposition can be wide ranging, and very embarrassing for the elected officials and senior employees of the public agency who are being deposed. In truth, a Public Records Act lawsuit can become a “fishing expedition” to embarrass those public officials. For the cost of a court reporter and a few hours of lawyers’ time, the citizen-plaintiff can have lots of interesting questions answered by the public official under penalty of perjury, and then later use the deposition transcript to roast the public official in any number of ways. These days, depositions are videotaped, so the complaining party could even make a copy of the elected official’s deposition available for Not-A-Ferry-Fan to broaden his horizons. I’ll never forget the deposition of Santa Clarita’s former City Manager. After ducking out on his deposition several times, the City’s former City Attorney signed a binding stipulation that the City Manager would appear to be deposed at a specific date, time and place. Instead the City Manager fled to Indonesia, and the case was settled in his absence. Priceless!
  23. spineflower2February 3, 2011 at 9:12 pm
    Perhaps someone needs to explain to this board that the words “transparency” and “invisibility” are not synonyms.
  24. Marie LecrivainFebruary 7, 2011 at 4:39 pm
    Btw: excellent post… and, my mother’s last name is *Lecrivain.* Thanks for supporting her and her efforts.:)

Preserved as part of the SCV Talk Archive. Text is presented as originally published; presentation has been standardised for readability. The original capture is available at the Internet Archive.

Support