College district asked for $564 million, but quietly Schools & Kids, posted by Editor, The Almanac Online, on Dec 27, 2011 at 12:23 pm
A voter relying on campaign mailers would have been hard pressed this fall to determine how much money was on the table with respect to Measure H, a construction bond measure proposed by the San Mateo County Community College District. The $564 million figure wasn't included in any of the slick, expansive direct-mail pieces.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, December 27, 2011, 10:40 AM
Posted by Jim, a resident of the Atherton: other neighborhood, on Dec 27, 2011 at 12:24 pm
Gee, big construction companies donate to a measure for the reconsturction, remodeling or renovation of the grounds. Yet, those in charge fail to actively promote and live up to their supporters. Time for a new board.
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Dec 27, 2011 at 12:34 pm Peter Carpenter is a member (registered user) of Almanac Online
"Direct mail is "campaign persuasion material," 2011 board President Richard Holober said in a telephone interview. "
Using public funds to lobby for a measure is against the law - public agencies can provide factual, balanced information but they are prohibited by law from lobbying for a measure. The Board president makes it painfully clear that they were lobbying.
I will not hold my breath waiting for our courageous DA to prosecute this crime - even with this clear evidence.
Posted by Jack Hickey, a resident of the Woodside: Emerald Hills neighborhood, on Dec 27, 2011 at 1:55 pm
The face amount of school bond measures in California is the tip of the iceberg. Most bond measures receive a substantial amount of matching funds from the state. That's us, folks! It just comes out of a different tax pocket.
As far as criminal activity is concerned, my Political Advocacy Watch website has an expose of such activity during the failed 1999 bond effort. Legitimate PR or Felonious Political Advocacy?
Posted by Observer, a resident of another community, on Dec 27, 2011 at 2:01 pm
I'm sure the campaign costs were paid by the Citizens for Support of Community Colleges in San Mateo County, which would be an organization separate from the district that raised money specifically for the campaign; hence not using public funds. This is how it is always done when public agencies such as school and community college districts are running a bond or parcel tax campaign. It is the legal way to do it, and I'm sure they followed all laws in this regard, so I wouldn't get too fussed about the DA ignoring this crime that didn't happen.
Posted by Jack Hickey, a resident of the Woodside: Emerald Hills neighborhood, on Dec 27, 2011 at 2:20 pm
Other notable items in David Boyce's article:
In waging the direct mail campaign, the committee Citizens for Support of Community Colleges in San Mateo County spent $140,000 on production costs, according to finance reports and confirmed by spokesman James Keller, the interim president of Canada College.
Also on the committee were the president of the College of San Mateo, the district chancellor, district communications director, and all five district board members.
Question: Did this committee have meetings with a quorum of board members present? Or, did they engage in serial meetings as defined by the Brown Act?
The Measure H campaign, which finance reports show collected $341,323 as of Oct. 22, got off to a rolling start with a donation of $131,822 in January. This was left over from 2010, when the district campaigned successfully for a $34 parcel tax, Mr. Keller said.
Question: How much money do they have left over for their next assault on property owners? Watch for their end of the year filing.
Posted by Jack Hickey, a resident of the Woodside: Emerald Hills neighborhood, on Dec 27, 2011 at 2:33 pm
How much of the leftover funds from the 2010 parcel tax campaign came from the Foundation headed by Stefanie Scott who is on the District payroll? The Foundation contributed >$60,000 of tax-exempt donations to that campaign. Web Link
Posted by Thomas Paine IV, a resident of the Menlo Park: Felton Gables neighborhood, on Dec 27, 2011 at 3:55 pm
The arrogant SO*s did not bother to explain what the bond money would provide in terms of additional classroom capacity. Call me simple but before I vote for more taxes, I want to know how many classrooms we currently have, what % of the time they are used and how many more rooms the additional money would buy. Having visited one of the JC's I found lots of empty rooms during the evening. Perhaps we could expand the school day and better utilize the billion dollar facility we currently have.
Posted by Joseph E. Davis, a resident of the Woodside: Emerald Hills neighborhood, on Dec 27, 2011 at 8:31 pm
The most ridiculous part of this measure was that the ballot summary did not say that property taxes would be raised or by how much. Instead, it simply presented a long list of potential benefits and stated that bonds would be sold. Exactly how the bonds would be financed is left to the imagination of the voter.
Excuse me, but shouldn't an honest summary present the cost as well as the purported benefits? The ballot language was simply disgraceful.
Posted by Jon Castor, a resident of the Woodside: Woodside Heights neighborhood, on Dec 28, 2011 at 1:43 pm Jon Castor is a member (registered user) of Almanac Online
I also want to thank Dave Boyce and the Almanac for doing this story. Great example of why we need local journalism. Moved me to search out the link to support the 'paper'. (It doesn't always appear on the home page.) If you're interested, you can find it here: Web Link
Posted by Michael G. Stogner, a resident of another community, on Dec 28, 2011 at 4:22 pm
Realist says, "Go to the website and review the board - the thing that stands out is how long each of the board members have been in office, the "newest" coming up on nine years. Time for new leadership!!!
Two members are here because they did not win recent elections.
Dave Mandelkern Treasure Tax Collector
Richard Holober Supervisor of San Mateo County
They are using this position as a stepping stone, and what would have happened if they got elected? What cost would the taxpayers have to pay for a special election or possibly two special elections.