Bond factions face off at district

Andrew Wainer

The Huntington Beach Union High School District absorbed pointed

criticism from community members at Tuesday night’s board meeting for its

conduct during the failed Nov. 9 repair bond campaign.

“The community gave the school board a vote of no confidence,” Huntington

Beach resident Diane Eastman said. “How do you intend to regain the trust

of the community?”

Kurt English, president of the Orange County Young Republicans club,

added that he was “disappointed” in the district for what he claimed was

a waste of taxpayers’ money.

District officials said they do not regret the election and believe they

were doing the right thing for the community’s youth.

Supt. Susan Roper said the district will be setting up a special study

session to examine the outcome of the Measure A vote and brainstorm for

new alternatives to fix the district’s sagging schools. The session will

be open to the public.

Roper said she hoped to hold the meeting late this month or in early

December.

District officials have said they expect to receive $37 million in repair

funds from the state this summer. Coupled with $9 million in matching

district funds, the district will have about $46 million for

modernization projects.

And in March, a ballot initiative will be presented to voters to lower

the threshold for school bond elections from two-thirds to a simple

majority.

If the initiative passes, Roper said another bond election is definitely

an option.

In spite of the loss and community criticism, Marina High School teacher

Earl Ziemann defended the district’s campaign during the public comments

section of the meeting.

“All the critics of this bond election have not presented alternative

ideas,” Ziemann said. “I suggest they come up with another way to repair

these schools instead of simply criticizing.”

But as the district explores alternatives to repair its dilapidated

schools and fields criticism from frustrated community members, it is

also facing a variety of allegations concerning improper spending.

The State Education Code says districts can spend public funds to

disseminate information on bond issues, but may not advocate a position

on the vote.

District officials said their $300,000 campaign fell within the mark of

the law and was aimed at raising public awareness, not swaying voters

toward a particular position.

But some bond opponents disagreed and took the allegations to the

district attorney and other state agencies for investigation.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Carolyn Carlisle-Rains confirmed her office is

reviewing the allegations.

The charges also were submitted to the Fair Political Practices

Commission in Sacramento.

William Fitzgerald Jr., a vehement opponent of the bond election who

submitted the complaint to the county and state agencies, claimed the

district violated Educational Code statute 7054, which states: “No school

district ... funds, services, supplies or equipment shall be used for the

purpose of urging support or defeat of any ballot measure.”

Fitzgerald cites a campaign proposal letter sent to Roper, by Eileen

Padberg Consulting, as an example of the district overstepping the law.

Padberg assisted with the district’s bond election information campaign.

The letter, dated Feb. 10, 1999, describes a public relations plan by

Eileen Padberg Consulting and outlines a program “that, we believe, would

lay the groundwork for achieving the ultimate public approval for a bond

measure that would raise money for major repairs.”

Fitzgerald said this section of the letter shows a violation of the

educational code.

The letter also describes the proposal’s objective to “communicate the

critical need for approval of the bond measure.”

The letter from Padberg proposes Town Hall meetings, community

organizations and local community newspapers in campaigns highlighting

the schools’ disrepair.

Encouraging “students, parents and local groups” to write letters to the

editor urging repairs was another suggestion.

Padberg defends her firm’s conduct during the campaign.

“We were consulting lawyers throughout our campaign to ensure that we did

not violate the law,” Padberg said.

Regarding the campaign proposal, Padberg said communication that reaches

voters is subject to the law, but not correspondence between the district

and consultants.

She said all materials prepared by her and the district did not

explicitly advocate a yes or no vote.

Roper also defended the district’s conduct during the campaign, calling

allegations of illegal activity “totally ridiculous.”

Question

What should be the school district’s next move on school repairs?

Leave your thoughts on our Readers Hotline at 965-7175, fax us at

965-7174 or send e-mail to hbindy@latimes.com . Please spell your name

and include your hometown.