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.
All the latest on Orange County from Orange County.
Get our free TimesOC newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Daily Pilot.