ENGAGING DISCUSSION AT FRIDAY'S BEACHSIDE CHAT WHERE I SERVED AS GUEST SPEAKER

I appreciate the San Clemente Times for hosting the September 23rd Beachside Chat at Cafe Calypso and inviting me to be their guest speaker. It was a good turnout with a lively discussion about my candidacy for school board and issues related to CUSD, including the billion dollar bond (Measure M) the school board placed on the November ballot. I shared this morning, that I had hoped for my opponent to join me so the discussion can be balanced with the candidates' opposing viewpoints, but she did not respond to multiple requests by the Editor.

I thank everyone for coming out to participate. In the spirit of Democracy, it was healthy to have people attend today who support me and what I stand for, and those who oppose me, especially as it pertained to CUSD's billion dollar bond/tax proposal and my ideas to get CUSD's financial house in order. I stated that government should not borrow from the future to pay for today's needs. Our children and grandchildren will be on the hook for paying this back.
I shared my experience with the over-taxation of Mello-Roos taxpayers and that this is an important example of how CUSD misused and mismanaged taxpayer dollars illegally and unfairly. Someone said but I bought in Mello-Roos so I should deal with it. I said I signed up to pay Mello-Roos, my fair share and not $60 million more which is what our citizens group remedied from being overtaxed by CUSD. Why would this $1.8 billion bond be any different?

I shared how I believe CUSD needs to live within its means, stop wasting taxpayer dollars on a myriad of consultants, look to its surplus land which is unused, evaluate under-enrolled schools and see what can be done to consolidate administrations to be more fiscally prudent and free up money to repair facilities so we are not financing maintenance repairs for 35 years, and better prioritize the $430 million it receives each year in taxpayer dollars so that the students also win (ie. restore programs and reduce class sizes). Only then, if the facilities needs cannot be met should the school board consider a bond, and it should then only be a bond by area, with specified projects addressed so that residents can actually keep watch over how the funds will be spent. I also said CUSD, in its efforts to attain $229 million in state matching funds should the $9 billion statewide school facilities bond pass (Prop. 51) could have started its process with a smaller bond proposal to build trust with the communities (which is lacking) and work to demonstrate fiscal accountability by selecting high schools with the greatest needs, ie. SCHS and DHHS and seek a $229 million bond and still be eligible to apply for the state match, should voters pass this.

Further I said the process should not be rushed over the summertime in just 4 months. It should involve far more time and involve the community and get it right with specificity of projects and concrete cost estimates which do not exist with the current bond proposal, that is opposed by every trusted Mayor in South OC, and opposed by our Senator, Assemblymember, OC Supervisor, and State Board of Equalization member representative.

I said this bond is too big to manage, too big for taxpayers to track, and taxpayers will be disappointed just like they were with Measure A which promised a lot of the same things, that were never done. I added, there are no guarantees the projects will be completed as disclaimers are noted on CUSD literature advocating for the projects in this bond. I also shared the list of construction, architects, and others already donating to the "Yes on M" campaign because of all the millions they have to gain should this billion dollar tax pass. I concluded by reading comments from the LA Times article about how the Governor is opposing the "developers" $9 billion school facilities bond stating he has nothing good to say about it including the construction industry's role as the proposition's main financier. And that the governor says it will promote sprawl and continue an inequitable system based on which school districts get to the application line the fastest, not which ones need it the most.