Posts
May 28, 2010
June 1st Board Meeting Agenda has been posted
The agenda for Tuesday's board meeting has been posted to the district's web site and is also available via our Scribd site listed at the left side of this page. To view, just click on the document, or visit the district's website. In any case, please take a look at the agenda, particularly the items that follow the recognition of retirees. Very often when there is a large group at a board meeting for something like that (recognition of retirees), people leave during the intermission that follows. But it's during this post-intermission time that the business items show up, like the results of the supt's phone survey about putting a multi-million bond on the ballot, etc. We will post again after we've read over the whole document, but in the meantime we wanted to let you know that it's available for reading. Please take a few minutes and look over it. There are important items coming up at this meeting.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What is with 10 d? It doesn't say what it will be used for. Obviously, Baird has something planned.
ReplyDeleteOn Page 5 and Page 29 of the June 1, 2010 EUSD Agenda it states that the school district purchased the Encinitas Ranch property in 2004.
ReplyDeleteIf the Agenda item is referring to the property which is directly across from the San Dieguito Heritage Museum Property on Quail Gardens Drive; that property was donated by Carltas corporation to EUSD in 1994 or 1995, NOT 2004.
It is doubtful that this is a typographical error.
The Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan states quite clearly that the property donated to EUSD from Carltas could ONLY be used for construction of a school. The student census projections EUSD to extort this property from the Ecke's proved to be worthless and possibly just smoke and mirrors to gain another asset for the school district.
Most people believe the school district gained the asset falsely and should return the property to the Eckes.
Building a private preschool (not a public elementary school) with funds from publicly financed bonds and/or entering into any contract agreement to create community gardens on that property is very likely illegal; and unethical, but that kind of reckless behavior is what the public has come to expect from EUSD.(see Naylor Act and Pacific View)
Well, you cannot fault them for a lack of intestinal fortitude.
ReplyDeleteThe Trustees throwing away a longtime ally that performs better than they; Magdalene Ecke YMCA, whose board of oversight is a Who's Who of local business leaders; then, misrepresenting when the Encinitas Ranch property was extorted out of the Eckes by a decade; misprepresenting exactly what EUSD intentions are for the property (Community Gardens)and most-likely misconstruing the language in the Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan from 1994 that determines that ONLY a public school be built there.
Throw in a telephone survey by Isom that will no doubt underscore and support the trustees attempt to ring tens of millions of dollars out of the very same taxpayers that are being ill-served by the trustees currently; and you brew up a big bad ugly battle for the election season.
The fact that Superintendent Baird did NOT even inform the district's Technology Committee (parents) that he was about to enter into expensive long term financial and technological commitments with both solar and cable companies is a metaphor for how this district has always done business; invisibly, arrogantly and incompetently.
But, when no one is watching; this is what happens to taxpayer's dollars.
If indeed EUSD attempts a $40,000,000 bond issue on this November's ballot; Encinitas might grow its own Tea Party.
Is it a coincidence that the only one on the board of trustees that actually worked in the private sector is the only one trying to slow down the spending, inform the public and hold trustees and employees accountable?
EUSD paid Isom $7500 to do a telephone survey to tell them that 71% of those Encinitas voters queried by local telephone about whether or not the taxpayers in Encinitas are willing to accept and shoulder a new tax burden of $44 million dollars. When a writer for a local daily asked under public comment exactly what the $44 million is for; because it wasn't detailed in the Agenda for the public, Superintendent Baird said he would inform the public next meeting, June 29th.
ReplyDeleteSo, either Baird knows what the $44 million dollars is for and isn't telling the public, after all, how did he arrive at that number; or he doesn't know what it is for and is planning on just asking for what the maximum is.
Baird is a newcomer with no ties in the community. He also presided over another questionable piece of business last evening, declaring that a new school will be built on the barren acreage on Quail Garden's Drive within 3 years. This would qualify EUSD for a waver on back taxes. Unfortunately, it won't be the elementary school or public school built that the Carltas Corporation donated the property for 16 years ago; it will be a "private" fee-based school that will charge money for preschoolers to attend, and whether or not the trustees succeed at this private enterprise won't matter, because the taxpayers will be paying off the $44 million dollars over 30 years.
Except, only one of the trustees has any experience in the private sector.
What experience do the trustees or Baird for that matter, have in operating a school or preschool for a profit?
Also, 'why' was the Encinitas Ranch property listed as having been purchased in 2004 when asking the State of California for a waver of taxes owed by EUSD; the agenda stated that it was purchased six years ago; when in actuality/reality the property was given/donated to EUSD in 1994.
Isom, the gentleman who performed the telephone survey also told the EUSD trustees that only 55% of the Encinitas voters were necessary to pass it; not 2/3rds. Why? Isom also stated that he would be paid approximately $120,000 for the passage of this bond issue.
The money raised if the bond is issued successfully goes into the EUSD General Fund. Which means that EUSD can tell you the $44 million is for whatever they want; and then turn right around and build the "private" preschool with public money, and we taxpayers are stuck with the tab.
Asking the trustees to approve a bond issue of $44 million without telling the public what the bond is for is the opposite of transparency in local government; and telling the State that you want a waver on a piece of property you have had as an asset since 1994, that you plan to build a private school on that you will pay for with taxpayer dollars you haven't really disclosed the need for; is misleading at a minimum.
I believe the money is supposed to go towards a preschool. Unfortunately, the $7,500 survey never asked whether people would be willing to pay money to go towards a district run preschool. I believe had they done so the answer would have been a resounding no. It was a complete waste of taxpayers' money to pay for such a general survey. Outrageous. Please someone, let's get a term limit measure on the ballot!
ReplyDeleteUnder the "Hey, its not just us thinking something's up ...
ReplyDelete"Specifics Needed for Bond"
http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/columnists/batra/article_4aa7173f-639e-5