HBCSD Corruption

Proof of the Lie:

HBCSD SPUN information and omitted relevant information regarding the Interim School Housing Measures the district took from 2014 to 2016 in Chapter 7, page 7-4 of the Environmental Impact Report for the reconstruction of North School:

7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project

7.3 Alternatives Considered and rejected During the Project Planning Process. Page 7-4 North School Reconstruction Draft EIR Hermosa Beach City School District.

"The District considered numerous alternatives during its planning process to address overcrowded conditions. A chronology of events established the need for the proposed project, alternative sites and options considered by the District, and reasons why the alternatives are infeasible or eliminated and therefore not selected for detailed analysis in this EIR, are provided below."

"Student population in the District expanded rapidly over the last decade, and the District sought a long-term solution to provide adequate school housing. In an effort to swiftly address overcrowding, the District implemented the following temporary solutions:"

CORRECT INFORMATION:

DISTRICT OVERCROWDING WAS TEMPORARY PROBLEM, NOT A PERMANENT SITUATION.

(1) According to the facts, HBCSD DID NOT NEED a "long-term solution to provide adequate school housing".

1. Enrollment was not rising. By 2017, when the Environmental Impact Report for the Reconstruction of North School was written, enrollment had dropped back to 2010 levels.

2. There were no new housing developments being built in Hermosa Beach that would permanently increase the student population.

3. According to the 2014 Facilities Master Plan, page 37, Valley School and View School, as is, could accommodate 1,290 students. In September 2018 HBCSD enrollment was 1,344 students. Using the grand-fathered-in North School as-is would easily accommodate the 54 remaining unhoused students. HBCSD never needed to rebuild North School.

4. In 2019-2021 rebuilding North School would add another 408-510 seats (17 classrooms x 24 students each = 408 student capacity) to the district.

5. In 2021-2022 rebuilding View School would continue to increase the student capacity at HBCSD by another 144 seats.

6. By 2023, HBCSD school capacity would reach 1,902 students. Enrollment in 2023 was only 1,165 Hermosa students and 174 students attending HBCSD on interdistrict permits for a total of 1,339 students. In 2023 there is 563 extra student capacity at HBCSD that is under-used or unused. 563 seats divided by 24 students per classroom = 23 underused or unused classrooms.

7. All State projections showed a continual decline in the population of Hermosa Beach, despite taxpayers paying $59M for a brand new unneeded campus at North School (aka Vista School).

See Lie #19: Superintendent Pat Escalante and school board members claiming that HBCSD was over capacity by 500 students prior to the District's 2016 $59M bond vote.

7. Alternatives to the Proposed Project

7.3 Alternatives Considered and rejected During the Project Planning Process. Page 7-4 North School Reconstruction Draft EIR Hermosa Beach City School District.

"Student population in the District expanded rapidly over the last decade":

(2) HBCSD School board members did NOT take steps to prepare for the anticipated growth in enrollment from 2002 to 2013 until overcrowding became a crises at Valley and View schools.

1.         In 2002 HBCSD school board members commissioned a Facilities Master Plan.  The 2002 Facilities Master Plan recommended that HBCSD supply 12 classrooms within 10 years in order to accommodate projected rising district enrollment.

2.         HBCSD passed a $13.6M facilities bond Measure J in November 2002.   Measure J stated that the bond would be to provide additional classrooms.  However, school board members (Cathy McCurdy, Lance Widman and Greg Breen and Superintendent Sharon McClain) decided to make building a brand-new low-priority gymnasium at Valley School the priority over supplying additional classrooms for the district.

See:

Fact #10: Most people in Hermosa Beach wanted classrooms to be given priority over building a gymnasium in 2002 when HBCSD passed their $13.9M Measure J bond.

Fact #11, Item #5.: School Board members were told by consultants that the gymnasium was not supported by taxpayers and should be left off the bond.  Thereafter the district's highest priority item, the gymnasium, was NOT listed on the bond description when it went to the voters in 2002.

3.         According to the Sale and Purchase Agreement for Pier Avenue School, HBCSD had kept priority usage of the gymnasium, changing rooms, and tennis courts at the Pier Avenue Community Center two hours a day and 10 additional days a year.  HBCSD school board members (Cathy McCurdy, Lance Widman, Greg Breen, Linda Beck and Lisa Claypoole) would ultimately spend $11M and take $1M out of the district coffers to build the gymnasium and two classrooms that only replaced two classrooms torn down to make way for the gymnasium.  Why was the gymnasium made the priority by school board members from 2002 to 2008?  The gymnasium should NOT have been made the priority of the Measure J bond by school board members.  Please see: Exhibit K, Lease Agreement for Future Use of Pier Avenue School. 

4.         By 2010 HBCSD enrollment had increased to approximately 1,300 students.  There were no net new classrooms built with Measure J funds. Both Valley School and View School were becoming overcrowded. HBCSD did nothing to address the problem until 2013 despite employing a very expensive formally retired Superintendent with 30 years of experience in six different school districts with up to 14,000 students.

(3) HBCSD school board members failed to take advantage of Superintendent Bruce Newlin's (2009-2011) extensive 30 year knowledge and experience in managing district facilities. Instead school board members hired the unqualified Pat Escalante to be superintendent in 2012. School board members waited until January 2013 to authorize a review of school district facility options. Apparently, Pat Escalante had very limited experience managing and limited knowledge of school district facility options.

1. See Timeline for September 2008: - HBCSD hires supremely overqualified, expensive, 74-year-old formally retired superintendent Dr. Bruce Newlin as HBCSD’s interim superintendent. 

Dr. Newlin was a formally retired superintendent with 30 years (1968 to 1997) of superintendent experience at six different school districts with enrollment up to 14,000 students.  He also taught for ten years from 1997 to 2006 as a professor at UCLA where he taught leadership at the School of Education and Information Studies.  Please see Dr. Bruce Newlin’s resume. 

2. See Lie #20: Misleading the public that Pat Escalante was well qualified to be a superintendent.

3. Superintendent Pat Escalante continually misinformed the public regarding a multitude of facility issues.

(4) School board members seemingly, purposefully exacerbated the overcrowding at District schools by unnecessarily implementing full-day kindergarten in 2011 AND unnecessarily moving six classrooms of 3rd grade students from Valley School to View School in 2015. The move of 150 - 160 3rd grade students cost taxpayers unnecessary $$ while severely overcrowding View School and panicking parents and staff.

1.         In 2011, HBCSD school board members decided to introduce full-day kindergarten into an already overcrowded View School campus.  Prior to 2011, HBCSD ONLY offered half-day kindergarten and pre-kindergarten. The full-day kindergarten was ostensibly to attract additional students to the district to increase revenue.  At the time neighboring school districts were not offering full-day kindergarten.  Normally half-day kindergarten allows a school district to use one classroom for up to 48 students because half-day kindergarten has a morning (AM class) class and an afternoon (PM class) in the same classroom.  Offering full-day kindergarten reduces the number of available classrooms.

2.         In 2015, only months after the District lost the November 2014 Measure Q bond vote and one year before the district’s upcoming Measure S bond vote, school board members voted to move 160 3rd grade students from Valley School to View School completely overwhelming the already overcrowded campus.  The move was not warranted by the facts.

See also:

Lie #28: Needlessly moving all 3rd grade students from Valley School to View School starting in the 2015-2016 school year – severely overcrowding View School 10 months before the district's next $59M dollar facilities bond vote. 

Lie #29: Misinformation and misleading information provided by Superintendent Pat Escalante to justify moving 3rd grade from Valley School to View School in September 2015. 

Lie #30: The enrollment facts at the Feburary 11, 2015 school board meeting did not justify overcrowding View School with an additional 149 students.

Lie #31: Was the school board's February 2015 decision to egregiously overcrowd View School actually a response to losing the November 2014 $54M Measure Q bond vote and not about class size reduction funding?

Lie #27: Less than six months after the District won it's $59M Measure S bond vote, HBCSD enrollment consultants changed their enrollment projections from future large increases in enrollment to one of markedly lower overall enrollment at HBCSD.

(5) HBCSD school board members did NOT disclose the District's ability to, AT ANY TIME, immediately use the grandfathered-in North School as-is to reduce overcrowding in the official Environmental Impact Report.

1.         North School is a grandfathered in campus, like View School and Valley School, and therefore is considered code compliant as is.

See also:

Lie #6: Misleading the public as to the condition and safety of the Community Center [or the grandfathered-in North School] for students.

Lie #7: Claiming that the Community Center AND North School are not ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) accessible.

Lie #8: Claiming that renovating historical schools such as Pier Avenue School (aka the Community Center) or North School are very expensive and cost prohibitive.

2.     A small bond could have been passed easily by HBCSD to renovate either the Community Center or North School for students.

3.     HBCSD spent more than $1M dollars on temporary classrooms while it also withheld up to 26% of funds (or approximately $2M) from being spent on students and plant services.  The $1M spent on temporary classrooms did NOTHING to solve the overcrowding issues at Valley and View schools.  The 7 additional temporary classrooms only added to the overcrowding on both Valley School and View School campuses.

4.     The $1M spent on temporary classrooms  and approximately $2M in available reserves could have instead been spent to immediately renovate North School for students.  Renovating either North School or the Community Center for HBCSD students would have been a lasting improvement to community assets rather than a short-lived expenditure of district funds.

5. HBCSD School board members outright lied about the CDE requirements in the Naylor Act for using North School.

See Lie #55: HBCSD provided false information in the Environmental Impact Report regarding the CDE Naylor Act regulations as it applies to North School.

6. HBCSD school board members outright lied about the district's 2014 Facilities Master Plan options to use North School.

See Lie #51: HBCSD told a blatant lie and made misleading statements regarding the options proposed in the 2014 Facilities Master Plan in the Environmental Impact Report.

(6) School board members did NOT disclose the District's ability to use the Community Center for students in the district's official Environmental Impact Report. They failed to take advantage of the district's valid contractual right to use classrooms, office and storage space at the Community Center while Valley and View schools were extremely overcrowded.

1.         Using the Community Center or North School for HBCSD students would have immediately relieved existing overcrowding at Hermosa Valley School and Hermosa View School.

NOTE:  July 19, 2014 – Email from HB Mayor Michael DiVirgilio re district usage of the Community Center.  

“The city is not aware of any prohibition that would prevent us [the city] from entertaining requests about the Community Center from the District, or from any entity for that matter.  However, as you saw during our most recent joint meeting, neither the City nor the District are interested in considering the Community Center [as a lower cost alternative for taxpayers AND immediate relief for HBCSD students and staff].”

2.         HBCSD has had valid contractual provisions to use the Community Center since 2010.  School board members chose to ignore their lease agreement for the Community Center.

See: Lie #1: Misleading the public regarding HBCSD’s contractual provisions for use of classrooms, office and storage space at the Pier Avenue School / Community Center.

3.         North School is a grandfathered in campus, like View School and Valley School, and therefore is considered code compliant as is. 

See also: 

Lie #6: Misleading the public as to the condition and safety of the Community Center [or the grandfathered-in North School] for students.

Lie #7: Claiming that the Community Center AND North School are not ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) accessible.

Lie #8: Claiming that renovating historical schools such as Pier Avenue School (aka the Community Center) or North School are very expensive and cost prohibitive.

4.     A small bond could have been passed easily by HBCSD to renovate either the Community Center or North School for students.

5.     HBCSD spent more than $1M dollars on temporary classrooms while it also withheld up to 26% of funds (or approximately $2M) from being spent on students and plant services.  The $1M spent on temporary classrooms did NOTHING to solve the overcrowding issues at Valley and View schools.  The 7 additional temporary classrooms only added to the overcrowding on both Valley School and View School campuses.

6.     The $1M spent on temporary classrooms  and approximately $2M in available reserves could have instead been spent to immediately renovate North School for students.  Renovating either North School or the Community Center for HBCSD students would have been a lasting improvement to community assets rather than a short-lived expenditure of district funds.

7.     If no state matching funds are used, then the CDE does NOT require districts to comply with Title 5 regulations.  “Most school construction and modernization projects utilize state funds and therefore require approval from the following three key state agencies: [CDE Title 5, the Division of State Architect (DSA) and the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC)]”   School districts are NOT required to use state matching funds when updating or building facilities. State matching funds may be minimal when all the facts are examined.