HBCSD $13.9M Measure J, Spending $11M on a gymnasium, library and two classrooms: 2007 to 2009

June 21, 2007 – Hermosa’s teachers march over pay, by Robb Fulcher, Easy Reader News:

1. “A dispute over teachers’ salaries bubbled over into a protest rally followed by a sometimes contentious debate at the school board’s regular monthly meeting. Hermosa’s public school teachers complained that they have the lowest pay of Los Angeles County’s 27 elementary school districts, while their students maintain the highest academic test scores. School board members agreed that the teachers deserve more money, but said they can’t afford raises over 3 percent.”

2. “Second grade teacher Karen Maguy asked the school board, “What and who, are your priorities in the district? Where have you spent your money? Is it a new gym? Is it in administration?”

3. “At the meeting, school board President Cathy McCurdy said there’s no money for a larger pay raise. She said she has seen the district’s reserves shrink from 27 percent to 4 percent, which is as low as it can go under state law.”*

COMPETEING INFORMATION:

A. School board members decide how district funds are spent. If school board President Cathy McCurdy said that she “has seen the district’s reserves shrink from 27 percent to 4 percent” then it was she and her fellow school board members who “shrunk” (spent) the district’s reserves – on what? - the gymnasium complex at Valley School?

B. From 2005 to 2006, school board members decided to use $700,000 of district reserves in order to build the gymnasium complex at Valley School. School board members had ALREADY eliminated two classrooms from their plan in 2004. (See: May 20, 2004 – District cuts back on expansion by David Rosenfeld, Easy Reader News) They then, again, eliminated two classrooms in 2005/2006 from the final design in order to save $800,000 and $700,000 respectively so they could afford to build the gymnasium.

C. School board members ended up taking more than $990,000 from district funds to fund/finish the new construction, even after deleting four classrooms from plans. Please see: February 17, 2006 - Final set of bids for new construction at Valley School , June 2007 – HBCSD Purchase Orders over $500, July 18, 2007 – HBCSD Contract Extension for Construction Management Services for the Hermosa Valley School New Construction Project. B-10-07/08, July 18, 2007 – HBCSD Contract Extension for Architectural Services for the Hermosa Valley School New Construction Project. B-11-07/08, October 4, 2007 – A&A Protective Services, Inc.*

*NOTE: It is believed that HBCSD hired A&A Protective Services for nine months because the fire alarm in the brand-new gymnasium at Valley School was not yet operational.

D. School district reserves went from 13.5% in 2000 to just 2.9% in 2005. HBCSD is required to keep at least 3% of district funds in reserves for economic uncertainties.

a. School board members would need to reduce spending on educational expenditures and campus maintenance from 2006 forward to build HBCSD reserves back up above 2.9%.

b. Available reserves consist of all funds designated for economic uncertainty contained within the General Fund (aka the district’s checking account)

c. Did HBCSD teachers know that school board members had spent $700,000 from district coffers on the gymnasium so that there was nothing extra to spend on teacher salaries? Is that why teacher Karen Maguy made her statement above (see item #2.) to the school board?

E. The November 5, 2002 Measure J official bond language stated: “To improve the quality of education… shall the Hermosa Beach City School District be authorized to finance classroom modernization; upgrade electrical systems to improve access to technology; make health, safety, and security improvements; classrooms and science labs; acquire land, and qualify for State funds up to $1,700,000, by issuing $13,600,000 in bonds, within maximum legal interest rates, with annual audits, a citizens’ oversight committee and no money for administrators’ salaries?’

NOTE: Was “education improved” by school board members taking $700,000 of district funds (not Measure J bond funds) in order to build a gymnasium complex instead of using the funds to support student education? Why was the gymnasium so important to certain school board members that they could justify taking funds from educating children in order to build it?

F. In the fall of 2008, the Great Recession hit in earnest. HBCSD ended the 2007 school year with only 5.2% in reserves. How much more money would the district have had to head into the Great Recession if school board members had not spent more than $964,926.80 of district reserves on the gymnasium? How much of those funds could have been spent on ongoing district maintenance and education instead of being spent on a low-priority gymnasium?

a. In the fall of 2008, school board members would also hire a very expensive, over-qualified, formally retired superintendent, Dr. Bruce Newlin.

b. In June 2011, after HBCSD had rebuilt its coffers after taking approximately $1M for the new construction at Valley School, a new contract with teachers would be agreed to by school board members. The teachers would get a 4% salary increase retroactive to July 2006 for the 2006-2007 school year and a 3% salary increase retroactive to July 2007 for the 2007-2008 school year.

June 2007 – New Construction News from the Superintendent!

Two-page diagram shows gymnasium complex floor plan. The gym floor can have one high-school sized basketball court length-wise or two smaller basketball courts situated width-wise and one volleyball court length-wise or two volleyball courts situated width-wise. The first floor includes changing rooms, bathrooms and library and elevator. The second floor contains two science classrooms of approximately 1,000 square feet each. No other classrooms were supplied with the $11 million dollar plus price tag.

June 2007 – HBCSD Purchase Orders over $500.

P.O.#7662 – F&R Woodworks: Architectural & Laboratory, Fund- Capital Facility Fund, Amount-$115,800.00*

P.O.#7663 – Floor Covering for New Construction, Fund-Capital Facility Fund, Amount-$31,859.00*

*NOTE: $147,659.00 was taken out of school district reserves NOT from bond funds. Bond funds had already been exhausted.

NOTE: Casework, painting and floor coverings totaling $200,522.00 were removed from final bids that were accepted in February 2006.

NOTE: The $147,659.00 paid for casework and floor coverings in June 2007 were above and beyond the $700,000.00 that school board members had taken from district reserves in order to pay for the February 2006 bids.

July 18, 2007 – HBCSD Contract Extension for Construction Management Services for the Hermosa Valley School New Construction Project. B-10-07/08

Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board of Education approve an extension of the original contract with PCM3, Inc. to perform construction management services at a cost not to exceed $77,767.80.*

…”The project [new construction at Valley School] also saw various unforeseen conditions including to but not limited to the new south retaining wall, additional west wall shoring requirements, relocation of the municipal sewer line and DSA additional requirements…” “Cost of this contract extension is charged to Fund #25 Capital Facility Fund…”

*NOTE: $77,767.80 was taken out of school district reserves NOT from bond funds. Bond funds had already been exhausted.

NOTE: The $77,767.80 paid for additional PCM3, Inc. in June 2007 were above and beyond the $700,000.00

that school board members had taken from district reserves in order to pay for the February 2006 bids.

July 18, 2007 – HBCSD Contract Extension for Architectural Services for the Hermosa Valley School New Construction Project. B-11-07/08.

Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board of Education approve an extension of the original contract with Dougherty and Dougherty to perform architectural services during the construction and close out phase at a cost not to exceed $39,500.00.*

*NOTE: $39,500.00 was taken out of school district reserves NOT from bond funds. Bond funds had already been exhausted.

NOTE: The $39,500.00 paid for additional Dougherty and Dougherty architectural services in June 2007 were above and beyond the $700,000.00 that school board members had taken from district reserves in order to pay for the February 2006 bids.

October 4, 2007 – A&A Protective Services, Inc.

Unarmed security service for Valley School new construction. It is believed that the security service was needed for the gymnasium since the fire alarm in the gymnasium was not working properly. The length of the contract was approximately from October 2007 until June 2008. The cost of unarmed security services was $22.40/hour. $22.40/hour times 8 hours/day = $179.20/day. $179.20 x approximately 149 days = $26,700.00. Paid from HBCSD General Fund which is used to educate students.

October 9, 2007 – City Council members:

1. Kit Bobko

2. Sam Y Edgerton

3. Peter C Tucker

4. J.R. Reviczky

5. Michael Keegan – Mayor

6. Steve Burrell – City Manager

November 27, 2007 – Valley School gym building unveiled by Robb Fulcher, Easy Reader News.

1. “Officials made speeches, received plaques and listened to children sing and play musical instruments at the grand opening of a gymnasium-library-classroom building on the southwest corner of Hermosa Valley School. The ceremony last Wednesday evening was the culmination of an $11 million project seven years in the making.”

2. “Before the ceremony Valley School Student Council members led tours of the two-story building, which contains a 2,000 square foot library, 2,000 [square] feet of classroom space (two regular classrooms and two specially equipped science classrooms), and a 7,500 square-foot gym.”

a. CORRECT INFORMATION: There were only two science classrooms built of approximately 1,000 square feet each. The two other regular classrooms were NOT BUILT. The two science classrooms replaced two that had been torn down to build the gymnasium. No net new classrooms were built at Valley School with Measure J bond funds.

b. COMPETING INFORMATION: November 5, 2002– 13.6M Measure J facilities bond. Official bond language states: “To improve the quality of education, shall the Hermosa Beach City School District be authorized to finance classroom modernization; upgrade electrical systems to improve access to technology; make health, safety, and security improvements; classrooms and science labs; acquire land, and qualify for State funds up to $1,700,000, by issuing $13,600,000 in bonds, within maximum legal interest rates, with annual audits, a citizens’ oversight committee and no money for administrators’ salaries?’

NOTE: Five years after the passage of $13.9 million dollar measure J, school board members (Lance Widman, Greg Breen, Cathy McCurdy, Linda Beck, and Lisa Claypoole) finish construction of the gymnasium, two science classrooms and a library. The total cost of the new construction at Valley School using bond and other funds AND $700,000 of district reserves is $11M. The total cost of $13.9 million Measure J will be about $30 million when it is paid off in 2030.

School board members used $700,000 AND at least $264,926.80 (See: June and July 2007 above for a total of at least $964,926.80 of district funds in order to finish work on the gymnasium, two science classrooms and a library. The funds are taken from the district’s reserves (savings account). Available reserves consist of all undesignated fund balances and all funds designated for economic uncertainty within the district main General Fund (checking account). Reserves drop from 13% in December 2002 to 2.9% in June 2005. California Department of Education requires available reserves of at least 3% for HBCSD. In about a year the Great Recession will happen and greatly affect school district funding. HBCSD will be in a much weaker financial position in part because of the nearly $1 million taken from district coffers to finish a low priority gymnasium. School board members withhold funds from other district operations such as education and campus maintenance in order to rebuild district reserves.

January 8, 2008 – City Council members:

1. Kit Bobko

2. Michael DiVirgilio

3. Peter C Tucker

4. J.R. Revitsky

5. Michael Keegan – Mayor

6. Steve Burrell – City Manager

May 21, 2008 – Worst Case Budget Scenarios per Governor’s May 2008 Budget Revisions.

DEFICIT: $1,561,204 13 teachers = $951,977. 1 teacher = $73,229. 9 teachers X $73,229 = $659,061. School board members committed at least $700,000 of district funds to be spent on the new construction at Valley School in February 2006. $700,000 would have paid for approximately nine (9) teachers and one clerk. See also: September 30, 2009 – Hermosa Beach City School District Bond Measure J, Citizens’ Oversight Committee – Final Report – 9/30/09.

School Board members also spent the following out of district coffers to finish the new construction at Valley School:

1. June 2007 – HBCSD Purchase Orders over $500

P.O.#7662 – F&R Woodworks: Architectural & Laboratory, Fund- Capital Facility Fund, Amount-$115,800.00*

P.O.#7663 – Floor Covering for New Construction, Fund-Capital Facility Fund, Amount-$31,859.00*

*NOTE: $147,659.00 was taken out of school district reserves NOT from bond funds. Bond funds had already been exhausted.

NOTE: Casework, painting and floor coverings totaling $200,522.00 were removed from final bids that were accepted in February 2006.

2. July 18, 2007 – HBCSD Contract Extension for Construction Management Services for the Hermosa Valley School New Construction Project. B-10-07/08

…”The project [new construction at Valley School] also saw various unforeseen conditions including to but not limited to the new south retaining wall, additional west wall shoring requirements, relocation of the municipal sewer line and DSA additional requirements…” “Cost of this contract extension is charged to Fund #25 Capital Facility Fund…”

*NOTE: $77,767.80 was taken out of school district reserves NOT from bond funds. Bond funds had already been exhausted.

NOTE: The $77,767.80 paid for additional PCM3, Inc. in June 2007 were above and beyond the $700,000.00 that school board members had taken from district reserves in order to pay for the February 2006 bids.

3. July 18, 2007 – HBCSD Contract Extension for Architectural Services for the Hermosa Valley School New Construction Project. B-11-07/08

…”The project [new construction at Valley School] also saw various unforeseen conditions including to but not limited to the new south retaining wall, additional west wall shoring requirements, relocation of the municipal sewer line and DSA additional requirements…” “Cost of this contract extension is charged to Fund #25 Capital Facility Fund…”

*NOTE: $39,500.00 was taken out of school district reserves NOT from bond funds. Bond funds had already been exhausted.

4. October 4, 2007 – A&A Protective Services, Inc.

June 3, 2008 – HBCSD’s Measure E $257/annual parcel tax. Measure E did NOT receive the required 65% of Yes votes in order to pass.

1. City Council members Michael DiVirgillio and Kit Bobko try to bring together advocates and opponents of the failed parcel tax.

2. Michael DiVirgillio and Kit Bobko cajole School Board members, against the wishes of School Board member Greg Breen, to hold their meetings in the City Council chambers where they can be video tapped and aired on cable television. From September 2008, HBCSD meetings are archived on the city website.

3. NOTE: After many years of Community members requesting that HBCSD School Board members hold meetings in the City Council chambers so that they could be video-tapped and streamed live, only after HBCSD School Board members lose the 2006 and June 2008 parcel tax votes that they acquiesce to residents request to video tape school board meetings.

4. NOTE: Prior to moving HBCSD School Board meetings to the City Council chambers, HBCSD School Board meetings were held in either the Valley School or View School multipurpose rooms. Meetings were only recorded on cassette tapes. The public had to purchase a copy of the cassette tape of a meeting from HBCSD. The recordings would often fail or were hard to hear since the sound system was subpar. It was hard to determine who was speaking and no camera to record School Board members' reactions, etc.

June 5, 2008 - School Board transparency needed, by Miyo Prassas, Letters to the Editor, The Easy Reader news.

"Most residents find it difficult to attend School Board meetings in which critical decsions are often made late into the evenings. For years now, letters and emails have been imploring the Hermosa Beach School Board to televise their meetings for the benefit of the public. Its members, however, have largely ignored these requests."

June 30, 2008 – HBCSD School board members

1. Lance Widman, term expires 2009

2. Gregory Breen, term expires 2009

3. Linda Beck, term expires 2009

4. Lisa Claypoole, term expires 2011

5. Barbara Zondiros, term expires 2011

6. Sharon McClain – Superintendent

June 30, 2008 - School board members used $700,000 AND at least $264,926.80 (See: June and July 2007 above) for a total of at least $964,926.80 of district funds in order to finish work on the gymnasium, two science classrooms and a library. The funds are taken from the district’s reserves (savings account). Available reserves consist of all undesignated fund balances and all funds designated for economic uncertainty within the district main General Fund (checking account). Reserves dropped (i.e. were spent) from 13% in December 2002 to 2.9% in June 2005. California Department of Education requires available reserves of at least 3% for HBCSD.

June 30, 2008 – HBCSD Available Reserves (school district savings account) at June 30, 2008.

1. In 2006 available reserves were $352,039 or 4.5% (Average Daily Attendance is 1,024)

2. In 2007 available reserves were $439,632 or 5.2% (Average Daily Attendance is 1,038)

3. In 2008 available reserves were $996,154 or 10.4% (Average Daily Attendance is 1,091)

NOTE: In 2000, before Measure J was passed, HBCSD reserves were 13.5% or $722,932 (Average Daily Attendance is 920 students).

NOTE: Former school board member Greg Breen’s claim on several occasions that board members had the wherewithal to accept the May 2005 bids despite a shortfall of $2,612,000 has not been verified. To make up for the short-fall School board members would have had to take the funds from HBCSD coffers. It is highly unlikely that HBCSD could have afforded to give up $2,612,000 from their funding so that school board members could pay for construction from 2005 through 2009. In 2005/2006 HBCSD total revenue was $8,352,324 and district reserves were only $352,039. District reserves are its savings account.

NOTE: From 2005 to 2016 School Board members increased HBCSD reserve account (all undesignated fund balances and all funds designated for economic uncertainty within the General Fund) from $439,632 (5.2%) in 2007 to $996,154 (10.4%) in 2008. Increasing the available reserves by $556,522 from 2007 to 2008 meant that most of the $668,783 increase in revenue during the same period did not get spent on students or plant operations. Please also see: December 16, 2002 – HBCSD Budget Committee Meeting, Valley School Library. District reserves are 13%. In June 1994 district reserves were 33%.

July 3, 2008 – School gym building down for summer, by Robb Fulcher, Easy Reader News.

1. “A high-profile gymnasium-classroom-library building at Hermosa Valley School will be unusable through the summer as workers remove and replace stucco that did not set properly on the building’s exterior.

2. “Once the building was completed, the opening of the gym was delayed by more than half a year by problems including a water fixture that needed to be reworked before officials would clear it for occupancy.”

3. “The two-story building contains a 2,000 sq. ft. library, 2,000 feet of classroom space (two regular classrooms and four specialty equipped science classrooms), and the 7,500 sq. ft. gym.”

NOTE: This is incorrect Information: There are only two science classrooms in the gymnasium complex. The two new science classrooms replaced two classrooms that were removed from Valley School campus in order to build the gymnasium. Two regular classrooms were eliminated from final building plans in February 2006 and two of the specialty equipped science classrooms were eliminated from final building plans in May 2004. See June 2007 New Construction News from Superintendent! and May 20, 2004 – District cuts back on expansion by David Rosenfeld, Easy Reader Newspaper.

August 2008 – First HBCSD video tapped, and live-streamed school board meeting is held at the Hermosa Beach City Chambers meeting room.

1. Newly elected city council members Michael DiVirgilio and Kit Bobko, at the request of the district opposition, cajole school board members Greg Breen, Lance Widman, Linda Beck, Lisa Claypoole and Barbara Zondiros to hold their meetings in the City Council chambers where they can be videotaped.

2. Prior to holding school board meetings in the City Council Chambers, HBCSD school board meetings are held in the dark, cold and cavernous Valley or View schools’ multipurpose rooms. Inside the multipurpose rooms of Valley and View schools it is difficult to hear the proceedings and know who is speaking. Recordings are made on cassette tapes that must be purchased by community members. Often the cassette tapes are either unintelligible or fail to record due to operator error.

3. For years community members had been requesting that the school board videotape their meetings or hold them in the City Council Chambers.

4. School Board member Greg Breen writes letters to the editor in the local newspapers as to why he is opposed to holding school board meetings in the City Chambers. Namely that School Board members will preen in front of the camera.

SCHOOL BOARD MEETINGS THAT ARE BELIEVED TO HAVE BEEN DELETED FROM THE HERMOSA BEACH CITY WEBSITE:

NOTE: Another school board meeting that is no longer available on the city website is the January 14, 2009 school board meeting. It is believed to have been deleted due to the subject matter that was discussed in the meeting that of January 14, 2009.

The meeting minutes state:

“School board member Dr [Linda] Beck attended the Facilities Committee on January 8, 2009. Discussion was held on enrollment projections and the possibility of having a three-school site.”

This discussion was held four years before school board members finally started to address the problem of overcrowding in 2013. By 2012 overcrowding had become a crisis in the district. This meeting no longer appears on the city website https://www.hermosabeach.gov/our-community/agendas-minutes-video to review.

NOTE: A similar event is believed to have caused the November 14, 2012 school board meeting to also be deleted from the city Agenda-Minutes-Videos posted on the city’s website.

At the November 2012 school board meeting it is remembered that former School Board member Cathy McCurdy enthusiastically described her meeting with enrollment consultants Decision Insite and promoted them to school board members. Later, the first enrollment report from Decision Insite, the Executive Insite Report was found to have unbelievable predictions of 1,741 more students in the school district in 10 years. The Executive Insite Report was given to the Facility Planning and Advisory Committee members and made no sense, almost as if it had been tampered with by someone to show fictional incredibly large increases in future district enrollment. Please also see: Decision Insite highly slanted predictions. After school board members were alerted to the suspect DI report in spring/summer 2013, the November 2012 meeting appears to have been deleted from the available recordings of district meetings on the city website. There had been a meeting held on November 2012 at the City Council Chambers, were approved at the December 12, 2012 school board meeting.

September 2008 – the United States enters the height of the Great Recession. The Great Recession is officially said to have been from December 2007 to June 2009.

1. State education funds are cut.

2. HBCSD increases their reserve account (all undesignated fund balances and all funds designated for economic uncertainty within the General Fund) from $439,632 (5.2%) in 2007 to $996,154 (10.4%) in 2008.

3. Increasing the available reserves (withholding funds spent by the school district) by $556,522 from 2007 to 2008, while also spending an additional $264,926.80* from district coffers on the new construction at Valley School meant that most of the $668,783 increase in revenue during the same period does not get spent on students or plant operations.

4. District reserves are 13% in 2002 at the start of the district’s $13.6M bond passing. In June 1994 district reserves were 33%. By 2007 district reserves are 5.2%.

*NOTE: School board members used $700,000 AND at least $264,926.80 (See: June and July 2007 above for a total of at least $964,926.80 of district funds in order to finish work on the gymnasium, two science classrooms and a library.) The funds are taken from the district’s reserves (savings account). Available reserves consist of all undesignated fund balances and all funds designated for economic uncertainty within the district main General Fund (checking account). Reserves dropped (i.e. were spent by School Board members) from 13% in December 2002 to 2.9% in June 2005. California Department of Education requires available reserves of at least 3% for HBCSD.

NOTE: School Board member Greg Breen’s claim on several occasions that HBCSD had the wherewithal to accept the May 2005 bids despite a shortfall of $2,612,000 has not been verified. To make up for the shortfall in remaining bond funds School board members would have had to take the funds from HBCSD coffers. It is highly unlikely that HBCSD could have afforded to give up $2,612,000 from their funding so that school board members could pay for construction from 2005 through 2009. In 2005/2006 HBCSD total revenues were $8,352,324 and district reserves were only $352,039. District reserves are its savings account. From 2005-2009 HBCSD did not have enough available reserves to allow school board members to accept the May 2005 construction bids.

September 2008 – HBCSD Superintendent Dr. Sharon McClain leaves HBCSD for a superintendent position at Del Mar Union School District. She is fired from Del Mar Union School District in March 2010.

September 2008 – HBCSD hires superintendent search firm COSA to find a new superintendent for HBCSD.

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

1. 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 7 page resume.

2. Going into the Great Recession Dr. Bruce Newlin came to HBCSD at a sizeable cost for the small Hermosa school district. As of January 2009, the Salary Schedule for Bruce Newlin was Step 1: $160,000.; Step 2: $168,000; Step 3: $176,400; Step 4: $185,220; Step 5: $194,481.

3. Couldn’t school board members find a cheaper, younger, permanent superintendent for HBCSD? Why did they hire the 74 year old, formally retired Dr. Bruce Newlin? Why did Dr. Newlin decide to take the job?

4. Why did school board members stop the use of a superintendent search firm in October 2008 to find a qualified, younger and less expensive superintendent for HBCSD for the small 1,300 student HBCSD?

5. Was 74-year-old Dr. Bruce Newlin actually just a place holder until the cabal could find a superintendent who would be willing to put his or her reputation on the line to do the cabal’s bidding? Was unemployed Pat Escalante willing to put her reputation on the line to do the cabal's bidding for money? It is believed that the cabal’s motive was to pass a large bond to keep HBCSD out of the Community Center. The HBCSD Superintendent would be needed to misinform the community about the issues surrounding the District's use of the Community Center and renovating North School cheaply and quickly to reduce overcrowding. The quid pro quo for the district NOT exercising their lease agreement to use classrooms, office and storage at the Community Center was a brand-new, now unneeded campus at North School.

Please see:

Lie #21: Claiming that Pat Escalante was qualified to be superintendent and that she had decided to apply for the superintendent position at HBCSD on her own.

NOTE: In April 2012 Pat Escalante will be hired as HBCSD superintendent with absolutely no superintendent experience and no doctorate in Education. (All other HBCSD superintendents have had a Doctor of Education degree.) Her salary is increased to $138,600/year. An increase of $12,914 from her last salary at BHUSD. HBCSD also paid for three years of superintendent “lessons” for Pat Escalante at the cost of approximately $40,000. After only eight years Pat Escalante will achieve a 28% increase in salary to $192,540/year not including $36,310,62 in bonuses and a healthy retirement pension.

6. Between September 2008 and December 2011, school board members did not use Dr. Newlin’s extensive 30 years’ experience as a superintendent at school districts with up to 14,000 students to help HBCSD create a plan to deal with HBCSD’s growing overcrowding.

7. School board members waited until Pat Escalante is hired in 2012 to tackle their obvious and now mounting overcrowding problems. Pat Escalante had NO superintendent experience, nor did she have a doctorate in Education, nevertheless she was tasked by school board members to lead the school district and community to solve its temporary overcrowding problems.

Please also see:

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

Lie #21: Claiming that Pat Escalante was qualified to be superintendent and that she had decided to apply for the superintendent position at HBCSD on her own.

Lie #22: Claiming that hiring Pat Escalante saved HBCSD money.

October 2008 – HBCSD apparently cancels the superintendent search with the COSA Group.

October 2008 – Cooperative Agreement between the Hermosa Beach City School District and the City of Hermosa Beach Regarding the joint use of public facilities.

“RECITALS:”

1. “City and District desire to enhance recreational opportunities, cultivate and develop community education, health, fitness and good citizenship by providing for a program for City and District education, recreation and athletics that will contribute to the attainment of general educational, recreational and cultural objectives of students and residents of the City and District; and”

2. “City and District have previously maintained a cooperative working arrangement which has shown that the joint use of City/District facilities provides the community with educational, recreational and athletic opportunities at a lower cost than if provided separately; and”

3. “The further cooperative arrangements between the City and District, including solid waste removal, recycling, joint emergency training, after school transportation, after school day care among other joint activities provides for the optimum use of public funds; and”

4. “This agreement is entered into under authority granted under the Government Code (Section 6500 et seq.) and by one or more of the Education Code Sections 17051 (regarding joint use of property and facilities of the State of California) which authorize and empower cities and school districts to enter into agreements for conducting joint use programs; …”

NOTE: Why wouldn’t HBCSD and the City of Hermosa Beach follow these guidelines, or something similar, when it comes to housing students at Pier Avenue Community Center? Was it because school board members were holding out for a brand-new, unneeded campus at North School that would cost taxpayers $29M?

June 30, 2009 – Presentation of Project Forward Committee Final Report. Hermosa Beach City Council meeting, June 30, 2009.

Page 12695: “Project Forward Committee Chair John Sandoval discussed the mandate that the Committee was given and the process they used to complete their work, expressing his appreciation for the public input. He then discussed the guiding principles they formulated as follows: (1) Transparency - The District and the City will conduct their business in a clear open and transparent manner; (2) Communication – The District will establish and implement a clear and consistent communications policy; (3) Cooperation – The District will endeavor to collaborate with the City, community, local community organization, and nearby districts to share resources and programs; (4) Accountability – The District and City will be accountable for their actions; …” (8) Efficiency – The District will make efficient and effective use of resources, facilities, human, financial and operational.”

NOTE: Considering what had just happened with Measure J funds and what would continue to happen for another decade these “guiding principles” are laughable and sad.

Page 12696: “School Board member [Greg] Breen …” “Project Forward Committee member George Schmeltzer [former city council member and signer on the Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Pier Avenue School in 1978] ...” “School Board member [Lance] Widman [former city council member and signer on the Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Pier Avenue School in 1978] expressed frustration that, despite the best efforts of the Project Forward Committee, there was still hostility between the City, the School Board and residents because of the parcel tax and the gym.” … NOTE: Greg Breen, George Schmeltzer and Lance Widman seemingly can’t understand why the community is upset and their role in it.

See also: June 8, 2006 – School trustee is theft suspecting removal of campaign sign, by Robb Fulcher, Easy Reader and June 22, 2006 – A matter of ethics by Gary Osborn, Letters to the Editor, Easy Reader.

June 30, 2009 – HBCSD School board members

1. Lance Widman, term expires 2009

2. Gregory Breen, term expires 2009

3. Linda Beck, term expires 2009

4. Lisa Claypoole, term expires 2011

5. Barbara Zondiros, term expires 2011

6. Bruce Newlin – Superintendent

September 30, 2009 – Hermosa Beach City School District Bond Measure J, Citizens’ Oversight Committee – Final Report – 9/30/09.

NOTE: Measure J was a $13.9M bond passed in November 2002. The original $13.9M bond will ultimately cost taxpayers $30M over almost 30 years. From 2002 to 2023 Hermosa Beach taxpayers will have only paid $5M in principal.

1. Page 7 : Final Cost Tabulation of the entire Modernization, New Construction and Technology Projects: $18.8 million dollars. Total Funds Spent: $19.5 million dollars. Valley School New Construction: $11 million dollars. The total spent for all work is $19.5 million, which is $0.7 million more than the available $18.8 million bond and other funding; the District paid the $0.7 million from other available funds.

2. Page 5, item #3: “The final amount spent for all work completed is $19.5 million, which is $0.7 million more than the original bond proceeds plus additional funds generated by the bond-sale premium, interest, and additional State funds. The School Board has utilized other available funds to pay for this work.”

3. Page 8: “Use of Developer Fees and Special Reserve Funds has covered the difference of $0.7 million.

NOTE: School board members used $700,000 AND at least $264,926.80 (See: June and July 2007 above) for a total of at least $964,926.80 of district funds in order to finish work on the gymnasium, two science classrooms and a library. The funds are taken from the district’s reserves (savings account). Available reserves consist of all undesignated fund balances and all funds designated for economic uncertainty within the district main General Fund (checking account). Reserves dropped (i.e were spent) from 13% in December 2002 to 2.9% in June 2005. California Department of Education requires available reserves of at least 3% for HBCSD.

4. Page 5, item #5: “The litigation brought by the Committee for Responsible School Expansion (CRSE), that stalled the new construction bid process, was ultimately decided in September 2006, by the California Appellate Court, which ruled that the case had “no merit”. In late September 2006, the CRSE submitted a Petition for Rehearing of the Appeal; that appeal was denied. An appeal by the CRSE to the California Supreme Court was also denied.”

COMPETING INFORMATION: The court ruling stated that: “Neither the state constitution nor the Education Code requires that the list of specific school facilities projects to be funded through a bond measure be included on the ballot.”

See also: April 8, 2005 – Committee for Responsible School Expansion (aka Mr. Jerry Compton) files a petition for writ of mandate, challenging the legality of the school district’s approval of the plan for development of the gymnasium.

A. The Introduction to the Petitioner’s (Jerry Compton) Opening Brief states: “…the School District did not ensure the Gymnasium was listed on the ballot or in ballot materials sent to voters, in violation [of] the state constitution, which requires that voters be given a list of specific projects to be funded. This violation was all the more egregious because the Gymnasium will consume approximately 43% of Measure J funds as the single largest component of Measure J expenditures, and evidence shows the School District knew the public did not view the Gymnasium as important enough to spend scarce funds upon when new classrooms were needed more.”

B. The Introduction also states … “The School District’s Facilities Master Plan required for a bond measure under Proposition 39 includes the need for eight new classrooms and the replacement of four portable classrooms. (4:1873) However, the School District voted to build a high school regulation size Gymnasium on an elementary/middle school site for the Gymnasium’s money-making capabilities at the expense of building new classrooms as promised in the bond measure.”

C. The issue brought by the lawsuit was the district’s desire to build a “Joint Use” gym with the Beach Cities Health District which would also be rented out after school and on weekends and used as the district’s “money center” with Measure J funds.

Slide 21: Key Conclusions: “Athletic facilities, specifically the new gym at Hermosa Valley, are not viewed as very important.”

E. See also: April 14, 2005 – Lawsuit filed against Valley School gym by Robb Fulcher, Easy Reader Newspaper:

1. “The lawsuit, filed Friday in Superior Court by the Committee for Responsible School Expansion, claims that the city school board did not take adequate measures to ease noise, traffic and parking congestion in the surrounding neighborhood.”

2. “… a “large contingent’ of the membership simply wants the school board to make the project “less burdensome” on the neighbors. School neighbor Douglas Robins said he believes an “overwhelming” majority of neighbors want the gym project modified, not halted. He said the neighbors filed the lawsuit to make sure their concerns would be addressed, adding that the statue of limitations for such a lawsuit would have soon expired.”

3. “It’s first amended petition, filed two weeks later, added a cause of action alleging that the School Board’s March 9, 2005 authorization of the expenditure of Measure J funds on a gymnasium project that was not disclosed to voters on the ballot violates the requirements of the California Constitution and The Strict Accountability in Local School Construction Bonds Act of 2000.”

4. “Ballot snafu. The 2002 citywide election also has been called into question. School board members last week acknowledged that the ballots in the polling place did not contain the full text of Measure J, which asked the public for the school bonds. School district officials and the district’s bond counsel were trying to determine how that happened, [Superintendent] McClain said.”

5. Page 8: “The litigation-caused delay forced the District to re-bid all of the new construction contracts resulting in an increase of $1.7 million for the work due to increases in costs for materials and labor, as well as the implementation of new construction requirements by the state during the pendency of the lawsuit that added additional costs.” “Total out-of-pocket cost (primarily legal fees) to the district in connection with this lawsuit are in excess of $148,000. No Measure J funds were used for these costs.”

COMPETING INFORMATION: Was the delay in accepting the May 25, 2005 construction bids due to the April 8, 2005 lawsuit as school board members claimed? The lawsuit was ruled in favor of the school district in November 2005. Why, then, did school board members wait until February 2006* to accept construction bids as prices continued to rise?

After the May 25, 2006 bids were received the following was the information that was spoken of in meetings and newspaper articles as to the issues in accepting the May bids – No mention is made of the lawsuit: (There was no mention of the lawsuit delaying the acceptance of the May 2005 bids until the October 2005 bids came in over budget by $1.7 million more.)

F. There was an initial shortfall of $2,612,000.

June 1, 2005 - Citizens’ Oversight Committee Meeting Minutes:

Item 5. Old Business. …”On the new construction [gymnasium at Valley School] the bids [May 25, 2005] have come in at a level higher than our available funds.”… “Shortfall $2,612,000”

“The bids for the new construction were opened on May 24th and they increased from an expected level of $6.3 million to $7.55 million (the bids include an allowance of $515 million.) The bids are higher than expected because 1) material costs have escalated, 2) we had the [to] make two changes as directed by the Department of State Architects, and 3) “fear factor” on the [south side adjacent to the Marineland Mobile Home Park] retaining wall, so the contractor bid high.” … “The construction bids are good for 60 days so if we are going to act on this [these] bids the District must “pull the trigger” by July 24, 2005.”…

NOTE: School board member Greg Breen’s claim on several occasions that school board members had the wherewithal to accept the May 2005 bids despite a shortfall of $2,612,000 has not been verified. To make up for the short-fall School board members would have had to take the funds from HBCSD coffers. It is highly unlikely that HBCSD could have afforded to give up $2,612,000 from their funding so that school board members could accept construction bids in 2005. In 2005/2006 HBCSD total revenues were $8,352,324.

G. The Division of State Architects did not approve HBCSD’s construction plans until July 1, 2005. School districts are not allowed to start construction before getting sign-off by the DSA. When the DSA approved the plans in July 2005, they also required additional excavation and shoring for the new construction at Valley School.

H. Apparently hard cost rose by $637,761 from May 2005 to October 2005 ($8,193,105 - $7,555,344). Soft costs rose by $564,659 from May 2005 to October 2005. The increase in soft costs were for geotechnical, architectural fees, construction management and reproduction costs which would correspond to additional excavation and shoring requirements issued by the DSA in its July 2005 approval of new construction plans. How much of the hard cost increase of $637,761 in October 2005 was also due to the additional excavation and south retaining wall requirements by the DSA in July 2005?

1. *NOTE: At the bottom of the October 2005 Budget Breakdown by Project, in the Notes, item #6: “New construction includes DSA initiated changes and trailer park wall modifications.” This is a new NOTE added to this October 2005 Budget Breakdown report reflecting the larger scope of the project after Department of State Architect review. This note did not appear on the May 2005 bids.

2. April 12, 2006 – HBCSD School Board Meeting of April 12, 2006 minutes:

“He [Mr. Birjandi, Project Manager for PCM3] also said that the plans for the south wall construction are at the Department of State Architects waiting approval, and the plans are not expected back to the district for another two weeks. Once the plans are returned, construction on the south wall will begin. Mr. Birjandi spoke with the City of Hermosa Beach regarding the sewer line, and it appears that the district will pay for the new line. Mr. Birjandi also stated that most of the unknowns underground have been discovered, and the contractors are now clear on what material needs to be purchased.”

3. June 29, 2006 – HBCSD Facilities Committee and Public Forum Minutes:

#1. “Report on current status of construction: PCM3 representatives… presented the status of Valley School Construction since ground was broken. … Two unexpected items caused a delay in work while they were being fixed. A sewer line had to be re-routed and the retaining wall between the District and the Mobile Home Park had to be replaced.” Was the extra excavation and retaining wall part of the Department of State Architect additional requirements when approving district plans for new construction at Valley School in July 2005? Were the additional requirements part of the increase in constructions costs in 2005?

4. Soft costs are normally about 25% of hard costs. The HBCSD gymnasium complex final soft costs were about 32%.

5. The increase of $564,659 in soft costs for geotechnical, architectural services, construction management, etc. and hard costs of $637,761 to accommodate the Department of State Architects additional requirements more than account for the two regular classrooms cut from the final plans. The two classrooms that were eliminated from final plans were estimated to save the project $700,000.

6. In addition to eliminating two classrooms, school board members also eliminated casework, painting and floor coverings totaling $200,522.00 were removed from final bids. The cost of casework, painting and floor coverings were added back into the project in June 2007. See P.O.#7662 and P.O. #7663. The cost of casework, painting and floor coverings totaling $147,659 were not taken from bond funds. They were taken from the school district reserves that are also used as the district’s savings account in case of economic uncertainties such as the 2008 Great Recession.

H. The Coastal Commission did not approve the new gymnasium complex until early September 2005 and did so with event parking contingencies that were not addressed until 2006. School districts need to have Coastal Commission approval before they are allowed to build in the Coastal Zone.

I. *The district was in the process of refunding a portion of their earlier bonds and the amount of additional funds was not finalized until February 23, 2006.

1. May 11, 2005 – HBCSD resolution no. 15:04/05 providing for the issuance and sale of REFUNDING BONDS. Refunding bonds required that HBCSD take out an Escrow Agreement which was not finalized until FEBRUARY 23, 2006.*

2. School board members did not know the final amount of funding that would be available to construct the new construction until the refunding bonds were finalized in February 2006.

NOTE: Is it possible that rising construction costs had NOTHING TO DO WITH the lawsuit brought by Jerry Compton in April 2005 as claimed by school board members and believed by district supporters and the community from 2005 onward?