HBCSD Facilities Process: December 2012 to 2013

September 2012 – HBCSD enrollment is 1,398 students. The unqualified Pat Escalante is hired as HBCSD Superintendent and tasked to deal with the overcrowding issue.

1. Enrollment at September 2002 is 1,025 students. (Measure J was passed to build/supply 13 classrooms by 2012.)

2. Enrollment at September 2007 is 1,133 students. (After HBCSD School board members eliminated all but two classrooms that only REPLACED two classrooms – no net new classrooms built at Valley School.)

3. Enrollment at September 2009 is 1,244 students. (After the supremely qualified 74-year-old retired Superintendent Bruce Newlin was hired but was NOT tasked with finding a solution to district overcrowding.)

4. Enrollment at September 2010 is 1,303 students. (Triggering HBCSD lease agreement with the City of Hermosa Beach for priority use of classrooms, office and storage space at Pier Avenue Community Center.)

December 12, 2012 – Hermosa Beach City School District School Board meeting minutes

“RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board of Education direct the Facilities Planning Advisory Committee to identify and to advise the Board as to the option that is the most viable for the use of the North School site: modernization, new construction or exchange/acquire property.”

NOTE: This is the FPAC’s mandate. No mention of investigating the use of Pier Avenue School/The Community Center for HBCSD students despite the district’s leasing agreement with the city to use classrooms, office and storage space when district enrollment exceeds 1,266 students.

Please also see:

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

Lie #2: Claiming that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is not valid because it was not signed by the Hermosa Beach City Council members.

Lie #3: Claiming that the Community Center needs to be purchased by HBCSD in order for it to be used by the school district.

Lie #5: Misinforming the public that the Community Center can only be used for recreational purposes.

Lie #9: Confusing the separate provisions for district use of the gymnasium changing rooms and auditorium in Exhibit K with the provisions for district use of classrooms, office and storage space that has NO expiration date contained in the Memorandum of Understanding in Exhibit G.

NOTE: Why didn’t school board members have the FPAC investigate using the Community Center and further investigate the Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Pier Avenue School for taxpayers?

NOTE: HBCSD enrollment surpassed 1,266 students in 2010 when Dr. Bruce Newlin was Superintendent. With 30 years of experience as a superintendent and presumably lots of experience with school facility decisions, why didn’t HBCSD School Board members have Dr. Newlin start the facilities process for HBCSD from at least 2009? During his tenure, HBCSD paid formally retired, interim Superintendent Dr. Newlin up to $176,000.00 annually.

NOTE: It is possible for HBCSD and The City of Hermosa Beach to exchange properties. HBCSD and the City of Hermosa Beach have exchanged properties many times in the past. The latest may have been a property trade/acquisition when HBCSD expanded Valley School with city land to be a middle school in the 1970s. Therefore, it was possible for HBCSD and the City of Hermosa Beach to trade North School for the Community Center. Please see: email between Superintendent Pat Escalante and former School Board member Cathy McCurdy, dated October 27, 2014.

January 8, 2013 – City Council members:

1. Kit Bobko

2. Michael DiVirgillio

3. Peter C Tucker

4. Jeff Duclos – Mayor

5. Howard Fishman

6. Tom Bakaly – City Manager

January 2013 - The first meeting of the Facilities Planning and Advisory Committee is convened at the Valley School teacher conference room.

1. Basically, the FPAC members have very little or no prior KNOWLEDGE of district facility options and aren’t given background of the history of past HBCSD facility issues and decisions.

2. FPAC members aren’t given either the district’s 2002 Facilities Master Plan nor the 2009 update to the 2002 Facilities Master Plan. (HBCSD paid architects Dougherty and Dougherty approximately $100,000 for an update to the 2002 FMP which was promptly shelved and ignored.)

NOTE: Was the 2009 “update” to the 2002 FMP simply a way of further reimbursing Dougherty and Dougherty for their work on the gymnasium without the $100,000 expenditure being added to the total project cost? In 2009 HBCSD was entering the Great Recession and funds were tight. The 2009 FMP update contained multiple pages of information on ocean wind turbines as a way of generating electricity for the district. Why would school board members decided to spend $100,000 on a Facilities Master Plan update at this time?

3. Meetings are not recorded, or video tapped. FPAC meetings are held in a small conference room in the interior of Valley School. The door to the conference room is kept closed during meetings.

4. Community attendees consist of one or two at the first two meetings and up to three or four in later meetings. Community members are only allowed to comment for three minutes prior to the start of each meeting. Community members are not allowed to ask questions or make comments during meetings.

5. The first one- and one-half hour meeting (6:30pm – 8:00pm) meeting is a meet and greet and an examination and discussion of Decision Insite’s 2012 Executive Insite Report for Hermosa Beach. Decision Insite’s 2012 Executive Insite report made no sense and was later found to be substantially incorrect in its projections.

Please also see:

Lie #24: The district’s demographic report given to the FPAC members in January 2013 made no sense and was later proved to be substantially incorrect.

Lie #25: The district’s enrollment projections supplied by Decision Insite seemingly ignored evidence of declining K-12 enrollment from the California Department of Finance Demographics Unit and the Los Angeles Unified School District.

February 6, 2013 – Hermosa Beach City School District North School Planning Studies

1. The district’s hired expert to advise the FPAC members is Paul Bunton of BCA Architects.

Please also see: Information regarding Paul Bunton in Legal Complaint against Paul Bunton of BCA Architects by San Diegans for Open Government, Case #37-2012-00101391-CU-MC-CTL in San Diego Superior Court.

2. Paul Bunton estimates that it would only cost $14.9 million and take 30 months to completely reconstruct North School.

NOTE: The reality in April 2021 was that North School cost approximately $29 million dollars and took approximately 54 months NOT $14.9M and 30 months to completely reconstruct.

NOTE: As with the new construction at Valley School from 2005 to 2007 when school board members blamed the high expense of the project on residents, HBCSD would again unfairly blame the long five-year wait on detractors of their decision to demolish and rebuild North School. It is assumed that school board members used this tactic to detract blame from themselves for the long delay and increase in costs.

3. Paul Bunton also estimates that it would cost $10.9 million and take 20 months to modernize North School.

4. The FPAC used these estimates to make their recommendations to the school board in April 2013. Given the small difference of approximately $4 million dollars that the FPAC was given between completely reconstructing North School and just modernizing the campus the FPAC recommended to school board members that they demolish and reconstruct North School.

5. According to an estimate by independent construction firm, Juge Construction, North School would only cost $6.2 million to renovate including building a brand-new additional administration and classroom building.

6. In 2013 the estimate given by Paul Bunton, the district’s hired expert to advise the FPAC members, to fully reconstruct North School was $14.9 million dollars. One year later, in 2014, the Long-Range Facilities Master plan authors GKKWorks estimated that the average cost to completely rebuild North School as being $32,378,954. GKKWorks estimate to completely rebuild North School in 2014 is more than twice the amount as that given to Facility Planning and Advisory Committee members by Paul Bunton in April 2013. Was Paul Bunton hired to lie to FPAC members about the cost and timeframe to rebuild North School?

7. NOTE: School board members pay Paul Bunton up to $7,400 to attend TWO FPAC meetings and supply the FPAC members with his estimates and “expert” advice. Please also see: March 13, 2013 and June 12, 2013.

March 13, 2013 – Consulting Agreement for Facilities Planning Advisory Committee Expert B-46/12/13. Agreement for Educational Consulting Services

“RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board of Education approve the Consultant Agreement with BCA Architects to act as an expert on school buildings for the Facilities Planning Advisory Committee to consult at a cost not to exceed $5,000.00” NOTE: The “expert” from BCA Architects was Paul Bunton.

“BACKGROUND: The Facilities Planning and Advisory Committee [FPAC] is researching the options of modernization, new construction and property acquisition/exchange for the North School site, in order to report their findings to the Board of Education. The committee requires a school architect expert opinion to provide relevant data to the committee for their consideration.”

“FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of $5,000 is budgeted to Capital Facility Fund #25”

Paul Bunton had a prior legal complaint against him:

NOTE: How did HBCSD School Board members find Paul Bunton to advise the FPAC?

Legal Complaint against Paul Bunton of BCA Architects by San Diegans for Open Government, Case #37-2012-00101391-CU-MC-CTL in San Diego Superior Court.

“On or about July 30, 2012, plaintiff San Diegans for Open Government filed Case No. 37-2012-00101391-CU-MC-CTL in San Diego Superior Court against respondent and other named defendants who also had contracted to perform services to the District [Southwestern Community College District (District)] for the same project. According to the complaint, respondent had sought to provide architectural services to the District, a public agency. In the weeks and months leading up to making of the contract with the District, respondent gave food, entertainment, and other gifts of substantial value to the District’s vice president for business and financial affairs (vice president), and the senior director of business, facilities, and planning (senior director). These District’s officials would be involved in the making of the contract or would make recommendations that would carry substantial weight by District’s final decision maker as to whom to award the contract. As a quid pro quo exchange, these officials would affirmatively lobby and encourage the District’s governing board to enter into a contract with respondent.”

“The complaint also alleged that respondent engaged in a civil conspiracy to bribe public officials.” …”Respondent, for its part in the stipulation, agreed to pay $250,000 to the District. Respondent however did not report this settlement to the Board within 30 days.”

“Third Cause for Discipline, False Statement on Renewal Application, Business and Professional Code sections 498 and 5579. “Respondent has subjected his architectural license to discipline for submitting a false statement under penalty of perjury on an application to renew his architectural license…” “On or about July 31, 2013, respondent submitted an application to renew his architect license. He signed this application “under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that all of [his] representations on [the] knowledge and belief.” On this application, he answered “no” to the following question: “In the preceding renewal period, have you been disciplined by a public agency or have been convicted of a crime in any state, the USA and its territories, …?” However, on March 26, 2012, in The People of the State of California v. Paul Curtis Bunton, San Diego County Superior Court Case No. CD239827, respondent pled guilty to aiding the commission of a misdemeanor (Pen Code 659), a misdemeanor.”

NOTE: BCA Architects have since rebranded themselves as Studio W Architects. https://studiow-architects.com/about/ HBCSD would hire Studio W Architects to create their new facility improvement plan for Valley School in 2024. HBCSD's $28.7M facilities bond, Measure HV.

April 10, 2013 – Facilities Planning Advisory Committee Final Report R16-12/13

““RECOMMENDATION: The Facilities Planning Advisory Committee will present a report on their findings on the objectives the Board of Education asked to be examined and advised on: modernization, new construction and property exchange/acquisition.

“The Facilities Planning Advisory Committee met on January 16, February 6 and 27, and March 30, 2013.

April 10, 2013 – from HBCSD School Board meeting transcripts – presentation by FPAC Chair Monique Ehsan recommendation for North School modernization, new construction and/or property exchange/acquisition:

Monique Ehsan, FPAC committee chair and school board member 2015 – 2019:

“The district has enrollment of approximately 1,400 students, 270 students of which are over capacity for us.”…

NOTE: By the time the rebuilt North School was finished in March 2021, HBCSD enrollment had dropped by approximately 272 students to 1,200 students. The highest enrollment was 1,472 students in 2014.

… “Ah, what we learned from um, research by an outfit called Decision Insite, is that by 2017 the family household population will increase by 5.8%.”*

THE 2012 Demographic Report from Decision Insite WAS FOUND TO BE substantially incorrect:

Please see:

Lie #24: The district’s demographic report given to the Facility Planning and Advisory Committee members in January 2013 made no sense and was later proved to be substantially incorrect.

NOTE: Decision Insite’s Executive Insite Report predicted that in five years, by 2017, the population of Hermosa Beach would be 20,357: an increase of 752 people over DI’s claim of 19,605 people in 2012. What would account for the additional 752 people increase in population of Hermosa Beach in only five years? Where were the extra 752 people going to live since there were no large new housing projects planned for Hermosa Beach?

*NOTE: The ACTUAL population of Hermosa Beach in 2017 was 19,671; a decrease of 77 people over five years according to the CA Dept of Finance. The CA Dept of Finance reported the population of Hermosa Beach as being 19,748 in 2012.

NOTE: Decision Insite’s Executive Insite Report predicted that the number of occupied households in 2022 would be 10,273. The actual number of occupied households in 2022 was 9,130, a difference of 1,143 less occupied households than was projected by DI in 2013.

“Modernization entails the following with regard to the classroom buildings, we are looking at buildings that date back to the 1940s and 1960s, so infrastructure as you can imagine is very old. These buildings would have to be taken down to their shells and then built back out. Um, however, the shell is made of masonry walls, and the only way to modernize masonry walls is through seismic retrofitting and possibly construction adjacent reinforced concrete walls.”

NOTE: To our knowledge there were no professional engineers who evaluated the North School buildings before Monique Ehsan made this statement. HBCSD did not pay for an independent assessment of North School seismic integrity as did the City of Hermosa Beach for the Community Center in 2015. The Community Center was designed and built by the same architect and engineer as was North School. The Community Center passed an ASCE 31-03 Phase 1 Structural Seismic Evaluation Report by John A. Martin in 2015. It is therefore very likely that North School would have the same positive seismic assessment as the Community Center. Monique Ehsan did not know this at the time of her comments.

Did the district’s hired “expert” consultant, Paul Bunton of BCA Architects, who is not an engineer and is not qualified to make statements concerning a structural assessment of North School buildings, make these statements to Monique and to the rest of the FPAC members who were evaluating North School? Please also see Legal Complaint against Paul Bunton of BCA Architects by San Diegans for Open Government, Case #37-2012-00101391-CU-MC-CTL in San Diego Superior Court.

NOTE: North School was built to Field Act strict seismically safe specifications. It is therefore considered to be seismically safe AS IS for district students by the CDE according to Education code #17280.5. North School is also considered by the CDE to be a grand-fathered-in campus, which means it is code compliant as is for district students.

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 Disability Act) accessible.

Lie #8: Claiming that renovating historical schools such as Pier Avenue School or North School are very expensive and cost prohibitive.

Lie #10: Unverified statements. There is no proof to verify these statements made by Superintendent Escalante and School Board members Lance Widman and Greg Breen.

“We would convert one building into the multi-purpose room, so that we would have a community space for our school…”

NOTE: North School has a multi-purpose room that had been used as a toddler room by Childrens’ Journey. It can easily be cleaned-up and reused as a multi-purpose room again. North School’s multi-purpose room was attached to it’s kitchen so that it could be used as an indoor cafeteria if needed. The North School kitchen has a serving bay and tray-drop-off area.

…”We asked ourselves, ah, does modernization meet our project facility needs for enrollment trends? It does, we could establish, under modernization 432 seats which is adequate. Um, would there be enough classrooms? Yes, there would be 16 classrooms. ‘Revenue Potential’; we think we could carve out space for a preschool for instance…” “Capacity, yes, enough classrooms, however no library or cafeteria…”

NOTE: This is an incorrect statement. North School has a cafeteria and kitchen with a serving bay and a multi-purpose room that doubles as an inside lunch room which is normal for a small elementary school.

NOTE: Any classroom can be turned into an elementary school library.

NOTE: HBCSD hired “expert” was supposed to have given the FPAC members a tour of North School. Did he leave out the kitchen and multi-purpose room on the tour?

“Um, ‘Costs’, projected hard and soft costs for modernization is $10.9 million. This information provided by BCA Architects.” (TL-2013Feb06 BCA NS clean estimates)

NOTE: The Juge Company gave an estimate of only $6.2 million dollars to renovated North School in 2017. In their estimate the Juge Company included a brand-new administration and classrooms building. Juge Construction Company also renovated Valley School for HBCSD in the 1970s.

“So what does new construction entail? New construction entails creating an entirely new foot print…” “The projected costs by BCA Architects is $14.8 [$14.9M] million dollars.”… “The time frame we were given by BCA Architects is 30 months.”

NOTE: A year after this meeting, in 2014, the district’s newly hired architects, GKK Works, gave an estimated of $34M to completely rebuild North School. A difference from the FPAC’s estimate of $14.9M by $19.2M!

NOTE: The district’s Measure S bond was passed in June 2016. The newly rebuilt North School did not open until April 2021. From June 2016 to April 2021 is approximately 58 months or almost five years or more than two years more than BCA Architects estimate. BCA Architects estimate to rebuild North School did not include an approximately two-year process for an Environmental Impact Assessment (March 2017 to February 2019) and Coastal Commission approval in August 2019.

NOTE: Of course, the FPAC members would recommend the district completely rebuild North School if they were told that there was only a $4 million dollar difference ($10.9M vs $14.8M) between renovation and rebuilding North School. And of course, the school board members would then have the “cover” (excuse) they needed to demolish and rebuild North School according to the cabal’s plan of a quid pro quo of a brand-new unneeded campus if the district did not exercise their contractual rights to use the Community Center classrooms.

NOTE: Please also see: 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].”

NOTE: Please also see Ridiculously Slanted Alternatives to the Proposed Project, Chapter 7, contained in the Environmental Impact Report for the reconstruction of North School: #3, 7.3, page 7-4: Alternatives Considered and Rejected during the Project Planning Process: 7.3.2, page 7-4: Facilities Planning Advisory Committee:

June 12, 2013 – Proposal to Close Out Division of State Architect Projects at Hermosa View School and North School B-76-12/13

“RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board of Education approve the proposal from BCA Architects to assist the District with obtaining Division of State Architect (DSA) closeout of projects at Hermosa View School and North School at a cost not to exceed $2,400.00.”

“BACKGROUND: District received notification that three past construction projects, two at Hermosa View School and one at North School were not closed out with DSA. The architect Y’Deen & Associates was responsible for closing these projects, but did not. Staff has compiled information to close out the projects, but needs the assistance of an architect to complete the close out. The District received four proposals: PM Solutions - $15,000.00; Another Perspective, Inc. - $12,480.00; Dougherty & Dougherty - $10,000.00; BCA Architects - $2,400.00”

NOTE: According to the DSA client #F19-45 (HBCSD) list of applications, the last time construction work was done at North School was in 1998, DSA application #A-100604. It is interesting that apparently fifteen years after the fact, the DSA was NOW notifying the district that certain projects still needed to be closed out. From 2001 onward, HBCSD architects were Dougherty and Dougherty.

NOTE: The three other bids for this job were four to six times higher than the bid that BCA Architects submitted. It seems that the other bids were not serious ones. They seemed to have been submitted just to satisfy the district’s need to get competitive bids but the bidders were not interested in taking the job. Another possibility was that the other firms were told by the district admin ahead of time that they should bid high so that the district could award the “job” to BCA Architects.

NOTE: Why didn’t HBCSD contact the original architects to close out the projects that were their responsibility? Y’Deen & Associates is still in business with an address in Brea, CA.

NOTE: Was this proposal to close out old projects from as far back as 1998 for North School simply a way to throw an extra $2,400.00 to Paul Bunton for his work “advising” the Facility Planning and Advisory Committee?

June 12, 2013 – Discussion/Action on North School Facilities Project to Modernize or Rebuild S-77-12/13

“RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board of Education discuss and take action on determining whether to modernize or rebuild North School site.”

“BACKGROUND: … “In January 2013, the board of trustees created a Facilities Planning Advisory Committee, made up of community members and district employees, to examine and analyze three possible options regarding the re-opening of the North School facilities. The options for committee’s consideration were #1 Modernize, #2 New Construction, #3 Swap the property for another appropriate property in the city. The committee met on 4 separate occasions.”

“In April, a report was prepared by the Facilities Planning Advisory Committee and presented to the board. Using a criteria based analysis of each option, the option #2 (New Construction) met each of the criteria (capacity, location, flexibility, regulatory issues, community impact).”

“In January and in May, joint meetings were held with the City Council/School Board. At the January meeting, Board Members [Jack] Burns, spoke about the need for the district to be proactive to address the impact of increased enrollment on existing facilities and personnel and the need for the district to explore the use of the North School site to expand classroom and open space.”

NOTE: Why didn’t school board members work proactively from 2002 to 2012 to address the impact of increased enrollment on existing facilities and open space? Why wait for overcrowding to become a crisis within the district before taking action?

NOTE: The January 14, 2009 HBCSD school board meeting minutes state that school board members discussed the three-school option to relieve overcrowding. School board members also discussed adding two relocatable units (temporary classrooms) to the Valley School campus only months after school board members had finished the new construction at Valley School. Apparently, however, although meeting minutes are available, the video/audio of the meeting has been deleted from the city website. The January 14, 2009 meeting was held in the City Chambers where it should have been recorded and posted to the city website. Why then is the audio/video of the meeting missing from the city’s website?

NOTE: HBCSD hired Dr. Bruce Newlin in 2008 as an interim superintendent after the previous superintendent, Dr. Sharon McClain, left the district. Why didn’t HBCSD look for a permanent superintendent from 2008 to 2011 before hiring the unqualified Pat Escalante in 2012? There is no evidence that a permanent superintendent search was performed from 2008 to 2012 to find a permanent qualified candidate to be HBCSD Superintendent.

Dr. Newlin was a formally retired superintendent with 30 years of superintendent experience in up to six different school districts with student enrollment of up to 14,000 students and 20 campuses. With 30 years of experience as a superintendent and presumably lots of experience with school facility decisions, why didn’t HBCSD School Board members have Dr. Newlin start the facilities process for HBCSD from at least 2009? Why wait until Pat Escalante who had absolutely no superintendent experience, was made superintendent in 2012 before starting a process to examine district facilities?

Why not investigate options and make plans for expansion before being faced with a crisis? Was the reason Dr. Newlin didn’t get involved with district facilities because Dr. Newlin cared about his reputation and didn’t want to be caught lying for the cabal? Or was the reason school board members ignored overcrowding until it became a crisis, because the cabal was waiting for the overcrowding to become a crisis so they could use it to pressure the community into passing an unnecessarily expensive facilities bond?

NOTE: According to public records Jack Burns bought a house in Palos Verdes Estates and left HBCSD in 2014.

June 30, 2013 – Hermosa Beach City School District Governing Board

1. Jack Burns, president, term expires 2013

NOTE: it is believed by the evidence that Jack Burns moved his family to Palos Verdes Estates in 2014. Did he understand that HBCSD would be overcrowded for years and he didn’t want his own children to have to contend with the overcrowding?

2. Carleen Beste, term expires 2013

3. Patti Ackerman, term expires 2015

4. Lisa Claypoole, term expires 2015

5. Raymond Waters, term expires 2013

6. Patricia Escalante (as of July 2012) – Superintendent

August 21, 2013 – HBCSD Facilities Planning Advisory Committee August 21, 2013 meeting minutes:

“Discussion held on notes versus minutes. Committee asks for more formalized minutes rather than notes. Committee requested that the minutes from the meeting be distributed to the committee prior to the next schedule[d] meeting.”

“Chairperson Ehsan asked for announcements. Superintendent Escalante was asked to comment on the options of using the Community Center for overcrowding of the facilities at Valley School due to continued increase in student enrollment. The Community Center is owned by the city and is not currently a designated school site.”

NOTE: Although the Community Center is owned by the city, HBCSD retained priority leasing rights to the Pier Avenue campus to use for students when enrollment surpassed 1,266 students. HBCSD enrollment surpassed 1,266 students in 2010. There is no expiration to this provision, it is dependent solely on district enrollment above 1,266 students.

Please see:

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

Lie #2: Claiming that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is not valid because it was not signed by the Hermosa Beach City Council members.

Lie #3: Claiming that the Community Center needs to be purchased by HBCSD in order for it to be used by the school district.

Lie #5: Misinforming the public that the Community Center can only be used for recreational purposes.

“The board has made the decision to place modular classrooms on both campuses to solve the current overcrowding as a short-term solution” [does placing more modular classrooms on both campuses SOLVE the overcrowding problem or does it just make things worse?]

NOTE: The district’s “short-term” solution turned into seven and one half years (2013 until March 2021) of students languishing in severely overcrowded conditions at a cost of over $1M spent on the district’s temporary solutions that did nothing to add to the permanent value of district or city assets.

“Committee member Bacallao requested that representatives from the state tour the community center to see if there are any Title 5 restrictions that would prevent the community center as being used by the district should additional classroom space be needed in the future. Committee agreed that if we need or want to continue investigating the community center, the committee would need a directive from the board.”

NOTE: The FPAC was never given authorization by school board members to investigate the Community Center for HBCSD students.

Spring/Summer 2013 – Notes from Cassandra Bates dated May 27, 2016 (and witnessed by five people) created from an email sent from an FPAC member about the FPAC process in 2013 that had been shared between certain FPAC members.

NOTE: A copy of the original email with the comments by the FPAC member was not made available to the witnesses of the reading – only these notes were made available.

- Pat [Escalante] instructed Monique [Ehsan – FPAC Committee Chair] to shut her up.

- Technically not allowed to have [a] meeting.

- Agenda had to [be] posted week before, but was not and meeting had [held] anyway.

- Closed doors, agenda not shared, nothing shared about Community Center walk through to FPAC, Pat did it on her own.

- In actuality FPAC not being used, Pat [or school board members] using it for her own agenda.

- How can we garner community support without letting the community speak? Communications – our hands are tied.

- “How can I possibly convince the voters that we have a well thought out plan that includes everyone in the city,… we simply don’t.” FPAC member 2014

- “FPAC serving as window dressing instead of serving in a significant way.”

- “We are feeling used and concerned. Our reputations in community are being sullied by Pat and others using FPAC to justify actions over which we’ve had no control and or by the use of our names, to suggest significant community participation and the promotion of transparency.

- Monique [Ehsan – FPAC Committee Chair] to Patti Ackerman [school board member] – “we feel like we have simply become a rubber stamp for a flawed process.”