HBCSD Corruption

November 16, 2001 – City Council members:

1.       Michael Keegan

2.       Art Yoon

3.       Julie Oakes

4.       John L. Bowler

5.       J.R. Reviczky

6.       Steve Burrell – City Manager

December 6, 2001 – Architects look at new gym, classrooms, by Robb Fulcher, Easy Reader News

1.       “Architects courted by the Hermosa Beach City School District have toured the Valley and View campuses and now leased-out North School site to plot out the possible construction of a gymnasium, and new classrooms to meet future enrollment.” 

NOTE: No mention of HBCSD contractual rights to use classrooms and gymnasium, etc. at the Community Center.

2.       “We’re asking architects to look at all three sites and see what configuration they might recommend.” Said district Superintendent Robert “Duffy” Clark.” 

3.       “Enrollment projections, while far from an exact science, suggest that the K-8 district could grow from 1,020 students to anywhere between 1,130 and 1,250 students within 10 years, according to the committee’s figures.”  NOTE:  Ten years after this article was written, HBCSD enrollment was 1,303 students.

4.       “The new board members also have said the need for a gym should be weighed against anticipated needs for new classrooms and other facilities.  (That did not happen.)

5.       “The three new school board members (Cathy McCurdy, Lance Widman and Greg Breen) all have said that the site [North School] cannot be refurbished as is for district classroom space…” 

This is an INCORRECT STATEMENT.

NOTE:  North School is a grandfathered-in school which means that it is code compliant as is.  It was built to seismically safe Field Act specifications.  It can INDEED be renovated for HBCSD student use just like View School in Hermosa Beach, Robinson School in Manhattan Beach, Newport Beach Elementary in Newport Beach and Richmond Street School in El Segundo. 

 NOTE: Juge Construction Company, the same construction company that renovated Valley School in the 1980s gave a written estimate of $6.2 million dollars in 2017 to renovate North School. 

NOTE: Both HBCSD architects GKK Works and HBCSD hired architect expert Paul Bunton of BCA Architects gave estimates to renovate North School in 2013/2014.  If North School could not be refurbished, why did architects give estimates to refurbish/renovate North School?

February – April 2002 – HBCSD School Board members, staff and architects from Dougherty and Dougherty hold community meetings regarding district facility needs.  Sampling of community letters sent to school board members and architects: 

1.       Notes dated February 6, 2002 from Dougherty and Dougherty architects: “plan for growth first – gym second.”

2.       Letter from Gordon and Betty Evans dated February 6. 2002: “I was a member of the Hermosa Beach commission that evolved Pier Avenue Junior High School into a community center.  It was our intent and understanding that the Hermosa Beach School district would always have the first right to the auditorium and gymnasium.  I have not heard this mentioned at any of the board meetings.”  See also Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Pier Avenue School, Exhibit K: Lease Agreement for Future Use of Pier Avenue School.

3.       Letter from James Hausle dated March 21, 2002: “In reviewing the notes from the last meeting, I was surprised to see that the first item in your list of considerations was still the gymnasium instead of classroom space.  I recall that during the meeting I attended that we said that they should be listed in reverse since the classroom space and school master plan was more than just “building a gym”.  You noted that the previous group, the facilities committee had made the same comment.” …

… “Student density levels current and future?  Current campuses are overcrowded.  Just increasing the density of the student population will not be a good solution for the community.”

4.       Letter from Cary J. Bichlmeier dated March 25, 2002:  “Acquire more land.  This group wants a less dense campus than #1 and are willing to wait for it.  “Let[s] do it right, not fast”.”

5.       Letter from Gabi Adler dated April 8, 2002: …” has any consideration to using part of the abandoned shopping mall structure on PCH (next to Vons) for a school gym?”

6.       Letter from Beth L. Cross dated April 9, 2002: …”Let’s not allow [a] very vocal gym proponents to overshadow our primary educational goals.” … “Open space at Valley School is a priority to me.  I would love to see facilities expansion accommodated without encroaching on open space.” … “my child already feels crowds and waits in lines to participate in lunchtime play activities – this would be worsened with less open space.” 

NOTE:  California schools are not required to have a gymnasium. 

April 11, 2002 – Minutes from the HBCSD Citizens Meeting held at View School: 

1.       Superintendent Duffy Clark spoke to Adelphia (now Spectrum) about selling their site.  But Adelphia said that they do not have any intention of selling because they just invested over one million dollars upgrading their cables/equipment.

2.       PE teacher said that every inch of the open space is needed.  Gym space is on top of the existing open space. 

3.       Preliminary layout of the sketch presented includes space for gymnasium and six teaching stations located on the east side of [Valley School] campus.  The six teaching stations are in a two-story building with space for two future teaching stations on upper and lower floors.  The six teaching stations will cover 5-year projected growth and replacement of existing relocatables.  The additional four teaching stations for future will cover projected growth up to 10 years.  Existing parking would be redesigned to ease current pick-up and drop-off issues.  Five additional parking spaces will be gained with new parking layout.  Amount of green space will be maintained when [the] maintenance facility [is] move[ed] to the City’s yard.  Amount of black top (asphalt area) will be regained when the relocatables are removed. … 

4.       CORRECT INFORMATION: No net new classrooms were built with Measure J funds. 

June 26, 2002 – Facilities Master Plan (FMP) developed for HBCSD by Dougherty and Dougherty architects. 

1.       The 2002 FMP recommends that HBCSD supply or build 14 additional classrooms in 10 years to accommodate a predicted 2.6% annual growth rate. 

2.       In the District Context section of the FMP the architects report:  

A.      “The median age of the community has increased from 29.9 to 34.2.”

B.      …”the number of owner occupied home has increased by 25.3%”

C.      “The most significant statistic is the increase of 25.3% in owner occupied housing.  This indicates a more stable population shift for a beach community in the past 20 years.  This is consistent with many settlement patterns seen relative to the “Baby Boom Echo”.”

D.      “The student population growth over the past years has averaged approximately 2.6%”

E.       “Prudence indicates that the District should plan for the upper growth.”

3.       According to the Preliminary Cost Analysis in the FMP the gymnasium without changing rooms was estimated to cost $2,268,750 ($1.8M in construction costs and $453,750 in soft costs).

NOTE: Soft costs include architectural, engineering and project management fees.  Soft costs were projected to be 25% of construction costs.  Final soft cost for the gymnasium complex came in approximately 32% of hard costs, not 25% as originally projected. 

NOTE: The final cost of the gymnasium complex with changing rooms, two science classrooms and library was $11 million.  No net additional classrooms were provided at either Valley or View schools with Measure J funds.

4.       Why did Dougherty and Dougherty recommend HBCSD build a gymnasium?

A.      Gymnasiums are NOT required by the California Department of Education.

B.      Were the architects aware that HBCSD had the option to use the gymnasium two blocks away from Valley School for free? 

C.      Was the gymnasium “recommended” by Dougherty and Dougherty because certain school board members had requested it, not because HBCSD really needed a gymnasium?  There seems to be many examples of "independent" consultants giving biased information to conform to school board members’ desired outcomes.  (See also: Decision Insite enrollment consultants, Pam Daly historical assessments of North School, Richard Garland traffic study and Place Works Environmental Impact Report.

NOTE: In this discussion of HBCSD events, many "independent" consultants hired by HBCSD and paid for with taxpayer money DO NOT seem to be impartial purveyors of information.  Often HBCSD consultants seem to have slanted their information to conform to school board members' predetermined desired outcomes. Do school board members shop around for consultants willing to conform their information to school board members' plans? (See also: HBCSD attorney Terry Tao, HB City attorney Michael Jenkins, Decision Insite enrollment consultants, Pam Daly historical assessments (two) of North School, Richard Garland traffic study and services provided by Place Works for the Environmental Impact Report.)

NOTE: There seems to be no place where taxpayers can complain about information provided by school district consultants. The California Department of Education should provide an online site where citizens can report inaccurate or suspected slanted information provided by taxpayer paid consultants. The CDE should also investigate and monitor the complaints filed by citizens against possibly compromised consultants.

5.     Dougherty and Dougherty recommended building  twelve classrooms (8 classrooms and 4 specialized classrooms) with an elevator at Valley School and restrooms were projected to cost $2,025,000 ($1.6M in hard costs and $405,000 in soft costs).  Twelve classrooms with an elevator and restrooms were projected to cost less than a gymnasium. A gymnasium was estimated to cost $2,268,750. 

NOTE: The final out come at September 2009 was $11,000,000 spent on a gymnasium, new library, two science classrooms, and restrooms. NO net new classrooms were built at either Valley School or View School. Approximately $1M was taken out of HBCSD coffers (i.e. $1M NOT spent on students and plant operations) in order to finish the new construction at Valley School.

6.       Did Valley School have enough playground, lunch area and parking to comfortably handle 8 additional classrooms?  Eight classrooms X 30 students/classroom would equate to an additional 240 students on the Valley School campus and surrounding streets.

7.       The FMP recommends against using North School.  It states that North School would be cost prohibitive to renovate or rebuild.

This was INCORRECT INFORMATION:

A.      North School is grandfathered in as a HBCSD campus.  According to Doug Humphry, Department of State Architecture, Los Angeles Regional office and Bedelia Honeycutt, Field Representative for the CDE School Facilities Planning Division; North School is considered code compliant as is.   School districts are not required to do code investments even if a school campus is old. 

B.      Many renovations are exempt from Division of State Architect review and could greatly increase the speed and lower the cost at which the North School campus could have been made ready for students.  See Construction projects and items exempt from DSA review. 

Examples: New or replacement of exterior walking surfaces.  Landscaping.  Replacement in-kind of mechanical (including, but not limited to, heating, ventilation, air-conditioning) and electrical units.  Replacement of plumbing fixtures.  Cosmetic maintenance work such as painting, wallpapering, etc. Replacement of interior floor coverings.  Installation or replacement of synthetic (artificial turf) play fields.  Installation of new parking areas.  Installation of new surface over existing parking areas (such as asphalt overlays or seal coat).  Installation of new surface over existing parking areas with matching striping (such as asphalt overlays or seal coat).  Removal and replacement of existing parking area surface.  Reroofing with in-kind roof or “cool” roof or replacing with light-weight, nonmetal, non-tile roof and insulation system.  Weatherization/caulking.  Window glazing replacement.  Energy Management Systems.  Lighting upgrade of buildings. Water-heating upgrades.  Underground utility replacement in-kind of water piping and sewer.

C.      Site plan and floor plan of North School.  (TL-North School floor plan)

The interior walls of existing buildings at North School can be reconfigured.  The interior walls were recently constructed to support a private preschool.

D.      The cost to renovate North School was estimated to be $11 million by HBCSD hired consultant BCA Architects* in 2013.  North School had 15 classrooms, a kitchen and a multipurpose room.

*NOTE: Please see 2013 Facilities Planning and Advisory Committee information. 

a.       The cost to renovate North School AND build an additional office/classroom building on the site was estimated to cost $6.2 million in 2017 by Juge Construction company.  The Juge Construction company also renovated Valley School in 1985.

b.      Other examples of older campuses being renovated in the early 2000s cost about $4.1 to $5.3 million each. 

c.       Manhattan Beach Unified School District renovated Robinson School in the early 2000s for about $3 million.  Robinson School had also been leased out to a preschool before it was brought back and renovated for students.  View School had also been leased out to a private school before it was brought back and renovated for students.

E.       Why would Dougherty and Dougherty mislead the community about the cost of renovating North School?  Did certain school board members want to eliminate the North School option in order to keep the focus on building a gymnasium at Valley School?   Can independent consultants hired by a school district and paid for with taxpayer funds be truly considered to be an impartial purveyor of information?  Is the information provided to taxpayers by independent consultants and attorneys created to impartially inform taxpayers or is it created to do the school  board members’ bidding regardless of the facts?  See also Decision Insite enrollment consultants, Pam Daly historical assessments, Richard Garland traffic studies, Terry Tao HBCSD attorney, Michael Jenkins attorney for the City of Hermosa Beach.

F.       Did Dougherty and Dougherty mislead the community by stating that renovating North School would be cost prohibitive to lay the seeds for a future rebuild of North School?   It is believed that the quid pro quo between the school district and the city was not only to build a brand-new gymnasium at Valley School, but also build a brand-new campus at North School if HBCSD agreed to not exercise their leasing rights to the Community Center.

8.       Map of Valley School campus showing three basketball courts, three volleyball courts, four hand ball courts and three classrooms that were lost due to building the gymnasium complex for $11 million dollars in 2007.

June 2002 – Survey of voter attitudes toward the district’s planned facilities bond by Evans/McDonough Company, Inc.: 

1.       First attempt at bond language: Slide 5: “To modernize, repair and renovate Hermosa Valley and Hermosa View Schools, enhance technology capabilities, construct additional classrooms and student facilities, upgrade safety systems, upgrade electrical wiring, plumbing and mechanical systems, improve the safety of parking lots and energy efficiency, shall the Hermosa Beach City School District be authorized to issue 12 million dollars of bonds at legal interest rates, appoint a citizens’ oversight committee, and complete annual financial and performance audits with no proceeds used for administrator salaries or other school operating expense.”

A.      No mention of a gymnasium.

B.      No mention of acquiring land.  (See April 9, 2002 HBCSD Citizens’ Meeting minutes, item a.)

C.      Classrooms given high billing.

2.       Slide 11: (Showing opinions given by supporters and opponents.)  “Opponents: The District does not really need this money.  The schools need some improvements but too much of the money will be used to build an unnecessary gymnasium at one of the schools.  It is not needed and will result in less green space around schools.”

3.       Slide 15: District Project List ranked by district priority: 

A.      New classrooms/labs and facility enhancements are listed as low on the district’s priority list, however they are given high billing in the final bond language.

B.      The Build/Modernize Classrooms and New Classrooms/Labs and Facility Enhancements are projected to cost $3,570,000 ($1,750,000+$1,820,000) – the highest expenditure of the project list; about 30% of the $12 million total estimate of projects.

C.      A Gymnasium at Hermosa Valley is estimated to cost $2,225,000; about 19% of the $12 million total estimate of projects.   According to the final Citizens’ Oversight Committee Report of 9/30/2009 the final cost of the gymnasium complex was $11.5 million out of a total $19.5 million spent – or about 85% of the original $13.6M bond amount raised with Measure J.

D.      The district’s project list does not include acquiring property adjacent to Hermosa Valley School, yet it is added to the final bond language with a cost of an additional $1.6 million to make the final bond amount $13.6 million.  No land is purchased to expand Valley School  with Measure J funds.

4.       Slide 18: District Project List Ranked by Voter Rating of Importance and Slide 17: District Project List with Voter Rating of Importance. 

A.      New classrooms/labs and facility enhancements, providing additional interior gathering spaces, and expanding play fields/replacing fencing/site enhancements are rated as low priority for the school district, yet they are given top billing on both bond descriptions.

B.      The gymnasium is listed as a Priority 1 item for HBCSD, but considered as low priority by voters.

C.      There is no mention of acquiring land in the district’s list of projects.

5.       On both bond language examples (June 2002 and November 2002), classrooms are given high priority and the gymnasium is not mentioned.  While in reality the gymnasium is given highest priority by school board members.   Was leaving mention of the gymnasium off the final ballot really an oversight by the school district as was claimed by Lance Widman if it happened on both the Voter Survey ballot wording AND the final election ballot wording?  See also Measure J bond language cited in the November 5, 2002 information.

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

June 30, 2002 – Hermosa Beach City School District Governing Board

1.       Cathy McCurdy, president, term expires 2003

2.       Cary Bichlmeier, term expires 2003

3.       Linda Beck, term expires 2005

4.       Gregory Breen, term expires 2005

5.       Lance Widman, term expires 2005

6.       M. “Duffy Robert Clark – Superintendent

June 30, 2002 – HBCSD Available Reserves (school district savings account) at June 30, 2002 

In 2000 available reserves were $722,932 or 13.5%  (Average Daily Attendance is 920)

In 2001 available reserves were $740,164 or 11.6%  (Average Daily Attendance is 944)

In 2002 available reserves were $586,373 or 8.1%  (Average Daily Attendance is 982)

NOTE:  By 2005 school board members had spent/reduced HBCSD reserves to 2.9%.  HBCSD is required by law to hold 3% reserves.

 NOTE: By 2015 HBCSD school board members had amassed reserves of $2,949,713 or 25.5% of total revenue.  In other words, $2.9M was held back from being spent on students and plant services while school board members waited to pass a $59M facilities bond. 

August 1, 2002 – Letter to parents about the upcoming bond from Superintendent Robert “Duffy” Clark, Ed.D.:

There is no mention of a gymnasium as the primary goal of a new bond. 

2002 September - October – Measure J campaign flyers.

Priority and importance is given to classrooms.  Almost no mention of a gymnasium that would ultimately replace classrooms and cost taxpayers $11 million.  No net new classrooms are built with Measure J.

November 5, 2002 – 13.6M Measure J facilities bond is passed by 67% of voters.

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: Only this portion of the bond description is listed on the face of the ballot. 

CORRECT INFORMATION:

1.       No land was acquired with Measure J funds to expand Valley School.

A.      Why did school board member list acquiring land on the final ballot when several months earlier at the April 11, 2002 Citizens’ Meeting Superintendent Dr. Duffy Clark stated that Adelphia (aka Spectrum) had just invested more than $1 million into upgrading their equipment at the site and were not interested in selling their property to the school district? 

B.      There is no mention of acquiring land in the 2002 Facility Master Plan.

C.      In the June 2002 survey of voter attitudes, preliminary bond language did not mention acquiring land to expand Valley School.  Why then was it added to the final bond language in November 2002 especially considering Superintendent Dr. Duffy Clark’s statements at the April 2, 2002 Citizens’ Meeting?

D.      Was the prospect of buying land to expand Valley School only used to convince voters to pass the district’s bond with no intention of actually using the funds to purchase land to expand Valley School?

2.       NO mention of building a gymnasium and changing rooms was written on the face of the bond.

A.      California schools are not required to have a gymnasium. 

B.      In the voter survey of June 2002 presented to school board members only months before the election, the gymnasium was not viewed as important to voters.  See June 2002 Voter Survey facts.   See also Measure J bond language cited in the June 2002 voter survey. 

C.      On the district’s list of items to be paid for with Measure J funds, school board members listed the gymnasium as a higher priority than classrooms however the gymnasium was not listed on the face of the ballot given to voters.  

D.      On the district’s Full Text Ballot Proposition, Exhibit B, that was not included with the Measure J ballot but included in the Voter Information Guide, the gymnasium is listed forth from the bottom of page 2.

a.       On page 2 of Exhibit B “Acquire property adjacent to school to expand existing school facilities” is listed before the gymnasium.  It is believed that listing acquiring land before listing building a gymnasium on Exhibit B would give voters the impression that acquiring land to expand Valley School was more important than building a gymnasium.  

b.      On Exhibit B, classrooms are given top billing, so one might assume that they would be the priority for HBCSD with measure J bond funds.  However, no net, new classrooms were built with Measure J funds at either Valley School or View School. 

c.       If the gymnasium was listed as a top priority on HBCSD’s items list prior to the bond, why was it listed fourth to the bottom out of sixteen items on page 2 and therefore implied lower status on Exhibit B?  Were school board members hoping that most people would not read down to the bottom of Exhibit B?  Were school board members hoping that the position of the gymnasium on Exhibit B would make most people assume it was not a higher priority over building classrooms? 

3.       Why would school board members be so intent on making the gymnasium the priority of Measure J funds?  HBCSD had priority usage of the gymnasium and changing rooms at the Community Center only two blocks from Valley School.  Exhibit K, Future Use of Pier Avenue School states that HBCSD students have priority usage of the gymnasium for two hours/day during the school year for practice and 10 additional days for tournaments.  Wouldn’t it have been possible to increase the usage times and days with the city for HBCSD students?

NOTE: HBCSD School Board members and HB City Council members created a Joint Use Agreement in 2008. Something similar could have been created for district use of the gymnasium at the Pier Avenue Community Center. This could have saved taxpayers $11M on a brand-new gymnasium AND allowed Measure J funds to be used to renovate North School to open up 15 classrooms prior to overcrowding the school district from 2010 to 2019 again saving the community $29M cost to rebuild North School.

4.       The 2002 Facility Master Plan projected the cost of the gymnasium without changing rooms to be $4.08 million ($1.8M in construction costs and $453,750 in soft costs).   The final cost of the gymnasium complex with changing rooms, two science classrooms and library was $11.5 million.  No net additional classrooms were provided at either Valley or View schools with Measure J bond funds. 

5.       The statement “To improve the quality of education” in the bond description is highly debatable since school board members ultimately took approximately $990,000 from HBCSD coffers and spent down the district Reserve Account (savings account) from 11.6% in 2001 to only 2.9% or $225,960 in 2005 in order to finish building the gymnasium and did not build any net new classrooms with the Measure J bond funds.

6.       The statement “no money for administrators’ salaries” by omission this statement infers that bond money could be used for teacher salaries since ‘teacher salaries’ are not specified in the statement.  By law, however, facility bond funds are not allowed to be used for either administrative salaries OR teacher salaries.  Did school board members leave off the part about bond funds cannot be used for teacher salaries and just specified that fund cannot be used for administrative salaries so that voters would be led to believe that the bond funds could be used to pay teachers’ salaries or hire more teachers?

November 5, 2002 – Measure J Bond Exhibit B – Full Text Ballot Proposition

The full list of items to be built with bond funds:

Hermosa View School – Built 1953 (page 1)

                #3 out of 11 items on the list: “Construct new, permanent classrooms”

                #5 out of 11 items on the list: “Make ADA improvements (handicapped access) as required by law.”

#7 out of 11 items on the list: “Construct additional restrooms and upgrade existing plumbing, gas and sewer systems.”

                Hermosa Valley School – Built 1950 and 1987 (page 2)

                #6 out of 16 items on the list: “Construct new, permanent classrooms”

                #12 out of 16 items on the list: “Acquire property adjacent to expand existing school facilities”

#13 out of 16 items on the list: “Construct a gymnasium for school and community use” (listed 4th from the bottom of page 2- unlikely place to list the district’s highest priority item)

November 7, 2002 – School bonds approved in a landslide, by Robb Fulcher, Easy Reader News

1.       “Hermosa voters overwhelmingly approved a $13.6 million school bond to revamp the city’s two aging public schools, build at least 13 new classrooms, acquire more land and build a gymnasium on the Valley School campus.”…

2.       “The successful campaign was bolstered by a $27,500 war chest provided mostly by Dougherty + Dougherty architects of Costa Mesa, which has been employed by the school district to help prepare its renovation and expansion program, and UBS Paine Webber of Los Angeles, which is expected to assist in the sale of the bonds.” …

3.       “Of the $13.6 million total, $3.8 million is to be set aside to acquire property now housing the Adelphia Communications cable TV company next door to Valley School.  Officials have said they are willing to use imminent domain to secure property.”…  See also the April 11, 2002 Citizens’ Meeting Superintendent Dr. Duffy Clark stated that Adelphia (aka Spectrum) had just invested more than $1 million into upgrading their equipment at the site and were not interested in selling their property to the school district. 

4.       “The bond is needed “to completely bring both schools up to the current standards of construction and technology, and to build the necessary classrooms to handle anticipated growth in the district,” school board President Cathy McCurdy said. 

NOTE: School board President Cathy McCurdy does not mention the gymnasium as the main focus of Measure J bond money in this article.

5. In January 2019, in the Easy Reader article True North by Ryan McDonald, Cathy McCurdy complains that she had to “fight an onslaught of fake news”.  January 31, 2019 – True North: History weighs on Hermosa’s schools by Ryan McDonald, Easy Reader News. Are the quotes attributed to Cathy McCurdy (longest serving school board member 1991-2009) in this 2002 article from the Easy Reader part of the fake news that Cathy McCurdy was referring to?

December 16, 2002 – HBCSD Budget Committee Meeting, Valley School Library.  District reserves are 13%.  In June 1994 district reserves were 33%. 

“Lance [Widman] suggested that the committee establish operating principals or norms to govern the conversation.  The group opened with:”

1. Respect all positions

2. Maintain confidentiality

3. Start at the ground up (“put everything on the table”)

4. Suspend assumptions

NOTE: Almost immediately (arguably before the bond was passed) school board member Lance Widman would ignore his own “operating principals” that were supposed to govern the “conversation”.