This site exists to provide you with all the information that the district and the school bonds cartel doesn't want you to know about. I believe that when you know what's really going on, you may have a different view of school bond measures now and in the future. It's not a pretty picture, despite all the cute photos of children or young college students that you're getting in the mail.
If you don't have your sample ballot booklet handy, you can peruse my word-searchable version of the measure and as many supporting documents as I've been able to find. This is a permanent link for Kern County Measure E (2018 general Election) for Wasco Union High.
Unlike the Yes-on-Measure Committee that is sponsored by the school bonds cartel, opposition has had little time to organize. The opposition is, after all, working people like you who likely didn't even know there was a tax measure on the ballot until you started seeing professionally produced Astro-Turf signs around the district and carefully written mailers with focus-group-tested claims designed to make you feel guilty for not supporting the measure.
I'm providing this forum to make it easier to connect with others like yourself. If I know of even slightly organized opposition, you'll find it here.
The epitome of the school bonds cartel is C.A.S.H. - Coalition for Adequate School Housing. Wasco Union High is a member of C.A.S.H. and uses your tax dollars to pay it dues and to send its employees to conferences to learn how to exact more taxes from you and to learn how to spend it with other C.A.S.H. members.
The buck stops, literally, with you. You are the opposition, if you choose to be. It's not a Mission Impossible. It's doable. You are many; they are few. They rely on Astro-Turf money. They believe they can win by throwing a big enough pile of money at you.
If you're
Wasco Union High wants you to believe that Measure E was proposed as the result of a lengthy fact-finding process that took months of input from people who live in the district. This is simply not the case.
Yes, the district put on public participation dog-and-pony shows. Yes, people got to voice their opinions. Yes, people were brought to a consensus. None of that matters, however, because the language of the bond promises only two things: One, the district will issue the bonds. And two, it will spend the proceeds. Read the fine print (the long, incoherent paragraphs) and see for yourself.
There are two primary things I've learned over the past two years that I think will give you the big picture.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and make a categorical statement that none of the Proposition 39 bond measures that have been placed on local ballots around the state over the past 10 years are in accordance with the law. The law, in this case, is the California Constitution, Article XIII-A, Section 1(b)(3)(B).
Not a single one of the 45 Prop 39 bond measures on the June 2016 ballot is a "list of the specific school facilities projects to be funded." Not a single one of the 184 Prop 39 bond measures on the November 2016 ballot is a "list of specific school facilities projects to be funded" either. That language is a mandate in the Constitution that permits an exception from the general rule that school improvement bonds require a two-thirds vote for passage.
The school bonds cartel was behind the passage of Proposition 39. You can read for yourself its unmitigated glee with the results of the primary election in 2002 in its own words, the first election at which Proposition 39 bond measures could be placed on the ballot anywhere in California.
There is a massive, organized lobby that operates all over the state whose only goal is to make its members money or gain them prestige or political power or all three. I call it the school bonds cartel. Since Proposition 39 passed in November 2000, the school bonds cartel has persuaded local voters around the state to indebt themselves for nearly $250 BILLION, all secured by their homes.
After a 10-year drought, as the money spigot was about to drip its last dollar, C.A.S.H. took the initiative (pun intended) and placed another $9 BILLION state-wide bond on the ballot for November 2016. That's Proposition 51 sponsored by Yes on Proposition 51 - Californians for Quality Schools, sponsored and funded by Coalition for Adequate School Housing Issues Committee and California Building Industry Association Issues Committee. It's name is so long because, thankfully, it has to disclose that it's not Californians like you and me -- it's just the special interests that will grab every penny of that $9 billion over time, whether or not your children actually benefit. It only cost it about $1.5 MILLION to get it on the ballot. That's an excellent return on investment. While it has passed against Governor Brown's wishes, the school bonds cartel is not happy with Brown's slow-walking the disbursement of money, so they're demanding he speed it up. Greed knows no bounds.
I should have had an inkling of this, but I was naive, perhaps because I didn't really know anything about school improvement bonds. When you follow the money, all becomes clear.
What you should take away from these two things is that your local school and college districts have gotten into bed with the school bonds cartel to soak homeowners (mostly) and small business owners for the maximum amount of money that the law allows or that the market will bear, whichever is greater.
Your district makes a big deal about how the bond money will not, by law, be used to pay salaries.
First, whenever you hear or read the district or proponents use the phrases, "by law,", "mandatory," "strict accountability," and variants, know this -- whatever's being referenced is a bald-faced lie.
Yes, there are mandates. No one enforces those mandates. Your district knows this. It knows that there is no one from the rigged oversight committee, to the governing board, to the county district attorney, to the county treasurer, to the county office of education, to the California Department of Education, to the State Treasurer's Office, to the State Auditor's Office, to the California Attorney General who is out there enforcing any of these laws.
In addition, there is no penalty for violating any one of these mandates. This almost guarantees that private citizens who become aware of the violations will not bring lawsuits against themselves (your district uses your money in its defense) to enforce any of the mandates.
Pension payment demands from CalSTRS and CalPERS have been soaring for years. They will continue to soar for many years to come. Woe is me! Where does all that extra money come from?
Property tax revenues rise every year by about 4% to 8%. Direct state payments are rising every year too. And so are all those special state taxes that are earmarked for schools. It's never enough when the district satisfies staff and teachers with mo' money, mo' money, mo' money on a regular basis.
Money is fungible. One dollar in a pool of dollars can't be distinguished from any other dollar in terms of where it came from or how it is spent.
In a few years, your district will come back asking for more bonds. The measure will make the same promises as before. The excuses for not fixing things will be the same. Fairly soon, the new facilities will be showing their age for lack of upkeep. The cycle is self-perpetuating.
Your district is creating crises for which its solution is always bonds. Until it's ready to float a bond measure, it's not a crisis.
This is, perhaps, the most disgusting part of a bond measure campaign. Almost as if by design, the campaign financial filings are almost impossible to come by. The county registrar of voters is the only place where you can get the filings. They're on paper, often faxed, and sometimes hand-written. (There is no searchable database in any county in the state.) You have to travel there during business hours to get them. (Some counties have the images of the paper filings on-line in a heavily redacted, nearly useless form.) In a word, it's a Herculean task.
Do you believe in fairies? How about angels? Who gives money to a Yes-on-Measure Committee? The answer to this question raises the specter of all kinds of political favors, waste, and public corruption. The proof is in the pudding, as they say.
For a truly stunning report of how the school bonds cartel operates, see the Los Angeles Times investigative report, Billions to Spend. It would take a full-time team of lawyers and journalists years to report on all the corruption connected with the school bonds cartel around California. Note that the Los Angeles Community College District, the target of that investigation, has no shame either. It tricked the voters into passing a $3.3 BILLION bond measure on the November 2016 ballot. And Los Angeles Times? Under new management and swimming in red ink, it capitulated and actually endorsed the measure.
If you were to believe the Yes-on-Measure Committee, it's a bunch of "grassroots parents, teachers, and community leaders." In fact, the school bonds cartel rears its hydra head again. The donors to the Yes-on-Measure Committee are a who's who of C.A.S.H. go-to firms.
Why is this secret, you might ask? Because it's nearly impossible for average folks like you to get your hands on the reports that the Yes-on-Measure Committee and the major donors must file. The reason that it's so easy to keep this hidden is because of a dysfunctional campaign finance system that splits the responsibility between the Secretary of State and the county registrars and the mish-mash of systems that have sprung up as a result with each county creating its own system ranging from hard-copy paper filings to placing heavily redacted paper filings on line.
By the way, it's not just the Yes-on-Measure Committee. There's a strong correlation between these contributors and many governing board candidates. What would you think if contributors to governing board campaigns and the Yes-on-Measure Committee received contracts with the district, either before or after a bond measure election?
I don't have all the campaign filings for Measure E. Would you be an angel and visit your county registrar's office to get a copy of the filings? Call or text me at 909-378-5401 and I'll walk you through what to expect. It's not difficult, if you can spare the time and small expense, but it's extremely helpful to everyone else who will visit this page. The information will be also be added to our growing database of Yes-on-Measure Committee donors to help connect the dots all over California.
How many times can you find references to state statutes or codes or law in the question, in the full text, in the arguments, in the impartial analysis, and in the tax rate statement? Why is it there? The only reason it's put in there is to give you a false sense of comfort.
Let me explain.
If something is required to be done by law, then it's not optional. Adding language that says the district will follow the law adds nothing. Wouldn't one expect that anyway? Then why put it in?
In some cases, the ballot measure goes to great lengths to quote or paraphrase what the law says. In my view, this is dangerous because the paraphrased language is not the law. Will the district follow the paraphrased language or the actual law, if you approve this tax measure? The only way to know is to sue in court, which requires lawyers and a lot of money.
The law hasn't changed since that 2002 measure was placed on the ballot. The only reason for all the legal gobbledygook is that C.A.S.H. members have conducted focus-groups and have determined that putting in all that meaningless legal mumbo-jumbo sells better.
This is usually right in the question, but can appear elsewhere in the full text. Again, what purpose does it serve, except a false sense of comfort. Did you know that legal interest rates are currently up to 12%? Does that shock you? Would you take a 12% loan on your house? Of course not. Why didn't the consultant who wrote the question put in the maximum 'legal' interest rate? (You didn't think district officials wrote it, did you?) Because "at legal interest rates" sells much better than "at up to 12% interest rates."
It's just part of the sales job.
If there's one thing you'll see throughout the sample ballot materials and all the propaganda materials you're receiving in your mail is how much accountability there is. Why do the advisors put so much attention on this? As you'll see, the reason is always the same -- because it sells.
In fact, the sole purpose of the Smaller Classes, Safer Schools and Financial Accountability Act of 2000 was to undermine opposition to the passage of Proposition 39. Like all legislative acts, the title of the act is the sizzle. It looks good. It sounds good. It means nothing. Oftentimes it's actually an oxymoron, meaning it does the exact opposite of what it sounds like it does. This case is no different. There's mention of accountability in the act, but in practice, the trustees control the two groups that are deceptively described as independent.
The independent citizens' bond oversight committee (CBOC) actually serves at the pleasure of the trustees. In practice, the trustees adopt the committee's bylaws, restrict its activities, and manage its meetings where high-level administrators and vendors are always in attendance. If you'd like to learn what really goes on in these meetings, read about the initial meeting of the Torrance Unified School District CBOC -- The Big Switcheroo.
The two so-called independent audits, which are constitutional provisions, are actually anything but. Note that each bond measure must have two audits every year until all the funds have been spent. This is very lucrative business for accounting firms. Would you guess that these accounting firms are members of C.A.S.H.? That should tell you to whole story. The school bonds cartel is like a vertical holding company. It controls every aspect of school facilities projects in California from selling the district officials on a sky-high pile of money (not very hard to do) through to final repayment of indebtedness.
An audit is an opinion that certain financial practices are in place and that nothing appears out-of-line. It's a very conservative thing. It's based on the data provided. It's not looking for trouble. It's looking for the mundane. The district determines what data to provide. It's looking for a good report. Of the thousands of audits performed in California each year, do you know how many didn't report a clean bill of health? Does zero sound reasonable? Like I said, the accounting firms are just doing the job they're paid to do with the data they're provided. These are not forensic audits looking for trouble. These are routine audits looking for the mundane. Did I mention that this audit business is very lucrative?
So why do I say that there's no accountability? Because even the scandals like Sweetwater in San Diego County that led to criminal convictions, passed all the accountability procedures. Grand jury reports like those in Contra Costa, Orange, and Solano counties are routinely rationalized away and ignored.
Are bond funds being wasted and misused? Without a doubt. Guess how many prosecutions have been initiated by county district attorneys for misuse of bond funds under the Smaller Classes, Safer Schools and Financial Accountability Act of 2000? Zero.
The so-called watchdogs are asleep at the wheel. Those few souls who have uncovered the waste and misuse are left to their own resorts. You can bring your own civil suits at your own expense and on your own time. Those stories are seldom told by a disinterested press that's just trying to survive the age of the Internet.
This is really one big joke. It looks all official and all, written by the county counsel, but it's just a fill in the blank form that fulfills a requirement of the legislature.
It basically says: NOTHING IS AS IT APPEARS. BUYER BEWARE!
How many trees have been killed putting this meaningless fine print in millions of sample ballot booklets for all these years?
Of all the legal mumbo jumbo in the measures and their related documents, there is not a single provision of law that sanctions a district for non-compliance. In other words, the districts can violate the provisions of the law, which they do, with impunity -- without consequence. Sure, you can a file lawsuit at your own expense to attempt to force the district to comply with the laws it's subject to. The best result attainable would be an order for the district to follow the law with absolutely no consequence. Note that the district pays for its defense with your taxes, so it's no skin off its back.
And if you the think in-house counsel and outside lawyers are giving advice that is competent or that explains all the legal possibilities, then all you need do is look at all the lawyers that are part of the school bonds cartel and C.A.S.H.. A retired lawyer in Monterey County who writes extensively about the legalities of the persistent expansion of public employee pensions has even suggested that these yes-man lawyers are violating there own code of professional responsibility. It's become so prevalent that no matter what legal violation you raise, the district will always claim that its counsel has said the district is following the law -- just before it loses in court or on appeal.
Do you think it's fair when a district uses public resources to influence an election that it has a direct interest in. An election like a bond measure election, let's say.
Kamala Harris, California's current Attorney General has weighed in on this issue. You can read the official opinion which was just published in January 2016.
For my analysis on the Attorney General's opinion, see Attorney General Weighs In.
This is one of my pet peeves. The district says it's simply providing allowable 'information.' Don't buy the lame lawyers' argument that as long as the material doesn't tell the voter how to vote, it's legal. The Attorney General didn't buy it. One look at the fancy, colorful, image-loaded, campaign-style mailers and you know in your gut that it's not information -- it's persuasion and it's designed to influence the election. As the Attorney General points out, that violates the law.
What can you do about it? Plenty. Unfortunately, you won't be able to stop it in time to make a difference for the current election. If you want to know the tactics that have worked, then you'll have to join the weekly Wednesday night call here.
There's also the issue of the Yes-on-Measure Committee name. The advisors know that it's a 'sponsored' committee, but it doesn't help the campaign when the committee name that appears on all communications includes a description of the major contributors. So it doesn't. (That's why the campaign finance filings are so important.) The advisors know that even if a complaint is made to the FPPC, a decision will only come months after the election. When you're looking at hundreds of millions of dollars in spending money, even large fines look tiny by comparison. Don't let them get away with it.
The district has had previous bond measures. It will carefully select the most impressive facilities improvements that it can find to convince you that it's done a good job. The consultants will have beautiful pictures taken. It'll all be just marketing.
What you won't get is a detailed report of where ALL the money went. You also won't get a report of what the actual cost of any individual project was. Nor will you get a report of the tax payments allocated to the project. Why? Because it's not a pretty picture. C.A.S.H. estimates that, at best, only one-third of the actual taxes that you pay will go toward the actual facilities. At least one-half will be interest payments. The rest will be administration and other ill-defined soft costs, like administrator salaries (yes, despite the yelling on the ballot measure to the contrary) and paperwork.
| Votes | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | Measure | Amount | Result | Yes % | No % | Yes | No | Total |
| 2024 | D | $35,400,000 | Failed | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2020 | A | $38,950,000 | Failed | 51.7% | 0.00% | 1,397 | 1,305 | 2,702 |
| 2018 | E | $40,000,000 | Failed | 46.3% | 53.6% | 555 | 643 | 1,198 |
| 2008 | C | $33,500,000 | Passed | 65.2% | 34.7% | 1,070 | 570 | 1,640 |
| 2007 | G | $45,000,000 | Failed | 61.4% | 38.5% | 834 | 524 | 1,358 |
| 2001 | F | $6,600,000 | Passed | 74.8% | 25.1% | 1,229 | 413 | 1,642 |
Is the district painting a truthful picture about the state of the schools? Do they really have "leaky roofs," "deteriorating plumbing," and sweltering classrooms?
If you don't have children in school, you may not be aware that the legislature requires that school districts complete a report card every year. The report card describes, in detail, a whole range of statistics and details about each school in the district. Importantly, for the purpose of considering a bond measure, there is a facilities sub-section, under Section A (Conditions of Learning). The sub-section is called School Facility Conditions and Planned Improvements (Most Recent Year).
Let's make a game of this. Find the school that doesn't have a perfect facilities report card. Give up yet? So is the district lying on the report card or on the ballot measure?
Remember, out of public view, the district had been planning for the bond up to three years in advance. Then remember that the district's goal is to deceive you with its sleight of hand. If you find that facilities aren't rated "Good" or "Exemplary" in the current year, check out the prior years. If the facilities have worsened, then you have to ask yourself whether the current year's SARC was contrived to support the district's claim that the schools are in decrepit condition. It's a tried and true tactic for deception.
Remember, the ballot measure is written by the consultants that are mailing you the same propaganda. It's designed to make you feel guilty.
Want to go a step further? Call the district and set up an appointment to inspect a school for yourself. If the district were to let you, which it won't, make sure to bring a video camera so that you can record your report so that others might benefit from your experience.
| # | School | Grades | Most Recent | Prior Year | Prior Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The most recent SARC was published on or before February 1, 2024 for the school year ending in June 2023. The School Facility Conditions sub-section usually begins on page 3 or 4. | |||||
| 1 | Wasco High | 9-12 | 2016-17 | 2015-16 | 2014-15 |
| 2 | Wasco Independence High | 9-12 | 2016-17 | 2015-16 | 2014-15 |
We really appreciate you clicking that link.
You may not think you can do a lot, but these bond elections are really very close, most winning or losing by only a few hundred votes.
The hardest thing for us is finding like-minded people, so it would be really helpful if you just give us your e-mail address. We're just like you, so we won't be letting it get into the wrong hands.
If you're really mad about the grand theft taking place in the name of children, then sign up here on this site. That will quickly connect you with other committed neighbors.
We're up against TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS from pay-to-play donors and a slick marketing company.
Because we're operating on hope and prayer, if you can help, please let us know what you've done so we don't duplicate your good work. Call me at 909-378-5401.
Copyright © 2015-2024, Richard Michael. All Rights Reserved.