11-13-08 In response to your outrageous claims I submit the following:
Regarding your first paragraph concerning bylaw 9005(a), I have always operated openly with trust and integrity, just as the bylaws call for.
Bylaw 9010 does not preempt my constitutional rights to take a position that is in disagreement with the board majority. I think disagreement with the majority opinion does promote the board's ability to govern in the community, as does the nearly one half of the community that agreed with me and opposed measure CF.
At no time have I disclosed any information from a lawful closed session, and the statement that I admitted it, is incorrect. You need to disclose where and when I released lawful closed information and what that information was.
As to the allegation that my "vote no" facts on CF "made material misrepresentations" is wrong and it's simply your opinion versus mine.
The majority of the board did decide that only the high school receives any bond money. If there's adequate money in the general budget to make necessary repairs on the K-8 schools, I would like to know why these repairs, which are so badly needed particularly at Acton and Agua Dulce Elementary Schools, have not been already made. It is clear by the board majority action that none of the bond money will go to any place except Vasquez, and therefore the assumption is the other schools are good enough.
I was unable to attend the Oct 30th Budget Study session, but I have read the minutes indicating funding is being freed up to fix up the locker room at Vasquez, a task that should have been done years ago and also to add some shade structures at Agua Dulce. The major immediate needs still unaddressed are: supplemental funding for modernization projects at Agua Dulce and Acton (our district is entitle to two million in state funds for this), installing working fire alarms at both Acton and Agua Dulce Schools, expanding the MPR room at Agua Dulce and to replace the two ancient temporary classrooms there that have been sitting in the parking lot for over 30 years. In my opinion, we do recognize our “other facility” needs, but we certainly are not doing enough to remedy these needs. In my opinion, this is not “good enough” to me.
In my opinion, the board has shown poor business practices and physcal irresponsibility by spending repair money to pay off the energy saving contract and placing the savings in the general budget. They are paying the three million dollar Cal Air loan for energy savings (which goes into the general fund) out of our deferred maintenance fund (the fund used to replace items like roofs and carpet). It is projected that over the course of this 15 year loan there will be no deferred maintenance money left for any of the schools.
The refinancing of our non-voter debt at a higher rate, over a longer-term, is another classic example of fiscal irresponsibility, in my opinion.
I chose a NO vote on CF because I felt the bond was fraudulent. As the project list is exactly the same on measure V and CF, except CF adds a cafeteria, it is interesting to note the claimed cost for the same buildings under V is $46 million and CF is only $13 million. One of these bonds is obviously fraudulent because any rational person would agee that you cannot build exactly the same items with a $33 million difference. Either CF is too small or V was too big. In either case, “future expansion” does not make up the difference.
At no time did I call the Board's or the District's activity criminal or did I state that the board engaged in "fraudulent criminal activity". You made that claim up yourself and this indicates you may be concerned that what you did may rise to the level of criminal fraud, but I sure did not claim that.
Fraud is defined as "A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair gain - a piece of trickery; a trick." By claiming that you can now do with $13 million that which you needed $46 million to do less than nine months ago, certainly rises to that definition of fraud.
During the CF campaign at least one other board member made the assertion that the “district will deunify if measure CF does not pass”. I do not remember this board making that decision. Is this action censurable?
I remember when measure V was on the ballot, one board member published a letter claiming this was only a 30 year bond, disagreeing with a community member's assertion that V was a 40 year obligation? Is outright lying a censurable action?
This school board has one and only one employee, the superintendent. Is speaking with or writing e-mails to his subordinate employees asking for certain actions censurable?
All of the accusations in this censure motion against me are completely false. My comments are well within a board member's rights during an election campaign. The voters have passed measure CF. Now is the time to heal the bond war wounds, not the time to pick on dissenting board members. It is time to move on; it is time to build a high school.
The board majority may pass this fraudulent complaint, but as Rhett Butler said in Gone With The Wind, "I frankly don't give a damn"!