Search
Polls
Forum Login
RSS Feed: Local News
RSS Feed: Sports
RSS Feed: Voice
| The grand jury tragedy of Delta College |
|
| Written by Jon Mendelson / Tracy Press | |
| Friday, 20 June 2008 | |
|
The grand jury's scathing report suggests a too-cozy relationship between an unnamed board member and the Mountain House developer. Question: What happens when you mix a developer deal, poor management and millions of dollars in taxpayer money? Answer: The fiasco that is San Joaquin Delta College’s Mountain House campus. If you haven’t already read it, the county’s Civil Grand Jury report released this week, detailing the gross mismanagement of Delta’s south county satellite campus, is equal parts dark humor and high hubris. Almost all you need to know is in the last paragraph of the summary. "The grand jury has no confidence in the Delta College Board of Trustees as they are currently constituted. The district needs capable trustees who are able to meet the task of bringing Delta College into the 21st century." Ouch. Things must be pretty bad for the county’s official watchdog to suggest the ouster of elected officials. And things are bad. Just four years ago, voters passed the $250 million Measure L bond to modernize existing Delta campuses and build the south county satellite for $50 million. That cost has nearly doubled since, and students are no closer to studying in Mountain House than when the bond was passed. (New promised opening — spring 2009!) One of the boards’ biggest mistakes was deciding on a 4-3 vote to plow ahead exclusively with the Mountain House site, especially considering Tracy had more than 100 acres of land at Chrisman Road and 11th Street gift-wrapped with a cap on expenditures and ribboned with between $6 million and $10 million worth of infrastructure. The offer was snubbed despite the recommendation of Delta-hired consultants. Of course, most of the board didn’t know that consultant company PPV decided the Chrisman campus made more sense. According to Manteca-area Trustee Ted Simas, one of the three dissenters in the 2006 decision, there was a deliberate attempt to keep the consultant’s report secret. "This information was purposefully withheld from the board," he told me Friday, "and when I asked why, they tried to make it sound like we had already gone 100 percent with Mountain House, when that was not the truth." One possibility as to why the report was withheld: Someone was getting cozy with developer Gary Kamilos. Grand jury-obtained records indicate that when the Tracy campus became a real possibility because Mountain House developer Kamilos was going to miss a crucial deadline, an unnamed member of the board of trustees passed along info discussed in a confidential, closed-door session via phone and fax to the developer and his consultant. The grand jury found that action to be only one of numerous possible violations of the Brown Act, a California open-meeting law passed so elected officials couldn’t conduct the public’s business in secret. As far as a fix-it strategy, the grand jury’s recommendations are painfully common-sense, suggesting that the Delta board, as a body, is incapable of fulfilling even simple tasks. The jury admonished the board to "avoid making the same mistake," "thoroughly evaluate all staff and consultants’ recommendations prior to making bond decisions and commitments," "comply with the Brown Act," and, not least, "refocus on the needs of the students and not personal agendas." It’s a litany of why change is needed. Certainly, the four who voted in favor of continuing the debacle at Mountain House — Leo Burke, Dan Parises, Janet Rivera and Maria Elena Serna — should be on the hot seat. (The ones who voted against the boondoggle — Simas, Anthony Bugarin and Tracy-area Trustee Greg McCreary — should be acknowledged.) Unfortunately, no amount of change will recoup the lost millions and squandered opportunity. But the grand jury report is a lasting testament to officials run amok — and how other bodies can avoid a similar fate. TUSD bond follow-up After last week’s column about Tracy Unified School District’s newest bond attempt went to print, I realized that a crucial question had not been answered. TUSD’s boundaries include several "feeder" elementary districts — Lammersville, Jefferson, Banta, etc. — that would see no benefit from the $43 million bond aimed at updating deteriorating TUSD middle and elementary schools. Would these folks end up paying for benefits their children would never see? Turns out the answer is no. Jessica Cardoza, TUSD spokeswoman, assured me this week that only property owners within the TUSD elementary district would have to pay if the bond passes. Those sending their kids to grade school outside TUSD would be free from the debt. It’s good to know that at least some school boards care about fairness to taxpayers. • For a daily does of Second Thoughts, visit Jon's blog. Or e-mail him at This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it .
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Hits: 1156 Trackback(0)
Comments
(22)
I find it interesting that Sue Sarvey said at this Tuesday's Council meeting, that she favors the Chrisman site. Then she seemed to scoff that the San Joaquin Delta College wouldn't be moving in to the Chrisman site. Trying to make a mockery of the Council, but that may have just backfired.
Tracy, Catch the VISION: -Tracy Sports Park and Wetlands at Holly! http://tracypress.com/content/view/13759/2244/ -Tracy Business Park at 11th Lammers -Tracy San Joaquin Delta College at Chrisman and 11th (possibly combined with Alvarez site). -Annex Mountain House. It is a win-win situation for both Tracy and Mountain House. Thanks!
Jon Mendelson,
Do Mountain House residents who send their children to "feeder" schools, like Lammersville also have to pay? Are Tracy residents left to carry the bag? What is this bond going to pay for? Is it for existing schools? What improvements do existing schools need? I'm afraid this money is going to be diverted to those who are NOT paying for it! If Mountain House wants a piece of the pie, then they better start negotiating the Annexation process. Either that, or, Mountain House should just pay for own schools, like they originally PLANNED! No alternative routes to HANDOUTS from Tracy to MH, through the TUSD, or the VOTERS, please! Annexation please! Lets put that on the ballot! Thanks!
I need better understanding of how annexation will or will not affect the city coffer? Need it for campus in Tracy? Guess I missed something. Have not been watching this one closely.
Thanks. -amy
I actually think both towns could benefit financially. See note below about a comment Jim made about MH. Jim's comment is that MH has a balanced budget.
However, just thinking more about the proposed bond from TUSD. This concern was addressed in a question for Tracy Press Staff. Still waiting for the reply. http://tracypress.com/content/view/14998/2242/ Others may know more about the issue too. Dave has commented in the same article that TUSD certainly could do a better job explaining this to the voters. written by Dave Hardesty , June 22, 2008 Want to know that money is staying locally. If MH cannot pay for itself then the county should get involved. Jim, said in another article the city is not in the red. So, MH should be able to pay their share. Hope someone is looking into this. Jon Mendelson also had another article. Cannot post too many links or TP will block my posts, so interested readers will have to search. Thanks!
Not quite sure what your talking about with regard to Mountain House paying it's fair share.
My understanding is that the bond money being sought is for renovations to Tracy's elementary schools. Mountain House is in the Lammersville school district. No bond money would be spent there. Two of the three Lammersville "feeder schools" reside in Mountain House. A feeder school simply refers to schools that feed a high school District outside of the elementary district. In this case all the schools in Lammersvville feed into the Tracy high school system as do Banta, and New Jerusalem elemenatary districts. In your case, TUSD is a unified district in that it is a combined elementatary and highschool district. What we're seeking in Mountain house is to unify the Lammersville district so we can build out own high school in Mountain House. Failing to do so would mean eventually having Tracy build our high school.
On annexation,
Again, nobody but Tracy Realnews is talking about annexation. It's not up to Tracy or the Tracy city council. Mountain house is recognized as it's own entity by LAFCO. Mountain House has it's own boundaries and clearly defined sphere of influence as recognized by the county. Suggesting that Tracy could just Annex Mountain house would be akin to suggesting that Manteca in some way has the right to annex Tracy. It would require a majority vote of land owners in Mountain House to pursue annexation. Given the developers still control 7/8th of the land, annexation seems more than unlikely. They created Mountain house in the first place so that they could avoid city council control and oversight. Continuing to talk about it like it's a possibility confuses the issue and does a disservice to Tracy Press readers by making it sound like there's an issue to be considered.
Jim,
Good to hear your side, as always. As I mentioned. I am more interested (like Dave) in hearing from TUSD about where the money will go. What are their plans? Why do we need the money? Is there a plan for TUSD to build more "feeder schools"? We haven't heard all the information yet. Therefore it would behoove someone from MH to want to hear from all sides before criticizing me! I merely expressed my interest in Annexation. Probably won't happen, I agree with you. However, I still am of the OPINION that it would be best serving in boty cities interest! Developer's SPECIAL INTERESTS aside, Jim... Transparency is best! Please, no more attempts at squelching the concerns of others, please! Let's have TUSD weigh in, first! Same as always, Jim. No "nasty comments" (here). And Jim. Thanks for the update! Sure wish the best for MH (and Tracy too).
This is for Jim Lamb.
It was posted here in another article: http://tracypress.com/content/view/14998/2242/ written by Dave Hardesty , June 22, 2008 Hope that helps, Jim. No "nasty commentts" from me! Opinionated, contraversial, and always asking questions??? You better believe it! And Thanks again, Jim! Always glad to hear from you.
A feeder school is simply an elementary school that feeds a high school. If Tracy builds or maintains a feeder school then they are building one inside their own district.
Mountain House elementary students are serviced By Lammersville Elementary School District. They have their own funding, budget, and school board apart from Tracy Unified School District. Lammersville won't benefit from TUSD bonds any more then TUSD has benefited from Lammersville bonds. They are separate systems. A unified school district is defined as a district that is composed of both elementary schools and High schools. An elementary district has just K-8 schools. A joint unified district like Tracy has feeder schools from withing it's own district and feeder schools it services from outside. That is to say the Mountain house, Banta and New Jerusalem all have separate elementary districts that feed the Tracy Joint Unified High Schools. Funding for those Separate districts is not controlled or provided by Tracy. If TUSD is borrowing by way of bonds to improve schools, then those improvments would only be for those schools inside the Tracy unified district.
Oh, and I agree,
Transparency is best. Believe me I'd be just as disappointed as you to find out there were any back room deals with regard to the Delta campus. Our communities lobbing aside, I'd still expect the Delta board to act in the best interest of the school, and not that of the developers or municipalities that had an interest. Seems to me that developer special interest is going to be a huge issue this coming campaign cycle. For my part running for the Mountain House Community service District(MHCSD) Board of Directors, I'll be for a policy that requires all documents and contracts under consideration by the board made public in the form of a PDF document on the MHCSD website prior to any binding vote. The only exception would be documents or contracts that might compromise the safety and security of the community if made public. I support development in Mountain House, but not developers using undue influence to shift their burdens and obligations to the people who live here. A cursory inspection of Tracy politics shows why this is so important. This is not a digg so much as an observation that Tracy's city council clearly is at odds with a good number of people who question the wisdom of unchecked growth.
At least one trustee faxed or telephoned Kamilos’ office the day after that meeting, according to the grand jury report. The developer then came up with the documents necessary to continue, which convinced trustees to stick with the Mountain House site, the report continues.
Ironically, the two trustees who according to jurors leaked that the board was considering the Tracy site over the one in Mountain House had just come out of a three-hour Brown Act training session, Simas said.
I thought Chrisman was chosen for campus for the reason there are many high schools close by and the graduates would want to go to college, economically?
Much cheaper for many to drive there and few drive here from Mountain Home, than the other way around? Thought that was a good reason, could not understand (or maybe I missed it?) how it got over to Mountain House??? Confused me a bit there. Why the change in location? -amy
Amy,
Mountain House was the original location chosen, not the other way around. After much planning and a land purchase in Mountain House, Tracy came up with a competing offer to relocate the campus off Christman. This was a last minute hail Mary effort to get the board to change location of the new campus for Tracy's benefit. Part of the problem was that bond measure was specific. It included provisions for a Mountain House campus, but not a Tracy Campus. Changing locations very well could have cause funding issues. The board didn't feel they had the right to reallocate the bond money. Now it appears there was more going on behind the scenes that the rest of us knew nothing about. I'm certainly interested in how this is all going to play out.
Huh-oh, wow! Sounds so complicated and messy!
Sure can't wait to get full reporting on it according to Brown Act and see who had a play in the proposal of change. Midway Delta campus? Between Tracy and Mountain House? Sorry, just an idle thought.... sorry about the complications, bet many are not happy over this issues. -amy Thanks for answering my question, Jim Lamb!
To TracyRealnews:
People living outside the boundaries of the TUSD elementary district (which is different than the high school district boundaries) will not pay for this bond, because they won't see any benefit from the bond, as it is geared almost exclusively for older TUSD elementary and middle schoools. So no, Lammersville (Mountain House) and Jefferson parents will not end up paying for benefits that their children will never see. There's no subsidzing going on here (at least according to the TUSD spokeswoman) which was the point of writing the section. I thought this was clear in the article, but I'm happy to offer further clarification. Also, a previous column (linked to in the text of the update) should answer questions about what the bond will go toward improving. For an updated list, I'd suggest looking at the Web site's front page on Wednesday for a story by Jennifer Wadsworth. Or, you can visit TUSD's Web site. I'm sure they'd have an exhaustive list there. And thank you for reading.
Thanks Jon!
Will be paying attention to this one closely. Keeping an eye on the money. You also mentioned SJDC in your article. Understand that is different, but after the additional columns we have read lately, readers want to dot our "i's" and cross our "t's". Thanks for highlighting the references in your article (in red) and pointing us to TUSD's website. Some have addressed concerns about where the money is going and appreciate the assurances, where applicable, before November. As you know there are a lot of interesting developments going on in Mountain House and TUSD. Therefore, I will pay particular attention to TUSD's "exhaustive list" that you mentioned. Please continue to keep updates coming, if any further development, on this issue. I very much appreciate that you are paying close attention to these comments and thank you for keeping us informed and updated!!!
Just to place things into a little perspective here from a historical point of view, the first place the southern campus was to be was at the Schulte site before the Sports Park was to be there at one time.
Also interested in the Schulte site were the Department of Justice, who thought it would make a nice medium security prison, and Immigration and Naturalization who wanted to install a transportation holding facility and use it to deport illegal immigrants that come to our country. I even attempted to get the Air Force to take it over and construct a satellite tracking facility there, but they were not interested. I wonder, like many, what the city will eventually end up doing with it. But with SJDC, it obviously didn't matter about the gas pipeline as it runs through both properties. Somehow I find that to be really strange. But oddly enough no one ever seemed to bring that up. Dave Hardesty
I thought the same thing when I went deeper into researches past Schulte site fiasco.
If that was such an issue why was it NOT brought up earlier? Thanks, Dave H. for the information, didn't know about Air Force, and other uses for it, thought it was competed for "solar farm". Got lot to catch up on!  -amy
Perhaps the fact of multiple lives will be involved at one park observing sports that required closer attention and detail to infrastructure layouts of that area?
Don't know what the motive is, but I'd like to think that my guess is correct, not an ulterior motive, would hate to think that anyone could have existing one to thwart our future plans? Hope this gets all straightened out before ELECTION. I can only hope. -amy This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.
You must be logged in to a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
|
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comments
|
|