]
Tom Butt Header E-Forum
 
  E-Mail Forum – 2014  
  < RETURN  
  Support Measure H - Bond to Complete Modernization of West County Schools
May 26, 2014
 
 

Measure H is the capstone in an ambitious and successful program to rebuild or replace all of West Contra Costa’s public schools, including even some charter schools funded by the WCCUSD.

Routinely, the Contra Costa Times has editorialized against the school bond program in West County while almost always endorsing school bonds in wealthier districts. In back-to-back articles published this weekend, the Contra Costa Times once again sought to discredit the West County bond program, selecting critics and picking quotes to support its opposition while ignoring facts that tell a more compelling positive story of the program’s remarkable successes.

The Times’ favorite angle has been to decry what a relatively poor population has been asked to do for public education.
This year, property owners are projected to pay $282 annually per $100,000 in assessed value, or $564 for a home valued at $200,000, just to repay school bonds. If Measure H passes, that tax rate is projected to climb to $341 per $100,000, increasing taxes on a $200,000 home to $682 a year. That is a steep price for district households where the U.S. Census reported the median household income in 2012 was $56,583.
The message is that it’s okay, and even expected, for wealthy communities to support their public schools, but when a less wealthy community digs deep to support its schools, it’s a waste of money and something they can’t afford.
I can’t imagine anything more cynical.
In case you missed them, I have copied the two articles at the end of this E-FORUM, and I provide the following to respond to various allegations in the two articles:

  • The bond program is not some mysterious undertaking hidden from public scrutiny. There is a vast amount of information on the bond program website at http://www.wccusdbondprogram.com/. Take a look; other people have – lots of them. According to the website, it has received 13,505,740 hits since 2006. The Bond Oversight Committee also has a website with plentiful information at http://www.wccusd-bond-oversight.com/. All bond decisions by the WCCUSD are agendized and acted on in public sessions, and school board members appear before all District city councils at least once a year to report on the program.
  • It is simply a myth that the bond program has been mismanaged or poorly reported. The program is independently audited every year, and the audits are available on-line at http://www.wccusd-bond-oversight.com/audits.htm. The latest audit for 2010 Measure D and Measure J stated:

The accounting policies of West Contra Costa Unified School District (the "District") conform to accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America as applicable to governments and to general practices within California school districts. The District accounts for its financial transactions in accordance with policies and procedures of the Department of Education's California School Accounting Manual. The activities of the 2010 Measure D (“Measure D”) and 2005 Measure J (“Measure J”) General Obligation Bonds are recorded along with other activities in the District's Building Fund. The accounting policies of the District conform to accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America as prescribed by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). The following is a summary of the more significant accounting policies:
As a first step in developing the bond construction program, the District together with its Bond team consultants, completed an evaluation of all elementary and secondary schools in order to develop a recommended priority ranking of elementary, middle and high schools. This ranking was based on several factors, including structural design and safety considerations. Based on this evaluation, elementary and secondary schools of the District were ranked in order of need on separate lists with the most needy schools being ranked highest. In addition, preliminary budgets were developed for each school based on the evaluation. Throughout this process, cost estimations were completed and budgets were revised. The budgets presented in this report are based on the most up to date information available. As milestones are reached in the design phase and as construction bids are approved, the individual school project budgets will be revised and presented to the governing board for their review and approval. The District's construction program is not based solely on the proceeds from bonds. The District has other sources of revenue to fund some of the required expenditures. Budgets for the renovation of all schools are prepared and maintained together with all potential resources in order to keep track of the entire school renovation program, not just the sites being funded by currently available bond dollars.

  • The District has refunded bonds when market conditions are attractive to further save taxpayers money.
  • The Times articles look like news but are written as editorial hyperbole that reads more like campaign rhetoric than honest reporting. For example, the May 24 article leads with the following:

The free-spending school district builds at will, proud of a $1.6 billion program that gives school communities everything they want -- including large theaters, swimming pools and dental clinics -- at costs that appear to far exceed the norm in other districts. And on June 3, the district is going hat in hand once more to district residents, some of the poorest in the county, seeking another $270 million for such basic upgrades as removing asbestos and repairing overloaded wiring, as well as for renovating and replacing schools, including some that had been marked for possible closure due to declining enrollment.

  • The fact is that the voters passed six bond measures, and the District is implementing the will of the people to provide safe and modern facilities. Since when has giving the communities that are paying for it  “what they want,”  been bad public policy? Elected officials are supposed to be responsive to their constituents, aren’t they? Far from being “free spending,” the current board has exercised a level of fiscal restraint and responsibility not seen in decades. The District paid off its debt to the state from the 1991 bankruptcy seven years early, eliminating a crushing interest burden, and it ended lifetime health benefits. All the savings went into the classroom. The financial community rewarded this new fiscal restraint by raising the District’s bond rating from A to A+. The Contra Costa Civil Grand Jury commended the WCCUSD for its detailed performance audits and websites with detailed program information available to the public.
  • Programs and budgets for new and rehabilitated schools are tightly controlled and based on detailed and voluminous facility standards that describe every space, its square footage, finishes, furnishings and equipment. These standards have been developed with input from teachers, parents, architects, administrators and education experts. Some of the reasons that construction budgets may be higher than comparable schools elsewhere include implementation of the latest trends in using schools as community facilities rather than simply education facilities. The newer projects typically include small medical and dental clinics for students as well as multi-purpose facilities for community events. Shared use of these facilities including shared use of sports and recreation facilities provides dual use and saves money for cities where schools are located. Facilities are also being built to higher standards that save energy, reduce maintenance and life cycle costs and provided a healthier learning environment with better air quality and natural lighting, thus enhancing learning and saving future operational funds for classroom teaching rather than building maintenance. The District has replaced 90% of often aging temporary portables with state-of-the-art permanent classrooms.
  • Some of the construction costs highlighted by the Times are speculative because they have not even gone to bid yet.
  • The District’s shovel ready projects have garnered over $150 million in state matching funds, thus leveraging what the taxpayers have contributed to the program. This is the largest matching fund payout for any district in the state except for the massive Los Angeles Unified School District, which is 25 times the size of the WCCUSD.
  • The Contra Costa Times suggested that those designing and building schools are benefitting from a “pay to play” arrangement, which shows a basic lack of knowledge about how the program works and the state laws that govern procurement for public projects. The Contra Costa Times stated:

Some large architectural and construction firms hired to work on the projects have also contributed significantly to election campaigns, leading some opponents to question whether contracts are being awarded to those who offer political and monetary support.
The Times is irresponsible to even suggest such a thing. The fact is that all construction contracts are competitively bid and awarded to the lowest bidder. There is no way to rig a construction contract. During the recession years, the competition resulted in massive savings and enabled the bond program to achieve significant bargains for taxpayers. As the economy heats up, the cost of building is also rising.
Architects for the bond program are also chosen, according to state law, by qualifications-based competition and are paid competitive fees. State law prohibits bidding professional architecture and engineering services to ensure that projects are served by the most qualified designers instead of simple the cheapest. Architect selection is made by site committees - composed of site faculty, staff, parents and community - the board ratifies their choices
My firm, Interactive Resources, was singled out by the Contra Costa Times for donating to bond program campaigns as if there was something unseemly about it. I can tell you that every school bond program in the state runs campaigns that are supported by business entities that hope to benefit from them, including those in other areas where the Contra Costa Times routinely editorializes in favor of the school bond ballot measures. If anyone believes my firm has cleaned up from designing school projects, take a look at our books. It’s just the opposite. Incidentally, Interactive Resources is the only bond program architect with an office located within the WCCUSD.

So where is opposition coming from? Inexplicably, the California Charter School Association, with Silicon Valley Funding, has taken on the bond program with a series of slick but inaccurate mailers. It’s inexplicable, because the bond program has also funded charter school construction in the District, including College Pre Charter School located in the rehabilitated Maritime Child Care Center and Leadership Public School.
There are also some sour grapes that the District is pursuing bonds for school construction instead of parcel taxes to pay classroom teachers. In fact, the District has done  both, but the voters have a history of supporting construction rather than operation. See below:

Bond & Parcel Tax Elections

Election results since the mid-1980's through November 2013, based on the best available information.


West Contra Costa Unified

Date of Election

Election Type

Purpose

Proposed Bond

Proposed Parcel Tax

Vote in Favor

Passed

Vote Required

*Students

11/2012 

Parcel Tax

Protect core academics – reading, writing, math, science, attract and retain quality teachers, provide lower class sizes for the youngest children, prepare students for college and the workforce, and improve safety on and around school campuses.

 

7.2 cents/sq. ft.

75.6%

http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/_layouts/EdDataClassic/images/checked.gif

66.7%

27,377

11/2012 

GO Bond

Make schools safe, complete essential health/safety repairs, qualify for state matching grants.

$360,000,000

 

64.4%

http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/_layouts/EdDataClassic/images/checked.gif

55%

27,377

6/2012 

Parcel Tax

Preserve quality education including: reading, writing, math, science; maintaining reduced class sizes for the youngest children; retaining quality teachers; supporting libraries, improving campus safety; preparing students for college/workforce.

 

Extend and increase current parcel tax for three years from 7.2 cents/sq foot to 10.2 cents/sq foot.

65.5%

no

66.7%

27,377

11/2010 

Parcel Tax

Provide local funding the State cannot take away, and preserve quality education by: providing manageable class sizes to improve core academics like math, science, reading/ writing, restoring arts/ music programs, attracting/ retaining quality teachers, improving campus safety/ cleanliness, preparing students for college and workforce

 

7.2 cents per sq. ft. building area or $7.20 per vacant parcel for 5 years

59.4%

no

66.7%

27,976

6/2010 

GO Bond

Upgrade schools for earthquake safety/handicap accessibility, remove asbestos, upgrade restrooms, vocational classrooms/technology/ energy systems to reduce costs, install lighting and security systems, acquire, repair, construct, equipment/sites/facilities

$380,000,000

 

62.6%

http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/_layouts/EdDataClassic/images/checked.gif

55%

27,976

11/2008 

Parcel Tax

Reading, writing, math, science programs, teachers, counselors, libraries, computer training and athletic programs, class sizes.

 

$.072 per sq. ft. of total bldg area or $7.20 per vacant parcel for 5 years

79.6%

http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/_layouts/EdDataClassic/images/checked.gif

66.7%

28,414

8/2007 

Parcel Tax

Maintain class sizes, purchase textbooks/materials, attract and retain teachers, maintain libraries, counselors, after school programs, custodians, school safety programs.

 

$0.11 per sq. ft. of building area on parcel, $11/parcel for vacant parcels. Senior citizen exemption by application.

54.4%

no

66.7%

28,706

11/2005 

GO Bond

Continue repairing all school facilities, improve classroom safety and technology, and relieve overcrowding.

$400,000,000

 

56.9%

http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/_layouts/EdDataClassic/images/checked.gif

55%

31,416

6/2004 

Parcel Tax

Maintain CSR; textbooks & materials; maintain/recruit staff; enhance curriculum

 

$.072/sq ft/parcel for 6 yrs

70.6%

http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/_layouts/EdDataClassic/images/checked.gif

66.7%

32,383

3/2004 

Parcel Tax

Classize;instructional materials; staff; program; maintenance

 

$.068/sq ft building area/parcel

62.7%

no

66.7%

32,383

9/2003 

GO Bond

Continue districtwide reconstruction program

$450,000,000

 

59.1%

no

66.7%

32,593

3/2002 

GO Bond

Construction; improve facilities

$300,000,000

 

71.6%

http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/_layouts/EdDataClassic/images/checked.gif

55%

31,771

11/2000 

GO Bond

New construction, renovation; replace portables; health & safety improvements

$150,000,000

 

77.3%

http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/_layouts/EdDataClassic/images/checked.gif

66.7%

34,823

6/1998 

GO Bond

Construct middle school; tech; repairs

$40,000,000

 

76.0%

http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/_layouts/EdDataClassic/images/checked.gif

66.7%

33,148

4/1992 

Parcel Tax

Maintain & improve program

 

$60/parcel for 4 yrs

58.2%

no

66.7%

31,420

7/1988 

Parcel Tax

Program

 

$125/parcel for 4 yrs

34.8%

no

66.7%

24,465

* Student count provided by district at the time of the elections.

As competition for college admission and good jobs becomes more fierce, so too does the need for our students to have access to science labs, classroom internet, safe schools, and those tools proven to enhance advancement. That’s why such a broad coalition of parents, teachers, and principals have joined together in support of Measure H.

West County students should not be penalized because of where they live; and their schools should be as good as schools in other parts of the County. Measure H will help level the playing field and remove substantial barriers for educational opportunity.

Measure H is well balanced, and sorely needed Ultimately, Measure H is not just about building better schools and upgrading our classrooms – Measure H is about better preparing our students for the challenges they’ll face in college admissions, the job market, and beyond.

Students in every part of the district will benefit because Measure H will bring all of our elementary and middle schools up to the same high standard. In addition to restricting Measure H funds to use only within our school district, an independent citizens’ oversight committee will ensure that Measure H money is spent properly; annual audits are required; and absolutely no money is allowed for administrator salaries or pensions.
Pricey school construction spending draws scrutiny in West Contra Costa bond measure
By Theresa Harrington Contra Costa Times
Posted:   05/24/2014 09:56:10 AM PDT3 Comments | Updated:   a day ago

Related Stories

RICHMOND -- West Contra Costa residents are some of the most generous in the area when it comes to their schools, approving six bond measures to rehabilitate old campuses and build new ones since 1998.
The free-spending school district builds at will, proud of a $1.6 billion program that gives school communities everything they want -- including large theaters, swimming pools and dental clinics -- at costs that appear to far exceed the norm in other districts.
And on June 3, the district is going hat in hand once more to district residents, some of the poorest in the county, seeking another $270 million for such basic upgrades as removing asbestos and repairing overloaded wiring, as well as for renovating and replacing schools, including some that had been marked for possible closure due to declining enrollment.
Linda Ruiz-Lozito, of Richmond, joins fellow 'No on H' demonstrators on the McBryde Ave. overpass  to show their opposition to the bond measure
Linda Ruiz-Lozito, of Richmond, joins fellow "No on H" demonstrators on the McBryde Ave. overpass to show their opposition to the bond measure in Richmond , Calif. on Wednesday, May 21, 2014. (Kristopher Skinner/Bay Area News Group)
But this year's request comes as significant opposition to the district's spending habits -- and the secrecy with which it shrouds them -- is beginning to bubble. This time around, the district is asking residents in Richmond, El Cerrito, El Sobrante, Hercules, Kensington, Pinole and San Pablo for more, even though it has not yet spent $600 million from earlier bonds and it won't provide details of how previous bond money has been spent.
Bill Fay, associate superintendent for operations, says the district builds according to "scope" rather than trying to stick to budgets or schedules. When money runs out, Fay said, projects get "bumped" until another bond measure is passed.
"What this district does is, anything they want in their school, they get it," Fay told the district's Citizens' Bond Oversight Committee in January. "That's one way that costs keep going up."
District staff failed to provide much of the detailed financial records of costs associated with school contracts in response to numerous requests from this newspaper and the public. But a review of publicly available data appears to show that West Contra Costa -- with more than 50 schools and about 30,000 students -- spends far more than many other districts on school construction.
School construction cost expert Paul Abramson, who creates an annual school construction report comparing costs nationwide and regionally, found the average new high school in the region that includes California cost about $43.5 million for about 1,250 students, approximately $321 a square foot, in 2013.
But in the West Contra Costa district, projected costs for 1,300-student Pinole Valley High, which is slated to be rebuilt over the next four years, have skyrocketed far beyond that. In January, Fay told the oversight committee the school would cost $200 million, more than four times the state average. By Wednesday, his estimate had increased to $250 million, including "soft costs" for architects and other services, or about 93 percent of the $270 million that voters are being asked to approve for Measure H.
"That's beyond the parameters of anything I have seen," Abramson said, adding that some Los Angeles high schools cost as much as $125 million.
The same disparity exists with middle schools. According to the 19th Annual School Construction Report by Abramson in February, the median-priced middle school in the California-Arizona-Nevada-Hawaii region in 2013 cost $19.5 million, or $195 per square foot.
By contrast, an analysis of West Contra Costa's building costs shows that Pinole Middle School was estimated to cost $719 per square foot, with a budget of $53 million.
Some residents are pleased with the multimillion dollar school facilities built or under construction for their children and support paying more.
"Students in every part of the district will benefit because Measure H will bring all of our elementary and middle schools up to the same high standard," five residents wrote on the ballot argument in support of the measure.
But a lack of information from the district about how that will be accomplished has prompted -- for the first time ever -- growing opposition from residents who believe the schools should be built within a budget and schedule.
District resident and former bond oversight committee member Linda Ruiz-Lozito recently asked district officials for a list of schools that need asbestos, lead paint and other hazardous materials removed, as detailed in the Measure H ballot language. But she was told that the district wouldn't provide that information until June 3 -- Election Day.
She also questioned why the board recently agreed to triple the budget for a stadium at the already impressively rebuilt El Cerrito High -- boosting the cost from $7 million to $21 million -- while the new bond measure states that students at other schools are using unsafe classrooms.
Similarly, district resident and former bond oversight committee member Anton Jungherr asked the district for backup documentation explaining how it came up with its estimated tax rate of $36 per $100,000 in assessed valuation that residents would pay for the new bond measure. He was incredulous when the district said it had no such documents.
This year, property owners are projected to pay $282 annually per $100,000 in assessed value, or $564 for a home valued at $200,000, just to repay school bonds. If Measure H passes, that tax rate is projected to climb to $341 per $100,000, increasing taxes on a $200,000 home to $682 a year.
That is a steep price for district households where the U.S. Census reported the median household income in 2012 was $56,583.
Even some in the construction industry question why the district's schools cost so much.
Steve Chamberlin, a residential contractor who has supported district education programs, said the Making Waves charter school in Richmond was built at a cost of about $250 per square foot, compared with much higher costs for West County schools.
"It seems to me that there's a very strong feeling on the part of the school board that the issue for the district is the quality of the buildings -- and if they have great buildings, they'll have great schools," he said. "So why then is the best performing high school in the district entirely housed in portables -- Leadership Public High? You kind of look at it and you go, 'How does this work?'"
Trustee Madeline Kronenberg, who along with school board President Charles Ramsey sits on the board's two-person Facilities Construction Subcommittee, said she wanted to bring quality schools to the district after working as a teacher in another district where the floor was duct-taped. The committee routinely approves budget increases for new items added to community school wish lists.
"I don't believe for a second that this is any kind of Cadillac-level of building," she said. "Our district is right in the middle in terms of costs. This is not the Taj Mahal or Cadillac-level schools. They are excellent and better than before."
Some large architectural and construction firms hired to work on the projects have also contributed significantly to election campaigns, leading some opponents to question whether contracts are being awarded to those who offer political and monetary support.
Superintendent Bruce Harter told the bond oversight committee that the district needs Measure H to provide equitable facilities so the quality of a student's school won't depend on where they live.
"We really think it's important that we have equity for all of our students," Harter said, "to have them all in facilities that have been provided by our bond program."
However, Fay said after the meeting that the district could complete all of its planned projects without Measure H, but it would have to delay them for several years.
Staff writer Robert Rogers contributed to this report. Theresa Harrington covers education. Reach her at 925-945-4764 or tharrington@bayareanewsgroup.com. Follow her at Twitter.com/tunedtotheresa.
WEST CONTRA COSTA SCHOOL BOND MEASURES
YEAR MEASURE AMOUNT AMOUNT ISSUED UNUSED
6/2/1998 Measure E $40 million $40 million 0
11/7/2000 Measure M $150 million $150 million 0
3/5/2002 Measure D $300 million $300 million 0
11/8/2005 Measure J $400 million $322 million $78 million
6/8/2010 Measure D $380 million $140 million $240 million
11/62012 Measure E $360 million $85 million $275 million
SUBTOTAL $1.6 billion $1.037 billion $593 million
6/3/2014 Measure H $270 million
TOTAL if passes $1.9 billion
SOURCE: Contra Costa County Elections Office, West Contra Costa school district

a sampling of Bond construction projects
PREVIOUSLY COMPLETED:
El Cerrito High School
Dover Elementary
Downer Elementary
Ford Elementary
DeAnza High School
UNDER CONSTRUCTION:
Pinole Middle School
Coronado Elementary
Ohlone Elementary
Gompers/Leadership
Portola Middle School
Pinole Valley High
PLANNED:
Highland Elementary
Lake Elementary
Cameron Elementary
Fairmont Elementary
Olinda Elementary
Shannon Elementary
Stege Elementary
Valley View Elementary
Wilson Elementary

West Contra Costa school bond program draws massive campaign spending by contract recipients
By Robert Rogers
Contra Costa Times
Posted:   05/24/2014 02:04:03 PM PDT6 Comments
Updated:   05/24/2014 02:06:48 PM PDT

Related Stories

RICHMOND -- Roughly $2.8 million has poured into campaigns to pass West Contra Costa school district bond measures since 2002, the bulk from groups that have benefited from the massive taxpayer-funded construction projects that the successful ballot measures have unleashed, according to an analysis of campaign finance records by this newspaper.
The bulk of the contributions have come from construction companies, architectural firms and organized labor, groups that have been heavily involved in building and renovating dozens of schools throughout the district thanks to the $1.44 billion the measures have freed up since 2002. If voters approve Measure H, a $270 million proposal on the June 3 ballot, it would be the seventh bond for school construction in the district passed since 1998. Those measures have saddled West Contra Costa property owners with the largest tax burden in the county.
The money to fund the political campaigns goes into For the Children of West County, a political campaign committee, according to Elections Office records.
Campaign finance records available from the office date back only to 2002, so it is unclear how much money was spent to support the first two bond measures passed in 1998 and 2000.
But the cash volume into the campaign committee appears to be unprecedented for school bond campaigns in Contra Costa County. Election services specialist Olga Hernandez said the office was unaware of any other campaign finance committee for school bonds with contribution totals approaching those For the Children of West County.
The massive campaign spending to win bonds worth hundreds of millions for construction work has raised eyebrows.
"When (politicians) ask these groups to support a campaign, they aren't going to say no; they don't want to lose their job," said Bob Campbell, a former Richmond councilman and assemblyman. "There is a vested interest. No one just gives money out of the goodness of their heart. I think everybody is paying to play."
While the campaign contributions and construction costs have drawn concern, voters have consistently supported the school bond measures, and proponents point to an array of gleaming new schools that have burnished an education infrastructure that was in deep disrepair a decade ago.
Tom Butt, a Richmond councilman and owner of architectural firm Interactive Resources, has donated $67,750 to the campaign committee, and his firm has received contracts for more than $9 million in work, he said.
"The people who are most willing to make a contribution are those who are involved in the contract," Butt said. "That's just the way it is. (West County) is not unique."
Butt credited school board President Charles Ramsey with spearheading the bond program and the prodigious campaign fundraising that helped sell them to voters.
"He is a fundraiser," Butt said. "When Charles comes to you, you hang on to your billfold."
And Butt's firm is small potatoes compared with other major donors.
The Seville Group Inc., a Pasadena-based construction-management firm that has overseen the bond-funded school building projects, has pumped about $250,000 into the campaign committee, according to campaign finance records. WLC Architects, based in Rancho Cucamonga, has contributed more than $361,000. The school district has not provided records requested by this newspaper on how much money the two firms have made from the bond program.
SGI has also contributed to political campaigns backing Ramsey -- for his current run for mayor of Richmond and an unsuccessful 2002 bid for Assembly but not for his school board campaigns -- and school board member Madeline Kronenberg. WLC also has been a major donor to Kronenberg's campaigns. The two board members run the powerful Facilities Subcommittee, which approves construction cost increases and makes contract recommendations to the full board.
The cycle of big political spending and bigger work contracts has drawn criticism from some.
Charley Cowens, a member of the district's Citizens' Bond Oversight Committee and a Kensington resident, said he won't support the latest bond proposal. For the Children of West County has collected $276,000 so far this year to campaign for Measure H, according to campaign records.
"To me, the only reason these bonds are passed is this totally legal kickback system," Cowens said. "The more money (contractors) have, the more money they have to contribute."
Campbell said he recommended SGI to school district officials in 1999 and said that at the time it had a good record of keeping costs down.
But Campbell added that campaign finance reform is needed, particularly to limit the influence of big donors to campaign committees such as For the Children of West County.
WLC Architects Vice President Kevin MacQuarrie said his firm has been working for the district since 1998 but declined to specify how much money it has made on the jobs. WLC is working on several current projects for the district.
He said the work in the district is "efficient and transparent" and praised the board's "vision, which is to provide the highest-quality school facilities in the state."
As for the political campaign contributions, he said it's business as usual.
"Part of what WLC does for clients is help support their bond program efforts, because it benefits the children of that district," he said. "There is absolutely no pay to play."
SGI has a checkered history, including at least 19 violations of Fair Political Practices Commission rules and charges that it wined and dined school district officials in San Diego to score lucrative contracts.
"On the whole, SGI has done as good a job as any other construction-management firm has done, in my experience," Butt said. "In general, I don't particularly care for construction managers, but I am not going to single them out. They've all got problems, all got inefficiencies."
SGI did not return phone calls seeking comment.
Ramsey defended the bond program, and SGI, which he said has done a good job managing construction projects.
"If (critics) have evidence, bring a lawsuit," Ramsey said. "The (bond) program is well-run, it's well-managed. I'm not an expert, (but) the info we have is not raising any red flags."
Ramsey acknowledged that district staff recently recommended switching from SGI to a different firm, which had a lower bid, for part of the construction-management job during hearings last year. But the board opted to disregard staff advice.
"(Staff) wanted to start somebody new, but it didn't make any sense to me," Ramsey said. "It wasn't wise in my estimation to not renew a contract when there was no appearance of problems."
Kronenberg agreed, saying staff recommended a switch "for the sake of change" but had no compelling reason. She said allegations of campaign missteps and other violations in other districts don't affect SGI's performance in West County.
"The circumstances SGI found themselves in somewhere else is none of my business," she said. "I have seen nothing to indicate that they have done anything but a good job here."
Staff writer Theresa Harrington contributed to this report. Contact Robert Rogers at 510-262-2726. Follow him at Twitter.com/sfbaynewsrogers.

Want to receive TOM BUTT E-FORUM and other action alerts on Richmond political and community issues delivered to your email address? Email your name and email address and/or the names and email addresses of others who would like to be placed on the mailing list and the message "subscribe" to tom.butt@intres.com. Comments, arguments and corrections are welcome.  Tom Butt is a member of the Richmond City Council   when opinions and views expressed, without other attribution, in TOM BUTT E-FORUM, they are those of Tom Butt and do not reflect official views or positions of the City of Richmond or the Richmond City Council unless otherwise noted. Visit the Tom Butt website for additional information about Tom Butt's activities on the Richmond City Council: http://www.tombutt.com.  Phone 510/236-7435 or 510/237-2084. Subscription to this service is at the personal discretion of the recipient and may be terminated by responding with “unsubscribe.” It may take a few days to remove addresses from the distribution list.

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

To the extent that content is excerpted under the fair use doctrine from other media, I urge readers to subscribe to the print versions of these media to help support professional journalism and the businesses that publish news, and I urge readers to log in to the online versions to access additional content, related content and unrelated news. I especially appreciate local sources of news that include the Contra Costa Times , the San Francisco Chronicle, Richmond Confidential and the East Bay Express.

 

 

 
  < RETURN