Editor, Manteca Bulletin,
As a former member of the Measure M School Bond Oversight Committee, I’ve seen first-hand both the positive and negative effects of a bond measure. Measure M funded some successful projects, yet had its faults. With Measure G, the district had the opportunity to correct the flaws that plagued the last bond. Instead, it has compounded them through imprecise wording.
Glossy flyers claiming the Measure G Oversight Committee will provide real accounting is like touting the effectiveness of a watchdog who is not only chained to the doghouse, but blindfolded and muzzled as well. The most striking lesson of my committee service was the importance of the actual language of the bond itself and how it could be interpreted. With the vague and generalized way Measure G is written, voters might not actually get what they thought they were approving, resulting in unintended repercussions. I’ll use another writer’s letter to explain.
A principal at one of Manteca Unified’s older schools wrote a compelling and heartfelt letter in support of Measure G. Even though I disagree with that stance, I appreciate his sincerity. In asking for readers’ support for Measure G, he expressed concern that if the bond didn’t pass, older schools in poor condition with fall into further disrepair and be shut down in favor of new schools. On the surface. this argument appears logical. But if we scrutinize Measure G’s language, we’ll find that the bond actually encourages and facilitates what the writer dreads — replacing older schools with new one’s. Here’s why: Four new school projects are specifically listed along with generalized repairs, upgrades, and modernization of older schools. I’ll focus on two new school possibilities and two older schools to illustrate my point.
In South Manteca, let’s examine the proposed new Rustic Elementary School site and Nile Garden, an older school. In Lathrop, we’ll look at the new Ethel Allen Elementary project and the older Lathrop Elementary School. Each new school is projected to cost $26 million. Health and safety repairs, deferred maintenance and modernization costs total about $13.5 million for Nile Garden and about $14.2 million for Lathrop Elementary. If district staff allocates $10 million of Measure G funds to each of the proposed new schools, that leaves $16 million each to complete both projects. For comparison, Mossdale Elementary in Lathrop used almost $10.5 million in Measure M money with an additional $10 million in state funds and over $6 million in district money. State contributions are currently unavailable. So how can the district afford to build these new schools?
For Rustic, if the new school was allocated $10 million in Measure G money and took the $13.5 million that was meant for Nile Garden, the district would only have to contributed $2.5 million in facilities money to complete the new school. Since the bond wording doesn’t limit the amount of bond funds to be spent on any single project, district staff could bump the initial $10 million to $12.5 million. Then Measure G would completely cover the new construction costs with no encumbrance of district facilities money. The Lathrop example is similar, with Ethel Allen absorbing the repair/maintenance funds from Lathrop Elementary to fulfill its cost needs.
Measure G’s language allows this by having no limits on bond funding of individual projects and no legal guarantee that all proposed school site health and safety repairs and upgrades will be completed. In this way, Measure G makes building new schools more economically feasible at the expense (literally) of older schools. District justification would probably be, “MUSD cares about students’ health and safety needs, not necessarily the individual schools themselves, and these needs can best be met by transferring students to new schools which will serve both them and new development.”
Older schools have a long history, rich traditions, and loyal school/community support. By pitting sentiment against economic advantage for the district, which will win? Having the bond pay for all or most of the construction cost for new schools will definitely tempt the district. Nile Garden or Lathrop Elementary might not close, it could happen to any older school. But with Measure G, the mechanism for siphoning repair/modernization funds from older schools to build newer schools clearly exists. If we, the voters, don’t reject Measure G and hold “the district’s feet to the fire” (figuratively speaking) by expecting them to redesign an accountable school bond in 2016, then we’re the ones that will get burned.
Karen Pearsall
Manteca
