Citizens' Oversight Committee

Do You Believe in Fairies?

Then this is just what the doctor ordered.

In my research on this, I've seen many names for this committee. Some are simply named Citizens' Oversight Committee (COC). Others are named Citizens' Bond Oversight Committee (CBOC) or Bond Oversight Committee (BOC). Others are named to include the measure over which the committee purports to have oversight, such as Measure A Citizens' Oversight Committee. The trend seems to be CBOC, so I'll just refer to these committees, in general, as CBOC.

No matter what its name, it's still a paper tiger. A CBOC has no authority under the Education Code to do anything except review money that's already been spent. In theory, the CBOC is supposed to look over the expenditures to make sure they were spent properly. In practice, the CBOC doesn't get the information until the plans are made public and decisions are imminent or a fait accompli.

According to Education Code 15278(a), each measure that is approved by the voters must have a separate CBOC. Nevertheless, enterprising school and community college districts flout the law and combine measures under a single CBOC. Mount San Antonio College CCD (Mt. SAC) combines both Measure R and Measure RR under the same committee. Walnut Valley USD combines both Measure S and Measure Y and has stated its intent to put Measure O under the same committee. When you realize how impotent the committee is, this isn't a big deal. It saves the district from having to find more volunteers, for more meetings, with more reports. It's also easier for the district to manage a combined CBOC, since the CBOC's handlers (usually, an assistant superintendent or a vice president) don't have to duplicate effort and work.

How this came about was interesting. After Proposition 39 qualified for the state-wide ballot in 2000, the legislature stepped in and passed a bright shiny object called the "Strict Accountability in Local School Construction Bonds Act of 2000" that would go into effect if the proposition passed. Proposition 39 provided no oversight. As the people should all know by now, whenever the name of the bill has a high-sounding name, you can be sure that the bill will not live up to its name. The Act was simply a sales strategy to provide clueless voters another reason to approve Proposition 39. Obviously it worked.

Besides the lack of teeth provided by the legislature, the CBOC is further shackled by the district board. In addition to appointing the members of the CBOC (Education Code 15282), the board writes the bylaws for the committee. (See what the Grand Juries thought of this practice.) The typical bylaws will absolutely disabuse you of the idea that the CBOC has any power or authority whatsoever. The bylaws make explicit all the things the CBOC can't do. In fact, placing restrictions on the committee appears to be the sole purpose of the bylaws.

What About Being Independent?

How independent can the CBOC be if its members are both appointed by the Board and can be removed by the Board for any reason?

How independent is the CBOC if it can't even adopt its own bylaws? How independent is a committee that can only see what its handlers allow it to see? Of course, it's not independent at all.

Yet almost every other mention of the measure by the Board, touts its "independent oversight committee" as a reason that you should have no worries about approving the measure. The lady doth protest too much, methinks. (Hamlet, Act III, Scene II)

Walnut Valley USD's Oversight Committee

I'm pretty sure it exists. You just won't know it from anything on the district's public web pages.

The district has four outstanding bond measures going back to 1991.

The Board has combined Measures S and Y under a single committee. There is not a single mention on the Board's web site of the $100,000,000 in previous, and still outstanding, bonds. There's no statute that requires oversight of the two prior bond measures. Out of sight, out of mind. Perhaps, no one cares. Keeping the big picture from you, keeping you clueless is a strategy. The Board is using it to its advantage. The less you know, the less transparent the Board is, the less likely you can make an informed decision.

Education Code 15280(b) requires that all the proceedings of the CBOC be placed on the district's web site.

Once the Board starts ignoring statutes, violations of statutory requirements become commonplace. You won't find anything about the CBOC or its business in any one place on the district web site, except an obscure, disorderly directory of computer file names. As to that poor attempt, is it complete? Who knows? It would take you hours of going through and reading the files to find out. If the Board pays lip service to the law now, what makes you think it will be any different after it gets what it wants from you?

If you do a search on the Board's web site for "citizens oversight committee," you will find a smattering of old documents -- nothing newer than 2012. Seriously.

What About Actual Oversight?

In the news right now, you can hear about the Iran nuclear agreement. There is a lot of discussion about oversight. If you can believe the news, you'd know that Iran gets to decide when and where oversight will occur. That's the way the Board has set it up for the CBOC. Instead of "[i]nspecting school facilities and grounds," the Board provides monitors to take the CBOC on tours. The tours are pre-arranged and scheduled. Do you believe the Board's monitors are going to do anything other than put everything in the best light possible?

If you dig through the minutes that are available, you won't see any inspection reports, just tours.

The Board's agents even create the agendas and the minutes. For all I know, the Board charges back to bond funds (illegal, but who knows) all the time and costs connected with managing the CBOC. That's certainly what it describes in the measure.

Over the last eight years, there is no document that reports, in one place or in a way that you can understand, on the status of the list of specific school facilities projects from Measures S and Y, when it was started, when it was completed, how much money was expended on it, and on what specifically the money was actually spent.

The CBOC has had eight years to get this done. You're being asked for almost three times the amount of bonds. In this case, past performance is a good measure of future performance.

CBOC Bylaws

One only has to look at the Bylaws under the section on authority to see what a joke it is. Since the Board adopted these bylaws (one would presume), it also shows you the Board's utter contempt for the oversight process.

Let's get this straight. Two clauses (a and c) restrict the authority of the CBOC members. The Board's inclusion of clause (b) is a gratuitous statement of rights which the Board has no authority to deny. What authority do these bylaws grant the committee? Incredibly, absolutely, none! So much for an independent committee.

So You Want to Be a CBOC Member?

Good luck!

Like almost everything the Board does, the process is not transparent. There is a four-page application (if you can find it or know to ask) that makes it sound like you need to be an expert to even be considered.

Here's the list of skills the application asks for in connection with the at-large CBOC positions.

• architecture
• engineering
• construction
• law
• educational administration
• financial management
• real estate/development
• construction management
• public administration

The law does not require those skills. The bylaws do not require those skills. The application is designed to intimidate you. Of course, if you have an inside track, you'll have no trouble getting appointed.

This application saw the light of day for the first time on April 21, 2015, just about the time that the Board's first propaganda mailer was hitting your mailbox. The deadline for applying was set for May 11, 2015. The Board made all the appointments at its May 20, 2015 meeting. Do you think that maybe the Board had already decided among themselves that it was going to put a bond measure on the ballot? What was the rush to get this done beforehand?

There're even more red flags with the timing of these appointments. The Board's first appointment of CBOC members occurred around December 2007. That means that two-year terms would expire around December in odd-numbered years. Why were these appointments made seven months early? The bylaws set the committee composition at a minimum of seven members. The committee had been operating for some time with only five members. Why were eleven people appointed on May 20th? The first meeting of the newly formed CBOC occurred on June 9, 2015. At that meeting, the CBOC learned that "Measure Y has been fully spent and Measure S has been fully committed." In effect, this new CBOC serves no current purpose as there is nothing more to do with the measures except the formalities required by statute. Why was the meeting even called?

So who's responsible for having an operational CBOC? The Board, of course. The Board promised and swore on a stack of bibles that you would have oversight for Measures S and Y. Did the Board deceive you then? Is it deceiving you now?

Why should you believe a word that the Board says about oversight. It hasn't done its job in the past. It's failed to comply with the law. Notice, however, how all of a sudden, out-of-the-blue, it suddenly pays attention to the CBOC. Why? Because it knew it was going to have its hand out to pick your pocket again. It needed to have a good cover-its-derriere story ready to go. Call me cynical, if you wish. It's easy to connect these dots. The Board cannot be trusted.

Bottom Line

There is no meaningful oversight of any bond measure. The only oversight is when you have your say in approving a bond measure or not. Measure O will provide the Board with a huge slush fund. Any smart voter would vote no.

The whole oversight committee concept is a fraud perpetrated on you by the state's public-unions-controlled legislature and unabashedly used by school districts to deceive you.

I've done a lot of checking on the Internet and I've spoken to other watchdog organizations and experts. In over 15 years, there has not been a single instance of a CBOC anywhere in the state alerting the public to misuse of bonds funds.

How does that work? The CBOC is composed of seven or more people. Its business is adopted by a majority vote. Even if there are as many as three CBOC members who wish to alert the public, the majority rules. This gives the Board cover to put token watchdogs on the CBOC and still control it absolutely.

When Mt. SAC misused its Measure RR funds for a parking structure and a new stadium, did its CBOC report to you on that? Of course not. Every district board in the state must be angels. (They are. Just ask them.) How many times will you fall for the same lies before you realize that you're being played for the fool?

For those who whine that the district needs money, there's nothing stopping you from donating to the district as much money as you wish. As we learned in the Board's agenda for its July 15, 2015 meeting, it spends a lot of effort thanking people who donate.