Sorry to be so long in responding. I was down in Watsonville over
most of the weekend with my fiance. I have made a promise to
myself, on such occasions, to make the hours quality time and not
invest any of them with these groups. Good for the soul, and good
for the relationship.
Pretty much all the complete Prop 39 effect can be found in the
Education Code, at the links provided from this page:
I quickly looked at the SFUSD site this AM, and found no specific
copy of the bond data. What did the Board actually DO at its
meeting? I am guessing that it only gave its go-ahead to getting
the Bond on the ballot. I will guess further that the 100 pages you
mention are just a stack of wish lists from the principals of each
of the schools that will be rehabilitated by the Bond.
A set of desires, no matter how detailed, should not be allowed to
pass as being "specific". See the San Jose USD bond Measure F (47
schools), as it appeared on the ballot:
Looking at data for just one of the schools, one can initially be
deluded into thinking that the description of work is "specific".
But if one considers the whole ballot, it is obvious that it was
developed by a copy and paste process, with a few extras thrown in
here and there for the special purposes of magnet schools. Having
realized that, one then considers the detail supposedly being
provided and realizes that it is full of variations on the "repair
or replacement" theme. Costs associated with each of these are of
course an order of magnitude apart. There is no way this
description can possibly be considered specific; the measure should
never have made it to the ballot.
The SJUSD Oversight Committee claimed that it was therefore not able
to do its job; there were no specific work or costs identified that
could be monitored. We held the District off for a _year_ after the
Bond was passed, requiring them to actually put together a specific
Implemenation Plan, school by school, scopes of work, costs, and
schedules, before any work was done. This precedent, in the hands
of a competent lawyer, should be sufficient cause to keep any
similar effort by the SFUSD off the ballot.
It IS possible that the District has actually prepared a scope of
work, etc. for all the schools, that such a document is available
for public review and that it could be referred to in the ballot
language. I strongly doubt that.
But if it has, a second line of defense would then be to require the
District, also in the ballot language, to describe what would be its
process for objectively selecting individuals to serve on the
Committee, to ensure that the committee could not be packed with
And then the final line of defense would be to get some libertarians
to actually serve on the Committee. But that boggles the mind.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Ron Getty <tradergroupe@...>
It appears to be a Prop 39 school bond as the list of public
meetings on the bond issue at the District web site stated it would
be a Prop 39 bond measure.
The article from the Chronicle does say it would be used at 60
schools to pay for desperately needed new pipes, roof repairs,
better bathrooms, fixed floors, fresh paint and more. The list of
projects outlined in the bond proposal covers 100 pages, single
spaced, and ranges from the mundane -- installing floor mats -- to a
massive overhaul of gyms and auditoriums in selected middle and high
schools. The funding also would help the district adhere to a legal
settlement requiring better disabled access at the schools.
I have not found a copy of the bond on the School Districts web
site. Maybe because they just passed it Thursday night they haven't
had a chance to post it. I'll check again on Monday.
The article states: If passed, the bond would increase property
taxes by up to $33 per $100,000 valuation each year. Also included
in the measure is funding for the district's long-awaited School of
the Arts -- $15 million officials would set aside as a down payment
on the expected $100 million-plus cost of the project.
Also more information on the Prop 39 legalities would be