Grossmont Union High School District – Fool Us Once, Fool Us Twice?

Recommendations 22

• R7
  Authorize the preparation and submittal of site and building packages for Phase I building plans for the 12th HS. 33 34 28 GUHSD August 4, 2008 Special Governing Board Meeting Minutes. http://www.guhsd.net/index.php/governing-board/minutes 29 Prop U Ballot Text. http://proph.build-guhsd.com/PropositionHU/BondHistory/Pages/Bond- History.aspx. San Diego County Registrar of Voters, see footnote 2. U-T Editorial. San Diego March 22, 2010. “Thumb on the scale/ Republicans inject politics into naming of school”. http:www.utsandiego.com/news/2010/mar/22/thumb-on-the-scale/. U-T San Diego April 15, 2010. “Board to revisit Alpine school’s naming process.” http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2010/apr/15/grossmont-board-to-revisit-high-schools-naming/ 33 GUHSD Minutes February 10, 2011. http://www.guhsd.net/index.php/governing-board/minutes 34 East County Magazine, February 11, 2011, “Superintendent’s Motion to Delay Alpine High School Sparks Massive Community Outcry” http://eastcountymagazine.org/node/5451 5 A Boundary Committee was formed by the GUHSD and charged with the responsibility of recommending new high school attendance boundaries for the District to accommodate the new 12th HS and to establish a more balanced attendance at all of the high schools in the District. On April 14, 2011, the GUHSD Governing Board directed the Boundary Committee to include a separate report with no 12th HS option.35 The GUHSD Governing Board passed Resolution No. 2012-05 at its July 14, 2011 meeting that reaffirmed its support for the Superintendent’s recommendations pertaining to the 12th HS voted on at the previous February Governing Board meeting. The resolution “acknowledges that the enrollment threshold set forth in Proposition U was met in 2010/11.” The resolution also acknowledges “the long-term need for a new high school in the greater Alpine area.” In addition, the resolution “recognizes that the building of the 12th high school may have a positive impact on enrollment.” The resolution expressed concerns about funding shortfalls based on Average Daily Attendance (ADA) funding and expressed concerns about increased operating costs related to opening a new high school. To establish clarity on the 12th high school project, the Governing Board decided to adopt the following:
• R8
  Release the request for construction bids on the site development work once plans are approved by DSA
• R9
  Continue the preparation and submittal of building design packages to DSA for review and approval
• R10
  Upon the restoration of ADA funding for the District to the level it was at the time Proposition U was passed in 2008, the Governing Board to review and consider resumption of the construction process.36 37 At the November 10, 2011 GUHSD Governing Board meeting, Board members approved proceeding with the Boundary Committee plan option that did not include the 12th HS in Alpine.38 In the summer of 2012, a Unification Committee was formed by concerned Alpine citizens to unify the AUSD with the intention of building a new high school in Alpine.39 On August 16, 2012, the AUSD Board passed a resolution in support of the Alpine community’s effort to petition and to expand the AUSD into a unified K-12 district. The resolution also proposed to “obtain the new unified district’s allocable share of the assets of GUHSD to partially or completely fund construction of a high school to serve the students of the greater Alpine area and fulfill the intent of Propositions H and U.” The resolution criticized the GUHSD Governing Board by stating “the GUHSD Board of Trustees and Superintendent have, during the past year, made it abundantly clear that GUHSD has no intention of constructing a 12th HS in the Alpine/Blossom Valley area pursuant to Propositions H and U.” The resolution stated “…this conduct by the GUHSD 35 GUHSD Minutes April 14, 2011. http:www.guhsd.net/index.php/governing-board/minutes 36 GUHSD Resolution No.2012-05. http://www.guhsd.net/index.php/governing-board/resolutions 37 GUHSD Minutes July 14, 2011. http://www.guhsd.net/index.php/governing-board/minutes 38 GUHSD Minutes November 10, 2011. http:www.guhsd.net/index.php/governing-board/minutes 39 SanteePatch/Alpine Petition Drive Seeks Unified District, see footnote #5 6 Trustees violates the public trust and constitutes a betrayal of their fiduciary commitment to the students, parents, citizens, and Tribal Nations in the Alpine/Blossom Valley area who extended their personal and financial support to the passage of Proposition H and Proposition U in reliance on the explicit promise to construct the 12th high school.” 40 41 In mid-2012, the GUHSD Superintendent unilaterally withdrew the building plans from DSA with no prior discussion at a GUHSD Governing Board meeting. This information became public in the fall during the campaign for the GUHSD Governing Board election.42 The superintendent proposed an action item for the 12th HS at the November 8, 2012 GUHSD Governing Board meeting. The item included:
• R11
  Recommend retaining the $65 million budget for the 12th HS
• R12
  Direct staff to complete Army Corps of Engineers permits
• R13
  Direct staff to complete Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) permits
• R14
  Seek Governing Board approval for the permits
• R15
  Validate the withdrawal of building design plans from DSA
• R16
  Place the school construction (including grading) on hold until enrollment thresholds and per pupil funding levels are met and the availability of State facility funding is met. The GUHSD Board approved this action item but deleted reference to facility funding and ratified the withdrawal of building design plans.44 The timeline on the GUHSD Consolidated Proposition H/U Program Schedule for the possible beginning of construction for the 12th HS was pushed out until the 3rd quarter of 2018.45 Despite the passage of two bond propositions that called for the building of a new 12th HS to service the greater Alpine area, the possibility of the new 12th HS school being built remains in limbo. There were obvious management issues by GUHSD staff and a shortage of Proposition H funds passed by the GUHSD voters in March 2004. The GUHSD seemed to address the management issues with the hiring of a Program Manager in 2007, and the passage of Proposition U in November 2008 to cover the funding shortage. The GUHSD expressed concerns about the additional operating costs that the proposed 12th HS would have on the District.46 The District pointed to declining enrollment since 2010, and the impact this had on ADA funding. The Citizen Bond 40 AUSD Agenda August 16, 2012 http://www.alpineschools.net/files/August%2016%Workshop%20Agenda.pdf 41 AUSD Minutes August 30, 2012 http://www.alpineschools.net/files/Aug.%2030%20Agenda%20Outline.pdf 42 East County Magazine, October 13, 2012, “Grand Jury Investigation of GUHSD Board Actions Launched, Trustee Reveals” http://eastcountymagazine.org/node/11383 43 http://proph.build-guhsd.com/Documents/Superintendent%20Recommendations%20- %20Bond%Program%20Review%202012.pdf 44 GUHSD Minutes November 8, 2012. http://www.guhsd.net/index.php/governing-board/minutes. 45Consolidated Prop H/U Program Schedule http://proph.build-guhsd.com/PropositionHU/ ProgramOverview/Documents/Program%20Schedule%20as%20of%20December9%202012.pdf 46 Grand Jury Interviews with GUHSD Officials 7 Oversight Committee (CBOC) expressed concerns about finances in a March 2013 annual report.47 Many parents and residents in the GUHSD feel that the District has not been transparent in its relationship with the residents of Alpine and Blossom Valley; and, that the GUHSD will not build the 12th HS. It has been reported in the media that many residents feel bond funds were acquired under false pretenses.48 The residents have seen two bond propositions pass with the promise of a new 12th HS to serve the greater Alpine area. The supporters of the 12th HS point out that the GUHSD Governing Board acknowledged that the attendance trigger spelled out in Proposition U was met in 2010-11. Proponents of the 12th HS also argue that current decline in enrollment was forecast to occur in two separate enrollment trend studies sponsored by the District. They also feel the District is ignoring data provided by two separate demographic studies which forecast enrollment climbing in the last half of the decade. Supporters of the 12th HS make the argument that the enrollment projection, performed by the demographer hired by the District for the Boundary Committee, predicted enrollment would begin to increase in 2014-15, whether or not the 12th HS was built. This study by the Boundary Committee also provided a separate analysis that building the 12th HS would attract additional students into the District, helping offset any additional operating costs the 12th HS would incur. Supporters of the 12th HS feel that the GUHSD is ignoring this data. 49 50 51 52 53 The argument is made by supporters of the 12th HS that GUHSD attendance surged after West Hills and Steele Canyon High Schools opened and that new high schools “energize districts.” 54 55 Many supporters of the 12th HS wonder how the GUHSD can express concern about additional operating costs to the District when the District approved the building of a Performing Arts Center at Helix High School instead of a multipurpose facility. GUHSD also built a larger-than-called-for swimming pool at Granite Hills High School and 47 U-T San Diego. “Bond uncertainty concerns Grossmont committee.” March 12, 2013. http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/mar/12/grossmont%20schools-bond-oversight/ 48 East County Magazine October 2, 2011. Readers Editorial: “GUHSD Board Ends Hope For New High School in Alpine.” March 2, 2012 comment. http://eastcountymagazine.org/print/7441. Grossmont Union High School District Fall 2007/08 Student Population Forecast. Forecast 2008/09 to 2021/22 http://www.guhsd.net/index.php/component/docman/cat_view/123-educational-services/136- assessment-and-evaluation/137-enrollment-projections 50 GUHSD Boundary Committee Final Report R2 http://www.guhsd.net/index.php/attendance- boundaries/194-boundary-committee 51 GUHSD Projected Enrollment Trendshttp://www.guhsd.net/index.php/attendance-boundaries/194- boundary-committee 52 High School 12-Estimated Impact on District Student Population. June 21, 2011. http://www.guhsd.net/School Boundaries-Boundary CommitteeHistoricalDocumentsEstimated_Impact_DistrictPop_Recovery(1).pdf 53 East County Magazine July 17, 2011 Readers Editorial: “GUHSD Boards Vote to Delay High School Fiscally Short-Sighted”. http://eastcountymagazine.org/node/6708. Grand Jury Interview November 14, 2012 55 News Enterprise. “Alpine Fighting For High School.” August 18, 2011. http:www.newsenterprise.net/article/alpine-fighting-high-school. 8 incurred other athletic facility related expenses throughout the District.56 GUHSD has spent approximately 22 million dollars to acquire the Alpine site, obtain permits, and develop plans for the 12th HS only to suspend construction with no guarantee that the project will be completed.57 58 Supporters of the 12th HS argue that the District is projecting false additional costs by saying that teachers and support staff will be reduced at current high schools when the new high school is opened in Alpine.59 Supporters express concern that the GUHSD Governing Board is intent on overspending bond money so that no funds are left to build the school and that the CBOC has been negligent in their oversight responsibilities.60 61 There were also concerns that the CBOC overstepped its boundaries by expressing concerns about enrollment in 2011.62 63 The GUHSD Governing Board, in 2010, did not follow District policy for naming schools. The attempt to name the 12th HS after former President Reagan is cited by many as the reason GUHSD has suspended the 12th HS project. Supporters of the 12th HS cite an email exchange between a former GUHSD Board member and a member of the AHSCC in 2010 as an example of the political retribution by the GUHSD Board against the residents of Alpine as to why the 12th HS will not be built.64 The GUHSD Governing Board passed a requirement in 2011 calling for ADA funding to return to 2008 levels before building the 12th HS. Supporters of the 12th HS contend that this implies a standard not applied to other bond expenditures in the GUHSD. Supporters of the 12th HS also contend this criterion was inappropriate and not part of either bond proposition.65 FACTS AND FINDINGS Fact: In 1997, GUHSD issued Certificates of Participation to fund, among other things, a new high school in Alpine. Fact: GUHSD used the Certificates of Participation funds to instead construct Steele Canyon High School in Jamul. Fact: In 1998, citizens in Alpine formed the Alpine High School Citizens Committee (AHSCC). Grand Jury Interviews August 11, 2012; October 1, 2012; November 13, 2012; November 14, 2012; April 11, 2013 57 http://lamesa.patch.com/articles/it-s-time-for-a-divorce-from-grossmont-union-high-school-district 58 Grand Jury Interviews with GUHSD Officials 59 Grand Jury Interviews November 14, 2012; April 11, 2013 60 Grand Jury Interviews August 11, 2012; October 1, 2012; November 13, 2012; November 14, 2012; April 11, 2013 61 East County Magazine July 17, 2011 Readers Editorial: “GUHSD Boards Vote to Delay High School Fiscally Short-Sighted”. http://eastcountymagazine.org/node/6708. UT San Diego Editorial, March 30, 2011. “School Committee Overstepping Its Bounds”. http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2011/mar/30/school-committee-overstepping-its-bounds/ 63 Grand Jury Interview November 13, 2012. Grand Jury Interviews on August 11, 2012; October 1, 2012; November 13, 2012; November 14, 2012 65 Grand Jury Interviews on August 11, 2012; November 13, 2012. Fact: In 2002, the GUHSD Superintendent addressed the AUSD stating his District’s intent to serve Alpine and build a new 12th HS using Proposition T funds. Fact: Proposition T was scaled back by the Governing Board of GUHSD. Bond language pertaining to building the 12th HS was eliminated. Fact: In November 2002, in addition to Proposition T, AUSD voters had bond propositions V and W on their ballots. Propositions T, V and W all failed.
• R17
  Acknowledged that GUHSD had met the enrollment threshold set forth in Proposition U during the 2010/11 school year
• R18
  Added an additional criterion stipulating that GUHSD would not build the 12th HS until State attendance funding was restored to 2008 levels. This criterion only applied to the 12th HS.
• R19
  Ratified the superintendent’s action of pulling the building design plans from DSA
• R20
  Declared that the enrollment threshold called for in Proposition U must be met again before construction could begin on the 12th HS
• R21
  Reaffirmed that ADA funding must return to 2008 funding levels before the 12th HS is built.
• R22
  Deposit budgeted funds for building the high school into an escrow account.
• R23
  Establish and pursue a credible implementation timeline for this project. 13-78: If the Board does not elect to commit to building the 12th HS in Alpine they should take all reasonable steps to cooperate with the Alpine Union School District in support of the unification effort in that community. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS The California Penal Code §933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code §933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the
• R24
  Deposit budgeted funds for building the high school into an escrow account.
• R25
  Establish and pursue a credible implementation timeline for this project. 13-78: If the Board does not elect to commit to building the 12th HS in Alpine they should take all reasonable steps to cooperate with the Alpine Union School District in support of the unification effort in that community. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS The California Penal Code §933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code §933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the
• 13-76

  Page 11
  Make a final decision as to whether or not the District is going to
• 13-77

  Page 12
  Deposit budgeted funds for building the high school into an
• 13-78

  Page 12
  they should take all reasonable steps to cooperate with the Alpine