I'm not totally happy about not being chosen, but still support the concept and function of an oversight committee in compliance with the law.

Although it's the board of trustee's discretion under the law to decide the size of membership and we must give them that, I wonder if the Trustees' felt an empty chair was better than what I could have done? I just want to serve the community and hopefully in the future things will work out.

I guess we'll never know, but I hope there just weren't any general members seats still available, which is what I applied under.

Scott

Tim, you've got it exactly right. The ICOC wore the School District out. Too many hard questions - and they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Beyond their simple inability to acknowledge mistakes is their unwillingness to suffer the questions of mere taxpayers. Gone! The remaining ICOC has a huge job in front of them and the School Board / staff will continue to make sure they will have to work extremely hard to get it done. Unfortunately, the voters in SV aren't likely to back up the ICOC. A nearly impossible position for them... I know, I've been there.

Tim, Chris,
Why was it Greg Straton voted for the three new people and why is it he brought up none of these issues? Could it be he does not believe they are issues? Is Mayor Miller on record, anywhere, with these concerns? Why did no one come to the Board meeting to raise any concerns? You claim they were "Caught with their hands in the cookie jar", where is the proof? What do you have from someone independent of your group saying in writing and under oath that something wrong was done? Are you saying all Board members did something knowingly wrong? Again, where is your proof in writing?
Tim, how about doing a blog on how the Republican controlled Senate is about to vote to cut NCLB by 1 billion dollars, bringing the funding for NCLB to levels lower than 3 years ago, or how they are about to vote to cut Special Ed funding from 18.6% to 17.8%, even though they should be funding it at 40%? See that is what we call an "Unfunded mandate." I saw Bush on TV saying that he is above the law and does not need court approval to basically do whatever he feels like. Oooops, I forgot, my factual opinion is not welcome on this blog.

Merry Christmas, Arleigh! May 2006 bring you lots of informtion "under oath" so you can believe in something! By the way, nobody told me under oath that today is Monday - but I'm real sure it is.

I'd like to stay focused on the local issue, instead of Bush and the blah, blah...

I think it's an excellent question you are raising Arleigh. Why AREN'T any of the trustees asking the tough questions?

You endorsed them all, so I would imagine this is frustrating to you that they simply accept staff recommendations without questions.

What will be more frustrating is when your constituency, the hard working Simi Valley teacher, finds that instead of upgraded facilities and technology, they will have to suffice with circa 1970 classrooms because no one provided sufficient oversight of this bond.

That is, until the trustees come back to the voter for more money, which will be marketed as "for the kids" and will be handily approved.

Tim

Like I said, put up, or shut up! You two are making the accusations, all I asked for was the proof, and I have not seen any yet. Tim, Greg Stratton supported your campaign, are you really saying Greg would turn a blind eye to wrong doing? Do you really not care that Republicans in D.C. are short-changing Simi Valley kids? Chris, in terms of "Under Oath", you are making the accusations, all I said is show me the proof. The only thing I know of in writing is a report from an independent auditor saying the District has done everything legally. Also, it seems PMI is doing a better job than Pinnacle and for less money, wasn't that a decision made by all the Board members? When you answer back, instead of attacking my questions, try answering them for a change. Also, a happy holiday season to you both.

One more post and then I will leave it to Arleigh to set us all straight. The fact is that Arleigh and his friends will never believe anyone or anything unless they philosophically/politically see an advantage - or they are told by higher ups that they should agree.

The ICOC was UNANIMOUS in its evaluation and intepretation of the facts surrounding the "hands in the cookie jar." Arleigh and other "experts" never showed up to a single meeting to hear it for themselves. And why should they? They don't "believe" it so why waste time hearing the facts.

Scott, SV would have been well served by you - but the SB saved you a lot of frustration and wasted time. They do NOT want oversight. Therefore, they do not want to add to their troubles by adding more smart, attentive, questioning people on the committee than they absolutley have to. A smaller committee is much easier for Lowell Schultze and Janice DiFatta to control. The ICOC was one of the best collection of people I've had the opportunity to work with. The SB sure needed to fix that error as soon as they could.

As for why there was no public statement from the ICOC - I believe I can represent the committee by simnply saying - Why waste any more time? The SB nor the public seems to care that the bond project is a "train wreck waiting to happen."

Personally, I will vigorously oppose any additional bond measures after what I have seen. You will see many other supporteres of C4 (much more prominent than I) work as hard to defeat any measure that would give this school board anymore money. Tim Keaney is, and has been, so correct about the condiiton of SV schools. All you have to do is travel to other Districts to see the awful comparisons.

I also agree that some day the teachers might wake up and realize that Arleigh and others have opposed every attempt to improve the teacher's physical working conditions. Truth eventually will carry the day. Politics will change - truth does not.

Chris, I was so moved by your response that I actually played my violin and cried a solitary tear down my cheek. How thoughtless of me to actually ask you to provide proof to back up the wild accusations you have been making. Go ahead and attack me all you want, I have thicker skin than a Rhino! I supported C4 and I still do. In fact, I was out working for C4 and I don't remember seeing you out there (I did see Tim). In terms of working conditions, I have worked to improve them and the members know the truth. In terms of the bond money, every District in the State and Nation has struggled with higher building costs etc. You claim there has been wrong doing, I say, where is the proof? If you are going to accuse someone of something should you not provide proof? Did an independent auditor clear the District or not? Do you have something from anyone outside your group showing the District did anything wrong? I think I am asking some easy questions to answer. You are the one making the claims, why are you mad at me for asking you to back them up? If I made a claim would you ask for proof? What is it the SB has done that you would have done differently and how can you prove your decision would have been better? I did not go to your meetings because you said you would do reports at every SB meeting and then you guys quit showing up, even though the SB had you on the agenda, at your request. If Mayor Miller has proof of wrong doing please ask him to call me, I have great respect for Paul Miller and I would be most interested in what he has to say.

Arleigh:

Was there any reasoning given why the board was reduced?

I don't want to come off like a disgruntled failed bond oversight applicant, but I really would have liked to get the facts for myself to ensure we get as much money into those projects as we could. I think all of us here agree with that, at least I hope so.

Chris:

We all know about the 1.5 million transfer, but the auditors stated the transfer was an acceptable use of funds? Were the auditors wrong?

I could be wrong, but the problem that I saw was that particular adult ed transaction was not noted in the ballot statement, so I believe this wasn't totally communicated to the voters and the people advocating the bond like Tim, Arleigh, and yourself. I imagine when you first saw it, you were shocked and brought it to attention.

If there was an illegality out there, I'm sure everyone here would support it getting resolved, correct?

We have the best and the brightest in our community talking about this issue right here, right now in this blog.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I have approached county schools, who just revamped their website, to see what support the district could get from the county to get a website for the ICOC.

Arleigh, do you think the district would be receptive if somehow county schools came through to help our district with some technology?

Chris, Would you be supportive of getting needed help to get the website done, so all the facts are available?

Could we all sign a letter asking county schools to help with our website, so all the facts can be laid out on the table?

Scott

Scott,
From what I understand, the Simi SB has allocated the money for the ICOC website and it is being worked on. Maybe Chris can tell us why ICOC members kept not showing up at meetings to set up the website. If something illegal has been done I would like to know about it. I hear a lot of accusations being made Scott, but I have seen no proof. It does not make sense to me that if the current Mayor and past Police Chief had proof of wrong doing that he would do nothing about it. Does that make sense to you? Also, while Greg Stratton and I do not see eye to eye on a lot of things, I think he and all the other SB members are honest people. Scott, I don't know why the size of the ICOC was reduced, but I do know all Board members seemed to support it and no one came to protest it. I have seen no proof of wrong doing, why is that? Perhaps because there has been none?

The auditors did NOT clear the district. They would never say they did. They would be quite surprised (uncomfortable) to find out that their letter is being presented that way. The "audit" letter (it was not an audit) addressed the last two of the three transfers in question. The problematic transfer was the FIRST one. Why did the auditors not address the first transfer? They were not told to by the District - nor were they allowed to speak with any member of the ICOC or anybody from Pinnacle One (who discovered the transfers, informed the oversight committee, and then were fired). The auditors spoke with Lowell Schultze and his staff. Even if it was an "audit" ir would not be accepted as complete and objective by any standard. That is NOT the audit firm's fault - they simply did what they were told.

Also, for the record, Lowell Schultze flat out refused (in writing) to allow members of the ICOC to meet with auditors outside of his presence. He is apparently backed up by the SB on that position. It is common practice in industry (particularly after the Enron era disasters) to have audit/oversight committees meet with the auditors. The SVUSD will not allow an arms length audit of its accounting. You connect the dots...

Arleigh, I'm sorry that facts make you cry and play the violin. Play a song for me! How about "We Wish you a Merry Christmas?" I truly hope 2006 is much better for you so you can enjoy life a little. There is much to be thankful for and happy about! Then maybe you will have tears of happiness rather than anger!

Happy New Year.

I think Arleigh sums up the crux of the matter with the following statement, as entered above when he says:

"...it seems PMI is doing a better job than Pinnacle and for less money, wasn't that a decision made by all the Board members?"

My point about all of this is "how would he (Arleigh), or anyone else even Know such a thing?

1. There are no public records in the public domain, or on a district owned site that say how much PMI is being paid, what they are doing or what the CURRENT savings is

2. There are no contracts to review the negotiation skills of PMI vs. Pinnacle One?

3. No one has been able to review any bids or the flow of money, nor have they reported on it.

These aren't accusations. These are facts.

Arleigh: If PMI is kicking butt over Pinnacle One, how would you know that? And would you mind letting us taxpayers know where you are getting your data?

Tim

Tim:

You raise a lot of good questions. Do you think the current ICOC could answer these questions? How about the district?

If we did a public records act request under the freedom of informaiton act, could this info be found...

I'm glad to hear the website will be up shortly. I believe this caused a lot of frustration for both sides. I hope that it will be up sooner than later, so we can review what is going on.

I've read that county schools is suppossed to provide technical computer support and wonder if this whole fight could have been averted if we would have got the county schools that pool technical resources involved earlier. Quite frankly, I question their responsiveness to local districts at this point.

I visited Royal High the other day and things look pretty good. Thank you Chris for being part of overseeing that portion of the bond.

I've also seen some pretty good improvements at Hillside middle school such as upgraded landscaping and a cleaner look. I think this is attributed to the bond funds as well.

I'm sure I'll have a chance to visit Simi High to see a basketball game shortly and hope that improvements will be pretty apparent as well.

I have heard there have been problems at Atherwood and would like to spark a discussion on this issue as it effects students, teachers, administrators alike... What is going on at Atherwood at this point?

Scott

Scott,

These are obviously questions best left to Arleigh. Considering he's knows intimately how the Bond Management Companies compare, then I am confident he has a good handle on your questions. Specifically, we should be asking Arleigh (since no one else will answer on the record, or on the ICOC web site):

1. What was the total bid amount for the work at Atherwood and what is the grand total expected to come in at?

2. What projects are NOT going to get funded in phases 3, 4 & 5 because of construction cost overruns and material cost increases?

3. How much has the new bond management company saved? How many bond related employees have been hired?

4. It's been almost 2 years since C4 passed. do Simi Valley voters have the right to be nervous about their tax dollars when:

- There has been no annual audit performed or released on the use of bond funds

- There is no published project list?

- There is no bond ICOC web site as required by law (heck, even the woeful LAUSD has their's going)

I am posting these questions to anyone who wants to answer them. The silence at 875 Cochran Street is deafening...

Tim

Tim Keaney

LOL! You guys crack me up! Tim, I get my information from attending and watching School Board meetings. You two have answered no questions, given no proof, and yet you make accusations and attack people like me who call your bluff. I have heard PMI at the Board meetings giving reports and I have heard nothing but good things about them. Do you have proof otherwise? I noticed Chris did not say why no one comes from the ICOC to report at the SB meetings, even though they asked to be on the agenda, and they are. Ed Abele is a D.A., and a past school board candidate, are you saying that if something illegal was done he would not be pushing it? In terms of the website is it true or not that members from the ICOC did not show for at least three meetings with the District to get the ball rolling, seems like a simple question. Also Chris, you never answered my question about why you brought up the informational picketing that teachers at H.H. did at a SIP meeting. What does their protected constitutional activities outside of school have to do with SIP? Another question Chris, I understand that you sent out a press release, as published, I believe, only on this blog. The release said everyone on the committee supported the spokesperson. Yet, I understand that no vote was taken on this at the ICOC meeting. If I understand correctly, the ICOC is under the Brown Act. My question is, if no vote was taken, how did you know everyone supported this? Did you call everyone after the meeting? Or did you just assume they supported it? Or was their a formal vote and if so, is it reflected in the minutes? Also, why was it sent to Tim? Do you consider him the "Press"? Why did no one else print it? Tim, if you have questions try picking up a phone and calling Lowell Schultz, when was the last time you did that? Happy Holidays!

Just read that a federal judge has ruled they cannot teach intelligent design. The judge said it is not science. Evolution wins again.

I suppose you mean by posting this, that the SVUSD is taking more of an "evolutionary" approach to their building plans, rather than putting any intelligent design behind it?

I couldn't agree more...

Tim Keaney

Tim,
I just made an observation on the news today. Your the one hung up on C4, not me. Are you saying you support teaching intelligent design over evolution in Simi classrooms? Can I quote you on that?

And you are the one trying to change the subject. I have often said that those who want to bring back the days of the Scopes trial want to do so simply so they don't have to talk about:

Schools with 50% drop out rates
Fiscal mismanagement
Deteriorating working conditions
Lack of teaching supplies
Closed libraries

Feel free to quote me on THAT.

Tim

You forgot to mention NCLB and how Bush is not fully funding it. They are set to cut it by another billion today, of course the requirements won't be changed, I guess the States are expected to raise taxes to pay for it. I guess that is why Utah dumped NCLB big time!

Arleigh:

With these NCLB cuts will you be advocating that SVUSD opts out of NCLB particularly the four elementary schools currently receiving Title 1 funds in our district?

Do you know when the website for the ICOC will be avaialble? If not, I'll contact Lowell and find out.

Do you know if county schools provides help for websites to districts? If not, I think it is evident this should be a priority. It appears districts must bear the cost and retain the technical human resources and there is no inter-linking between school districts.

I think an intranet website connecting all bond committees in the county, all special ed advisory commissions, and Trustee boards across the county might reduce costs born by local school districts, provide needed technical assistance, and create cross-dialogues throughout the educational community on everything from the best way to teach alegebra to best practices related to bond oversight.

Scott

Scott,
Great questions as always from you. I do not know when the website will be done, I do know from attending a past Board meeting that money was allocated for it. I think you should call Lowell Schulz and ask him when it will be up and running. With NCLB the District cannot afford to opt out because the funding affects the entire District. I think it is a real Catch 22. Not enough money to fully fund NCLB, but enough that the District cannot afford to say no either. Also I'm not sure if an individual District can opt out or not. I think if they could, and not suffer financially, they would. With the ICOC and the SB, if someone can show me actual proof of wrong doing I will be the first one to call for an investigation. If in fact someone was "Caught with a hand in the cookie jar" I want to see the proof. I've seen and heard a lot of smoke blown but I have seen no fire.

Hi Arleigh:

I'm also not sure a local district has the power to opt out. As a parent, you can have your children opt-out of testing though, which would really limit Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) component.

I'm glad to hear you would be the first to call for an investigation if proof was given. What is your criteria for requesting an investigation? Remember, investigations should not assume guilt and often are used to clear names...

For instance, Chris stated the audit looked at the final two transactions and not the first transaction regarding the 1.5 million dollar transfer. Does this merit investigation?

You've said certain individuals want to run for office on this issue and are using it for political purposes in past discussions. Wouldn't doing an investigation that exonerates the district 100% cut this potential issue out of the next race?

Scott

Scott,
I believe this issue was put to rest by the independent audit and that is why no one outside of about three people are still talking about it. I do think we need more information on the possible Brown Act violation by the ICOC. The last thing I will say on this blog is please go to the top, look at all the specific questions I asked, then look at Tim and Chris's response and you will find they answered nothing, gave no proof, avoided the Greg Stratton issue etc. Looks more to me like potential school board candidates desperately in search of an issue. Oh well.

Arleigh:

I'm not sure why Trustee Stratton or anybody else haven't jumped in on this issue. I thought the 1.5 million dollar transaction was settled by the auditors, but Chris brought up another concern relating to the scope of the transactions and the audit. I know I was told they have year end audits coming, so I'm looking forward to seeing what is going on. It'll probably come out at that point.

Did the School Board look into the Brown Act issue at all as the the ICOC are their appointments?

Scott,
I don't know if they looked into the possible Brown Act violation or not. With Greg Stratton my point is that he is extremely knowledgable about the workings of government and budgets and transfers etc. He voted for all of the things Chris and Tim think are wrong. What they won't say is that they think he is wrong. They seem to want to say this is wrong, but Greg was right, but they did this, they did that, look over there, but don't look here, we have no proof, etc. My guess is that Chris may have thought being on the ICOC would make him a quasi-board member and was disapointed when that did not happen, I don't know, you would need to ask him. I think you can see from reading the comments on this blog that Tim and Chris only want to hear from people who share their narrow views. Maybe you need your own blog Scott because you seem to be seeking the middle ground and looking for real solutions to improving our schools. Again, look back at the questions I asked on this topic and you will see rather than answering, they attacked me for asking the tough questions.

As I have told Greg Stratton, I think he was wrong. I would think that would be pretty obvious to any casual reader of my comments. Greg can be wrong and still be a good person and even a good school board member - which I think he is. Arleigh's scorched earth approach to people isn't shared by me.
Re: $1.5 million transfers - and hands in the cookie jar... The District ended up reversing the transactions. I truly marvel that Arleigh and his ilk need any more proof than that! Oh yeah, he wants sworn statements.
Re: Paul Miller - if you have so much regard for him, call him yourself. You said on this blog that I should have him call you. 1) I'm not your secretary. 2) He's your mayor, too. You know where to find him. I suspect you don't want to hear what he has to say, though.
Re: school board candidates - Absolutley no doubt I could raise the money and win a seat on the school board. I have ZERO interest. I turn down money and other offers of help at least once a week. I am leaving the ICOC for the same reason I would not consider running for the school board - there is a lot of bad stuff going on at the district (I am not saying illegal). I do not want my name and reputation in any way associated with what is going on there. The public, in general, is not concerned and I understand that. I have way too much going on to waste anymore time trying to help a District that has no interest in being the best.
Arleigh, the District is ALL yours. Enjoy. Merry Christmas. You will be the first to know if I ever decide to run for the school board. If the phone doesn't ring, it's me.

Arleigh:

The thing that concerns me most is Chris is an expert in the field of accounting often giving really insightful presentations on things like the TICO and Enron fraud cases where employees lost their pensions and shareholders were manipulated in some of the most shameful and sad stories in American history.

To my knowledge, he is called upon to be an expert witness in a lot of corporate trials that often protect employees from the kind of bilking we saw at Worldcom or Enron, so when someone like this comes out and sounds the alarm on our bond, I get concerned.

Arleigh, you and Chris both protect employees in a certain way. I'm not asking you two to hold hands and sing kum ba yah... What I'd like to propose is to form a citizens task force of volunteers to help get the facts to the public and work independently from the district.

I think if anything, we need to be extremely vigilant in putting the politics aside and getting all the facts to the public. Isn't that what we all want?

Scott

Chris:

If we formed a very divergent volunteer task force independent of the district, would you be interested? Or, could you recommend someone?

Arleigh:

How about someone from SEA that handles SEA's accounting books or a teacher with strong math/accounting credentials?

Tim:

What say you? What can you offer?

Facts are facts. Let's put our best foot forward. I think it would be great if all we ever heard about the bond was how positive it is and how great things are going from many more sides of this community.

I still want the best.

Scott

Scott,

What role would this committee play, and what responsibilities would you see assigning to it? Would it have any acting authority, or would it be more of a consortium of thought?

Who would be represented? Wasn't this suppose to be the role of the ICOC?

Do you see Site Councils and PTA's being represented? And to do what?

I would suggest we hash it out some more. Feel free to use the blog about it. And If you would like to guest blog a topic about it, I am supportive.

Tim

This task force will be different than the ICOC becuase it won't be appointed by the board, so it will actually be insulated from the political component.

This task force will be open to anyone who wants to join. But, obviously I'd like it to have components of the people arguing about it here. I'd love 5 members from a few different groups. Let's say the SEA members have five members, the chamber has five members and so on and so forth.

The first goal for this task force would be to issue joint press releases based on facts and accepted by all members on the evidence regarding the bond projects. It would also make recommendations and endorse different positions. The ICOC is not a policy board and it would be nice to have a task force provide policy recommendations.

Second, to attend the board and ICOC meetings and identify shortcomings in the relationship and work through public advocacy and pressure to ensure better relations on both sides.

Third, create forums with different stakeholders in the community to communicate where things are and where things are going.

This is just a start. Feel free to make recommendations.

Scott

Intriguing ideas. Why don't we set up a bond web site and post all the documents I have from the first years of this program?

I am convinced that if/when the District ever does get a web site up it will be under the complete control of the District. I'm thinking a parallel site could have the rest of the story!

Chris,
How could they reverse a transfer that was never made? Like I said, when you get some facts call my secretary and make an appointment. Have a happy holidays everyone.

Can anyone tell me how Kidd can be so utterly uninformed - and flaunt it at the same time? I don't think I would advertise my ignorance like that. Wow.
Arleigh - not even your heros DiFatta, Sandland, and Schultze, deny that the transfers happened! Yes, that was their original and long-standing story. But you must have missed the update memo-about FOUR months ago! The evidence supporting that the trasnsfers happened (and then were reversed) was so overwhelming the had to abandon that story line. The ICOC understood why it took six months for the SB to give staff permission to release the information. They had good reason to be embarrased.
I'm sorry to break it to you, Arleigh. Maybe you are further out of the loop than you thought.
Oh yeah, there's no sworn statemants so you can stick with your original line if you want.
I hope 2006 brings you more inside scoop, Arleigh.

Sticks and stones Chris, sticks and stones. Again, where is your proof? I notice you did not comment on your possible Brown Act violation, the reason why you attacked Hollow Hills teachers at a SIP meeting over protected Constitutional activities, etc. Word on the street is that the real reason several people did not re-up for the ICOC is because they are tired of your antics. In terms of heros you are my hero Chris, I want to be a legend in my own mind just like you. I think your 15 minutes are up!

Arleigh - name one person on the ICOC who is "tired of my antics." You can't.
Re: School Site Council - after my inquiries and challenges it was admitted that the teachers had broken the law at HH. Since it was acknowledged and I was told they would be more careful next time, it was all over. AK, if you want to keep it (the story) alive - bring it on. The Union is out of control and believes they are above the law. I don't. I have no problem calling the union out on its antics - I am not afraid of you or your union brethren.
Re: Brown Act violation - laughable. There was an ICOC meeting in September where the press release was discussed and approved (unanimously). Schultze and Kurachi were there as were two members of the media. Ask any of them. As usual, your keepers haven't kept you informed. Bring on the Brown Act inquiry! I welcome it - absolutely nothing to hide.
Re: Where is my proof... Arleigh, you are amazing. The "proof" is that the District admits it, the evidence supports it, and nobody challenges it-except you. Your parallel universe must be a lot of fun because you refuse to leave it for the real world!
Truth wins every time, Arleigh. It will even catch up to you.

The "truth" is in the very records of the SVUSD, where the transfer line item and reversal transactions exist. ANY Public Records Act request will show that.

The County Schools Office also shows the transactions in their record keeping. They'll send you a report upon request.

The transfers absolutely occured. Without question.

Tim Keaney

LOL!

Tim, Chris, and Arleigh:

I think a question I'm more interested in is whether any actual spending occurred out of the adult ed bucket that should be considered unauthorized?

It's my understanding that you can put bond money in any accounting ledger you need to, so long as it is spent as promised. I defer to people with more expertise than me on this understanding, but that is my interpretation.

Chris: Was the 1.5 million spent on something outside the purview of the bond agreement?

Another question I have for anyone that can answer... What is the grade of our bonds on Wall Street? This is a good indication on the "solvency question" that I think is most important. How is wall street grading our bonds?

Are investors and investment houses buying the bonds? If they aren't buying these bonds, it's a pretty good indication that something is wrong or the trust level on future solvency is low?

Scott