Archive for California School Construction

California Attorney General Opinion Says Frequently-Used School and Community College Bond Deals Are Illegal

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

On January 26, 2016, the California Attorney General issued an opinion on a practice regarding bond measures that has long been questionable but continues to be rampant at California school and college districts: contracting with a firm to provide both pre-election bond measure “financial planning services” and post-election bond measure “financial advisory services.” That firm then typically makes a major contribution to the campaign to pass the bond measure.

The practice is described in Chapter 7 of the July 2015 California Policy Center report For the Kids: California Voters Must Become Wary of Borrowing Billions More from Wealthy Investors for Educational Construction.

Not surprisingly, the practice was determined to be illegal under most circumstances. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association called it “good news” for taxpayers and a “long-overdue slap-down” of “the incestuous behavior of school districts with political consultants and bond salesmen.” See Attorney General Reins In Shady Bond Practices – January 31, 2016.

California Attorney General Opinion

OPINION of  KAMALA D. HARRIS, Attorney General – MANUEL M. MEDEIROS, Deputy Attorney General – No. 13-304 – January 26, 2016 (see the five questions and answers, below)

School and community college districts throughout the state have adopted such contracts. Often these items are listed on board agendas with vague language, probably to disguise the purpose from the public.

Some Examples

Martinez Unified School District approved this contract on September 29, 2015: http://laborissuessolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/2015-09-29-Isom-Advisors-AKA-Urban-Futures-Contract-with-Martinez-USD-for-Bond-Measure-Services.pdf

Pay to Play San Rafael City Schools Connect the DotsSan Rafael City Schools gave a financial service firms a no-bid contract in June 2015 for $15,000 in pre-election and $65,000 in post-election advisory services for two bond measures. The firm contributed $9500 to the campaign to pass the bond measures.

Solano Community College District: Critic Questions Actions of Measure Q Bond Underwriters – Fairfield Daily Republic – September 13, 2015

News Coverage

California School Bonds Can Be Source of Scandal – commentary by Dan Walters – Sacramento Bee – February 8, 2016

Many other districts have used the same loophole to avoid competitive bidding on contracts and also solicited bond issue campaign funds from financial houses.

State Treasurer Bill Lockyer, and later successor John Chiang, were concerned about the practice, and asked Attorney General Kamala Harris whether it’s legal for those in the bond financing business to get involved in the campaigns. Harris, in an opinion issued last month, declared that it is illegal for firms to provide “pre-election services” in return for a promise to get the underwriting business should the bond measure pass.

…if school districts are cut free from the state’s underwriting of school construction, they need some new ethics standards.

California AG’s Opinion Targets School Bond Practices by Kyle Glazier – The Bond Buyer – January 28, 2016

School and community college districts violate California law if they hire outside firms to campaign for bond ballot measures or purposely incentivize municipal finance professionals to advocate for passage of a bond measure, the state’s attorney general said in a formal legal opinion…

A previous Bond Buyer investigation found a nearly perfect correlation between broker-dealer contributions to California school bond efforts in 2010 and their underwriting of subsequent bond sales, and financial advisors have similarly been accused of using “pay-to-play” tactics. Former California Treasurer Bill Lockyer questioned the legality of the practices…

California Muni Dealers Can’t Fund Bond Campaigns to Get Hired by Darrell Preston – Bloomberg – January 28, 2016

Former Treasurer Bill Lockyer, who sought the opinion in 2013, praised the ruling, and said it could open up school districts and vendors to prosecution.

“It makes it clear that prior practices of this sort are illegal,” Lockyer said in a telephone interview Thursday.

Lockyer sought the opinion after finding school districts in the state entered agreements with underwriting firms in which the districts award the dealers the right to sell the bonds in return for providing services to pass an initiative.

He said at the time the agreements raise “substantive questions” about whether school officials broke the law by using public money to advocate passage.


THE HONORABLE JOHN CHIANG, CALIFORNIA STATE TREASURER, has requested an opinion on the following questions:

1. Does a school or community college district violate California constitutional and statutory prohibitions against using public funds to advocate passage of a bond measure by contracting with a person or entity for services related to a bond election campaign?

2. Does a school or community college district violate California prohibitions against using public funds to advocate passage of a bond measure if the district enters into an agreement with a municipal finance firm under which the district obtains pre- bond-election services in return for guaranteeing the firm an exclusive contract to provide bond-sale services if the election is successful?

3. In the case of an agreement as described in Question 2, does a school or community college district violate California law concerning the use of bond proceeds if the district reimburses the municipal finance firm for the cost of providing the pre- election services from the proceeds raised from the bond sale?

4. In the scenario described in Question 3, does a school or community college district violate California law concerning the use of bond proceeds, even where the reimbursement is not an itemized component of the fees the district pays to the firm in connection with the bond sale?

5. Does an entity providing campaign services to a bond measure campaign in exchange for an exclusive agreement with the district to sell the bonds incur an obligation to report the cost of such services as a contribution to the bond measure campaign in accordance with state law?

CONCLUSIONS

1. A school or community college district violates California constitutional and statutory prohibitions against using public funds to advocate passage of a bond measure by contracting with a person or entity for services related to a bond election campaign if the pre-election services may be fairly characterized as campaign activity.

2. A school or community college district violates prohibitions against using public funds to advocate passage of a bond measure if the district enters into an agreement with a municipal finance firm under which the district obtains pre-election services (of any sort) in return for guaranteeing the firm an exclusive contract to provide bond-sale services if the election is successful, under circumstances where (a) the district enters into the agreement for the purpose (sole or partial) of inducing the firm to support the contemplated bond-election campaign or (b) the firm’s fee for the bond-sale services is inflated to account for the firm’s campaign contributions and the district fails to take reasonable steps to ensure the fee was not inflated.

3. In the case of an agreement as described in Question 2, a school or community college district violates California law concerning the use of bond proceeds if the district reimburses the municipal finance firm for the cost of providing pre-election services from the proceeds raised from the bond sale.

4. In the scenario described in Question 3, a school or community college district violates California law concerning the use of bond proceeds if the district reimburses the municipal finance firm for the cost of providing pre-election services from the fees the district pays to the firm in connection with the bond sale, whether or not the reimbursement is evident as a component of the fees the district pays to the firm in connection with the bond sale made on an itemized service-by-service basis.

5. Where an entity provides campaign services to a bond-measure committee in exchange for an exclusive agreement with the district to sell the bonds, the entity has an obligation to report the value of its services as a contribution to the bond-measure campaign in accordance with state law.

Nine Fall 2015 Commentaries on California School and College Bond Measures

News Coverage: California Voters Must Be Wary of More Borrowing Via Bond Sales for School and Community College Construction

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In July 2015, the California Policy Center released a 361-page report For the Kids: California Voters Must Become Wary of Borrowing Billions More from Wealthy Investors for Educational Construction. (Links to individual sections are below.)

For the Kids - California Voters Must Become Wary of Borrowing Billions More from Wealthy Investors for Educational ConstructionAs of August 26, 2015, the report has received the following news media coverage:

Six California School Districts Will Ask Voters on November 3 to Borrow $1.2 Billion From Bond Investors – commentary by Kevin Dayton – Flash Report – August 17, 2015

Unions Seek Control of Recent California School Bond Measures – commentary by Kevin Dayton – Union Watch – August 11, 2015

School Bonds May Equal Taxpayer BondageVictorville Daily Press – August 8, 2015

California Schools Stick Taxpayers with $149 Billion in Bond Debt – Breitbart News – August 5, 2015

California is in Huge Debt Hole Because of School Bonds – KFBK News Radio 1530 AM/93.1 FM in Sacramento – August 4, 2015

“For the Kids” Borrowing Will Saddle Kids with Debt – opinion piece by Gloria Romero in Orange County Register – August 4, 2015

Tough Education Reform, not More Borrowing and Spending, is What Students Need – commentary by Ed Ring – Union Watch – August 4, 2015

Specter of School Bonds Is Haunting Californians – opinion piece by Ed Ring in Sacramento Bee – August 2, 2015

Statewide Report Criticizes Passage of School Bonds – lead story in California League of Bond Oversight Committees Review – July 29, 2015

Doing the Math, Bond Debt for California Schools May Not Pencil OutModesto Bee – July 28, 2015

First look: Poll finds support for testing — Pell grants for prisoners — Washington state chief: Put more dollars into education – Politico (Morning Education) – July 28, 2015

School Bond Proposal Stirs California DebateThe Bond Buyer – July 27, 2015

Report: Voters Better Start Learning How Construction Bonds WorkLA School Report – July 27, 2015

Deceptive Ballot Language for Solano College Bond Measure Not Unusual – opinion piece by Kevin Dayton in Vacaville Reporter – July 25, 2015

Statewide Report Criticizes Passage of School BondsFresno Bee – July 24, 2015 (reprinted as Report Criticizes Passage of School Bonds in California in Education Week – July 27, 2015)

Here are links to each section of the report:

###

Planning for 2014: Two Recommendations in www.FlashReport.org to California Supporters of Economic Freedom and Fiscal Responsibility

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

It’s too early to predict if Californians will elect more supporters of economic freedom and fiscal responsibility to Congress, statewide office, the state legislature, and local offices in 2014. It’s also too early to know if Californians are getting sick of accumulating yet more public debt through state and local ballot measures.

In the meantime, I’m trying to promote grassroots activities that might encourage Californians to do the following:

1. Consider electing government officials with a different philosophy of government than the tax-and-spend model prevalent in much of the state.

2. Better understand and scrutinize bond measures before approving educational districts to borrow money for construction (and other expenses authorized by Proposition 39, such as iPads).

See my December 6, 2013  article California Supporters of Economic and Personal Freedom Can Plan for 2014 by Thinking Locally in www.FlashReport.com.

Oxnard Union High School District Has Five Days to Negotiate a Project Labor Agreement for a $40 Million New High School

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Last night (November 20, 2013), the board of trustees for the Oxnard Union School District in Ventura County bickered with the school district administration and each other over the terms and conditions of a proposed Project Labor Agreement for a $40 million new school (Rancho Campana High School).

News Coverage: Tension Marks School Building Plans – Ventura County Star – November 22, 2013

Certain members of the school board have been pushing for a Project Labor Agreement at the behest of union lobbyists since their October 9, 2013 meeting. The school district awarded a lease-leaseback contract on October 23, 2013.

The board set a special meeting for Monday, November 25 at 5:00 p.m. to approve a final negotiated version of a Project Labor Agreement. Staff was told to clear their schedules to meet with union officials and representatives of the winning general contractor (S.C. Anderson, Inc.) until a deal is reached.

This morning, I sent this email to Oxnard Union High School District board members, administrators, and the chairman of the Citizens’ Bond Oversight Committee:


From: Kevin Dayton
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 9:34 AM
To: xxxx
Subject: Oxnard Union HSD Project Labor Agreement Negotiating Terms: San Diego USD Versus Los Angeles USD

Dear Oxnard Union High School District Board Members, Administrators, and Appointed Citizen Leaders:

As indicated during the November 20, 2013 board meeting, a majority of trustees for the Oxnard Union High School District wants to emulate the San Diego Unified School District and the Los Angeles Unified School District when implementing a requirement for construction contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement with unions as a condition of winning a contract for $40 million in upcoming construction.

You may not be aware that the Project Labor Agreements for San Diego Unified School District and Los Angeles Unified School District have some fundamental differences related to employer fringe benefit payments. San Diego USD provides some limited flexibility for non-union contractors, while Los Angeles USD is highly restrictive and makes no concessions to non-union construction benefit plans. Below are links to those PLAs and then some analysis of them.

San Diego Unified School District Project Labor Agreement (on school district web site)

Los Angeles Unified School District Project Labor Agreement (The LAUSD “Facilities Services Division website is currently experiencing a temporary problem and working to correct it,” so this link is to the copy on my web site.)

Links to All 189 Project Labor Agreements for Government Projects or Sets of Projects in California Since 1993 (posted on my web site)

By the way, you may need to check with the Tri-Counties Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO to confirm that the finalized proposed Project Labor Agreement for your school district needs to be approved by officials at the national headquarters of the Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO in Washington, D.C.

You’re welcome to contact me with any technical questions about Project Labor Agreements, although I am BIASED against such a costly and anti-competitive government regulatory mandate on bidders for taxpayer-funded contracts. (And really, you should be too.)

Kevin Dayton
President and CEO
Labor Issues Solutions, LLC
(916) 439-2159

P.S. – links to your district’s oversight committee documents get a screen that says “THIS IS SOMEWHAT EMBARRASSING, ISN’T IT? It seems we can’t find what you’re looking for. Perhaps searching can help.”


San Diego Unified School District Project Labor Agreement

At the San Diego Unified School District, the Project Labor Agreement (“Project Stabilization Agreement”) allows a construction contractor to pay employee fringe benefits into its own existing employee benefit plan, provided that the plan is determined to be equivalent to the  union plans to which the contractor would otherwise send payments. A third-party Coordinator or Administrator determines whether or not the programs are equal or better than the union programs.

Here is the language from the San Diego USD Project Labor Agreement:

Section 5.2 Benefits. (a) Contractors shall pay contributions to the established employee benefit funds in the amounts designated in the appropriate Schedule A; and make all employee ­authorized deductions in the amounts designated in the appropriate Schedule A: provided, however, that the Contractor and Unions agree that only such bona fide employee benefits as accrue to the direct benefit of the employees (such as pension and annuity, health and welfare, vacation, apprenticeship, and training funds) shall be included in this requirement and required to be paid by the Contractor on the Project; and provided further, however, that such contributions shall not exceed the contribution amounts set forth in the applicable prevailing wage determination.

Unless otherwise required by law, Contractors who have fringe benefits for their core workforce equal to or better than those designated in the Schedule A do not have to pay the fringe benefit contribution designated in the Schedule A on the core work force and may utilize their own fringe benefits. The Project Labor Coordinator will be responsible for determining whether the benefits are equal to or better than those designated in the Schedule A’s. Contractors must submit their fringe benefit packages to the Project Labor Coordinator for evaluation prior to bidding. Contractors may only take credit against the prevailing wage in accordance with the Prevailing Wage Statute and the difference between the hourly cost, if any, of the fringe benefit provided and the hourly cost of the applicable fringe benefit portion of the wage determination must be paid to the worker as wages. Benefits designated in the Schedule A will be paid on all employees dispatched by the Union.

(b) Where applicable, the Contractor adopts and agrees to be bound by the written terms of the applicable, legally established, trust agreement(s) specifying the detailed basis on which payments are to be made into, and benefits paid out of, such trust funds for its employees. The Contractor authorizes the Parties to such trust funds to appoint trustees and successors’ trustees to administer the trust funds and hereby ratifies and accepts the trustees so appointed as if made by the Contractor.

(c) Each Contractor and Subcontractor is required to certify to the Project Labor Coordinator that it has paid all benefit contributions due and owing to the appropriate Trust(s) or fringe benefit programs prior to the receipt of its final payment and/or retention. Further, upon timely notification by a Union to the Project Labor Coordinator, the Project Labor Coordinator shall work with any Contractor or Subcontractor who is delinquent in payments to assure that proper benefit contributions are made, to the extent of requesting the District or the prime Contractor to withhold payments otherwise due such Contractor, until such contributions have been made or otherwise guaranteed.

These Project Labor Agreements also explicitly exempt non-union contractors from making employer payments classified as “Other” under California Labor Code §1773.1(a)(7-9) to labor-management committee trust funds or other similar funds.

Los Angeles Unified School District Project Labor Agreement

At the Los Angeles Unified School District, the Project Labor Agreement (“Project Stabilization Agreement”) requires a construction contractor to pay employee fringe benefits into union-affiliated trust funds, even if it has its own existing employee benefit plan that is equivalent to the union plan. When a contractor does not send the money to the union trust funds, the unions and their trust funds sue the school district and the contractor.

Here are some other problems with the Los Angeles USD Project Labor Agreement:

1.  Non-Union Workers in Los Angeles County Under Project Labor Agreement Have Bank Accounts Opened for Them at IBEW Credit Union

Attached is the excerpt from the collective bargaining agreement for the IBEW Local No. 11 about workers’ pay deposited into an account set up for them at the IBEW Local No. 11 credit union, and the signature card for non-union electricians working under the PLA at Los Angeles USD authorizing deposit of pay there and withdrawals for dues payments. Here are links to the documentation:  Master Labor Agreement Provisions for IBEW Credit Union; Forms to Open a Bank Account in Your Name at the IBEW Credit Union.

Why is this PLA requirement offensive? Workers should have the right to choose how they invest the money they earned.  Requiring a percentage of workers’ paychecks to be deposited in a specific credit union takes away that right.  The basis for a successful free market economy is the right of individuals to make their own economic choices.  In addition, workers should not be forced to have their paychecks deposited in a specific bank – they may object to that bank because of how it invests its deposits or how it uses their personal information.  Finally, forcing a percentage of workers’ paychecks to be deposited in a specific bank gives the bank a guaranteed inflow of money, thus taking away the bank’s incentive to provide the best products and services to attract potential depositors.  In addition, this guaranteed inflow may encourage the bank to take excessive risks or make foolhardy investment decisions.

2.  Union Forces Contractors to Pay Journeymen Wages and Benefits to Non-Union Apprentices under Project Labor Agreement in Los Angeles County

A non-union contractor signed a Project Labor Agreement that was part of the bid specifications for a project at the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD).  The contractor requested apprentices from the applicable International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) union program, but then requested apprentices from a non-union program after the IBEW program failed to dispatch apprentices.  The non-union program provided 17 apprentices, who received the appropriate on-the-job training on the project.  Subsequently, the IBEW and its related trust funds sued the contractor in federal court, contending that the contractor should have paid journeymen wages and benefits to the apprentices because they were not dispatched from the applicable union apprenticeship program as specified in the Project Labor Agreement.

On November 3, 2009, a district court judge ruled that the Project Labor Agreement required apprentices to come from union programs.  The judge awarded the union $272,738.63 in underpaid trust contributions, including interest of $55,940.34, along with liquidated damages of $55,940.34 and additional auditor fees of $7,177.50.

Contractors working on public works projects in California must comply with Title 8, Section 230.1 http://www.dir.ca.gov/t8/230_1.html of the California Code of Regulations.  That regulation states “If the apprenticeship committee from which apprentice dispatch(es) are requested does not dispatch apprentices as requested, the contractor must request apprentice dispatch(es) from another committee providing training in the applicable craft or trade in the geographic area of the site of the public work, and must request apprentice dispatch(es) from each such committee, either consecutively or simultaneously, until the contractor has requested apprentice dispatches from each such committee in the geographic area.”  It seems that according to the IBEW, if a contractor working under a PLA does not get enough apprentices from the applicable union apprenticeship program and then complies with §230.1 by requesting and obtaining apprentices from an eligible non-union apprenticeship program,, then the contractor has to pay journeymen-level wages to those apprentices!

3.  Unions in Los Angeles County Can Obtain the Personal Information of Workers and Audit the Books of Contractors Who Sign a Project Labor Agreement

A California appellate court issued a decision on August 16, 2010 of great interest to contractors signing a Project Labor Agreement in Los Angeles County.

Since 2007, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) pension program has filed at least eight lawsuits to obtain pension payments from employers who had signed the Project Labor Agreement to work at the Los Angeles Unified School District.  When the pension program did not have employer contribution reports containing the personal information of the employees, it filed document subpoenas to obtain certified payroll records from LAUSD that exposed the names, addresses, and social security numbers of the employees.  An IBEW pension program official stated to the court that this was easier than auditing the contractor as a way to get the personal information.

LAUSD wanted to clarify in the courts whether or not the language in California Labor Code Section 1776(e) [see below] provided a “conditional privilege” or an “absolute privilege” of confidentiality in certified payroll records.  The appeals court ruled that LAUSD had to provide the personal information on the certified payroll records to the pension program.  It did not address a lower court ruling that §1776(e) was preempted by ERISA.

****Of interest: footnote 3 on page 5 confirms that the Project Labor Agreement at LAUSD requires signatory contractors to submit to the written terms of the applicable trust agreement, which means that in this case the IBEW has authorization to audit the books of non-union contractors.****

One way or another, the IBEW can and will obtain the personal information of employees working for contractors that are signatory to the LAUSD PLA.

4.  Unrelenting Harassment of the Non-Signatory Electrical Contractors in the Los Angeles Unified School District’s $11 Billion of Construction Work: Subscription Agreements

Diana Limon, a compliance officer in Local 11, one of 9 IBEW members who joined 126 fellow unionists at graduation ceremonies. AFL-CIO President John Sweeney and Dr. Susan Schurman, President of the College, awarded the degrees.

“I encouraged Diana to attend, and I wanted to be there with her,” states Brungard. “She’s exceptional. She was apprentice of the year and then served as a foreman for a local contractor. I know how hard she worked. I know that what she learned at the NLC will make her an even more impressive leader.”

Limon, a Labor Studies major, says: “The positive learning environment and the commitment of my classmates to take their knowledge back to their organizations was phenomenal.” All seniors must complete a research project dealing with an issue affecting their union or the labor movement-to earn a B.A. degree. Limon’s paper focused on the process of getting non-union electrical contractors to subscribe to benefit trust funds established as part of a $11 billion Project Stabilization Agreement between the Orange County Building Trades and the employer, the Los Angeles Unified School District. Limon was awarded a distinguished paper award, along with IBEW members Eugene Parrington and Francis J. Cunningham. They presented the papers in a symposium prior to graduation. Abstracts for each paper are available online here. The papers will be permanently shelved in the George Meany Center library.

http://www.ibew.org/articles/04daily/0407/040707_laborcollege.htm

###

The Great Resurrection of 2013! Elected Board of Sacramento City Unified School District Schedules Vote on Dormant Project Labor Agreement

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

It’s the Great Resurrection of 2013! Someone remembered the ancient Project Labor Agreement implemented for construction at the Sacramento City Unified School District funded by borrowed money authorized by bond measures approved by voters in 1999 and 2002.

September 12, 2013 Board Meeting
6:30 p.m. Open Session

 

See the original 2005 version of this Project Labor Agreement: Sacramento City Unified School District Project Labor Agreement Measures E and I. Also, see the 2009 extension of this Project Labor Agreement: Sacramento City Unified School District Project Labor Agreement Measures E and I Amendment. According to the staff report there will be another Project Labor Agreement implemented for future district construction, presumably for projects funded by borrowed money authorized by Measures Q and R, approved by voters in November 2012.

If the Sacramento City Unified School District required its construction contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement as a condition of work, why not follow this outstanding example of fiscally responsible government and impose a Project Labor Agreement on the Sacramento Kings Arena? There will certainly be a show in support of Project Labor Agreements at the board meeting on Thursday, September 12.

The Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction has issued an appropriately cynical press release about the scheduled vote to extend the Project Labor Agreement at Sacramento City Unified School District.

September 9, 2013
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Eric Christen, (858) 431-6337
Sacramento School Board Schedules Sham Vote on Dormant Project Labor Agreement as Media Stunt
Creates Forum for Union Officials and Union-Backed Politicians to Defend Kings Arena Deal

Today the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction accused the elected board of the Sacramento City Unified School District of engineering an unnecessary forum for Sacramento union leaders and union-backed politicians to promote Project Labor Agreements.

“Board members of the Sacramento City Unified School District suddenly saw a desperate need to extend a dormant Project Labor Agreement for four months?” asked Eric Christen, executive director of the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction.

“This silly vote is about the Sacramento Kings arena, not about helping children to learn how to read and write.”

The September 12 school board agenda includes an item to extend for four months a Project Labor Agreement implemented in 2005 for long-completed construction programs funded by Measure E (1999) and Measure I (2002). A staff report indicates plans for a new Project Labor Agreement for future construction, which will be funded by Measures Q and R (2012).

The proposal is obviously under consideration within a larger political context.

On September 4, a public extravaganza at Downtown Plaza organized with unions by Mayor Kevin Johnson’s office to celebrate a Project Labor Agreement on the new Kings arena was undermined when opponents of the union deal exercised their First Amendment rights and showed up to challenge the government propaganda.

“Behind the scenes, everyone acknowledges that the mayor’s press conference for the Kings Arena Project Labor Agreement was a public relations disaster,” said Christen. “One veteran Sacramento political consultant emailed us to say ‘What transpired on Wednesday was one of the best impromptu media events I’ve seen in many years.’”

“Both supporters and opponents of public funding for the Kings arena were disgusted by the political payoff to the unions. Union leaders need a public forum to regain control of their message. They’ve chosen the Sacramento City Unified School District – not a government renowned for its outstanding management and high degree of fiscal responsibility.”

The Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction will oppose the Project Labor Agreement resolution.

###

2004 Revisited in 2013: Hartnell Community College District in Salinas Once Again Considers a Requirement for Contractors to Sign a Union Project Labor Agreement

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

UPDATE (July 2, 2013): The Hartnell Community College District Board of Trustees met on July 2 to revisit its decision to implement a Project Labor Agreement for the school’s $28.5 million science building. Back in May, the Board approved an RFQ/P for a lease-leaseback construction services proposal contingent on negotiating a Project Labor Agreement with the Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties Building and Construction Trades Council. They also voted to appoint three board members to a Project Labor Agreement ad hoc negotiation committee.

The May resolutions were reversed in a 4-3 vote to use the traditional design-bid-build construction contracting method. Trustee Elia Gonzalez-Castro spearheaded getting the topic back on the agenda for reconsideration and made the motion to rescind the Project Labor Agreement. She argued that everyone should have access to the project just as all students have access to Hartnell College.

The Salinas Chamber of Commerce and local contractors collectively voiced their concerns – to fellow community members, the media and elected officials. The Chamber spotlighted the May vote along with their deep disappointment in the Board’s decision in their June/July Business Journal. And they illustrated the decision’s impact on the local economy.

Please email Elia Gonzalez-Castro at elia4hartnell@gmail.com and thank her for reversing her vote and supporting fair and open competition.

News Coverage:

Hartnell Changes Construction Contract Process – Salinas Californian – July 3, 2013 – “The board voted, 4-3, to rescind each of two earlier decisions to use a lease-lease back contract method for getting the building built and implementing a Project Labor Agreement in the process.”

Hartnell College Sides with Unions, Could Face Fight in Construction NegotiationsMonterey County Weekly – May 16, 2013


The Hartnell Community College District Board of Trustees in Salinas discusses the imposition of a government-mandated Project Labor Agreement with unions at its March 19, 2013 meeting.

The Hartnell Community College District Board of Trustees in Salinas discusses the imposition of a government-mandated Project Labor Agreement with unions at its March 19, 2013 meeting.

UPDATE (March 20, 2013): At their March 19, 2013 meeting, the Hartnell Community College District board of trustees was sharply-divided on the proposal to require contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement with unions to work on the new science building. After public comments from union officials in support and contractors and contractor representatives in opposition, the board deliberated but took no action. The next meeting is scheduled for April 2, 2013.

News Coverage:

Conflict Surfaces Over Hartnell Project – Salinas Californian – March 19, 2013

Hartnell President Willard Lewallen acknowledged Tuesday that “this seems to be a very polarized issue”…Conflicts arose in the past over Hartnell’s use of PLAs on other publicly funded projects, such as the school library and parking garage, both of which were completed in 2006. (See below for a detailed history.)


The March 19, 2013 agenda for the board of the Hartnell Community College District in Salinas includes the following item:

VI. CONSTRUCTION OF SCIENCE BUILDING
B. PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT
The board will receive a presentation on project labor agreements and give direction to the administration.

Here’s a report from a local political activist:

Hartnell is getting ready to build a new science building. The Unions have presented (quietly and sneakily) a proposal that the board adopt a Project Labor Agreement for this project. Some (not sure if it is four or not = majority) of the board members are automatically in favor of this proposal. This is about a $25 million dollar project. The board is taking this up on Tuesday at 5:00 at the Hartnell CALL building location. This will be a workshop style presentation…

This is the second time that Hartnell Community College District has been entangled in a Project Labor Agreement. In 2004, the construction-manager-at-risk for the college’s Measure H construction program negotiated a Project Labor Agreement with union leaders WITHOUT the consent or even the knowledge of the board of trustees and some college administrators.

Associated Builders and Contractors of California and other groups called for the Project Labor Agreement to be considered in a public forum so taxpayers, businesses, and students could express their viewpoints and so that representatives of the people (the board of trustees) could vote on it. In the end, the Project Labor Agreement was rescinded by the elected board.

Detailed History of the Implementation and Rescinding of a Project Labor Agreement at Hartnell Community College District in 2004

On November 5, 2002, 65.7% of Monterey County voters approved Measure H, which authorized Hartnell Community College District in Salinas to borrow $131 million for campus expansion by selling bonds to investors.

At the August 17, 2004 meeting in Stockton for the board of trustees of the San Joaquin-Delta Community College District, a union official claimed that Hartnell Community College District was requiring its contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement to work on projects funded by its bond measure. Another speaker announced that the Project Labor Agreement was negotiated between the San Francisco-based construction manager DPR and the unions. He claimed he was at the college board meeting when the Project Labor Agreement was approved.

I did not know about this, so I obtained (via fax) the minutes of the college board meetings from May 4, June 1, June 29, July 13, and August 3. There was no indication that the board approved a Project Labor Agreement as an independent action item. I made two phone inquiries on two consecutive work days with DPR’s project executive for the construction program funded by Measure H. I also left a message for the college’s Vice President of Administrative Services, who was overseeing construction. The phone calls weren’t returned.

Officials at the Salinas Valley Builders Exchange (now part of the Central Coast Builders Association) also became suspicious, because DPR never provided the organization with plans and specifications for the parking garage and learning resource center. Not surprisingly, college board members were expressing concern at their meetings that not enough local companies were getting work. Low bidders listed for the parking garage and learning resource center were mainly big union companies that work throughout the Bay Area.

On August 27, 2004, representatives of the Salinas Valley Builders Exchange and the Golden Gate Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors (now the Northern California Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors) attended a monthly meeting on Measure H construction. They surprised college officials there by asking some tough questions: Is there a Project Labor Agreement? When did the board of trustees vote on the Project Labor Agreement? Can you provide a copy of the pre-qualification questionnaire, bid specifications, and wrap up insurance program? What are you doing to encourage local contractors to bid on these projects?

One official at the meeting said the college were considering a Project Labor Agreement, but another admitted the college already had a Project Labor Agreement in place. Business organizations began alerting their members to what was apparently happening. Meanwhile, I submitted a public records request to the president of the college to get the truth.

On August 30, 2004, I received a call from a representative of the San Francisco-based project manager TMI (Townsend Management, Inc.) who told me that DPR was indeed negotiating a Project Labor Agreement with unions for Phase I of the Measure H construction, which consisted of the parking garage and the learning resource center. Two unions were holding out: the Painters and the Plasterers, and the Project Labor Agreement would not in effect until those unions signed on. He claimed that bid specifications indicated that contractors would have to sign a Project Labor Agreement with the unions. He said that an official at Hartnell Community College told DPR it was acceptable to negotiate a Project Labor Agreement with unions. He did not know which official authorized it, nor if the board of trustees was ever informed about it. Finally, he told me I would need to get a copy of the bid specifications, the pre-qualification questionnaire, and the Project Labor Agreement directly from DPR. However, he faxed a copy of the list of local contractors DPR claimed to contact about bidding.

Eric Christen of the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction became involved and reported this: “[The TMI representative] is very nervous and tried to tell me that I needed to contact the college to get the list of contractors who were supposedly contacted. I told him that it was his job and he said he would call me back.”

Contractors began emailing this message to the district’s board of trustees and top administrators:

I have learned that your construction manager DPR has negotiated a Project Labor Agreement with unions for Phase I of Measure H construction at Hartnell Community College. Many local contractors will not sign a Project Labor Agreement with unions for construction, which is perhaps one reason why most of the contractors that have won bids so far have come from the Bay Area.

When did the board of trustees approve this Project Labor Agreement? I’m sure you would have had a parade of local contractors and business leaders at your meeting to oppose the Project Labor Agreement if it was listed on your agenda as an action item. Who at the college authorized this Project Labor Agreement?

Also, I do not believe my company was ever contacted by DPR about bidding on Measure H projects. Is there a list available of local contractors contacted by DPR about working on this construction? What kind of contact did DPR have with the Salinas Valley Builders Exchange?

This is not a good way to start your Measure H construction program. I recommend you put an item on the September 7 agenda to investigate what happened with this Project Labor Agreement, why it is being used, and why so few local contractors are working on construction paid for with our tax dollars.

On August 31, 2004, I received a phone call from the president of Hartnell College. He told me there was a negotiated Project Labor Agreement between the DPR and the unions, the board of trustees did NOT vote to authorize it, and DPR was apparently authorized to negotiate the Project Labor Agreement by the college’s Vice President for Administrative Services. He scheduled a meeting on September 7 for him, the college vice president, TMI personnel, and DPR personnel to discuss the Project Labor Agreement and local bidding with a representative of the Salinas Valley Builders Exchange and myself. The college president also told me that he was sending a memo to the college board of trustees asking them to hold off on any action regarding these issues until after our meeting was held on September 7.

Additionally, a member of the board of trustees called me to report that the college president told him that he knew nothing about the Project Labor Agreement until I had sent him my public records request asking for it.

The meeting on September 7, 2004 was attended by three college administrators and several officials from DPR and the project management firm TMI. Besides myself, the meeting included representatives of Associated General Contractors (AGC) and Salinas Valley Builders Exchange.

An official with DPR launched the meeting by declaring that all unions had now signed the Project Labor Agreement, and it was in effect for remaining construction on three major building projects. I told them I was angry about how the college and its construction management firm held us off while scurrying to get all the unions signed onto the Project Labor Agreement. I then declared that the Project Labor Agreement had been implemented without approval from the elected board of trustees and that Associated Builders and Contractors would ask the trustees to revoke it.

In seven years with Associated Builders and Contractors in Northern California, I had fought more than 50 Project Labor Agreement proposals. This was the first time I had seen a Project Labor Agreement imposed on a public works project without the elected board voting on negotiations and the final document and without allowing the public to express their views on such a controversial proposal.

How seedy was this case? Associated Builders and Contractors exposed under-the-table negotiations, at which time the unions quickly signed the Project Labor Agreement for implementation without authorization from the elected board of trustees. When Associated Builders and Contractors and other business associations objected, unions and the college administration argued that the elected board did not need to approve the Project Labor Agreement. It was the right of the construction management firm to do it.

For the reminder of the day, I notified local contractors, local news media, and the Salinas Valley Chamber of Commerce about the Project Labor Agreement. A prominent local union contractor that had prequalified for the next Measure H project and had even obtained a contract with DPR pointed out that a Project Labor Agreement was NOT mentioned in the bid specifications. The company was concerned that the prequalification process would have to be redone once a Project Labor Agreement was in place.

On that evening of September 7, 2004, I spoke, along with a contractor and an Associated General Contractors representative, during public comment at the monthly board meeting against the Project Labor Agreement. I handed out a copy of the Project Labor Agreement to the trustees, thus proving to the board that the rumors were true.

The board of trustees at the time was Mark Dierolf (President), Aaron Johnson, John Martinez, Berna Maya, Brad Rice, Steve McShane, and Bill Freeman. The board president (a member of the Libertarian Party) contended that the board handled policy, not management, and therefore the Project Labor Agreement did not need authorization from the board. This was the same position now held by the college president.

DPR officials and union leaders defended the Project Labor Agreement, and they also brought two lawyers to argue that the trustees did not legally have to approve the Project Labor Agreement because the trustees had given all decision-making authority to the construction manager-at-risk.

The public became aware of what was going on. I talked about the Project Labor Agreement during a morning talk radio show on KION 1460 AM in Salinas for about 20 minutes on September 20, 2004, and the Salinas Californian published its first story about the Project Labor Agreement on September 23, 2004.

On October 5, 2004, the board of the Hartnell Community College District scheduled formal presentations for and against the Project Labor Agreement secretly negotiated between its construction manager-at-risk DPR and construction unions. A union attorney made a presentation in support and I made a presentation in opposition. Representatives of Associated General Contractors, the Salinas Valley Chamber of Commerce, and the Salinas Valley Builders Exchange urged the board to vote on the Project Labor Agreement and rescind it. The story was reported in the October 6, 2004 Salinas Californian.

On October 11, 2004, several opponents of the Project Labor Agreement attended the college’s bond oversight committee meeting with the goal of convincing the committee to take a position against it. The committee turned out to be a joke: the meeting did not have a quorum (reportedly bond oversight committee meetings for Hartnell College never had a quorum) and the committee did not fulfill the requirements for membership under the California Education Code. (An educational district cannot have a bond measure approved under the Proposition 39 voter threshold of 55% unless it follows certain laws regarding the oversight committee.)

Meanwhile, a vote was scheduled for the board’s October 15, 2004 meeting on a resolution: “Endorsement of the Concept for a Project Labor Agreement Contract by Its Construction Manager, DPR, for Construction of the Project Up to and Including the CALL Building.” But on the day before the meeting, the resolution was removed from the board agenda.

On October 15, 2004, I filed another public records request with Hartnell College to obtain a copy of the construction manager-at-risk contract between DPR and the college. It turned out that the DPR contract approved on May 1 by the board of trustees only applied to the learning resource center and the parking garage. It was unclear to me how the board of trustees could approve a Project Labor Agreement between DPR and the unions for the CALL Building when DPR did not even have the contract to be construction manager-at-risk for this project. In addition, the Project Labor Agreement provided to me by the college only covered the learning resource center and the parking garage.

More board discussion of the Project Labor Agreement occurred at the November 2, 2004 meeting.

After four straight board meetings where the Project Labor Agreement was addressed or on the agenda (including two specially scheduled meetings), the board of trustees finally considered a resolution at their November 29, 2004 meeting to endorse a Project Labor Agreement imposed by DPR for construction of projects up to and including the CALL Building. This resolution meant that the Project Labor Agreement would be required on five small remaining contracts totaling $3 million on the $65 million parking garage and library, and it would also apply to all contracts on the large CALL Building yet to be constructed.

On a 4-3 vote, the board of trustees bucked the unions and administration and amended the resolution to eliminate the Project Labor Agreement requirement for the CALL Building. Then they passed the amended resolution on a 6-1 vote. (The threat of contract delays caused by litigation from DPR or the unions was a factor in the final vote.) There was also direction from trustees to the administration that the elected board must approve future Project Labor Agreement proposals.

While there was regrettably a Project Labor Agreement on five small contracts totaling $3 million, opponents of the Project Labor Agreement stopped the under-the-table deal from applying to future projects. We also made an important statement that unions and construction-managers-at-risk will be made accountable to elected boards if they ignore democracy and secretly negotiate Project Labor Agreements on publicly-funded construction.

Pugnacious Defense of Economic Freedom in Orange County Can Inspire California’s Free-Market Activists: My Article Today in www.FlashReport.org

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Today (March 11, 2013), www.FlashReport.org published my article Pugnacious Defense of Economic Freedom in Orange County Can Inspire California’s Free-Market Activists.

It’s inspired by the current sneaky effort of the Coast Community College District board of trustees to require contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement with the unions of the Los Angeles-Orange County Building and Construction Trades Council as a condition of working on construction projects funded by $698 million in borrowed money authorized by Measure M, approved in November 2012 by 57% of voters in Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Seal Beach, Westminster, Garden Grove, and Fountain Valley.

This college district serves a relatively affluent, Republican area. Why are four of the five board members Democrats, at least some of whom are inclined to give unions a monopoly on taxpayer-funded construction? Why doesn’t the one Republican on the college board tell people in the district what is happening, so they can comment on this costly proposal?

For more information, see these articles:

Union Officials and Their Buddies Running Orange County’s Coast Community College District Have Been Sneaking a Project Labor Agreement Past the Public – www.LaborIssuesSolutions.com – March 4, 2013

My Email to Orange County’s Coast Community College District Board of Trustees on Their Sneaky Project Labor Agreement for $1 Billion of Taxpayer-Funded Constructionwww.LaborIssuesSolutions.com – March 5, 2013

College District Caught in Labor Agreement Fight – Newport Beach/Costa Mesa Daily Pilot and Huntington Beach Independent – March 8, 2012

In my www.FlashReport.org article, I encourage Orange County Republican activists and other advocates of economic and personal freedom to study and learn from past examples of aggressive campaigns to stop and reverse Project Labor Agreements at local governments such as the County of Orange, Santa Ana Unified School District, and Rancho Santiago Community College District. Make elected officials – Democrats and Republicans – accountable to the people for their votes, as was done with State Senate candidate Ken Maddox in 2004.

Read Pugnacious Defense of Economic Freedom in Orange County Can Inspire California’s Free-Market Activists – www.FlashReport.org – March 11, 2013.

My Email to Orange County’s Coast Community College District Board of Trustees on Their Sneaky Project Labor Agreement for $1 Billion of Taxpayer-Funded Construction

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Here is the complete official record of consideration of a Project Labor Agreement by the elected board of trustees for the Coast Community College District. It includes an agenda, staff report, draft Project Labor Agreement, and minutes of the January 24, 2013 “special” meeting and the agenda and minutes of the February 6, 2013 meeting.

Complete Official Record: Project Labor Agreement Proposed for Coast Community College District – Measure M – 2013

Here is information about Measure M provided by the Coast Community College District and included in the official voting guide to citizens in the district:

Text of Coast Community College District Measure M – authorizing borrowing $698 million through bond sales – November 2012

Information on Coast Community College District web site about Measure M


From: Kevin Dayton [mailto:xxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 10:12 AM
To: xxxxxxxx
Subject: Comments on Proposed Project Labor Agreement for $698 Million Measure M at Coast Community College District

Dear Board Secretary Julie Frazier-Mathews and the Coast Community College District Board of Trustees:

Below, I explain why the voters in your district are justified in being outraged at the governance of their community college, especially concerning the proposed requirement for construction contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement with unions as a condition of working on your $698+ million taxpayer-funded Measure M construction program. (Total cost of program estimated at $957 million.)

1. No one expected a Project Labor Agreement to be considered because it was not referenced in the ballot statement for Measure M. Even in the staff presentation on January 16 during your Measure M study session, nothing about a Project Labor Agreement was included. Sneaky.

2. This issue was first placed on the college board agenda as a “Special Meeting” scheduled for 4:00 p.m. on January 24, 2013. Why so special? At least it was pulled from the agenda at the meeting.

3. The proposed public policy was disguised as a “Continuity of Work Agreement” rather than being called by its customary and traditional name, a Project Labor Agreement. Hiding it from the public?

4. There was not one reference to consideration of a Project Labor Agreement in the district president’s news briefs, a press release, or any other official material from the district. Was this an attempt to avoid public attention to a highly controversial proposal?

5. I could not find out what happened at the February 6 meeting until draft minutes were included in the March 6 agenda packet. What’s the big secret? Apparently staff isn’t even authorized to orally provide the public with the results of votes, let alone draft meeting minutes?

6. You’re considering a union monopoly on a $698 million construction program (not including state matching grants, interest on money borrowed through bond sales, and financial transaction fees). Your district is in a geographical region that cares about government fiscal responsibility and generally is not supportive of government-mandated union agreements for publicly-funded construction. (The Orange County Board of Supervisors voted 5-0 to ban them in 2009.) But no one bothered to inquire with any groups well-known for presenting an opposing view on Project Labor Agreements. Why? Didn’t you want to fully consider the pros and cons, such as the likely 10-15% cost increase in construction as shown in this report? Measuring the Cost of Project Labor Agreements on School Construction in California.

7. Your Vice Chancellor of Finance and Administration (Andy Dunn) is very familiar with Project Labor Agreements – he was immersed in fights over proposed Project Labor Agreements at the Foothill-De Anza Community College District (where a PLA was adopted in the end, 3-2 vote) and at the San Joaquin Delta Community College District (where a PLA was never implemented in the end). Surely he was aware that this proposal was highly controversial.

The Orange County Taxpayers Association must feel a little sheepish, getting hoodwinked by the college district into endorsing Measure M even though they specifically won’t endorse bond measures for which a Project Labor Agreement is planned. I bet Measure M would have failed without their endorsement – Measure M only passed with 57% of the vote.

Considering that one of the Coast Community College District board members is apparently running for Orange County Board of Supervisors and needs to get financial and organizational campaign support from the Los Angeles-Orange County Building and Construction Trades Council, I doubt the public uproar now being instigated about the proposed Project Labor Agreement will stop it. One of my axioms is “behind every push for a Project Labor Agreement is a politician with ambition for higher office.”

Nevertheless, the secrecy is over and the Coast Community College District is going to be in the news in Orange County as a local government eager to give unions a costly $698 million taxpayer-funded monopoly. In fact, this email will be the basis for a good op-ed. (“Sunshine Week” is next week, for which newspapers report on lack of transparency at local governments.)

No need to respond to me – I just happened to be the person who discovered the plot. You will be hearing from people who live, work, and pay property taxes in your district. You’re also going to hear from responsible and capable companies that worked on projects funded by your last bond measure but whose employees chose not to belong to a union.

Please make the wise decision to abandon this union deal.

Kevin Dayton
President and CEO
Labor Issues Solutions, LLC

Opponents of Project Labor Agreement for Solano Community College District Will Make Formal Presentation to Governing Board

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Vice President of Finance & Administration for the Solano Community College District has asked Nicole Goehring, Government Affairs Director of the Northern California Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC), to make a 15-minute presentation about Project Labor Agreements during the March 6 meeting of the Solano College Governing Board in Fairfield.

The board wants more in-depth background about the ramifications of a proposal to require its construction contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement with unions. This would be a condition of working on projects funded by borrowed money obtained through bond sales authorized by the $348 million Measure Q, approved by voters in November 2012.

(Union officials and lawyers: in keeping with your consistent views on appropriate limits of freedom of speech, be sure to contact this person and the superintendent-president and demand their withdrawal of the invitation. How dare this college give opponents of Project Labor Agreements a public forum to present their viewpoints?)

Voters were not provided with any indication from the district that unions would have a monopoly on construction work funded by these bond proceeds, although Associated Builders and Contractors, the Western Electrical Contractors Association (WECA), and the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction (CFEC) tried to alert the public to the district’s history of requiring contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement as a condition of working on the district’s projects funded by Measure G, approved by voters in November 2002. (See A Thoroughly Documented History of How Solano Community College Requires Contractors to Sign a Project Labor Agreement with Unions for the full details of that history.)

There was a small effort by the Central Solano Citizen/Taxpayer Group to warn voters that Measure Q bond proceeds would be squandered on Project Labor Agreements and other wasteful ventures. But a couple hundred yard signs and letters to the editor could not overcome the $227,600 Yes on Q campaign funded by special interests that feed off the college and its construction projects. (See complete list of contributors below.)

Here are my writings on Project Labor Agreements at Solano Community College District:

Governing Board for Solano Community College District in California Hears Debate Over Project Labor Agreement on $348 Million Bond Measure Q – February 6, 2013

Waste Once, Then Do It Again! Project Labor Agreement on Solano Community College District Board Meeting Agenda – February 5, 2013

Updated Chart! Who’s Paying to Convince Solano County Voters to Take On $348 Million of Additional Debt – Plus Interest – with Measure Q? – October 30, 2012

$348 Million Measure Q for Solano Community College: Yes on Q Campaign Fails to Submit Latest Legally-Required Campaign Finance Report – October 27, 2012

A Thoroughly Documented History of How Solano Community College Requires Contractors to Sign a Project Labor Agreement with Unions – October 21, 2012

Solano County’s Measure Q Looks Vulnerable to Defeat: Will Voters Refuse to Authorize Solano County Community College to Borrow $348 Million Through Bond Sales? – October 20, 2012

California Local Election Report: Construction Bond Measures for School Districts and Community College Districts – Four That Obviously Deserve a NO Vote – October 13, 2012

Contributors to Campaign to Convince Solano County Voters to Approve Measure Q

Total Monetary Contributions: $227,600

DONOR INTEREST AMOUNT
Piper Jaffray Investment Bank/Bond Broker $25,000
Kitchell Construction Construction Manager for Solano College Measure G $25,000
RBC Capital Markets Investment Bank/Bond Broker $18,000
Swinerton Construction Management $15,000
Steve M. Nielsen, MuniBond Solar Bond consultant $10,000
Steinberg Architects Architect $10,000
VBN Architects Architect $10,000
tBP Architecture Architect $7,500
Northern California Carpenters Regional Council Construction trade union $5,000
Sonoma/Napa Counties Electrical Contractors Construction trade union-affiliated Labor-Management Cooperation Committee $5,000
[Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 104] Bay Area Industry Promotion Fund Construction trade union-affiliated Labor-Management Cooperation Committee $5,000
Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 104 Issues Account Construction trade union $5,000
Robert A. Bothman Construction Construction contractor $5,000
Solano Community College Educational Foundation Construction contractor $5,000
Jelly Belly Candy Company Candy company based in Fairfield $5,000
Stradling , Yocca, Carlson and Rauth Law firm $3,500
WRNS Studio Architect $3,500
Barnes & Noble corporate headquarters Operates Solano College bookstore $3,000
Zampi Determan & Erickson Law firm for community college districts $3,000
United Association Plumbers & Steamfitters Local No. 343 Labor-Management Cooperation Committee Construction trade union-affiliated Labor-Management Cooperation Committee $2,500
Keenan and Associates Insurance broker for school districts $2,500
Timothy B. Kelly Executive with elabra: bond transaction management $2,500
CSDA Architects Architect $2,500
Alfa Tech Engineering $2,500
Sandis Civil Engineers Engineering $2,500
Northern California Mechanical Contractors Association Unionized construction trade association $2,500
Lionakis Architect $2,500
Ratcliff Architect $2,500
B&L Properties Property holding company in Fairfield $2,500
Dannis Woliver Kelley Law firm for school & college districts $2,500
Vanir Construction Management, Inc. Construction management $2,000
Hensel Phelps Construction Company Construction contractor $2,000
Dougherty & Dougherty Architect $2,000
Henley Architects & Associates Architect $1,600
CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group Engineering $1,100
Cement Masons Local Union No. 400 Construction trade union $1,000
BCA Architects Architect $1,000
Leland Saylor Associates Construction management $1,000
BRJ & Associates Construction management $1,000
William (Bill) T. Kelly, executive with SunPower Solar contractor $1,000
Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo Law firm for school & college districts $1,000
Stafford King Wiese Architects Architects $1,000
The Lew Edwards Group Political consulting firm in Oakland, works to pass bond measures $1,000
LPAS Architect $1,000
Roy Stutzman Consulting Financial consulting for school & college districts $1,000
Student Insurance Insurance company for school districts $1,000
Daniel Iacofano CEO of MIG – campus planning & design $1,000
KPW Structural Engineers Engineering $750
Creegan + D’Angelo Infrastructure Engineers Engineering $500
MatriScope Engineering Laboratories Engineering $500
PAE Consulting Engineers Engineering $500
TLDC Architecture Architect $500
Devin Conway, engineer for Verde Design, Inc. Landscape architect, engineering, construction management $500
Turley & Associates Mechanical Engineering Group Engineering $500
Noll & Tam Architect $500
Optimal Inspections Inspector $500
Kurt Forsgren, executive with Webcor Builders Construction contractor $500
Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin Metz & Associates Polling firm for political campaigns $500
Denis Honeychurch Solano College Board Member $500
Dovetail Decision Consultants Furniture, fixtures and equipment for educational districts $500
Sylvia Kwan Principal with Kwan Henmi Architecture Planning $500
Andre Stewart, The Doctors Company Candidate for Benicia School Board $250
Gary Moriarty, executive with Kitchell Construction management $250
Teresa Ryland, executive, TRR School Business Consulting Consultant for education administrators $250
Thorton Tomasetti Engineering $250
International Union of Elevator Constructors Local No. 8 Construction trade union $200
Bricklayers and Allied Craftsworkers Local Union No. 3 Construction trade union $200
Blach Construction Construction contractor $200
Marsha Perry Park, executive with Vanir Group Construction management $100
Jason Reiser, engineer with Miyamoto International Engineering $100
Law Offices of Larry Frierson Lawyer for community college districts $100
Elñora Tena Webb, President, Laney College Peralta Community College administrator $100
Yulian Lisioso Solano College Administrator $100
Sarah Chapman Solano College Board Member $100
Rosemary Thurston Solano College Board Member $100
Anne Marie Young Solano College Board Member $100
James Dekloe Solano College Faculty Member $100
Dee Alarcon President, Solano Community College Educational Foundation $100
Unitemized $50
TOTAL $227,600