Tag Archive for Catherine Ritch

A Thoroughly Documented History of How Solano Community College Requires Contractors to Sign a Project Labor Agreement with Unions

Measure Q is on the November 6, 2012 ballot in Solano County. It authorizes the Solano County Community College District Governing Board to borrow $348 million for construction by selling bonds. Taxpayers will pay back the bonds, with interest and financial transaction fees.

Anyone planning to vote on Measure Q should take a look at the 20-event history below and examine the linked primary source documents. It shows how six of the seven members of the Solano Community College Governing Board in 2003 and 2004 required contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement with unions to work on projects funded by bond sales authorized by the earlier Measure G. It also shows how unions used a lawsuit threat and other antics to subsequently expand coverage of the Project Labor Agreement beyond its original intent.

If you’re completely unfamiliar with this issue, here’s an example of a $17 million Solano Community College Measure G project (Vacaville Center – New Classroom Building) with a requirement in the bid specifications that contractors sign a Project Labor Agreement with unions.

A Thoroughly Documented 20-Point History of How Solano Community College Requires Contractors to Sign a Project Labor Agreement with Unions

1. On November 5, 2002, 55.6% of Solano County voters approved Measure G, which authorized the Governing Board of the Solano County Community College District to borrow $124.5 million for construction projects by selling bonds. Approval required 55%, so the measure barely passed. The ballot measure language and associated information provided to voters mentioned NOTHING about requiring contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement with unions.

2. On April 12, 2003, the Governing Board had its first public discussion about requiring contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement with unions, as indicated in the meeting minutes. Obviously the unions were aggressively lobbying behind the scenes:

Trustee McCaffrey stated that he will be looking for a decision on the Project Labor Agreements that were presented recently…

Trustee Keith stated that Dr. Perfumo [the college president] has met with Lou Franchimon [the head of the Napa-Solano Building and Construction Trades Council] and others to talk with them about the PLAs…

Trustee Honeychurch also stated that he did not want to be intimidated, blackmailed or coerced by a labor union into a labor agreement that cost money, simply for political expediency…

3. The Napa-Solano County Building and Construction Trades Council finally managed to get a presentation in support of a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) on the Governing Board’s September 3, 2003 meeting agenda. To their dismay, opponents of Project Labor Agreements found out about the plot and demanded to have equal time with their own presentation. At the meeting, Sandra Rae Benson of the unabashedly pro-union law firm of Weinberg Roger & Rosenfeld made a formal presentation to the board advocating for a Project Labor Agreement on behalf of her union clients. Her presentation was backed up by public comments from several union officials. Eric Christen of the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction made the official presentation against the proposed Project Labor Agreement, with supplemental support from Kevin Dayton of Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC).

4. At the Solano Community College Governing Board’s September 17, 2003 meeting, a representative of the Measure G construction manager Kitchell Capital Expenditure Managers (CEM) reported his firm was collecting information on Project Labor Agreements and would present a report at an informational hearing during the November 5 board meeting.

Read September 2003 Solano County newspaper coverage of the Project Labor Agreement for Solano Community College.

5. In October 2003, college administrators reportedly expressed concerns behind the scenes about the cost of using and administering a Project Labor Agreement. Union officials realized that college administrators were dragging out the process and interfering with their demands, and obviously they did not want a repeat of the drawn-out fight in 2000 and 2001 at the Vallejo City Unified School District over the implementation and wording of their Project Labor Agreement. Associated Builders and Contractors and the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction had alerted the county’s three local newspapers to the Project Labor Agreement, and unwanted media attention and community concern about the Measure G program was growing.

6. After Kitchell CEM presented its Project Labor Agreement report to the Solano Community College Governing Board at its November 5, 2003 meeting, board member Pam Keith attempted to make an “end run” around the college administration and initiated a vote to negotiate a Project Labor Agreement with the unions. Unfortunately for her and the unions, the vote was not indicated on the meeting agenda and was a violation of state laws concerning proper advance public notification of agency actions. The vote was not taken.

Read November 2003 and December 2003 newspaper coverage of the Project Labor Agreement for Solano Community College.

7. On November 19, 2003, the Solano County Community College District Governing Board voted 6-1 to negotiate with union representatives for a Project Labor Agreement on Measure G projects. The construction manager was directed to provide the board with a progress report about negotiations in January, with the board voting on the final version of the Project Labor Agreement in February. Union officials “generously” offered to administer the Project Labor Agreement for the community college district at no charge.

One Solano Community College board member, Jerry Wilkerson, voted against the Project Labor Agreement proposal and later voted against the final negotiated agreement. He later explained his reasoning:

Wilkerson said the entire Vacaville community, not just union workers, helped to pass Measure G, so everyone should have the opportunity to bid on those projects. “Otherwise you close folks out who would normally bid,” Wilkerson said.

8. On January 21, 2004, the president of Solano Community College District provided the district‘s Governing Board with an update on negotiations with union representatives for the Project Labor Agreement. It was obvious at this meeting that most board members intended to give the Napa-Solano Building and Construction Trades Council every term and condition it wanted in the agreement.

9. A group of major Solano County public works contractors met at a restaurant in Fairfield on March 16, 2004 and concluded that there was no chance of stopping the Project Labor Agreement because of the college board’s strong support of the union political agenda.

10. On March 17, 2004, the Governing Board of the Solano County Community College District voted 6-1 to approve a negotiated Project Labor Agreement for certain projects at the college district funded by Measure G. It was not a complete victory for the unions, as the union requirement (as this time) only covered some of the larger projects. In addition, the agreement contained two provisions for accountability: (1) the designation of a “pilot project” for the college to evaluate the Project Labor Agreement, and (2) authority for the district to suspend the Project Labor Agreement if it determined the agreement increased costs or reduced competition.

Read the Project Labor Agreement for certain projects at Solano Community College funded by Measure G.

11. Associated Builders and Contractors helped the campaigns of Jackie Crockett and Bill Tanner, candidates running for the Governing Board of the Solano Community College District in November 2004, but both lost. A solid majority of board members would continue to support the Project Labor Agreement.

12. In March 2005, the college district’s construction manager Kitchell CEM sent a notice to area contractors that had worked or were prospective bidders for work at Solano Community College. Kitchell CEM requested comments about the Project Labor Agreement included in the bid specifications for the pilot project: Solano College Building 300/500/1500, a $3.2 million project with a bid deadline of April 19, 2005. As least a dozen local contractors informed Kitchell CEM that their companies do not bid on projects with requirements to sign a labor agreement with unions.

Read documents related to the bidding and performance of the Project Labor Agreement pilot project at Solano Community College.

13. On bid day – April 19, 2005 – a mere TWO contractors submitted bids for the pilot project, a classroom renovation job that typically would have received several bids. Inside sources reported that the construction management firm, Kitchell CEM, submitted an analysis of bid results to the college administration, along with numerous comments from contractors against the Project Labor Agreement, and urged the staff to recommend that the board of trustees rebid the project. This was consistent with Section 2.13 of the Project Labor Agreement, which stated “If fewer than four (4) General Contractors bid on these Project(s), and if the owner determines the primary cause of the overbid is the Project Labor Agreement, the owner reserves the right, without reservation to reject all bids and rebid the Project without the Project Labor Agreement.”

14. On May 4, 2005 – the day of the board’s vote to award the contract for the pilot project – a newspaper article in the Fairfield Daily Republic (SCC Board to Decide on Renovation Project) reported on the dismal bidding participation for the project. Union officials were reportedly livid about this revelation going public and revved up their lobbying machine. At the board meeting, Kevin Dayton of Associated Builders and Contractors asked board members to reject the bids and rebid the project without a Project Labor Agreement for comparison purposes. With absolutely no comments from governing board members or college administrators, the board voted in front of a row of stern-faced union officials to award the project to the low bidder.

15. In the end, Kitchell CEM never produced a report on the final outcome of Solano Community College’s pilot project under the Project Labor Agreement, as required in Section 2.12 of the agreement. The project ended up with an additional $486,000 in unexpected expenses, $72,000 of which resulted from errors and omissions by the contractor. The project was finished on time only through some extraordinary measures by the contractor. But the Project Labor Agreement endured. It wasn’t about performance: it was about union construction monopolies.

16. Now union officials began their campaign to pressure the board to require contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement for additional projects not listed in the Project Labor Agreement approved by the board in 2004. They began requesting the college to provide them with certified payroll records for the employees of non-union contractors on small projects funded by Measure G. They cited a cement slab with excess moisture as a reason for requiring contractors on additional projects to sign a Project Labor Agreement. One board member simply declared at a meeting that every contractor should sign a Project Labor Agreement so that the unions could oversee the work.

17. In September 2007, Solano Community College withdrew a bid notice for a basic gymnasium renovation and then re-advertised the contract with a Project Labor Agreement in the bid specifications, even though the Project Labor Agreement approved by the Governing Board did not include this specific project. Governing board minutes did not indicate how or why this happened. To find out what was going on, Associated Builders and Contractors submitted a request for public records to the administration at Solano Communty College.

18. The college administration provided Associated Builders and Contractors with a letter to the college chancellor from Sandra Rae Benson of the law firm of Weinberg Roger & Rosenfeld. The letter threatened the college with “lengthy and costly litigation” unless the Project Labor Agreement was “enforced” for the gymnasium renovation, even though it was not included in the list of projects covered under the agreement. The letter also claimed, without any evidence of course – see #15 above – that “the pilot projects were completed very successfully.” Finally, the letter claimed that “the amount of damages sustained by the Unions and their members of having this work performed outside of the scope of the PLA [Project Labor Agreement] would be substantial.” The president acknowledged that she had decided on her own authority to expand the Project Labor Agreement to additional work at Solano Community College.

19. Associated Builders and Contractors circulated the union lawsuit threat to elected officials and community leaders throughout Solano County, with a warning about what happens when a local government starts doing the will of union lobbyists and lawyers. In addition, an opinion piece from Associated Builders and Contractors exposing the union lawsuit threat was printed in the “Sunday Forum” of the January 6, 2008 Vacaville Reporter newspaper: SCC Trustees Irresponsible with Taxpayers’ Bond Money. It included some advice five years in advance to Solano County voters:

Solano County voters should be aware that unions are controlling the construction at Solano Community College and using their lawyers to expand their monopoly beyond even what the college Board of Trustees had originally approved. When Solano Community College’s Board of Trustees again asks taxpayers for yet more money for college construction projects, consider how one special interest group has a firm grip on the college at your expense.

20. On August 1, 2012, the Governing Board for the Solano Community College District voted 6-1 to ask voters for approval to borrow $346 million through bond sales. To maximize the Yes vote from people who judge a book by its cover, the bond measure name is stuffed with words: it is called the “Student/Veterans’ Affordable Education, Job Training/Classroom Repair Measure.” Of note is that the college’s press release about the bond measure going on the ballot doesn’t mention the cost of the bond. (Is that important?)

Three of the six board members who were on the board when it approved the Project Labor Agreement in 2003 and 2004 (Pam Keith, Phil McCaffrey, and Denis Honeychurch) are still on the board. The minutes of the August 1, 2012 Solano Community College board meeting are quite revealing about the plans for money borrowed through bond sales authorized by Measure Q. Speaking in support of the bond measure at the August 1, 2012 meeting was Lou Franchimon, head of the Napa-Solano Building and Construction Trades Council, which he said supported the bond measure 100%. Public comment also featured this statement from Monica Brown, a candidate for the Solano Community College Governing Board:

Ms. Brown expressed concern that if the Bond Election is passed and approved by the voters that we employ Solano County workers from our community – “not someone from Arizona.” Ms. Brown encouraged that the College employ local firms and include a project labor agreement in contracts, and also to make sure our facilities are built to last. Ms. Brown also encouraged the Board to work hard on this initiative, including walking precincts and participating in phone banks.

One board member, Catherine Ritch, wisely voted against putting this union-backed measure on the November 6, 2012 ballot.

Trustee Ritch commented that she will be voting no on this item. She stated that she does everything she can to support the mission of Solano College, but is troubled by this measure. She thanked the staff and Bond Counsel, but stated her concerns are that she would have been more comfortable if the Educational Master Plan and Facilities Plan were approved. She is uncomfortable with the fact that the document stated the Board has reviewed and prioritized projects which have not been adequately identified. She is uncomfortable asking her family, friends, and neighbors to increase their property tax assessment when it is not specific how the money is going to be allocated. Trustee Ritch encouraged the Board to take a deep breath, work diligently to finalize the two documents, cost them out, and define specific needs.

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?

What happens when you live in an elite socio-intellectual enclave where everyone agrees with your worldview? You’re shocked when you discover ordinary people who disagree with your plan to take and use their money. I suspect that’s the reason why Measure Q in Solano County (in the San Francisco Bay Area, stretching toward Sacramento) is now vulnerable to defeat.

Measure Q authorizes the Solano County Community College District to borrow $348 million for construction by selling bonds to wealthy individuals and institutional investors. Solano County taxpayers will need to pay this $348 million back, plus interest payments. (It’s not free money.)

In November 2002, 55.6% voters in Solano County barely approved Measure G, which authorized the Solano Community College District to borrow $124.5 million for construction by selling bonds. (The threshold for approval was 55%.) The governing board then voted 6-1 in April 2004 to force contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement with the Napa-Solano Building and Construction Trades Council to work on Solano County Community College District projects funded by proceeds from bond sales authorized by Measure G. This union deal received ample news media attention and public criticism.

Despite these warning signs, the people now pushing Measure Q obviously were unprepared for aggressive opposition. The Yes on Q campaign is apparently relying on rudimentary campaign web sites (www.solanocollegeyesonq.com and www.facebook.com/YesOnQSolanoCollege) and endorsements from local politicians to win over Solano County voters. The Vacaville Reporter criticized the backers of Measure Q in an October 13 editorial:

Where in the world is the campaign for Solano Community College’s Measure Q? And what does it say that the college faculty this week sponsored a voter registration drive and campus forum on statewide ballot measures but not, according to its press release, on the local bond?

Perhaps this lack of action from unions explains why Measure Q supporters are pressuring chambers of commerce in cities such as Vallejo to support this tax increase. (See Chamber Seeks to Avoid Controversy on Measure Q – Vallejo Times-Herald – October 14, 2012).

The identities of the big backers of Measure Q are no surprise: it’s the Napa and Solano Counties Central Labor Council, with the Napa-Solano Building and Construction Trades Council and its various construction trade unions.

I think Solano County’s top union officials will need to call some bond brokers and other financial services firms in New York City and get some more money for mailers and KUIC radio commercials, quick! In the meantime, here’s what’s happening in the campaign against the $348 million (plus interest) Measure Q:

According to an October 11 article in the Vacaville Reporter (Solano County Taxpayers Association Issues Their Proposition Recommendations), the Solano County Taxpayers Association opposes Measure Q because it is “a 40-year dream for the college that includes buildings that were listed on the previous bond that is still unpaid.”

The Central Solano Citizen/Taxpayer Group is opposing Measure Q, as reported in Opponents Mobilize Against Local Tax Measures – Fairfield Daily Republic – October 4, 2012. As reported in an October 20, 2012 article in the Fairfield Daily Republic (Aging, Limited Facilities at Heart of Solano College Bond Effort), “opponents and Trustee Catherine Ritch have questioned the timing of the bond, saying there are still aspects of the planning that need to be done. A formal opposition was recently formed to Measure Q by the Central Solano Citizen/Taxpayer Group, which said the bond isn’t specific enough and some of the projects won’t directly benefit students.”

Here’s what the Central Solano Citizen/Taxpayer Group posted on its web site about Measure Q:

Make no mistake: This is a huge tax! For what purpose? We start by asking, What did the district do with the $125 million bond measure passed 10 years ago? Why weren’t “earthquake/fire safety code” issues taken care of then? Next, Why are computers and office equipment in the bond? Such things will be obsolete and discarded in a few years; but we’ll be paying for them for decades. Now look at the objectives listed. Notice how vague they are. No specific projects. No timetable. Measure Q is a blank check for almost anything the board wants to do. Finally, we’re still paying for the last bond, and will be for another 20 years. Measure Q will double or triple what you’re paying now, and for 40 years. Everyone will pay: individuals, businesses, even renters when the landlord adds the tax – yes, it’s a tax – into your rent. Remember, Solano Community College was on probation for administrative issues – like accounting for funds – and is still on the “warning” list. Don’t you have doubts about handing over so much money? Don’t you think we’re taxed more than enough already? Vote NO on Measure Q.

On October 17, the 6-1 tax-and-spend majority on the Governing Board of the Solano Community College District was stunned when someone actually showed up in their lair in Vallejo to speak out against their agenda. Here is a report from Eric Christen of the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction:

The meeting began at 6:30 p.m., and other than the Trustees, the room contained only a few staff and a reporter for the college newspaper. This is how entities like this prefer it: no public oversight and never having to answer to the public for their actions or lack thereof. They just want your tax dollars with zero accountability. Government defined.

Last night, however, these Trustees were held accountable to the public at least for 3 minutes while I explained in great detail why it is they did not deserve to be given any more tax dollars in the form of construction bond money.

I reminded them that in 2004 the Solano Community College Governing Board placed a union-crafted Project Labor Agreement (PLA) on Measure G bond work. The $124.5 million Measure G had been passed by voters in 2002 with no hint that a controversial PLA would be used. The PLA vote occurred despite vigorous opposition from local contractors and contractor associations such as ours.

For the new Trustees who weren’t on the board at that time, I explained how PLAs force workers to pay union dues, pay into union pension plans, be hired through a union hiring hall, and explicitly forbid non-union apprentices from working at all. I did thank them in that because of their actions, and others, PLAs had become so controversial that they have been banned in 11 entities in California including the City of San Diego, where in June citizens voted 58%-42% to forbid them.

I also reminded then that at the time of their vote in 2003 the College’s own construction manager told the board a PLA would add 5-15% to the cost of any project. Last summer, I further explained, the most comprehensive study on Project Labor Agreements ever conducted was released by the National University System Institute for Policy Research and found PLAs add 13-15% to the cost of a project. What that means for SCCD was their $124.5 million bond was reduced by up to $24 million in value.

Finally I stated that SCCD now wants another bond, this time for $348 million. The reason? Measure G wasn’t large enough to cover their needs. I asked them if they thought they could have used that extra $24 million they wasted under a PLA.

I left them with the promise that my editorial that ran in the county’s newspapers (We Deserve the Entire Story on Measure QVallejo Times-Herald – October 13, 2012 and PLAs a Waste of MoneyVacaville Reporter – October 14, 2012) was just the opening salvo in what would be an escalating campaign to educate voters about why they need to think twice before giving any more money to this college. Two of the three board members who were on the board in 2003 and who voted for the PLA (Honeychurch and McCaffery) and who are still on the board were less than thrilled to have me there calling them out.

The Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction issued a press release on October 17 in conjunction with this public comment: Solano Community College District Trustees Being Called Out Tonight About Their Plans to Place New $350 Million Construction Bond Under a Union-Friendly Project Labor Agreement.

Finally, a professor in the Solano Community College engineering and physics department is perplexed by the college board’s logic in trying to borrow another $348 million for construction: Concerns About Measure QVacaville Reporter – October 14, 2012 and Measure Q IssuesVallejo Times-Herald – October 10, 2012. Give her a Profile in Courage award.

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

California’s elected school boards and community college boards have put 106 measures on local ballots for the November 6, 2012 election asking voters to authorize borrowing money for construction through bond sales. At least four of these proposed bond measures are so stunningly misguided that citizens in these districts should take democratic action, defy the well-funded Establishment, and reject the debt with a NO vote.

Below, I list and explain the four districts where voters should Close the Spigot of taxpayer money to the elected boards. First, some general background about educational facility bond measures on the November 6, 2012 ballot:

CALIFORNIA – 106 Bond Measures for Construction at Educational Districts

A web site – www.californiacityfinance.com – lists 106 school construction bond measures on the November 2012 ballot in California. An article from School Services of California and reprinted on September 26, 2012 by the Coalition for Adequate School Housing (CASH) confirms there are 106 proposed bond measures. That article also notes that 106 is the highest number of California school bond measures ever considered in an election. It also claims that voters authorize the sale of bonds in California school districts about 70% of the time.

The number of bond measures presented to voters throughout California has trended relentlessly upwards since November 2000, when 53.4% of California voters narrowly approved Proposition 39, which dropped the voter threshold for approval of educational construction bond measures from 66.67% to 55%. This was the start of California’s massive accumulation of debt for educational construction at the state and local levels of government.

A few professional political consulting firms (such as Tramutola Advisors, based in Oakland, and TBWB Strategies, based in San Francisco) specialize in the business of convincing voters to vote Yes for school bond measures. They are adept at emotive messaging (“it’s all about the kids”) and at exploiting technical loopholes to leverage public funds as much as legally possible to develop and promote the bond measures.

Funding for the campaigns to pass the bond measures is collected from banks, bond brokers (underwriters), and other financial service corporations that make money from bond transactions. This has generated some criticism; see Vote No on Sacramento’s Measures Q and R web site for a compilation of 2012 news articles about bond underwriters and campaign contributions.

Bond measures also generate business for the construction industry. A perusal of contributors to bond measures usually reveals architects, engineers, contractors and construction trade associations, and construction trade unions.

Have YOU checked the list of contributors to campaigns to pass bond measures in your K-12 school and community college district?

Rarely does significant opposition develop against proposed bond measures, as shown by how often official voter information guides outright lack an opposition statement to a proposed bond measure. When there is organized opposition, it usually centers around a regional taxpayers association, with help from the local Libertarian Party or Tea Party organizations. Generally, opposition campaigns are passionate, but amateurish. They usually don’t have any money to spend on getting their message out to voters.


Earlier this year, I circulated a proposal for “Operation Close the Spigot,” a program to have a well-funded, coordinated opposition campaign statewide against the most egregious bond measures proposed for California K-12 school districts and community college districts. While a formal organization has not yet emerged to close the spigot of taxpayer funding, my agitation on this issue – like my agitation for charter cities – has inspired some promising grassroots movement for local individuals and organizations to gather together and make a more serious effort to inform voters about the huge debt burden accumulating on Californians as a result of the parade of bond measures.

As the November 6, 2012 election approaches, here are the most promising developments for organized opposition against four foolish proposed educational construction bond measures in California.


The “Fair and Open Competition – Sacramento” committee that had organized in 2011 to enact Fair and Open Competition ordinances in the City of Sacramento and the County of Sacramento reorganized its leadership and membership and decided to expose the foolhardiness of the Sacramento City Unified School District’s proposal to borrow another $414 million by selling bonds. (District taxpayers currently owe $522 million from the last two bond measures.) This group was inspired to oppose Measures Q and R on the November 2012 ballot because the school board requires its construction contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement with unions to work on Sacramento City Unified School District contracts. In fact, the leading spokesperson to pass Measures Q and R is school board member Patrick Kennedy, who has been and may still be employed by Sacramento construction trade unions or affiliated entities.

The Sacramento City Unified School District sold notorious Capital Appreciation Bonds to bury future generations in debt. These are bond issues for which investors collect a huge amount of compound interest when the bonds mature, rather than getting interest payments at regular intervals and then getting the principal back when the bonds mature.

Fair and Open Competition – Sacramento submitted excellent arguments against Measure Q and against Measure R for the official voter information guide. They tried to discourage Sacramento area business groups from knee-jerk “it’s for the kids” endorsements of Measures Q and R. Finally, they established a web site to make a logical, fact-based case against borrowing more money through bond sales to investors. As I declared in a Tweet yesterday, “Never before has a campaign web site so thoroughly analyzed and hammered a California school construction bond measure: http://fairandopencompetitionsacramento.com.”

The Sacramento Bee’s editorial board has not taken a position yet on Measures Q and R. On October 14, 2012, the Sacramento Bee endorsed Measures Q and R (Sacramento City Unified School Bonds Are a Smart Investment for Students), with the Project Labor Agreement policy as the only negative reference:

Opponents object to the district’s use of project labor agreements for large projects – as has this editorial board. But the district points out that only 14 of 74 projects since 2005 have had project labor agreements. Union and nonunion shops get a chance to bid on the vast majority of projects under $1 million.


The Official Statement for the West Contra Costa Unified School District’s latest bond sale contains some harsh facts about this fiscally irresponsible, mismanaged school district in an economically struggling area. Residents and businesses in this school district have taken on a staggering amount of debt through construction – $1.77 billion to date by borrowing money from five bond measures since 1998. (A sixth attempt failed in 2003.) Five is not enough, so now there is the $360 million Measure E.

Chevron owns 13.1% of the assessed property value of this district, and what will happen when Chevron finally decides to shut down its Richmond refining facility? (I’ve been predicting for 14 years it will become a distribution center for fuels refined in Mexico.) And Chevron is not the only problem with the school board’s rosy expectations for future tax collection. In 2009-10, total property value tax assessment in the district dropped 12.3%, and it dropped another 7.7% in 2010-11. (It was up 1.1% in 2011-12, but that’s not a good rationale to take on more debt.)

Bond Measures for West Contra Costa Unified School District

Authorized Bond Amount. Does Not Include Interest and Fees. Does Not Include State Matching Grants.

Date of Election

Ballot Designation


$40 million June 2, 1998 Measure E Approved by 76.0% of voters
$150 million November 7, 2000 Measure M Approved by 77.5% of voters
$300 million March 5, 2002 Measure D Approved by 71.6% of voters
$450 Million September 16, 2003 Measure C Rejected in a special election because only 59.1% of voters approved the bond measure, which needed two-thirds voter approval
$400 million November 8, 2005 Measure J Approved by 56.9% of voters
$380 million June 8, 2010 Measure D Approved by 62.6% of voters
$1.27 billion Total from five bond measures from 1998 to the present.
$360 million November 6, 2012 Approved for consideration by district voters through a resolution of the school board on August 1, 2012

No surprise, the school board requires its construction contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement with unions to work on West Contra Costa Unified School District projects. It was the first school district in Northern California to adopt a Project Labor Agreement, leading the way for followers such as the Vallejo City Unified School District, the East Side Union High School District (in San Jose), and the Oakland Unified School District. (By the way, Oakland USD and East Side Union HSD also have big bond measures on the November 2012 ballot.)

Of course, the West Contra Costa Unified School District sold Capital Appreciation Bonds to bury future generations in debt. One school board member – Charles Ramsey – even recognized the risk, but voted for the West Contra Costa Unified School District to sell Capital Appreciation Bonds anyway.

The Contra Costa Taxpayers Association is leading the opposition to Measure E and submitted excellent arguments against West Contra Costa Unified School District’s Measure E for the official voter information guide. Opposition also includes a small group of local activists who understand the debt implications of this latest bond measure. Unfortunately, the web presence of opposition arguments to Measure E is sparse. A local political and community activist, Charley Cowens, writes a blog called Mystery Education Theater 3000 about this district, which his kids went through, and there is also a blog called West Contra Costa Unified School District Quality Improvement Project. This is a tough place to advocate for fiscal responsibility.

Today (October 13, 2012), the Contra Costa Times newspaper endorsed four bond measures in San Francisco’s East Bay (Four School Bond Measures that We Believe Should Pass), but held off on discussing West Contra Costa Unified School District: “Five East Bay school districts seek voter approval Nov. 6 for bond measures to fund school construction. We recommend passage of four. We will consider the fifth, West Contra Costa’s Measure E, on Monday.” It looks like this district’s proposed bond measure will get a special editorial from the Contra Costa Times on Monday, October 15, 2012.

UPDATE: The Contra Costa Times slammed the proposed bond sales through Measure E at the West Contra Costa Unified School District: see Yes on Measure G, No on Measure E in West County – Contra Costa Times – October 15, 2012. The editorial points out that the official ballot information for Measure E neglects essential information for voters to consider (business as usual), including the huge outstanding debt obligations from five previous bond measures, the projected tax burden in a few years of $290 per $100,000 of property value, and the projection for repayment in 40 years at disproportionately high interest rates. The editorial concludes with this blunt statement:

District leaders say they need the additional bond money to complete their school construction program. That’s what they said 2½ years ago for the last bond measure. They claimed then that they needed more because rising construction costs had eroded their purchasing power. In today’s economy, that excuse won’t work. We endorsed the successful 2010 measure. But we warned that would be the last time. We meant it. As far as we are concerned, this train has run out of track. Vote no on Measure E.

3. SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT – $2.8 Billion Proposition Z

No, that $2.8 billion jaw-dropping figure is not a typographical error. It represents the unapologetic arrogance of a union-controlled school board that is spending itself close to bankruptcy; in the meantime, let the good times roll!

In November 2008, voters in the San Diego Unified School District approved a ballot measure (Proposition S) authorizing the school board to borrow a whopping $2.1 billion for construction by selling bonds to investors. With a new pro-union majority also elected to the school board, the board (on a 3-2 vote) subsequently required construction companies to sign a Project Labor Agreement to work on San Diego Unified School District construction projects of more than $1 million funded by Proposition S. Unions now have total control of the San Diego school board, which has already voted 5-0 for a union Project Labor Agreement on construction funded by the proposed Proposition Z.

Of course, the San Diego Unified School District sold Capital Appreciation Bonds to bury future generations in debt. The board passed a resolution claiming they wouldn’t sell any more Capital Appreciation Bonds. (See my article Board of San Diego Unified School District Senses Voters May Reject $2.8 Billion Bond Measure (Proposition Z) Because of Board’s Past Use of Capital Appreciation Bonds.) Now the Voice of San Diego reports (on October 12, 2012 in School Officials Pitch Prop. Z As The Only Alternative to Exotic Loans) that school district officials are claiming the San Diego Unified School District will have to sell MORE Capital Appreciation Bonds if voters reject Proposition Z. Unbelievable!

The San Diego County Taxpayers Association jumped on Proposition Z right away as unworthy of voter support. This particular taxpayers’ organization in San Diego extensively researches ballot measures and is very cautious about taking opposition positions.

The San Diego Union-Tribune editorial board has urged voters to reject Proposition Z: Vote No on San Diego School Bond: It Props Up a Broken Status QuoSan Diego Union-Tribune – September 22, 2012.


The $124.5 million Measure G bond approved by Solano County voters in 2002 was not enough for the businesses and individuals who feed off money borrowed through bond sales. Especially interested in this new proposed $348 million bond measure are construction unions who obtained monopoly control of Measure G work with a Project Labor Agreement on Solano Community College District projects.

Stunningly, one of the board members – Catherine Ritch (representing Fairfield) – voted NO on putting the bond measure on the November ballot. Ritch was appointed to the Solano Community College District Governing Board in March 2012. She is not running in 2012 for a full term, so she could actually vote based on what is right for the people rather than for what is politically expedient. She also has a professional background as a legislative and administrative government analyst, so she was evidently too informed to be hoodwinked by this scheme.

The Fairfield Daily Republic newspaper was not impressed with the 6-1 vote to ask voters to borrow $348 million by selling bonds. In an August 5, 2012 editorial entitled “Board Appears Set for Local Tax Measures,” the Daily Republic said the following:

Solano Community College jumped on the tax bandwagon this week when trustees voted 6-1 to place a $348 million property tax measure on the November ballot. Trustee Catherine Ritch voted no, and for good reason. She said the finer points of the proposal had not been laid out completely for the board to consider, and called for the board to take “a deep breath” before approving the staff recommendation.

The Central Solano Citizen/Taxpayer Group is opposing Measure Q, as reported in Opponents Mobilize Against Local Tax MeasuresFairfield Daily Republic – October 4, 2012.

In an October 13, 2012 opinion piece in the Vallejo Times-Herald (We Deserve the Entire Story on Measure Q), Eric Christen of the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction considered the cost increases caused by the Project Labor Agreement on construction funded by Measure G:

…now this same college [Solano Community College District], which still has governing it three of the board members who voted for the PLA [Project Labor Agreement], wants almost $350 million for another bond measure. The reason? Measure G wasn’t large enough to cover the college’s needs. Do you think they could have used that extra $24 million they wasted under a PLA?

The SCCD Governing Board should be honest about whether or not a PLA will be used on this bond should it pass. Voters should have all the information possible before voting to put themselves another $350 million in debt, especially if what they get for that debt is reduced in value in order to placate union special interests. Every candidate running for the board should also be asked whether they would vote to have a PLA placed on Measure Q.

Board members and candidates won’t answer that question. Although the answer is YES to a Project Labor Agreement, Solano County voters won’t support Measure Q if they learn that unions will get a costly government-mandated monopoly on the work.

Solano Community College District sold $1,584,811.70 in Capital Appreciation Bonds in 2005 as part of a large package of refunding bonds. Will the college board do it again on a much larger scale when they have authority from voters to sell $348 million instead of $124.5 million in bonds?

A FINAL QUESTION: Why Should You Care?

As a beleaguered Californian bombarded by bad economic and political news every day, you may now be cynically asking, “Why should I care?” You might have these thoughts:

  • If you live in or pay property taxes to one of these four educational districts, you have probably assumed that any local community opposition to the bond measure will be weak, ineffective, and easily crushed by the bank-and-union funded campaign machine that supports it.
  • If you don’t live in nor own property in one of these four educational districts, you may conclude that citizens who choose to live there accept or are resigned to seeing their school districts waste taxpayers’ money. It’s not your problem – you live elsewhere.
  • And if you live in California but don’t own any property, you may assume that these ballot measures don’t apply to you, because you don’t pay the property taxes for the principal and interest that goes to bond investors, nor the fees to financial service companies for issuing the bonds. You think you have no financial interest in the matter.

Well, you SHOULD care, for four reasons:

  1. Imagine the power of the message voters would send to the state’s political leadership if they rejected huge bond measures to pay for construction in these districts. By using their democratic power and defeating these bond measures, California citizens would nudge their elected officials toward more accountability to the taxpayers instead of the financial industry and union lobbyists.
  2. Voter rejection of bond measures in these four districts would repudiate thoughtless borrowing, taxing, and spending, including the sale of Capital Appreciation Bonds and the adoption of public policies such as Project Labor Agreements that impose costly union monopolies on taxpayer-funded construction.
  3. Voters might encourage some relatively thoughtful school board members in these four districts and other school districts to stand up to the most absurd demands from union lobbyists for more money and more laws. (Surely there are elected board members in school districts who honestly want to focus on student academic performance and aren’t warped by selfish ambitions for higher office.)
  4. Finally, voters would send a message to every California school board member that “it’s for the children” is no longer a sufficient message in itself to collect more taxes for the purpose of repaying money borrowed with interest and fees from investment banks and insurance companies.

Californians need to realize that EVERYONE in the state pays for construction in these three large school districts. The obscure State Allocation Board regularly provides matching grants for construction projects at school districts with proceeds from bond sales authorized by three past statewide propositions totaling $35.8 billion:

Even renters and consumers pay for bond measures. Property owners consider property taxes as a cost of doing business. The tax burden “trickles down” to all Californians.

In addition, Californians need to start thinking about how some of the largest beneficiaries of these bond measures are investment banks, brokerage firms, and other corporate providers of financial services. The so-called “One Percent” makes good money off of Californians’ emotional desire to “help the children.” School districts borrow money now and arrange for property owners to pay it back, along with significant interest payments and financial transaction fees.

Future generations of Californians are going to be crushed under the burdens of debt repayments for the school construction programs of today. For example, the debt of the San Diego Unified School District for school construction bonds was listed in May 2012 at $4.7 billion. It’s time to Close the Spigot and protect those future generations.