ALPINE TAXPAYERS TO APPEAL GROSSMONT RULING

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version Share this

 

East County News Service

Image from the Alpine High School Citizens Committee that has worked for years to get a high school built.  Now a judge’s ruling could deprive Alpine of bond money that voters approved for the school.

May 15, 2016 (Alpine) — An attorney representing the Alpine Taxpayers for Bond Accountability has told East County Magazine that his client is prepared to file an appeal if Judge Joel Pressman’s preliminary ruling setting aside a preliminary injunction against the Grossmont Union High School district stands. 

“The weight of the world is on our shoulders to get the community what they have fought for so long, what they have paid for and what they deserve,” attorney Craig Sherman told ECM. “We respectfully disagree with the decision.”

At stake is $42 million of Proposition U bond money that Alpine voters believed would be used do to build a high school—a high school also mentioned in a prior bond.  A county Grand Jury report titled “Fool Us Once, Fool Us Twice” was highly critical of Grossmont’s handling of the bond money and failure to build the school.

Plaintiffs contend the district spent money on less important projects including some not mentioned in the bond. But Judge Pressman hinged his tentative ruling on bond language which stated funds “may be built” on constructing an Alpine high school, concluding the bond authorized but did not require such construction.  He also found that although the threshold for enrollment was met three times, it didn’t count since construction never began.

Sherman says the question really boils down to “what is set forth in the bond measure and …what does the average voter believe it to mean?”

If the judge makes his temporary decision a final ruling, the taxpayer group will seek an expedited appeal, Sherman said, adding that “this does qualify to be expedited under appeal under at least two statutes.”

But even an expedited appeal could take six months or more.  Asked what happens to the money in the meantime, Sherman stated, “We are hoping that Grossmont will take the prudent and responsible approach and won’t squander the fund when they know it’s at risk.  “If the plaintiffs win on appeal and the district has spent the money, the attorney says, “It’s at their own peril. “ The district could then have to repay the money out of its general fund.

Another twist to this story is that a unification petition is pending before the State Department of Education that could ultimately allow Alpine residents to break off from the Grossmont District and shift into the Alpine Union School District.  Taxpayers had hoped the court would mandate Grossmont transfer the $42 million in bond money previously frozen by the court to allow the Alpine district to build the school –an option supported by the Grand Jury’s findings.

“I don’t know if unification is a basis to be expedited,” Sherman said when asked. But he added, “There is relation between unification, funds, and getting the high school built. “

He noted that when the bonds were sold to voters, “one of the primary purposes when both measures were debated was Alpine getting a high school.”

He took issue with Judge Pressman’s contention that the enrollment trigger only counts after construction starts, meaning the district could simply avoiding every meeting that trigger by choosing never to break ground.

“When they control the bids, or so they say, and the starting of building, it begins to become illusory – sort of an unenforceable contract where they can do whatever they want.  I believe it makes the whole bond promise, voter legislated bond measure, too discretionary,” Sherman concludes. “It’s unenforceable; it doesn’t mean anything because they control all the cards. It’s not a promise at all.”

Grossmont Superintendent Ralf Swenson, in a statement after Judge Pressman’s ruling earlier this month, called the action “a win for the students, teachers and the taxpayers of East County, as our Governing Board can now resume their efforts to see that the taxpayer’s dollars are put back to work for the benefits of our schools and the students that we serve. All students at all schools in our district should have classrooms and facilities that meet the current educational needs of those students, and that ensure their safety.”

Swenson did not explain how the educational needs of safety of Alpine students would be met without building the new high school, however.  Among the concerns of Alpine parents is student safety, since several high school students from Alpine have died in the past commuting up to 37 miles round trip to other district schools. The community has been working for 20 years to get a high school built.


Error message

Support community news in the public interest! As nonprofit news, we rely on donations from the public to fund our reporting -- not special interests. Please donate to sustain East County Magazine's local reporting and/or wildfire alerts at https://www.eastcountymedia.org/donate to help us keep people safe and informed across our region.

Comments

Alpine wins for LOW spending, GUHSD wins HIGH lawyer fee award!

GUHSD's San Francisco law firm argued and lost this same $42 million preliminary injunction case last year, in front of the higher CA Court of Appeals. And yes they lost. Alpine wants money set aside, requires an injunction, a set aside to build what they already pay for in bond assessed property taxes. Unification, for an Alpine K-12, must not depend on Grossmonts grotesque spending to have a dime left over, as there are going wild with overspending on litigation and projects, Alpine is barebones litigation spending wise.

The higher Court has before adjusted to correct the questionable jurisprudence of the lower court, and changed a lower Superior Court decision in favor of the Alpine case, KEEPING Alpines temporary 'INJUNCTION INPLACE. Let's move forward Alpine, APPEAL, The sanctity of a Prop 39 school improvement bond, one where a relaxed voter threshold of 55% passes rather than 66%, is needing scrutiny by the CA Appeals Court. Our bonds, both Prop H and U, have been mis-handled. These Bond laws, hold our Grossmont School,a District to a strict project list, as a law requirement. Then that voter approved list must be adhered to.

The GUHSD has gone hog wild with its spending, by modifying the project list as it has wished, with no regard for the mandated restrictions on their discretionary use of bond funds. There must be strict oversight that holds them accountible or responsible under Prop 39. The GUHSD's Governing Board appointed members of the Citizens Bond Oversight Committee is and always has been, a GUHSD rubber stamp. They review, audit, and approve with very little substantive scrutiny of GUHSD project list deviations. For example; it was stated there is no funds for projects designated for "parity", That parity was beyond the scope of both H and U monies. Yet there are many, many, projects underway, or in design, that are not listed in the original project list in their present scope and ante-upped scale. Money is Alpine's problem.

Alpine doesn't posess the war chest of funds that GUHSD taps. GUHSD bond money spending is nearing $4,000,000 for litigation. It is Goliathe v. David, Alpine must Appeal, find the funds to hang in there. GUHSD has outspent Alpine by a 7 to 1 factor. For the $100K Alpine might need to appeal, the GUHSD TREND is that they could counter with $700K! That is the pattern so far. The San Diego County Taxpayers Association is highly critical of GUHSD in a recent review of their litigation spending. It is a GUHSD runaway money train. Will they crash and burn at the Court of Appeals? They have already once lost to a higher court reversal. The San Diego County Grand Jury was highly critical.

Just last week the San Diego Taxpayers Association (SDCTA) publicly admonished the GUHSD for their litigation spending, and poor treatment of Alpine taxpayers. Hopefully the East County Magazine reports on the SDCTA's critical admonishment of the GUHSD use of bond funds.