S.M.a.r.t. periodically invites guest columnists to write opinion articles on topics of particular interests to our readers. Below is an article written by Nikki Kolhoff about the controversial ½ billion dollar Santa Monica School District bond that you will be voting on November 5:
Lack of Oversight and No Accountability plus it Hurts our Students and Teachers
Residents of Santa Monica are being asked to approve a fourth school bond since 2006, bringing us to a grand total of $2.2 BILLION in school construction bonds for SMMUSD. Proponents of the bond tell voters the money will be spent well and, not to worry, there is robust oversight. The reality is:
- No legally binding project lists;
- No effective oversight by the Bond Oversight Committee (BOC);
- No meaningful bond audits by the outside certified public accountant (CPA);
- No linkage of approved projects to actual academic objectives; and
- No effective School Board oversight of facility projects.
No Legally Binding Project Lists
Under Proposition 39, school bonds only need 55% to pass in exchange for giving us a project list and oversight committee. But school districts, guided by their lawyers and bond campaign consultants, have pushed the envelope so that there is almost nothing these bonds can’t be spent on.
No Effective Oversight by the Bond Oversight Committee (BOC)
Proponents claim, “An oversight committee of Santa Monica residents will ensure that bond funds are spent as promised.” But nothing specific is promised. In fact, the bond itself contains a laundry list of general types of projects, not specific project details. It also states,
“The School Board is hereby authorized to alter the scope and nature of any of the specific projects described… Project prioritization is vested in and will be determined by the District Board.”
This means there is nothing for the BOC to confirm other than the bonds weren’t spent on salaries for teachers or school admin (construction admin salaries are paid by bonds). The BOC met only twice last year and took no action. There is no requirement for any financial background to be a member of the BOC. The only action the BOC undertakes in the year is to approve the audit presented by the CPA. One BOC member is also an officer of the political campaign committee for the bond, which appears to be a conflict of interest.
I attended the most recent BOC meeting this year and only four of the seven members showed up, barely a quorum. The meeting was led by Steve Massetti, the district’s bond manager whose company is paid $4 million per year from bond funds, and Carey Upton, the district’s Chief Operating Officer. They managed to give an update on all campuses and dozens of projects in a little over an hour with very little detail. Then they presented how much money had been spent on each “project” as defined by the district and how much was left to spend. They didn’t have written materials on the status of the work and only provided top-line totals for project spending, like “Samohi Phase 3: $160,100,514”.
One BOC member took no notes and asked no questions. Two scribbled notes on their one-page agenda, and just one member asked a lot of questions including where the spending breakdowns were. “Oh, we can give them to you if you ask,” said Massetti and Upton. Shouldn’t our $4 million per year include that level of detail? Again, no action was taken by the BOC. I asked if they needed to vote on anything to exercise oversight and Massetti said no.
No Meaningful Bond Audits by the Outside Certified Public Accountant (CPA)
Regarding the CPA, the bond says we will get, “annual, independent financial and performance audits to ensure that the bond proceeds have been expended only on the school facilities projects listed below.” But there are no specific projects “listed below” in the bond. Instead, we see a catch-all list of generic items, including construction, but also land acquisition, furniture, computers, and … workforce housing. In reality, the school district decides what it wants to do, then CPA confirms the bond money was spent on whatever that is.
That’s it. Neither the BOC nor the CPA has any say over project selection upfront. They only come in after the money is spent. And it’s not clear that there are even formal locked project budgets for the BOC or CPA to compare what was spent to what was budgeted. Overruns can be covered by the next bond.
No Linkage of Approved Projects To Actual Academic Objectives
Neither the BOC nor the CPA asks if it’s a good project, if it’s the best use of limited funds, whether the building functions, whether it serves any need of the students or teachers, or whether it has any measurable impact on educational outcomes.
Let’s look at a few of the most egregious examples of what many members of the community consider to be misuse or mismanagement of bond money:
- Failing to repair leaky roofs at Muir/SMASH for over a decade, resulting in the school closing and being rebuilt from the studs for almost $70 million, and the elimination of a neighborhood school from Ocean Park.
- Demolition of the History Building, instead of engaging in adaptive reuse, over the objections of a petition signed by 6,000 people, the Santa Monica Conservancy, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the majority of Santa Monica’s Neighborhood Organizations, and Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow.
- Construction of a $100 million “practice gym” with a lack of competition seating and glass walls so athletes have to wear sunglasses indoors, even though the community warned the school board for years about these design flaws.
- Construction of the $200 million Samohi Discovery Building with multiple system failures, including HVAC, faucets, bad smells, and roof leaks.
- Construction of multiple classroom buildings throughout the district with glass walls over the objections of students and teachers who said they don’t feel safe and don’t want glass walls.
Surely these rise to the level of some action by the BOC or CPA as part of the robust oversight we were promised? No. They did not. The minutes reflect no oversight action taken by the BOC and there is no mention of these problems in any CPA audit. Carry on.
As the bond language makes clear, completely non-educational initiatives are being introduced and executed without explanation such as the inclusion of housing in a school facilities bond. This opens up a whole new set of issues like who gets the housing, for how long, and at what subsidized cost? There is no outside oversight into what any of this entails.
No Effective School Board Oversight of Facility Projects
Some might say we should give the “new administration” a chance, but there is nothing new about our district leadership. The same people have been in charge for the last eight years and prior two bonds. Before being appointed Superintendent after Dr. Drati quit, Dr. Shelton was an Executive Director, and the Samohi Principal before that. He was hired by the school board precisely because he would continue to implement their goals. Both Bond Manager Steve Massetti and COO Carey Upton have also been there the last eight years. And most importantly, the same school board majority (Laurie Lieberman, Richard Tahvildaran-Jesswein, Jon Kean and Maria Leon-Vasquez) have been in power that whole time. While Jennifer Smith has not been on the board for the last 8 years, she was part of the Yes on SMS bond committee in 2018 and on the school board since 2020.
On a board of seven, four votes control all the bond money. The board majority likes new projects and shiny things they can brag about. There is no meaningful opportunity for community input into the projects before they move forward. Once they start, they don’t look back or evaluate their own work. Never have they conducted a postmortem to hear from the community what worked and what didn’t. They don’t change course because because they don’t see that as a chance to improve, but rather admitting they were wrong, and a sign of weakness. When the community tries to express concerns, the board covers its ears, digs in its heels, and moves forward with more resolve. This is not oversight. This is not accountability. This is not democratic.
Plus, the school board doesn’t really pay much attention to the details and trusts staff to do the right thing. As Carey Upton once told me, “The Board has neither the time nor the bandwidth to micromanage the majority of decisions on facility projects. The Board gives direction/guidance and expects FIP staff and our consultants (architects, construction/ project managers, engineers, etc.) to work with staff, faculty, students, and community members to develop the projects… During Major Action and Discussion items, the Board may give direction to staff regarding projects. This is not an ‘approval’ per se, but an opportunity for the Board as a body to review design, programs, scope changes, and budgets. Often the direction is ‘keep doing what you’re doing unless we tell you differently.’”
Well, Enough Is Enough.
It’s time for the voters to tell them differently. The school board incumbents are running unopposed, so we cannot change things at that level. Our only option is to vote NO on this bond and demand an outside audit. It’s the only way to ensure past spending and results are reviewed, and that we can determine the best path forward for effective use of bond funds to support our students and teachers. At a minimum, we can try to ensure that we no longer do harm to students and teachers.
Vote No on QS.
www.votenoonqs.org
S.M.a.r.t Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow
Robert H. Taylor AIA, Architect, Dan Jansenson, Architect & amp; Building and Fire-Life Safety Commission, Mario Fonda-Bonardi AIA, Samuel Tolkin Architect Planning Commissioner, Michael Jolly, AIR-CRE, Marie Standing. Jack Hillbrand AIA, Landmark’s Commissioner
For previous articles see www.santamonicaarch.wordpress.com/writing
