No on A!

Our thanks to the 74,192 Contra Costa voters who saw through CCCCD's schemes, and voted "NO" on Measure A.   Unfortunately, the measure passed narrowly, with 57% of the vote in a bond election which required 55% approval for passage (down from two thirds since 2000).  

Measure A is the $286.5 Million bond measure promoted by the Contra Costa Community College District (CCCCD) and appearing at a polling place near you on Election Day, June 6. 2006.   

If you voted NO on Proposition 39, you should vote NO on 
Measure A.  Measure A's unscrupulous tax promoters hope to 
take further advantage of Prop. 39's lowering of the threshold for school bonds to just 55% of those voting in the bond election.  

  At left is CCCCD's new Dougherty 
  Valley Campus, under construction.

  Remarkably, even as the District
  claims to be desperate for funds to
  modernize and upgrade facilities
  that are "more than 40 years old,"
  they overspend vastly on salaries...

  ... and build a brand new campus 
  just 7 miles from existing Las Positas
  College.   A Las Positas trustee 
  called CCCCD's irresponsible action
  "a sad waste of taxpayers' money."

In November, 1996 and again in November of 2000, enough Contra Costa Voters  had the good sense to vote NO on Measures D and K, earlier bond measures orchestrated by the irresponsible Contra Costa Community College District, to defeat those measures.   

Unfortunately, Prop. 39 passed in the meantime, nullifying a 121-year old state Constitutional protection for California school-bond voters, and requiring only a 55% affirmative vote to approve school bonds....

  .... So CCCCD returned to the ballot in 2002, still seeking too 
  many dollars, with too little sense, and passed a $120 Million 
  bond measure that would have failed under the old rules.    

  And they're already back for more -- now, $286.5 Million more,
  in principal alone, if Measure A passes!

Measure A involves four major issues:

1. Can CCCCD demonstrate a legitimate $286.5 Million "need," 
   costing Contra Costa taxpayers over half a billion dollars more 
   (on top of 2002's $261 Milion bond measure) when interest is included? 

The answer is NO.   Measure A includes extensive funding for repair,  renovation, and furnishing projects that could and should be accomplished with general-fund dollars.   But Measure A is a bait-and switch scheme.  
If passed, the millions in new taxes it generates would free up general- 
fund money for the next round of salary and benefit increases.  

2. Supposing CCCCD could prove some genuine need for $286 Million (principal only): are long-term bonds, imposing new 25-year debt loads on taxpayer homes, the appropriate funding mechanism? 
   
   The answer remains NO. State taxes provide most of the funding for community colleges, and California accumulated a $13 billion tax
   overpayment as of the year 2000, then squandered the surplus.   It’s time
   to force politicians and agency bureaucrats to behave responsibly -- and
   the way to do that is with tax cuts, not new tax liens on our homes.
   
3. Has CCCCD "made every effort to manage resources wisely," 
   as Measure A proponents tend to claim? 
   
   Again, NO.  CCCCD has overspent vastly on salaries and benefits — especially for the district’s numerous bureaucrats — while irresponsibly neglecting its existing facilities.
   
4. Should CCCCD be trusted with so much money? 
   
   Once more, NO. The district has been involved in several fiscal scandals,
   and has recently had to pay large sums to a chancellor it forced out. 

SchemeFPPC Findings Regarding Failures to Disclose Campaign Funding
Ballot Arguments Opposing Measure A  

But CCCCD's salaries + benefits grew by 211.0% !!!

CCCCD spends far too much in taxpayer funding on salaries and benefits.

  These are junior colleges, not 4-year institutions!

CCCCD's excessive 1996 measure failed, despite CCCCD's illegal expenditure of public funds to promote it.  (The district cannot legally solicit, collect, or spend campaign funds -- nor directly promote a ballot measure.  
It did all of these, with public dollars, even after being advised by certified mail 
that such activities are illegal, under California Ed. Code Section 7054.)

The District was fined $16,000 by the Fair Political Practices Commission for
its failure to file campaign-finance reports -- for campaign funding that wasn't
legal in the first place.  See the FPPC's August, 1998 summary of the case
(go to page 5:  "In an effort to gain voter approval of Measure D, CCCCD sent 
a brochure and  paid for advertisements urging voters to vote for Measure D.")  

You'll need Adobe's free Acrobat reader to see the FPPC page:  

CCCCD officials later paid the $16,000 FPPC fine with more taxpayer dollars.

As even the pro-tax Contra Costa Times editorialized (Mar. 13, 1997):

"College officials, in campaign documents they were forced to file, 
admit to spending more than $44,000 on printing, postage and mailing 
labels for the Measure D campaign.  Almost $18,000 came from the                     district's non-profit foundation [troubling in itself, since these are tax-
exempt funds being used to promote higher taxes], but almost $26,000
came directly from the district's own funds -- that is, from the taxpayers."

" ...[College officials] should make it clear to the public that they know
what they did was wrong and they won't do it again."                             

 So now you're supposed to trust this irresponsible outfit with over $500 Million  
 more in new taxes?  We hope that voters are smarter than that!                  

  And with  PROPOSITION 39 having passed, notice  
  that other school districts are rushing to the ballot 
  to cash in on more new property taxes.    

Below are the ballot arguments we opponents submitted on March 17 and  
(Primary Argument) and March 24 (Rebuttal Argument).  The Measure A
proponent submissions, meanwhile, say that "Those who signed the argument against did not get answers before making uninformed and dated accusations." 

Not so; our data is drawn directly from CCCCD documents and newspaper reports.   It's the tax promoters who obscure the fact that Measure A would free 
up general funds (that should be spent to maintain buildings)  for more salary 
and benefit increases.  

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE A TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 2006

DEMOCRATS AND “LESS FREQUENT VOTERS” — IDENTIFIED BY CCCCD’S $36,250 PUSH POLL AS MEASURE A CAMPAIGN TARGETS ¹ — SHOULD JOIN OTHER CITIZENS IN REJECTING THIS $286.5 million bond.  

          ·     CCCCD’s 2002 BALLOT ARGUMENT — FOR THEIR $120 Million bond THEN — claimed CCCCD “serves nearly 60,000 students and will grow up to 30% over the next ten years.”   Now it’s allegedly “more than 35,000 students.”  In fact, CCCCD enrolled fewer than 30,000 full-time equivalent students this year.

          ·     during 2004-05, CCCCD “enrolled the equivalent of 1,700 fewer full-time students… than in 2003-04” (Contra Costa Times, February 26, 2006).

          ·     TAXPAYERS ALREADY FUND REDUNDANT facilities.  CCCCD’s new Dougherty campus is only 7 miles from Las Positas College.   As a Chabot-Las Positas Community College District trustee said, “This is a sad waste of taxpayers’ money.”  At Cal State East Bay ’s Concord Campus, “attendance has been consistently sparse since the site opened in 1992” (Contra Costa Times, October 22, 2004).  

          ·     Measure A’s advertised  $9.00  per  $100,000 tax rate — “based upon... projections and estimates only” — was contrived from how-much-can-we-get-away- with polling.¹   

          ·     taxpayers have generously supported state EDUCATION bonds,   
from which CCCCD has received many millions — including Proposition 203 ($3.0 Billion, 1996); Prop. 1A ($9.2 Billion, 1998); Prop. 47 ($13.0 Billion, 2002); 
Prop. 55 ($12.3 Billion, 2004).  November’s state bonds anticipate many billions more for schools.  

          ·     “Citizens’ oversight committees” become just crony committees, stacked with bond supporters.  CCCCD personnel nominated all 15 “independent oversight committee” members for CCCCD’s 2002 bond.     

Measure a, another irresponsible Prop. 39 bond, requires just 55% approval.    Citizens opposing Prop. 39’s assault on Prop. 13 should…  

Vote NO on measure A!

www.ACCTaxpayers.com

(925) 930-2825

Michael Arata — Industrial Consultant; Former                    Marilynne L. Mellander —        
Chemistry and Mathematics Instructor, Swim Coach            Coordinator, Save El Sobrante; 
                                                                                                 Licensed Medical Technician

Richard S. Colman — Founder and Owner of                     Donald E. Lively — Lafayette   
a Biotechnology Company                                                     Lafayette Taxpayers Association 
                                                                                                Spokesman; Telecom Consultant

Marla J. Kaste — Community College Student; 
Certified Phlebotomist; Co-Founder, Concord
Association of Taxpayers  

¹ We do not agree with the CCCCD pollster's assertion that "those who can evaluate
   the district... give the district high marks,"  for all the reasons we document here.  
   The pollster's company was paid at least $36,250 in taxpayer funds by CCCCD.

PRIMARY ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE A TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 2006

CCCCD passed a $120 Million bond measure just four years ago. This
new Measure A seeks another $286.5 Million in bonded indebtedness — with
advertised general purposes nearly identical to 2002’s.  Apparent payback cost
(principal + interest) for both measures together would likely exceed $800 Million.     

new local taxes, compensating for CCCCD’s building-maintenance
neglect, would leave more general-fund dollars for NEW raises.

Taxpayers already provide generously for local community colleges, through state funding.   But Measure A’s new property taxes would facilitate CCCCD’s continued overspending on salaries and benefits.   

·     CCCCD’S enrollments are flat or declining.  2005-06 “Resident Full -Time  Equivalent Students” are estimated at 1.6% fewer in number than in 2004-05. 

·     BUT CCCCD’s numerous administrators remain especially well compensated.  At $218,700 in base salary alone, CCCCD’s chancellor is paid considerably more than California ’s $175,000 limit for governors.  CCCCD Presidents
get up to $143,124; Vice Presidents, $129,888;  Vice Chancellors, $129,660;  Associate Chancellors, $117,456;  Directors, $117,456; Deans, $111,792....  No wonder existing facilities have been neglected!

·    Had CCCCD compensation structures not raced past inflation
and enrOllment DURING 1985 - 2005, the district would have
millions more annually for building upkeep.

·    DESPITE certified-mail advisement that public-money campaign 
     funding is illegal, CCCCD spent thousands promoting its 1996 bond scheme.    
     CCCCD later paid a $16,000 FPPC fine — also using taxpayer funds —  for not
     reporting its impermissible campaign-finance expenditures.  Other fiscal scandals 
     followed.

·     per-person Federal, state, and local taxes ALREADY consume more
than food, clothing, and shelter combined.  Taxpayers must require
more efficient use of existing tax dollars!

CCCCD’s 2002 bond campaign was financed mostly by beneficiaries of CCCCD
spending, including contractors, vendors, tax-exempt college foundations….  We
expect a rerun in 2006.  In contrast, our opposition to Measure A is grass-roots.

PLEASE JOIN US IN VOTING NO ON MEASURE A!

                                           Alliance of Contra Costa Taxpayers
                                           Ken Hambrick, Chairman; Former Grand Jury Member

  The "Citizen Oversight Committee" for CCCCD's $120 Million
  2002 bond published its first "Report to the Community"
  (front page shown at left) -- spending over $17,000 for 
  190,000 copies distributed as a four page color brochure in    
  the Contra Costa Times -- just before absentee voting got 
  under way for this new 2006 bond measure, in 2006.  Both 
  are called "Measure A" -- and many readers won't distinguish 
  between the measures.   We believe that was intentional.

  CCCCD's Community Relations and Marketing Office 
  developed a draft for the text of the "Report" last November.

Community Colleges Are Spendthrifts
by Dr. Vlado Bevc
Appearing in SRV Times, April 26, 2006

Another election, another expensive bond measure. Contra Costa Community College now wants $286 million in addition to the $120 million it got only four years ago. If there is in fact a real need for the new funding it demands now, it is only evidence that the CCCCD cannot operate within the means already lavishly provided to it by the taxpayers.

Send a message to the profligate spenders of your money and vote no on Measure A this June.

Vlado Bevc

Taxpayers Should Respond:  NO WAY on Measure A!
by Michael Arata, published in CC Times, May 21, 2006

Should Democrats appreciate being pigeon-holed by that agency’s $36,250 tax-funded push poll as submissive targets for new taxes?  

Should voters at large support encroachments on Prop. 13, including certain bond measures now requiring only 55% approval instead of the 66.7% required from 1879 to 2000?    

“NO,” you say?  Then you should likewise reject Measure A, the Contra Costa Community College District’s gigantic new bond scheme.   

Voters approved a $120 Million CCCCD bond measure just four years ago.  Having absorbed another $90 Million in state bond money, the District will receive more millions if November’s huge new state bonds pass.  But Measure A’s tax promoters present virtually the same arguments as in 2002  — “aging facilities needing repair and modernization,” etc.  

Misdirected Dollars  

Meanwhile, the District has constructed an entire new campus just 7 miles from Las Positas College — “a sad waste of taxpayers’ money,” commented a Las Positas trustee — even as Concord’s Cal State East Bay campus remains an underused white elephant.   

CCCCD boasts $2 Million in annual maintenance expenditures, whoop-de-do, just 1.4% of its $140 Million general-fund budget.   The standard for heavy-traffic buildings is 4%, or $5.6 Million here.  But general fund dollars not spent on upkeep are available for salaries; so Measure A is a borrowed-money, bait-and-switch con game to compensate for building neglect.     

As is, CCCCD’s chancellor can now get up to $218,700 in base salary alone, considerably more than California ’s $175,000 limit for governors.  CCCCD Presidents receive up to $143,124; Vice Presidents, $129,888;  Vice Chancellors, $129,660;  Associate Chancellors, $117,456;  Directors, $117,456....      

From 1984-85 to 2004-05, CCCCD enrollment increases and Bay Area inflation together grew 146%, compounded.   But salaries and benefits grew 211%, factoring in the District’s loudly heralded “cutbacks” and employees’ tiny contributions to health-insurance costs. 

Had compensation growth been limited to combined enrollment and inflation increases — plus, let’s say, another 15% in aggregated real growth — $18 Million more would be available annually from CCCCD’s general fund for maintenance and capital improvements!

While seeking Measure A’s unwarranted new millions, by the way, CCCCD is quietly negotiating new raises.

Inverted Priorities, False Pretexts  

CCCCD’s #1 announced goal is to “achieve enrollment growth to better serve our community.” It’s the other way around: serving the community should drive enrollment growth. But their real objective is increased per-student state apportionment money, to better serve their pocketbooks.

Enrollment figures seem to confuse them.  They alleged “nearly 60,000 students” during their 2002 bond campaign.  Now, they say, it’s “more than 35,000 students,” supposedly an increase  of “more than 7% over the past ten years.”  

District attendance has in fact declined, to 24,635 resident full-time-equivalent students (FTES) in 2004-05 — and a reported further “lowering of the projected resident FTES… in 2005-06”— from 26,594 resident FTES in 1995-96.  

Further, CCCCD has admitted registering hundreds of high school students in “concurrent enrollment” P.E. classes.  That scam padded enrollment figures, double dipped from taxpayer funds, and enriched CCCCD’s budget.    Meanwhile, reports the Times,  CCCCD’s Regional Training Institute “has failed miserably,” and “has lost millions of dollars since 2001.”  

Among other scandals, the District’s administrators spent over $40,000 in its 1996 bond measure campaign, despite certified-mail advisement that such public-money campaign funding is illegal,  They later paid a $16,000 FPPC fine — again using taxpayer funds —  for not reporting their impermissible campaign-finance expenditures.  

Measure A’s tax promoters trumpet an “independent citizen oversight committee” to ensure spending as advertised, i.e., to validate expenditures opponents have identified upfront as invalid.   CCCCD personnel nominated all 15 current members of 2002’s Measure A “oversight” committee.   

Last November, CCCCD’s Marketing Office drafted a self-congratulatory "com- munity report,” ostensibly to originate from the “oversight” committee.   Spending $17,000, CCCCD’s hucksters finally published their glowing report on the 2002 bond last month, just before absentee voting began on this new Measure A.   

CCCCD’s 2002 bond campaign was 80% subsidized by present or prospective providers of goods and services to the District — smelling very much like shakedowns or kickbacks.  An instant replay is likely in 2006.  In contrast, our grass-roots opposition hopes you’ll vote NO on A! 

Arata, a former chemistry teacher and swim coach, is a board member of the Alliance of Contra Costa Taxpayers, www.ACCTaxpayers.com.  

Community College District:  Dialing for Dollars 
(Original Text as Submitted)
by Michael Arata, published in CC Times, February 24, 2007  

As the Times recently reported:   California community college leaders “are doing more to get people in than to help them finish” (Feb. 2).  

Irresponsible front-loading by community college administrators likely occurs because tax funding of their operational budgets (and resultant salaries and benefits) is ordinarily tied to enrollments — i.e., warm bodies, not academic success.  

Indeed, the Contra Costa Community College District proclaimed its No. 1 goal for 2005-07 is to “Achieve Enrollment Growth to Better Serve Our Community.”  That’s cart before horse, of course.   

So what they really mean is “…to Better Serve...”themselves.   And that’s what CCCCD’s buckrakers have done, despite declining enrollments.  CCCCD projects 27,930 “full-time-equivalent students”(FTES) for 2006-07 — 10% fewer than in 2003-04.   

But total compensation is up 4.4% for fewer employees, not counting a $15.6 Million “one-time contribution,” obtained by “borrowing” FTES from one year to another, to begin backfilling a $200 million black hole in bountiful but unfunded retiree health benefits.  

In an earlier scheme, exposed eventually in a state investigation, the district padded attendance figures with “concurrent enrollments” of hundreds of local high school physical education students.   And as the Times reported last May, the district’s Regional Training Institute “failed miserably,” and “lost millions.”    

Meanwhile, buildings had fallen into disrepair.  But taxpayers continued enriching a multi-layered superstructure of CCCCD presidents, vice presidents, vice chancellors, directors....  

Like other public-sector entities, CCCCD sought to compensate for facility neglect by shifting maintenance needs from its general fund budget — whence also come new salary and benefit dollars — to bonds, which taxpayers repay, with interest.   

District contractors and other favored vendors typically finance such new-tax bond campaigns, a practice which smells like shakedowns and kickbacks.    

But in 1996, CCCCD administrators themselves spent over $44,000 pushing that year’s bond measure, despite my certified-mail warning to CCCCD’s Board that such tax-underwritten campaigning is  illegal.  The Fair Political Practices Commission later fined the district $16,000 for failing to report political contributions it couldn’t legally make in the first place.  

The district lost that bond campaign, and another in 2000, while enrollments trended downward but salaries and benefits continued exceeding the combined effect of inflation and (negative) enrollment growth. 

But then, after state voters were misled into reducing the school-bond authorization threshold from two-thirds to 55%, CCCCD passed a $120 Million bond in 2002.   They came right back last year with a $286 Million bond and passed that one too, freeing more general fund dollars to inflate paychecks.

As in 1996, the district utilized public resources in maneuvering to pass its 2006 bond, beginning with a $36,250 push poll to identify likely “yes” voters.   

Those included captive-audience students, naturally.   So CCCCD officials produced handbill texts specific to each college campus, advising students to “Vote Yes on Measure A.” The handbills were then given to the student member of CCCCD’s Governing Board for campus distribution.   The Diablo Valley College version is posted at www.ACCTaxpayers.com/Pages/MeasureA06.htm .  

CCCCD Chancellor Helen Benjamin named a DVC professor and one-time district critic as her “interim special assistant” — for a five-month term that  coincided with the Measure A drive and its immediate aftermath, and paying $8,867 per month, before benefits.  The special assistant apparently spent much or most of his time promoting Measure A.    

Other public agencies, including local K-12 districts, BART, and the East Bay Regional Park District, have become similarly cavalier in supporting their tax campaigns with public resources.  A conscientious Grand Jury — or an intrepid District Attorney — could perform a great public service by grounding these unscrupulous, high-flying spendthrifts.  

Arata is a board member of the Alliance of Contra Costa Taxpayers.