Mayor takes aim at Sweetwater during speech
Chula Vista Mayor Cheryl Cox delivers final state of the city, addresses issues at Sweetwater
By Allison Sampite-Montecalvo
SDUT
Feb. 25, 2014
CHULA VISTA — Chula Vista Mayor Cheryl Cox delivered her final state of the city address Tuesday night to a packed city hall, using the forum to zero in on the Sweetwater school district, which she said needs to improve its relationship with the community...
Cox said the Sweetwater Union High school District's problems continue to affect the city’s reputation and students’ future. A major issue in the district has been the prosecution of four of five school board members on corruption charges. One has since pleaded guilty and resigned...
Cox said she’s done watching poor governance get worse.
[Maura Larkins comment: I see no indication at all that Sweetwater has gotten worse. Mayor Cox seems to be forgetting decades of bad behavior. Or perhaps Cox is only worried about contractor kickbacks, not the deeper corruption that affects students directly.
Does Mayor Cox think that the Mary Ann Weegar case was a result of better governance than what SUHSD has at present? And does she think Bonny Garcia gave better legal advice than Dan Shinoff does? Just over two years ago attorney Dan Shinoff took over Bonny Garcia's duties as SUHSD's lawyer for day-to-day advice. Shinoff continues, as he has done for over a decade, to defend the district when it gets sued. The board seems to think that Shinoff is good at silencing public comment about the district, but Mr. Shinoff seems to have lost his touch in that regard. He doesn't appear to have been much help to San Ysidro School District recently. Does Mayor Cox think that perenniel SUHSD Supt. Ed Brand suddenly became corrupt?]
See all SDER posts re Dan Shinoff.
“I am compelled to confront Sweetwater’s current problems through my ability to convene community members in constructive conversation,” she said. “It’s clear that the district is an asset that reflects on perceptions the city.”
In essence, she said it’s time for the district to overcome its bad reputation.
...In a statement released the following day, Sweetwater district superintendent Ed Brand said that putting learning first has been and will continue to be, the commitment of the district.
“Is the Sweetwater Union High School District going through a difficult time? Yes," Brand said. "Are there actions that we can take to improve the district? Of course there are. We appreciate the concern of Mayor Cox and welcome a dialogue on how to move forward."
Francisco Escobedo, superintendent of the Chula Vista Elementary School District, said her comments were poignant.
“I understand where she’s coming from and I look forward to improving our relationship and collaboration with Sweetwater,” he said.
[Maura Larkins' comment: Escobedo is right not to attack Sweetwater. He needs to clean up corruption at CVESD, but he has shown absolutely no interest in any such effort.]
Councilman Rudy Ramirez said he was glad to hear her weigh in on the issue.
“I like that she stepped out on Sweetwater,” he said. “It was a little uncharacteristic and edgy for her.”
[Maura Larkins' comment: Edgy? Are you kidding, Mr. Ramirez? It's about time someone made an issue of school corruption.]
Cox also discussed the concept of unifying the Sweetwater district with local elementary school districts, a proposal brought up last month by fellow Councilwoman Mary Salas.
“The idea of unifying K-12 was … in response to what I perceive to be frustration with the Sweetwater district,” she said. “First, it doesn’t address the issue of better governance, and second, minus the support of districts themselves, unification is dead on arrival.”
[Maura Larkins' comment: Good point! The unification project does NOT address the issue of better governance. Cheryl Cox knows that there are problems at CVESD. I suspect that she was pretty disgusted with CVESD by the time she left.]
Cox, who will be termed out of the mayor's office in the fall, said the culture at Sweetwater should change at the top before a conversation about unification can be had.
“We’ve turned things around at city hall in the face of dire circumstances,” she said. “The same can be done at Sweetwater.”...
Showing posts with label SUHSD. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SUHSD. Show all posts
Thursday, February 27, 2014
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
No process yet to replace Sweetwater trustee Ricasa
Arlie Ricasa. See all posts on Arlie Ricasa.
Daniel Shinoff
No process yet to replace Sweetwater trustee Ricasa
Only three board members show up at special meeting
By Susan Luzzaro
San Diego Reader
Jan. 15, 2014
No one was surprised to see that the Sweetwater Union High School District board failed to agree on a process to replace former trustee Arlie Ricasa at a January 14 special meeting. (Ricasa pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor December 18 and was obliged to resign). However, many who attended the meeting wondered if the lack of agreement was the usual dysfunction — or orchestrated dysfunction.
Only three board members were present at the meeting — trustees Jim Cartmill, John McCann, and Bertha Lopez. According to Cartmill, trustee Pearl Quiñones could not attend due to a trip to see her ailing mother in Texas.
The meeting began with the district’s attorney, Daniel Shinoff, outlining a process in which an ad hoc committee might be composed of the board president, vice president, and the mayors of Imperial Beach, Chula Vista, and National City. Following a review of applications, the ad hoc committee would interview candidates and forward prospects to the board. Public comment would be integrated into the process.
Trust in the district is so low that many speakers argued against anyone in the district office handling the applications; some suggested that all applications pass through the attorney’s office.
Lopez, a consistent critic of schools superintendent Ed Brand, argued that she was neither president nor vice president, so the proposed process excluded her. She suggested an alternative selection process that had been used by Southwestern College, one that she felt was more inclusive of all stakeholders.
The twist in the evening came when McCann called for a special election —which he said he favored in the interest of democracy. When McCann campaigned in 2010, his website declared that he “stands for Fiscal Responsibility” and that he “will require a balanced budget for the District and ensure that District Bond money is spent wisely.”
McCann’s insistence on a costly vote seemed inconsistent — and foreshadowed the direction and possibly the way the replacement process will go.
The district must fill the seat within 60 days from the time of Ricasa’s resignation — they are already 27 days into the countdown. There are only two choices: get a selection process going or hold a special election.
A special election would cost more than a million dollars for a position that would last less than a year. Former chief financial officer Albert Alt and former interim CFO Rick Knott have expressed concern about the district’s continued deficit-spending.
On the heels of McCann’s statement, Cartmill stated that it was obvious that three votes could not be attained for a selection process. He appeared to be shepherding the dais to option two: a special election.
But before Cartmill could close the discussion, Lopez stated she felt “cheated.” She said that the district knew beforehand that Quiñones would not be attending the meeting; why had they not made every effort to arrange for Quiñones to weigh in via Skype or telephone, she asked.
Then the meeting teetered out of control, with the attendees calling for a vote, for clarification, and for a process.
Cartmill made a motion in favor of the process Shinoff had outlined but warned the other trustees that only a dissenting voter could ever return this proposal to the board. The motion died for lack of a second.
Finally, Lopez urged that the board make every effort to reach Quiñones by Friday and find out if there is a way she can participate. Lopez said a special election would rob the district of resources needed for the students.
The district has until February 17 to fill the seat. Ricasa pleaded out exactly 60 days before the corruption trial is due to start. Curious timing, according to some.
Stakes are high for the vacant seat and possibly highest for Brand.
School superintendents often move their agendas forward by relying on the vote of three trustees. Sweetwater superintendent Ed Brand has enjoyed the fairly consistent support of trustees Jim Cartmill, John McCann, and Arlie Ricasa.
In September 2011, Brand told the Reader that his staying on as superintendent is conditional. He said: “If it ever gets to the point that they stop accepting my recommendations, then the good news from my perspective is, I have the wherewithal to say, ‘Thanks, it’s been fun.’”
Tuesday, April 09, 2013
What to do if the public might not approve spending for new offices for Ed Brand? Call in Plan Nine Partners
See all Ed Brand posts.
Dear Ed Brand: If you're afraid the public wouldn't approve spending tax dollars on new offices for district administrators, maybe you should just stick with what you can afford.
Latest plans for ill-fated L Street land deal
Who can say no to soccer?
By Susan Luzzaro
April 9, 2013
During public comment at the March Sweetwater Union High School board meeting, Jacqueline King, a resident of Chula Vista who has worked in real estate development for 36 years, addressed the trustees regarding the district’s quirky surplus property deal on L Street.
King asserted that the district has “an abominable record of managing property” and regarding L Street transactions, “the layers of ownership and the crazy financial deals that you [Sweetwater] put together…are being looked at not only by the state but by the federal government as well.”
In 2004-05 the Sweetwater school district, with superintendent Ed Brand at the helm, concocted a complex real estate scheme to purchase property on L Street in Chula Vista—ostensibly to build a new district office and corporate/bus yard.
On February 1 2005 the loan agreement for L Street was signed. The property was purchased for $25,415, 000 in variable bonds, with another $8,235,000 in variable bonds to finance the payments and interest for subsequent years. But the name on the loan documents is not Sweetwater Union High School District, rather Plan Nine Partners LLC. (The property is now said to be worth $12 million.)
On the same day, February 1, 2005 the district signed a lease agreement to lease back the property from Plan Nine.
In 2004, in anticipation of the land acquisition deal, the district tied several pieces of surplus property (Third Avenue, Fifth Avenue and Moss Street) to the ill-fated L Street property in a land exchange agreement signed by Ed Brand and Marc Litchman of Plan Nine Partners LLC/California Trust for Public Land.
Regarding these elaborate transactions, one source suggested the point was to circumvent the education code and public participation: “The district could have gone by the high road — they picked the low road.”
The high road — or what normal California school districts do, is dispose of surplus properties (like L Street in Chula Vista or Third Avenue) in accordance with California Education Code (Section 17388), often referred to as the 7-11 plan.
This means that an advisory committee of no fewer than 7 and no more than 11 parents, students, and members of the business community meet and decide the best use of the district property and take their recommendations to the trustees.
In a recent interview, Litchman of Plan Nine Partners/California Trust gave his interpretation of the logic behind this byzantine deal-making.
Litchman said that initially, in 2004-2005, the district wanted to develop district headquarters on L Street. However, district offices cannot be built with school bond construction money.
So the idea was to develop condos or apartments on some of the district’s surplus land and use the capital generated to build district headquarters on L Street.
The district, according to Litchman, brought him into the deal because they wished to avoid the 7-11 education code process which would have made the district’s surplus property available for other public entities to purchase. Litchman also said the process is lengthy and expensive...
Dear Ed Brand: If you're afraid the public wouldn't approve spending tax dollars on new offices for district administrators, maybe you should just stick with what you can afford.
Latest plans for ill-fated L Street land deal
Who can say no to soccer?
By Susan Luzzaro
April 9, 2013
During public comment at the March Sweetwater Union High School board meeting, Jacqueline King, a resident of Chula Vista who has worked in real estate development for 36 years, addressed the trustees regarding the district’s quirky surplus property deal on L Street.
King asserted that the district has “an abominable record of managing property” and regarding L Street transactions, “the layers of ownership and the crazy financial deals that you [Sweetwater] put together…are being looked at not only by the state but by the federal government as well.”
In 2004-05 the Sweetwater school district, with superintendent Ed Brand at the helm, concocted a complex real estate scheme to purchase property on L Street in Chula Vista—ostensibly to build a new district office and corporate/bus yard.
On February 1 2005 the loan agreement for L Street was signed. The property was purchased for $25,415, 000 in variable bonds, with another $8,235,000 in variable bonds to finance the payments and interest for subsequent years. But the name on the loan documents is not Sweetwater Union High School District, rather Plan Nine Partners LLC. (The property is now said to be worth $12 million.)
On the same day, February 1, 2005 the district signed a lease agreement to lease back the property from Plan Nine.
In 2004, in anticipation of the land acquisition deal, the district tied several pieces of surplus property (Third Avenue, Fifth Avenue and Moss Street) to the ill-fated L Street property in a land exchange agreement signed by Ed Brand and Marc Litchman of Plan Nine Partners LLC/California Trust for Public Land.
Regarding these elaborate transactions, one source suggested the point was to circumvent the education code and public participation: “The district could have gone by the high road — they picked the low road.”
The high road — or what normal California school districts do, is dispose of surplus properties (like L Street in Chula Vista or Third Avenue) in accordance with California Education Code (Section 17388), often referred to as the 7-11 plan.
This means that an advisory committee of no fewer than 7 and no more than 11 parents, students, and members of the business community meet and decide the best use of the district property and take their recommendations to the trustees.
In a recent interview, Litchman of Plan Nine Partners/California Trust gave his interpretation of the logic behind this byzantine deal-making.
Litchman said that initially, in 2004-2005, the district wanted to develop district headquarters on L Street. However, district offices cannot be built with school bond construction money.
So the idea was to develop condos or apartments on some of the district’s surplus land and use the capital generated to build district headquarters on L Street.
The district, according to Litchman, brought him into the deal because they wished to avoid the 7-11 education code process which would have made the district’s surplus property available for other public entities to purchase. Litchman also said the process is lengthy and expensive...
Saturday, January 28, 2012
When the Trouble Started for Sweetwater Schools
Bond money seems to have gone up in smoke in other school districts, but Bonnie Dumanis focuses on Chula Vista Democrats. Why?
When the Trouble Started for Sweetwater Schools
January 23, 2012
By Rob Davis
The construction company's website implicitly acknowledges the potential for public officials to abuse their posts. But the Seville Group says it stands above that. Integrity isn't just a buzzword, its About Us page says. Ethics are at the core of the company's existence. Without ethics, there is only failure.
Click on the company motto — Edge, Execute, Excel — and its principles appear.
"We have a simple test," it says. "Before you make any decision on behalf of the company ask yourself these questions: Is it illegal? Is it immoral? Is it unethical? Is it stupid? Most public officials who get into trouble should have answered ‘yes' to one of these questions. The same is true for companies that work for public agencies."
Trouble started for the Sweetwater Union High School District on a spring evening in 2007, with what seemed like a routine decision on an innocuous agenda item involving Seville. Months earlier, voters had approved borrowing $644 million to modernize the South Bay school district's buildings. Now, the public agency overseeing the South Bay's middle and high schools had to choose someone to oversee all that spending.
The selection process had been exhaustive, board members were told. Then-Superintendent Jesus Gandara recommended what he said was the top firm: a joint venture of Seville Group and another company, Gilbane. The board hired the venture and handed it $7.5 million in work.
But Gilbane/Seville hadn't initially been the top firm. The district's internal ratings were tossed out. That happened routinely.
The district's decision to hire Gilbane/Seville — and later to give it even more work — brought instant criticism, even allegations of corruption. Now, five years later, it has led to criminal charges, in what District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis says was a pervasive pay-to-play scheme.
At the same time Gilbane/Seville leapfrogged another company ranked higher, it bestowed its largess on officials handing out tens of millions in contracts. Court records show that Gandara, who recommended the company, saw "Jersey Boys" with a Gilbane contractor and was treated to expensive dinners at restaurants across the region.
When Gandara's daughter competed for the title of Miss Texas, where they lived previously, the contractor, Henry Amigable, stepped forward with a $1,000 sponsorship, court documents say. When then-board member Greg Sandoval's daughter vied to become Miss South County, Amigable wrote a $500 check, records show. Gandara, Sandoval and two current Sweetwater board members — Pearl Quiñones and Arlie Ricasa — all face felony charges of failing to report numerous gifts from contractors.
The case strikes at the heart of the South Bay political establishment. Beyond those charged, investigators have searched the home of Bertha Lopez, a Sweetwater trustee whose husband, Jose, is the Otay Water District's president. They've also searched the homes of two former Southwestern College officials, Nicholas Alioto and John Wilson.
Investigators have interviewed the mayors of Chula Vista and National City, county supervisors and a San Diego city councilman. Jaime Bonilla, another Otay Water District board member, is also mentioned in search warrants; Bertha Lopez and Seville employees had an appointment to dine at his house.
The case has widely been publicized as a bribery investigation. Dumanis has said the officials accepted "what amounted to bribes." But only one person faces a bribery charge, Gilbane's former employee, Amigable.
Prosecutors haven't charged anyone with receiving bribes. School officials instead are charged with failing to report gifts and filing false gift disclosure forms, both felonies. Prosecutors have also leveled lesser misdemeanors, alleging the school leaders had a personal financial interest in their decisions.
The circumstances speak to the unseemly side of politics, a world where gift-giving, influence peddling and campaign donations are all routine and legal — to a point. Politicians across the county regularly receive campaign funding from lobbyists and contractors doing business with their agencies. It's how the system works.
California law allows public officials to accept up to $420 in gifts annually from businesses and people working with their agencies. The gifts have to be disclosed, and they can't be explicitly traded for someone's vote. Prosecutors say the Sweetwater officials far exceeded gift limits, taking thousands without reporting it on state forms submitted under penalty of perjury.
The case also shows how a typically unseen influence game is played. One example: Prosecutors say Southwestern College's Wilson fed inside information to one construction company, recommended the firm for a job, retired a month later and then went to work for it. No charges have been filed related to it, though Dumanis has said more charges could be forthcoming in the case.
Prosecutors haven't disclosed everything that they uncovered while executing search warrants in December. But the evidence they have released so far connecting the gifts to favorable votes is largely circumstantial.
Weeks before Gilbane/Seville got that Sweetwater contract, Quiñones went to Seville's president for a favor. Quiñones was prepping for a bigger political stage and wanted a resume builder.
She asked Rene Flores Sr. to contact then-Assemblyman Joe Coto, D-San Jose, on her behalf, court records show, and sent Flores her resume. "[H]ope you can help me with this... it is really important to me," she wrote.
Flores forwarded the resume to Coto, according to emails released by prosecutors, telling the assemblyman he hoped he would find Quiñones "an appropriate compensated commission where she might serve the State of California." Quiñones was considering running for state office, Flores said, and hoped to raise her profile and make more public appearances.
As the vote on Gilbane/Seville neared, court records show Flores emailed Quiñones to say he was trying to set up a meeting with Coto. "And again, I want to thank you very much for your support," Flores wrote.
Quiñones replied that she could meet a couple of weeks later. "Please let me know..." she said, "and also I support those that support me!"
Questions about impropriety arose from the moment the deal with Gilbane/Seville was struck in 2007.
Nick Marinovich, a contracting expert who served on an earlier construction oversight committee, publicly questioned the school board's decision to hire Gilbane/Seville.
Marinovich had spent nearly three decades overseeing public construction projects for San Diego County. He knew how contractors were supposed to be selected — with a process free of political influence, without top executives getting involved.
But Gandara had participated and recommended Gilbane/Seville, even though another venture, Harris/Gafcon, ranked higher and was drawing good reviews as the district's current construction overseer. So Marinovich went to the board and lodged his criticism. The reaction? "Indifference," Marinovich said.
"It didn't pass the smell test," he said in a recent interview. "It was really just a gut level reaction."
Community concerns persisted. A 2008 San Diego County Taxpayers Association report urged more transparency for Sweetwater's construction hiring, noting that any questions about Gilbane/Seville could've been avoided if the district had been open about its reasons. The report noted that at least one unnamed community member was worried about possible corruption.
Gandara had repeatedly intervened in the district's selection process for construction companies. A 2009 voiceofsandiego.org investigation found that lower-ranked firms were routinely picked. One law firm, Garcia, Calderon & Ruiz, was hired even though it rated last out of four firms. The internal rankings were often disregarded, the investigation concluded, making it difficult to determine why the district hired the firms it did. Both Seville and the law firm have since had their work suspended. Seville says it isn't a target of the D.A.'s investigation.
Concerned parents routinely went to board meetings throughout 2009 and 2010, criticizing the board for its oversight of construction spending and for accepting campaign donations from companies working for the district. One parent, Stewart Payne, said he thought the board's behavior was strange enough that he went to the FBI in early 2011. Then he and other parents went to the district attorney.
"I just said: Something's wrong here, I don't know what it is, but something's not making sense," Payne said. "Something was just wrong."
When the Trouble Started for Sweetwater Schools
January 23, 2012
By Rob Davis
The construction company's website implicitly acknowledges the potential for public officials to abuse their posts. But the Seville Group says it stands above that. Integrity isn't just a buzzword, its About Us page says. Ethics are at the core of the company's existence. Without ethics, there is only failure.
Click on the company motto — Edge, Execute, Excel — and its principles appear.
"We have a simple test," it says. "Before you make any decision on behalf of the company ask yourself these questions: Is it illegal? Is it immoral? Is it unethical? Is it stupid? Most public officials who get into trouble should have answered ‘yes' to one of these questions. The same is true for companies that work for public agencies."
Trouble started for the Sweetwater Union High School District on a spring evening in 2007, with what seemed like a routine decision on an innocuous agenda item involving Seville. Months earlier, voters had approved borrowing $644 million to modernize the South Bay school district's buildings. Now, the public agency overseeing the South Bay's middle and high schools had to choose someone to oversee all that spending.
The selection process had been exhaustive, board members were told. Then-Superintendent Jesus Gandara recommended what he said was the top firm: a joint venture of Seville Group and another company, Gilbane. The board hired the venture and handed it $7.5 million in work.
But Gilbane/Seville hadn't initially been the top firm. The district's internal ratings were tossed out. That happened routinely.
The district's decision to hire Gilbane/Seville — and later to give it even more work — brought instant criticism, even allegations of corruption. Now, five years later, it has led to criminal charges, in what District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis says was a pervasive pay-to-play scheme.
At the same time Gilbane/Seville leapfrogged another company ranked higher, it bestowed its largess on officials handing out tens of millions in contracts. Court records show that Gandara, who recommended the company, saw "Jersey Boys" with a Gilbane contractor and was treated to expensive dinners at restaurants across the region.
When Gandara's daughter competed for the title of Miss Texas, where they lived previously, the contractor, Henry Amigable, stepped forward with a $1,000 sponsorship, court documents say. When then-board member Greg Sandoval's daughter vied to become Miss South County, Amigable wrote a $500 check, records show. Gandara, Sandoval and two current Sweetwater board members — Pearl Quiñones and Arlie Ricasa — all face felony charges of failing to report numerous gifts from contractors.
The case strikes at the heart of the South Bay political establishment. Beyond those charged, investigators have searched the home of Bertha Lopez, a Sweetwater trustee whose husband, Jose, is the Otay Water District's president. They've also searched the homes of two former Southwestern College officials, Nicholas Alioto and John Wilson.
Investigators have interviewed the mayors of Chula Vista and National City, county supervisors and a San Diego city councilman. Jaime Bonilla, another Otay Water District board member, is also mentioned in search warrants; Bertha Lopez and Seville employees had an appointment to dine at his house.
The case has widely been publicized as a bribery investigation. Dumanis has said the officials accepted "what amounted to bribes." But only one person faces a bribery charge, Gilbane's former employee, Amigable.
Prosecutors haven't charged anyone with receiving bribes. School officials instead are charged with failing to report gifts and filing false gift disclosure forms, both felonies. Prosecutors have also leveled lesser misdemeanors, alleging the school leaders had a personal financial interest in their decisions.
The circumstances speak to the unseemly side of politics, a world where gift-giving, influence peddling and campaign donations are all routine and legal — to a point. Politicians across the county regularly receive campaign funding from lobbyists and contractors doing business with their agencies. It's how the system works.
California law allows public officials to accept up to $420 in gifts annually from businesses and people working with their agencies. The gifts have to be disclosed, and they can't be explicitly traded for someone's vote. Prosecutors say the Sweetwater officials far exceeded gift limits, taking thousands without reporting it on state forms submitted under penalty of perjury.
The case also shows how a typically unseen influence game is played. One example: Prosecutors say Southwestern College's Wilson fed inside information to one construction company, recommended the firm for a job, retired a month later and then went to work for it. No charges have been filed related to it, though Dumanis has said more charges could be forthcoming in the case.
Prosecutors haven't disclosed everything that they uncovered while executing search warrants in December. But the evidence they have released so far connecting the gifts to favorable votes is largely circumstantial.
Weeks before Gilbane/Seville got that Sweetwater contract, Quiñones went to Seville's president for a favor. Quiñones was prepping for a bigger political stage and wanted a resume builder.
She asked Rene Flores Sr. to contact then-Assemblyman Joe Coto, D-San Jose, on her behalf, court records show, and sent Flores her resume. "[H]ope you can help me with this... it is really important to me," she wrote.
Flores forwarded the resume to Coto, according to emails released by prosecutors, telling the assemblyman he hoped he would find Quiñones "an appropriate compensated commission where she might serve the State of California." Quiñones was considering running for state office, Flores said, and hoped to raise her profile and make more public appearances.
As the vote on Gilbane/Seville neared, court records show Flores emailed Quiñones to say he was trying to set up a meeting with Coto. "And again, I want to thank you very much for your support," Flores wrote.
Quiñones replied that she could meet a couple of weeks later. "Please let me know..." she said, "and also I support those that support me!"
Questions about impropriety arose from the moment the deal with Gilbane/Seville was struck in 2007.
Nick Marinovich, a contracting expert who served on an earlier construction oversight committee, publicly questioned the school board's decision to hire Gilbane/Seville.
Marinovich had spent nearly three decades overseeing public construction projects for San Diego County. He knew how contractors were supposed to be selected — with a process free of political influence, without top executives getting involved.
But Gandara had participated and recommended Gilbane/Seville, even though another venture, Harris/Gafcon, ranked higher and was drawing good reviews as the district's current construction overseer. So Marinovich went to the board and lodged his criticism. The reaction? "Indifference," Marinovich said.
"It didn't pass the smell test," he said in a recent interview. "It was really just a gut level reaction."
Community concerns persisted. A 2008 San Diego County Taxpayers Association report urged more transparency for Sweetwater's construction hiring, noting that any questions about Gilbane/Seville could've been avoided if the district had been open about its reasons. The report noted that at least one unnamed community member was worried about possible corruption.
Gandara had repeatedly intervened in the district's selection process for construction companies. A 2009 voiceofsandiego.org investigation found that lower-ranked firms were routinely picked. One law firm, Garcia, Calderon & Ruiz, was hired even though it rated last out of four firms. The internal rankings were often disregarded, the investigation concluded, making it difficult to determine why the district hired the firms it did. Both Seville and the law firm have since had their work suspended. Seville says it isn't a target of the D.A.'s investigation.
Concerned parents routinely went to board meetings throughout 2009 and 2010, criticizing the board for its oversight of construction spending and for accepting campaign donations from companies working for the district. One parent, Stewart Payne, said he thought the board's behavior was strange enough that he went to the FBI in early 2011. Then he and other parents went to the district attorney.
"I just said: Something's wrong here, I don't know what it is, but something's not making sense," Payne said. "Something was just wrong."
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Bertha Lopez Received Money From Contractors and Law Firm Connection
This article is interesting for two reasons. First, it has intriguing information. Second, it suggests who may have put pressure on Bonnie Dumanis to conduct these raids.
Bertha Lopez Received Money From Contractors and Law Firm Connection
June 17, 2011
posted by Southern Exposure
San Diego Rostra
It’s interesting that Board Member Bertha Lopez keeps throwing stones at everyone else for taking money from contractors and the law firm for Sweetwater Union High School District. Most concerning, however, is her complete lack of forthrightness when it comes to her own campaign donations. Lopez attacks other board members for their donations, while continuing to say her votes are independent, but where is her openness about the campaign money she took from the very same contractors and contributor connected to the legal firm?
Just go to the county website and search under Lopez’s last name to check out her filings. You will find the following campaign contributions totaling almost $20,000:
Barnhart – $5,000
Design Acquisition Corp – $3,000
Marston & Martson – $3,000
CTE, Inc. (Thomas Gaeto) – $1,000
Rotech – $2,500
Consulting and Inspection Svcs – $1,000
Jose Mireles, Latino Builder – $500
Romero Leonor (HAR) – $250
Seville – $2,000
Laura Martinez – $1,000
The San Diego Reader recently published an article [see below] calling out Board members who took money from Laura Martinez (who apparently co-owns a house with Sweetwater Attorney Bonifacio Garcia), but the story fails to mention that Bertha Lopez also received $1,000 from Martinez. The Reader story seems to be in response to an interview with Lopez — did it not occur to the reporter when listening to complaints from Lopez that her contributions should be checked as well?
Also interesting is that Lopez received a $500 campaign contribution from Mark Watton, general manager of the Otay Water District, where husband Lopez sits on the board. What on earth could Mark Watton care about who gets elected to the board of SUHSD? He and his wife live nowhere near the district. Yet, Jose Lopez, Bertha’s husband, is Watton’s boss...
Sweetwater Union High School District Money Trail Gets Longer
By Susan Luzzaro
San Diego Reader
June 7, 2011
In a recent interview, Bertha Lopez voiced a strong opinion about Sweetwater Union High School District attorney Bonifacio Garcia. Lopez, who has been a Sweetwater boardmember since 2008 and served as a Chula Vista boardmember for ten years before that, said she did not trust the advice offered by the attorney. Why not?
Garcia recently advised the board to hire attorney Greg Vega to do an independent review of district expenditures. According to Lopez, Garcia did not reveal that Vega had worked for the district. A Union-Tribune story also reported that Vega reviewed Garcia’s employment contract last July.
Garcia has been the district’s main attorney since l996. In 2006, the Union-Tribune wrote, “South County’s high school board has scrapped a $400-an-hour contract with its main attorneys in favor of a $320,400-a-year deal designed to rein in legal spending that topped $1.1 million in the year ending June 30.” Garcia, with the firm Burke, Williams and Sorensen, was the main attorney.
Garcia formed a new firm (Garcia, Calderon and Ruiz) and continued to work for Sweetwater. Changing names does not appear to equal reining in legal spending: Garcia’s current contract with the district is $84,334 a month, or a little over $1 million a year.
Citizens for Good Government in the South Bay was a political action committee that operated out of Garcia’s office until March, when it became inactive. Yuri Calderon, a member of Garcia's law firm, was the treasurer. Garcia gave generously to this committee, as did Laura Martinez, who co-owns a house with Garcia in Sierra Madre, California, according to documents.
According to records kept by the San Diego County Registrar of Voters, Jim Cartmill, a Sweetwater boardmember since l996, received $5000 from the Citizens for Good Government in South Bay in last November’s election. He also received $5000 from Laura Martinez. Arlie Ricasa, first elected in 1998 and re-elected last November, received $5000 from Laura Martinez. And newly elected John McCann received $900 from Laura Martinez.
Bertha Lopez Received Money From Contractors and Law Firm Connection
June 17, 2011
posted by Southern Exposure
San Diego Rostra
It’s interesting that Board Member Bertha Lopez keeps throwing stones at everyone else for taking money from contractors and the law firm for Sweetwater Union High School District. Most concerning, however, is her complete lack of forthrightness when it comes to her own campaign donations. Lopez attacks other board members for their donations, while continuing to say her votes are independent, but where is her openness about the campaign money she took from the very same contractors and contributor connected to the legal firm?
Just go to the county website and search under Lopez’s last name to check out her filings. You will find the following campaign contributions totaling almost $20,000:
Barnhart – $5,000
Design Acquisition Corp – $3,000
Marston & Martson – $3,000
CTE, Inc. (Thomas Gaeto) – $1,000
Rotech – $2,500
Consulting and Inspection Svcs – $1,000
Jose Mireles, Latino Builder – $500
Romero Leonor (HAR) – $250
Seville – $2,000
Laura Martinez – $1,000
The San Diego Reader recently published an article [see below] calling out Board members who took money from Laura Martinez (who apparently co-owns a house with Sweetwater Attorney Bonifacio Garcia), but the story fails to mention that Bertha Lopez also received $1,000 from Martinez. The Reader story seems to be in response to an interview with Lopez — did it not occur to the reporter when listening to complaints from Lopez that her contributions should be checked as well?
Also interesting is that Lopez received a $500 campaign contribution from Mark Watton, general manager of the Otay Water District, where husband Lopez sits on the board. What on earth could Mark Watton care about who gets elected to the board of SUHSD? He and his wife live nowhere near the district. Yet, Jose Lopez, Bertha’s husband, is Watton’s boss...
Sweetwater Union High School District Money Trail Gets Longer
By Susan Luzzaro
San Diego Reader
June 7, 2011
In a recent interview, Bertha Lopez voiced a strong opinion about Sweetwater Union High School District attorney Bonifacio Garcia. Lopez, who has been a Sweetwater boardmember since 2008 and served as a Chula Vista boardmember for ten years before that, said she did not trust the advice offered by the attorney. Why not?
Garcia recently advised the board to hire attorney Greg Vega to do an independent review of district expenditures. According to Lopez, Garcia did not reveal that Vega had worked for the district. A Union-Tribune story also reported that Vega reviewed Garcia’s employment contract last July.
Garcia has been the district’s main attorney since l996. In 2006, the Union-Tribune wrote, “South County’s high school board has scrapped a $400-an-hour contract with its main attorneys in favor of a $320,400-a-year deal designed to rein in legal spending that topped $1.1 million in the year ending June 30.” Garcia, with the firm Burke, Williams and Sorensen, was the main attorney.
Garcia formed a new firm (Garcia, Calderon and Ruiz) and continued to work for Sweetwater. Changing names does not appear to equal reining in legal spending: Garcia’s current contract with the district is $84,334 a month, or a little over $1 million a year.
Citizens for Good Government in the South Bay was a political action committee that operated out of Garcia’s office until March, when it became inactive. Yuri Calderon, a member of Garcia's law firm, was the treasurer. Garcia gave generously to this committee, as did Laura Martinez, who co-owns a house with Garcia in Sierra Madre, California, according to documents.
According to records kept by the San Diego County Registrar of Voters, Jim Cartmill, a Sweetwater boardmember since l996, received $5000 from the Citizens for Good Government in South Bay in last November’s election. He also received $5000 from Laura Martinez. Arlie Ricasa, first elected in 1998 and re-elected last November, received $5000 from Laura Martinez. And newly elected John McCann received $900 from Laura Martinez.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)