tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1057262584896477189.post786408753154310992..comments2023-03-07T02:03:23.535-08:00Comments on Poway Blog: PUSD's Prop C: The Naysayers Were RightChris Crusehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06489810250555135219noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1057262584896477189.post-78360233321137718542012-08-24T11:34:57.862-07:002012-08-24T11:34:57.862-07:00Case Number: 37-2010-00106255-CU-MC-CTL Case ...Case Number: 37-2010-00106255-CU-MC-CTL Case Location: San Diego PowayBlognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1057262584896477189.post-79300390266637574692012-08-24T10:55:42.974-07:002012-08-24T10:55:42.974-07:00What court case?What court case?clariecenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1057262584896477189.post-17024206736176462082012-08-23T21:34:49.516-07:002012-08-23T21:34:49.516-07:00Clariece, I am not sure why there were 2 resolutio...Clariece, I am not sure why there were 2 resolutions. I don't have copy of the resolutions. There was a court case to determine the validity of these bonds, maybe it had something to do with that.<br />http://emma.msrb.org/EA475815-EA365414-EA764813.pdf<br />Check out p 5PowayBlognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1057262584896477189.post-3433424768068230632012-08-23T14:02:52.502-07:002012-08-23T14:02:52.502-07:00Chris - I have a question: I was looking at the m...Chris - I have a question: I was looking at the minutes and it appears PUSD voted on this bond twice. Once in October 2010 and then in May 2011. Both times the language is nearly identical in the minutes. Do you know why? What about back up docs? You're one of the few who has a clear grasp of the figures and who said what when.clariecenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1057262584896477189.post-53523893903905216272012-08-22T22:56:12.842-07:002012-08-22T22:56:12.842-07:00I am definitely NOT the same Adam that filed the b...I am definitely NOT the same Adam that filed the bogus financial complaint against candidates after the recall.<br /><br />So Clariece, you distribute Vaus' signs for him because you're NOT supporting him? Interesting. Anyway, I certainly can't answer all your questions and don't see the need to argue anymore. I'll continue to do my research and share my opinion. But if you're not a Vaus supporter trying hard to make Mangum look bad, then I'm a monkey's uncle (insert primate jokes directed at me here).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1057262584896477189.post-42299016811592998942012-08-22T18:46:11.016-07:002012-08-22T18:46:11.016-07:00Yes, we can reverse this. We can put this on the ...Yes, we can reverse this. We can put this on the ballot as an initiative or elect representatives that will reverse it. We can default as taxpayers now, or default in the future. We shouldn't leave this for our kids to solve, we need to clean up our school board and city council now.<br /><br />While we are at it, we should reverse all spending on school renovations...haven't they all been renovated already? Then we can stop building new schools. We already have low enrollment at many of the PUSD schools now.<br /><br />Then we can go after the underfunded teacher pensions and default on them because we cant afford the increased taxes to pay for them either.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1057262584896477189.post-89332477363221063262012-08-22T18:41:22.402-07:002012-08-22T18:41:22.402-07:00Clariece, the total Prop U series B WAS for $119,...Clariece, the total Prop U series B WAS for $119,300,766 as the district said. In Nov, 2006 the district issued $46,570,000 "current interest series B serial bonds" maturing from 2007 until 2024 and $3,080,766 Capital Appreciation Series B Serial Bonds maturing Aug, 2031. Only the CAB bonds were not refinanceable. You can find out more info here: http://emma.msrb.org.<br />Put Poway Unified in the search box or CUSIP 738850. PowayBloghttp://powayblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/geo-politics-3.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1057262584896477189.post-12429574961673775782012-08-22T17:49:00.052-07:002012-08-22T17:49:00.052-07:00Adam - I'm not going to argue with you. I hav...Adam - I'm not going to argue with you. I haven’t endorsed anyone nor will I. I remain a fiscally conservative republican who is tired of being beat to death with bad financing by my elected officials. Clear enough for you?<br /><br />The Board has been using CABs for several years. They are expensive and are never recommended for terms exceeding 10 years. If you read Chris' blog you will see specifically how these bonds were abused and why the ENTIRE Board is responsible. I do have to wonder though if you aren’t the same Adam that filed the bogus financial complaint against candidates after the recall. <br /><br />I have intentionally stayed away from candidate endorsement because frankly my focus has been on the debacle of bad funding. There are many people besides myself who are angry with the entire Board for this mess. <br /><br />You can try and portray me as a Vaus supporter because I am a conservative republican or you can understand that right now I want to find out who knew what, when and where. That’s my focus. And until we have full disclosure I don’t believe anyone who has served on the Board for the last 15 years should be considered as a viable candidate for any office. <br /><br />That’s not an endorsement of anyone, that’s stating I think it’s unwise to elect someone into office when there are real legitimate questions public finance and taxpayer money. <br /> <br />Can you explain to me how the board, including Mangum were fiscally responsible stewards (what trustees are mandated to be) when they chose the CABs over other financing options? <br /><br />Why is the 2011 bond not the first CAB issued which is unredeemable?<br /> <br />Why is it acceptable to authorize a bond financing which will cost over SIX times the loan amount and no ability to refinance? <br /><br />The reason you’re focused on the Prop C portion of my argument is because it’s the weakest component. Without testimony you know intent is difficult to prove. <br /><br />But what you can’t deflect or answer is why the entire Board, including Mangum, felt it was ok to bury us so deep in debt that we will be unable to get any future funding for other necessary repairs - such as roads, storm drains, fire stations, you name. We're screwed for any future financing for decades. Your guy was party to it, as were the rest of the board. No need to just hook it on one.clariecenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1057262584896477189.post-24955546079509341222012-08-22T17:02:28.156-07:002012-08-22T17:02:28.156-07:00Furthermore, Clariece, you still have not clarifie...Furthermore, Clariece, you still have not clarified for me how Mangum and the others INTENTIONALLY misrepresented prop C.<br /><br />AdamAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1057262584896477189.post-11447494768164062432012-08-22T16:52:26.533-07:002012-08-22T16:52:26.533-07:00First of all, I never use my Google account on pub...First of all, I never use my Google account on public sites like this, as it links to my blog and I don't want strangers viewing pictures of my kids. I was in no way trying to avoid "owning my statement."<br /><br />Mangum's October 2010 vote allowed PUSD to go out in search of a bond. He did NOT vote on the specific 2011 bond with the no call feature, as that was after he left the school board. <br /><br />You say you were going to support Mangum over Cunningham (who as an incumbent is almost guaranteed to win), which to me means you're a Vaus supporter. From the beginning of this story you've tried to make it seem like Mangum is in large part responsible for this (like with your attack of him on Fox News) because it helps Vaus' campaign. <br /><br />Chris, I never once said Mangum wasn't a part of any of the CAB bonds. I'm simply trying to clarify the extent of his involvement since there are so many attempting to pin this controversy on him.<br /><br />-ADAMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1057262584896477189.post-68402225311995867172012-08-22T15:20:50.241-07:002012-08-22T15:20:50.241-07:00To PowayBlog - according to the District's Pow...To PowayBlog - according to the District's Powerpoint presentation it said that: <br /><br />PUSD says Prop U Series B was for $119M with a pay of $239M. Ratio of 2.0111. <br /><br />Can you confirm your numbers? <br />clariecenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1057262584896477189.post-47615426922867269932012-08-22T14:13:04.035-07:002012-08-22T14:13:04.035-07:00Magnum was also on the board when PUSD issued thei...Magnum was also on the board when PUSD issued their first CAB bond under Prop U. Yes, that is not a typo. Part of Prop U series B was a CAB bond for $3,080,766 issued in 2006. It is not redeemable prior to maturity in 2031. The final accreted value is going to be $19,050,000. That's 6-to-1. PowayBloghttp://powayblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/geo-politics-3.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1057262584896477189.post-39524703296977261652012-08-22T13:03:48.148-07:002012-08-22T13:03:48.148-07:00To Anonymous (fyi -if you're going to call me ...To Anonymous (fyi -if you're going to call me out at least be honest enough to use your name. Own your statements.) Sorry for the essay but there isn't a short answer:<br /><br />I'm not putting ALL the blame on Mangum. The Trustees are equally responsible for this mess. <br /><br />Financing doesn't happen in a bubble. The terms and conditions take several months of discussion and review. So for Mangum to say it happened after he left is not correct. <br /><br />From October 2010 minutes of the PUSD Board meeting:<br /><br />"D-401 Approval of Resolution No. 21-2011 entitled “Authorizing Issuance of Not to Exceed $105,001,064.25 Principal Amount of General Obligation Bonds of School Facilities Improvement District No. 2007-1 of the Poway Unified School District, 2008 Election, Series B, Making Determinations, and Taking Related Actions”<br /><br />It was moved by Mr. Mangum, seconded by Mrs. Vanderveen, that Resolution No. 21-2011, providing for the issuance of general obligation bonds on behalf of the School Facilities Improvement District No. 2007-1, be approved. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0." <br /><br /><br />Mangum, Vandervene and Patapow are each running in November. Mangum for City Council and Vandervene and Patapow for reelection to the Board. <br /><br />Here's the deal. I don't think these are bad people. I believe they experienced a huge lapse in critical thinking skills when it came to details on the financing. I believe they got so comfortable with pushing these bonds through they made a billion dollar boo boo. To intentionally remove the call feature from the deal was irresponsible and a breach of their fiduciary duty to the taxpayers. <br /><br />I was prepared to support Mangum over Cunningham (because let's face it Jim likes to spend money too). But the reality is $80k for a train boiler pales in comparison to setting sail with a one billion dollar juggernaut. The more research I do, the more I realize I simply cannot trust him with our city budget. I certainly can't trust Vandervene or Patapow going forward. <br /><br />It would be irresponsible and negligent for voters to allow the three to hold public office at this time.Clariece Tallynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1057262584896477189.post-60012375987709137622012-08-21T22:22:20.033-07:002012-08-21T22:22:20.033-07:00"First there was intentional misrepresentatio..."First there was intentional misrepresentation by the 2007/2008 school board of which Mangum was the Board President."<br /><br />How so, Clariece? How did Mangum intentionally misrepresent prop C? I've read through Prop C, and it's pretty clear to me. Mangum was on the board during the first bond series issued under Proposition C—the $73.9 million in 2009—with a payment ratio of 3.5, but he had nothing to do with 2011's controversial $105 bond. So why do you go out of your way to place so much of the blame on Mangum? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1057262584896477189.post-90740140980784075722012-08-17T21:28:51.578-07:002012-08-17T21:28:51.578-07:00San Diego County Taxpayers Association and Lani Lu...San Diego County Taxpayers Association and Lani Lutar are whores for developers.<br /><br />They endorsed this fiasco because the SDCTA is run by construction companies who profit from the rape of taxpayers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1057262584896477189.post-29019478876720988282012-08-16T10:44:31.378-07:002012-08-16T10:44:31.378-07:00My letter to the editor for the Chieftain.
I am t...My letter to the editor for the Chieftain.<br /><br />I am told I am good in math. I am. I have an MBA with a concentration in finance. I teach in higher education on this topic, amongst other topics (critical thinking). I am recognized by colleagues and students of my expertise.<br /><br />What the h-e-double-hockey-sticks were the PUSD board members thinking on the bond measure? Current and past board members: Mangum, Vanderveen, Patapow, Gutschow, Ranfle; step away from your positions and your election and re-election aspirations. Proud Powegians, like me, my family and neighbors reject you. Shame on you! I look forward to the PUSD board meeting on Aug. 20. See you then.<br /><br />David Radcliff, Poway<br /><br />Do we known if there is any way to undo this debacle? Is all the money spent? Is there any recourse for reversal or defunding due to non-disclosure stuff? I'm an Angry Bird!David Radcliffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1057262584896477189.post-7972418497053588112012-08-16T10:23:40.134-07:002012-08-16T10:23:40.134-07:00Chris - The problem with your argument to lump the...Chris - The problem with your argument to lump the recall into this bond mess is a real stretch and really not very intelligent. <br /><br />First there was intentional misrepresentation by the 2007/2008 school board of which Mangum was the Board President. <br /><br />The fact that some of the same people who stepped up for the recall are also calling baloney on this bond issue is that when we see unethical and/or illegal behavior we speak out. <br /><br />I personally did not vote for the bond measure. I'm cheap that way. Those who did support the bond measure were deceived. When a ballot measure states "general obligation bond" and there is no further disclosure about how you intend to finance that bond (and I believe did in fact how they were going to do it) is deceitful. <br /><br />Trying to point a finger at the SDCTA is also wrong. They were given the same information as the voters. As far as lumping city council in on this - they had no say on the bond issue. Some may have supported it for the same reasons 62% of the voters did and that's they were kept in the dark. <br /><br />Mangum, Vandervene and Patapow were all present and accounted for when this mess was created. Under no circumstances should any of them ever hold the public trust again. <br /><br />But your vast conspiracy theories is overused and tiresome with regard to Vaus, me, Boyack and several others. Your research on the bond was outstanding and now you can legimately shake your finger and say "I told you so!" Clariece Tallynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1057262584896477189.post-18890394308320425392012-08-16T08:26:16.071-07:002012-08-16T08:26:16.071-07:00It is becoming clearer that the stench that comes ...It is becoming clearer that the stench that comes from the Poway school board also runs directly through the City Council!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1057262584896477189.post-6426189681946813102012-08-16T08:23:21.857-07:002012-08-16T08:23:21.857-07:00Can anyone say "housing crisis?" This is...Can anyone say "housing crisis?" This is a typical financial instrument created by investment bankers to assist unqualified borrowers in obtaining loans. Pete Saxonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03718160514353200461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1057262584896477189.post-69637385471639058012012-08-15T23:38:21.825-07:002012-08-15T23:38:21.825-07:00Crise,
I recall, as you correctly reported, that...Crise, <br /><br />I recall, as you correctly reported, that in order to pass a bond issue a 2/3 Yay vote of the voters was required. When that didn't happen, the "rules were changed" to a simple majority. That was the key event that spawned the beginnings of this mess. Had the 2/3 rule remained, none of this would have happened. <br /><br />Who is to blame for this? <br /><br />The majority of uneducated and lazy voters. <br /><br />Who should pay for this? <br /><br />The majority of uneducated and lazy voters. <br /><br />It's fine with me to point out the names of those that were misinformed or didn't inform the voters. I fine with me to point out who is yelping now. <br /><br />But it remains valid, the majority of uneducated and lazy voters is to blame. <br /><br />- BabsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1057262584896477189.post-2232311239130745442012-08-15T22:42:49.757-07:002012-08-15T22:42:49.757-07:00As usual, Chris did an excellent job of informing ...As usual, Chris did an excellent job of informing the public of the truth about Prop C. Unfortunately, it is too late for Poway. The greed and misinformation has been going on for years. It just now comes to light.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1057262584896477189.post-72706478782365607042012-08-15T20:48:07.386-07:002012-08-15T20:48:07.386-07:00Ok, spent yesterday catching up on what happened w...Ok, spent yesterday catching up on what happened with Prop C. Think I get it a little. What's next? Also, I have been looking for a map of the households who will be responsible for paying back the bond. Where can I find that? Might be something to pass out Monday night.Debbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05293280627150697911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1057262584896477189.post-38975466262851350072012-08-15T08:39:10.119-07:002012-08-15T08:39:10.119-07:00NOTE TO CHRIS CRUSE: Thanks for your mention of SP...NOTE TO CHRIS CRUSE: Thanks for your mention of SPRA and our South Poway watchdog group's Jan 2008 PROP C survey results in your latest blog. You list great PROP C background details --- as always.<br /><br />I recall that we had no idea how SPRA’s PROP C survey was going to turn out. We had hashed out many other issues in our SPRA meetings regarding the City of Poway and Redevelopment, etc. -- but never PUSD or school bonds. When we sent out info for our SPRA group to review prior to responding to the survey, we tried to keep it very balanced "PRO" & "CON" with a variety of links, articles, editorials, etc. in addition to statements from Todd Gutschow on the "YES" side and John Ramirez on the "NO" side.<br /><br />As you may recall, SPRA members responded to the survey with an overwhelming 89% "NO" vote on PROP C. We also asked members to add (optional) comments when they submitted their “YES”, “NO” or “UNDECIDED” vote. Thus, we received many interesting and perceptive member comments -- several of which were added to the SPRA press release [linked in your blog post]..... And, of course, SPRA ended up accused of being “naysayers” and “not caring about the kids”, etc. etc.<br /><br />In retrospect, these were very wise and most appropriate comments. Our SPRA members' common sense and street smarts turned out to be right on the mark. I also recall that several SPRA members were not impressed with the way the prior PROP U funds had been bungled, misused, cost overruns, lack of serious oversight (even with an oversight committee) etc. --- and were inclined to vote "NO" on the PROP C bond based on these factors.<br /><br />Also, when we dug into the YES ON PROP C endorsement from SDCTA, it became apparent that their endorsement was not based on unbiased analysis (and the best interests of taxpayers) --- but most likely on the personal interests of prominent SDCTA members and private connections of several on their board.<br /><br />As you stated in your post, it's not that there was zero opposition to PROP C. [Your 3-part POWAY BLOG post in January of 2008 had lots of great PROP C background details and gave voters all they needed to know to conclude that “NO” was the only way to vote.] It's just that those on the NO ON PROP C side were drowned out and massively outgunned by the huge money machine behind the "YES" ON PROP C campaign. No doubt the zillions of $$$ ECHO PACIFIC CONSTRUCTION contributed to the "YES" campaign paid for the huge and very slick "YES" mailers everyone received multiple times in their mailbox. It was impossible to fight this massive “YES” onslaught with a simple SPRA press release -- plus a few other loosely connected and barely coordinated "NO" voices (and blog posts).<br /><br />Thus.... not enough folks paid attention to our "NO" voices. Sadly, we could have saved the PUSD taxpayers almost a billion $$$.<br /><br />--- Karen (former officer with SPRA)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com