Letters to the editor: Sept. 6, 2012
Lyles column contained errors
Dick Lyles column (Aug. 23) contained two significant lies. I’m not surprised that he would try to slip one past the readers. But the fact that you allowed factual fabrications to be included in his column is troublesome.
First, Lyles said “Prop U, a $198 million bond initiative passed by a super-majority (two-thirds) of Poway voters” which is false. According to the Registrar of Voters Prop U passed with only 57.4 percent of the vote, well below a super-majority of 66 percent.
Lyles also claimed, “PUSD was commended by the San Diego County Grand Jury for exercising bold leadership and moving decisively to get the severely needed improvements without being exposed to even greater future cost increases.” Again, a lie. The Grand Jury report made no comment related to improvements or the related costs.
It’s one thing for Lyles to express his opinion. Another thing entirely for him to present lies as fact. This newspaper should take immediate action. The false statements should be retracted in print in as conspicuous a fashion as the original column appeared.
The public trust is not to be trifled with.
Jackie Thomas, Poway
Lyles responds:
The two-thirds majority assertion was incorrect. I was involved in the first two failed bond campaigns which required two-thirds majority and had forgotten that for Propositions U and C, in which I was not involved, the threshold had been lowered to 55 percent. Although 55 percent is not two-thirds, it is higher than a simple majority.
In re-reading my notes regarding the Grand Jury report, I realized I had mixed two different actions by two separate but distinguished groups. In June 2012, the Grand Jury did release a report commending PUSD for its leadership and academic excellence for the past decade and went on to cite a number of factors. It was the San Diego County Taxpayers’ Association that awarded PUSD with its Golden Watchdog Award as a result of having passed Proposition C and moving decisively to obtain severely needed improvements.
I sincerely regret these errors, but believe they don’t significantly alter the premise expressed in my column.
Mangum on the bonds
In 2007, I voted with the Poway Unified School District board to place Proposition C on the ballot. Proposition C passed in 2008. What was unknown in 2008, by the board and the voters, is that a year later the financial markets would collapse, the district’s ability to issue bonds would be jeopardized, and the cost of financing — if you could get it — would skyrocket.
For my part in failing to anticipate this worst-case scenario, I sincerely apologize.
I was not on the board in 2011 when the $105 million in non-callable bonds were approved. I do not know if the board and district were given all the information needed to make an informed decision. If I had been on the board and had all the cost information available today, I do not believe I would have voted to issue those bonds. I regret the cost of these bonds, the damage this issue has done to PUSD’s reputation and the conflict it has caused in our community.
I understand the public’s anger, but propose that we focus this energy in a positive way and work together to find solutions. We’ve been told the bonds cannot be refinanced, but I’m not willing to accept that other solutions are not available. I propose that we create an ad hoc committee, made up of the district’s best and brightest, to evaluate options and make recommendations to the board. I pledge my help and hope this community, which I am proud to call my home, will do the same.
Jeff Mangum, PUSD Trustee, 1994-2010, Poway
Differs on Lindbergh
I must challenge Dave Grosch’s unfortunate description (in his letter about Neil Armstrong, Aug. 30) of Charles Lindbergh as a man made of the “right stuff.”
Lindbergh’s flying exploits are legendary. His personal views, however, were repellent; he was an avowed anti-Semite and voluble proponent of white supremacy.
Judith Leggett, Poway
Get Grand Jury involved
There is no nice face to put on the bond situation. The Poway Unified school board breached their financial responsibilities to the students, staff, and taxpayers. For every dollar of improvement, we will pay $9 in interest. It doesn’t take a math genius to see that those terms are irresponsible.
All I’ve heard in defense of this funding are unconvincing ploys to make the per household amounts seem small. I’m sorry, but to a retiree, $800 per year is substantial. Yes, the board’s actions may be legal, but they are certainly unwise.
The board has, for all practical purposes, ensured that PUSD will not be issuing any more bonds for the next few decades. Can they say for certain that we won’t have needs for capital improvements? What will be the consequences of deferring any bond issues for the next 20 years? I don’t know specifically, but this does not bode well for the quality of our schools.
If we needed any confirmation that this bond financing was a mistake, we need only look to the county. They are asking for legislation to ensure that future deals of this type are illegal.
A grand jury investigation is certainly warranted. I hope they choose to examine the process that led to this disaster, and suggest real process changes to ensure it doesn’t happen to other districts.
I do not see how the current school board can continue to manage the district with any credibility. I hope they have the decency to resign quickly so we can fill their seats without calling a special election.
David Ambrose, Poway
(The following letters appeared only in the News Journal:)
DeMaio lacks results
What differentiates Rancho Bernardo from Escondido that is obvious to all is commercial signage. RB even has a unique sign ordinance. We see evidence of that whenever we see a for sale sign on a home.
Several months ago, Carl DeMaio took notes as I explained to him the problem with illegal signs at the entrance to the Westwood shopping center. Since then I have had a response from a member of his staff about it whenever I remind them that the problem still exits.
I have also reminded his ineffective staff that the section of Poblado, which Carl travels over on his way home every night, is in dire need of repair.
Now do to poor workmanship the city has created an illegal speed bump on Aquamiel.
These problems are the tip of the iceberg. The real problem is that Carl is a great cheerleader for needed causes but extremely poor at actually getting the day-to-day things done.
He will most likely be elected mayor. Perhaps he can hire someone like Bonnie who will take care of the tasks that need to be handled. If he does not he, like a prior mayor of San Diego, will be featured on the front page of a magazine as the worst mayor in the USA.
Ron Jaenisch, Rancho Bernardo
‘Benny’s’ letter praised
Just wanted to take a moment to comment on Meryl Burke’s Aug. 30 letter on behalf of her dog, Benny. It brings back a lesson from my parents “do not a judge a person until you have walked a mile in their shoes” or, in this case, “paws.”
I have known a few dogs with degenerative myelopathy, with the proper devices and care have lived happily well beyond their years with their families. Since Benny cannot express his feelings when folks make comments about him or suggest ending his life, I have some suggestions.
The next time someone insinuates themselves into Benny’s situation his parents could respond “Wow, I hope you never become paralyzed, you will have to go.”
I love my dog and will fight to be with her as long as I can. Thank you, Meryl, for articulating so beautifully how you feel, it is how a lot of us feel.
Joan Palmer, Rancho Bernardo
( The following letters appeared only in the News Chieftain:)
Vaus is his choice
Steve Vaus has been a Poway resident nearly 20 years. He and his wife, Corrie, co-own a very successful Poway business. Steve is a stand-up family man who has also been a dedicated volunteer in the community and schools. Earlier this year he earned the Palomar Council PTA’s highest commendation, the 2012 Honorary Service Award for his efforts.
He has many years under his belt serving on the boards of such groups as Crime Stoppers and the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences. In addition to his decades of executive experience he has demonstrated commendable civic leadership in the Rexford recall, on the substance abuse issue and in the fight to protect the Pledge of Allegiance in our schools. It is notable in each of those efforts he has shown a remarkable ability to rally community support.
For those reasons and countless others I am supporting him for City Council. I urge all my friends and neighbors in Poway to do the same.
Paul T. Kassel, Poway
Protest water rate hike
On Oct. 16, the City of Poway will hold a public hearing on a proposed water rate increase. In the notice sent to the residents of the city, raw water increases from San Diego County Water Authority are blamed for the increase. The notice goes on to present the new water rates which include an increase in fixed meter charges.
Fixed meter charges are by definition costs to recover the City of Poway’s cost of operating and maintaining the water delivery system, and have nothing to do with CWA costs. So in essence, the Poway City Council is blaming CWA for the water rate increase but are sneaking in costs they fail to explain or mention.
The residents of the City of Poway should not stand for sneaky and unexplained rate increases. Any increase from CWA or the City of Poway should be fully disclosed and thoroughly explained. As we learned from the PUSD $1 billion school bond, our politicians are not to be trusted since they regard the people they allegedly serve as open checkbooks. Since the Poway City Council has a spotty history, the residents of the City of Poway should be provided with a detailed explanation for any tax or fee increase. This is especially important in time of economic austerity.
I would like to encourage the residents of Poway to protest the water rate increase.
Assi Friedman, Poway
Related posts:
- Dick Lyles: Are Poway Unified bond critics helping community or themselves?
- Letters to the editor: Aug. 16, 2012
- Editorial: Road to success, or Armageddon?
- PUSD releases statement on school bonds
- School bond legislation proposed
Short URL: http://www.pomeradonews.com/?p=28267
Posted by Steve Dreyer
on Sep 6 2012. Filed under Letters to the Editor, Opinion.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
@ Mangum: I couldn't agree more. This can't be reversed & an overlook on all involved in this from A-Z. Unfortunatly the voters trusted those in charge to lead them in the right direction & thoroughly look into every detail. Considering the outcome, we trusted the wrong people. We cannot reverse this, but we can make sure we don't allow those who were a part of this to be a our leader in this community again. It's unfortunate you were a part of this at point "A"
That being said, our community needs to take that into consideration when voting for those that affect the future of this town. So we move on and make sure any & all involved in this terrible mistake not be voted back in as a leader.
@PowayMD: absolutely right on the money!
Mangum and the rest may be swell folks, but they demonstrated they could not be trusted to serve the best interests of the district.
If any of them continue to seek elective office their credibility and judgement are legitimate areas of concern.
If is determined that any of them accepted donations from those who benefited from their votes, at the considerable expense of the PUSD taxpayer, that is an even greater area of concern.
"I was not on the board in 2011 when the $105 million in non-callable bonds were approved. I do not know if the board and district were given all the information needed to make an informed decision."
What a crock. Here's the deal, Mangum moved and Vanderveen seconded to have the $105 million advanced back in October 2010. Had Mangum stayed on the Board, the assumption is he would have approved it. Now we're hearing he wasn't given all the information? What about the other bonds that were smaller but also had high payoffs? Did he lack information there as well?
Mangum and Board hired the advisors (with no bid process by the way). Is this the new PUSD party line – "I wasn't given the information?" Because seriously – you were in the position for years to demand the best information and now to flip it and say well maybe we missed something only reinforces why you and the rest shouldn't be elected.
First of all, Mangum's vote in 2010 was simply authorization to go out and start looking for the bond. That vote had nothing to do with the terms of the bond that was eventually passed in 2011. Second of all, who are you to assume what someone else would or would not have done? You're not that person, you don't know them and you don't have all of the information! Making assumptions about what someone else would have done is completely ridiculous! As for the other bonds, they have reasonable repayment ratios.
In my opinion, SDCTA was looking out for the vested interests of their members, not the Poway taxpayers when they endorsed Prop C. When PUSD proposed Prop C, they projected that the housing bubble would keep growing for 8 more years, and that the growth in assessed valuation would make it a possible to pay back the bonds at the current rates. That was a wildly optimistic (and unforgivable) assumption. You can find out why in my latest blog post: http://powayblog.blogspot.com/2012/09/wildly-opti...
Some more he said/they said:
"What was unknown in 2008 [WHILE STILL A TRUSTEE], by the board and the voters, is that a year later [while still a Trustee] the financial markets would collapse [WHILE STILL A TRUSTEE], the district’s ability to issue bonds would be jeopardized [while I was still a Trustee], and the cost of financing — if you could get it — would skyrocket." [WHILE STILL A TRUSTEE]
"For my part in failing to anticipate this worst-case scenario, I sincerely apologize." Mr. Mangum, the financial meltdown came to pass while you were still a trustee. That was 2008/2009. Whether or not you "anticipated" it is irrelevant. You were still IN OFFICE when it happened and you should have waved red flags and STOPPED additional borrowing. Instead, you voted to Authorize the Issuance of a $105m dollar bond when you knew conditions were abysmal.
The money had already been borrowed using a construction bridge loan because the bond had already been approved by the voters allowing them to go forward with construction. The time to pay off the bridge loan was approaching so the district went to the bond market to see what bond terms were available. Mangum voted in 2010 to go out into the market and see what was available. He was NOT on the board when the terms came back so he couldn't have voted on the $105 million.
But it is obvious that what we have going on here is a Lynch Mob mentality. "Don't confuse me with the facts. I just want to be mad. I want to find someone to blame. Oh, how convenient, I can find some way to twist this all and blame the person who is running for office against the candidate I want to win."
Saying Jeff Mangum voted for the bond that was passed in 2011, is a lie. Plain and simple. A LIE. Hiding behind and cherry-picking the words "authorized the issuance of" when most people don't know what you are referring to is pure deception.
Mangum was NOT on the board in 2011. You can't change that fact. And if he wasn't on the board then he couldn't have voted on it. You can't vote to approve something when you aren't there.
He was on the Board for the entire mess, only leaving at the end of 2010. No one said he approved the bond itself (learn to read) we are saying that by approving the motion to proceed with the $105 m bond shows he was in fact in favor of it. The board acted like an echo chamber on all the bond measures and we're having to pay for it.
I've refrained from getting into this fray, but this is too much. At this point, what good does it do to continue to crucify the school board for what appears to be, I'll admit, a very poor choice of bond options? We all agree they are all good folks with PUSD's best interest at heart.
Even though Mr. Mangum was not even on the board when that poor decision was made, he is being pulled into the mud, too. Does make me wonder if there isn't an underlying political agenda, but we will probably never know for sure.
Regardless, based on Mr. Mangum's letter, it seems he is the only one so far to come forward and propose we work together to find solutions as a community rather than continuing to throw stones. I would actually like to hear more detail about what he has in mind…to me finding solutions to problems, no matter how overwhelming they might be, is the sign of a strong leader and I think that's just what we need right now! I hope we hear more from Mr. Mangum and soon!
Platitudes, we don't need no stinking platitudes.
Platitude; a trite, meaningless, biased, or self serving politically motivated statement, often presented as if it were significant.
"Let's work together and find solutions to problems."
Interpretation: Elect me to office and I will do what many a politician does – forget what I said.
Platitudes do not a leader make, strong or otherwise. Tossing around such a cliché is indicative of one who produces excuses as he stands at the basin washing his hands of his lack of responsibility. There is mud on his hands and, like Lady Macbeth, it is a damned spot that his pedestrian coinage won't erase.
Babs, as I recall, many people have said they felt they were owed an apology. Well, there you go, an apology! What people really want is to malign Mangum in order to serve their own political agendas. And if you are questioning the motives and sincerity of his comments, you clearly don't know him.
"For my part in failing to anticipate this worst-case scenario, I sincerely apologize."
That's like saying, "For not anticipating rain tomorrow, I apologize." Really?
Apology; A public state of regret or asking pardon for a fault or offense given freely without being dragged out or qualified.
This is an Apology? We don't deserve such self-aggrandizing and qualified atonements.
You are right – I don't 'know him' and now I really don't want to know him or have him representing me on the city council. My own agenda, political or otherwise is to point out that if indeed this is an valid acknowledgement of regret, then where is the remorse, why is it qualified, and why did it take so long?
It cannot be fixed. There are no solutions to be proposed.
"I do not know if the board and district were given all the information needed to make an informed decision"
Could that imply information was purposely withheld from the district and the board? If so, does that imply fraud? If so, does that imply the package can be legally cancelled and a new round, with voter approval, be executed?
There are questions about construction contracts. the inflation of materials being the responsibility of PUSD, etc, etc.
I believe the only way to get definitive answers to the myriad of questions is to put everyone involved under oath in a court of law. Don't hold your breath.
Having said all of that, I believe our children are better off because of Jeff Mangum's 16 years of service. He may have a little sense of "I know best", but who doesn't?
Maybe Mangum does know a little "I know best on the small stuff"
In the reality of things he was a part of a very large mistake made that affects our children & children to come in this community. If Mangums letter above is an apology, good for him. If its him asking for a 2nd chance to fix the mistake he was a part of, I think thats basically puting the titanic back out on the water & purposely having it back up into an iceberg, if we vote him back in as a leader in our town.
Prior to drafting Prop C for the ballot, the Board (including Mangum) knew that Capital Appreciation Bonds would be issued, bonds with a 20-year deferred payment. The Board knew that the cost of financing would be outrageous and that the voters would not approve Prop C if the truth be known. So, the ballot language was carefully chosen to conceal the truth. The ballot did, however, require the tax rate to be limited to $55/$100k of assessed value.
When the $105M CABs were issued in 2011, the official bond statement required the tax rate to increase WITHOUT LIMITATION as needed to ensure that the sinking fund would sufficiently cover the debt. This was in conflict with the rate limit called out in Prop C and in violation of state law.
California Educational Code 15270 says, "The bonds may only be issued if the tax rate levied… would not exceed sixty dollars ($60) per year per one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) of taxable property when assessed valuation is projected by the district to increase in accordance with Article XIII A of the California Constitution."
By 2011, it was clear that assessed valuations would not increase sufficiently to cover the 9-to-1 payoff. The bond deal was illegal, and the bond agreement should now be voided by a judge. The School Board, the County Board of Supervisors, and the County Assessor are all complicit and should be subject to a grand jury investigation.
Sounds good to me!
Tom – your children may well be better off because of the teachers in this school district. They are better off because of a fully involved PTA. Unfortunately they will not be better off in a few years as these bonds because due. Your grandchildren will not be better off when these bonds become due. To say that your children are better off because of Jeff Mangum is like saying my yard looks better because my neighbor waters his lawn.
"Guest" – Obviously you don't know how much time and energy the PUSD school board members put into this district that they love and care for. You weren't involved in agonizing budget cut decisions and all of the other difficult decisions that these people faced. Why are attacking someone's years and years of services and saying that they did nothing good for this district? What motive do you have to make Mangum look bad? Oh right, I know.
Guest, you, obviously, only read one sentence of my posting. Do you think there should be an investigation to get the true facts about the debacle? How about something constructive?
You are out to get Jeff Mangum no matter what and I will join you if substantiated information finds he did something fallacious. Until then I will treat him as I do anyone who is innocent until proven guilty.
I would very much like to know how the teachers and the PTA feels about Jeff''s support during his 16 years of service. Did you go to the trouble to ask them or is that just an assumption? I would like to hear from some of them and hope they will input their opinions to this thread.
There should be a full investigation into the bonds issued. And because it will be costly and time consuming it would be irresponsible for Jeff to think he could focus on the city council while defending his position. To John – many of the board's decisions were fine, but several important ones have costly results. As such, they no longer have the option of serving.
Mr. Kassel, You stated that Vaus demonstrated commendable civic leadership in the recall of Betty Rexford. How hard could it be to round up a lynch mob in an already forgone conclusion?
This has got to be either Betty or Paul. And by foregone conclusion do you mean the recall was correct?
Guest, are you implying Betty Rexford was lynched without a fair hearing? Can you explain to me why the City Council approved a large settlement in favor of the plaintiffs?
Perhaps the culprit in both issues is the Poway City Council even though they have no jurisdiction in the PUSD.
I just knew we would finally discover the wrong doers. It is, obviously, Steve Vaus, Jeff Mangum and the City Council. Nice job!
Now,maybe, we can get on to some important things like getting sidewalks for students and other pedestrians on Espola Road.
No Tom I'm not. Let me spell it out. Vaus took all the credit for the Rexford recall when it was already inevitable.
And good luck with getting sidewalks along Espola.
Vaus didn't take credit for the Recall because it was inevitable. Vaus STARTED the Recall, gathered a group of dedicated volunteers who worked long hours to get it out to the voters. It was a large and diverse group that he pulled together with no budget and no hope of any real budget. It was 100% grassroots. There would have been no Recall without Vaus' leadership. John Mullin is the one who showed up at the END of the process and tried claimed it for himself.
And Vaus promised not to run for her seat. Oops! There's a broken promise already.
If that's the worsed thing Vaus can do, he'll have my vote for sure!!!! Now find a playground with kids your age to talk to! Geez! Let's get real here & talk about things that matter. Like how our own kids are going to have to pay for yrs to come because we trusted the wrong people to guide us. If your more concerned about the small stuff, I think there's some Fairy shrimp that need saving
Ironic that someone who goes by "Quit your whinnying" and talks of Fairy shrimp is trying to accuse others of immaturity. Broken promises aren't concerning to you?
The effort that goes into some of these hateful comments out here is quite adorable. Sometimes I wish I was 6 years old so I could at least feel the intended pain for who you're referring to. It's funny how the focus gets turned on another to take the focus off the REAL problem. I understand your Anger & frustration in wanting to support Mangum. He's a nice guy & I once supported him as well. The facts don't lie though, he was a part of this Bond & can't deny that. You can try & take the focus off Mangum by making childlike accusations about his competitors. But no matter what accusations you make, Cunningham, Vaus, & Vineyard never were a part of this huge Bond mess. Trying to turn the focus on everyone else, may be causing more harm than good. Causing more facts to come out about Mangum than we are aware of. It's time for a few of you to get back on your monkey bars & play around on there.
Questioning someone's representation of the facts and motives for doing so is not immature, it's wanting to be properly informed.
Mangum has failed us on the bonds!
Mangum states that "What was unknown in 2008 … the financial markets would collapse … and the cost of financing … would skyrocket". He implies that, if he had predicted the crash, he would have voted "No". And yet, it seems more logical that he would have voted "Yes", as he did, before all sources of borrowing dried up.
He also apologizes for "… failing to anticipate the worst-case scenario …". Independent experts should have been commissioned by your Board to evaluate this proposition — measure twice, cut once. In light of the staggering costs that have now been placed on the shoulders of every Poway resident, you have padded the PUSD coffers while placing the future of Poway in jeopardy.
I encourage the community to hold those accountable by voting them down in any position of public trust they choose to pursue. If this was a family situation, with one family member taking advantage of the rest, it wouldn't go without punishment. We should treat politicians in similar ways of trust and consequences.
You have failed us Mr. Mangum and for that, I will not give you another chance.
Dick, you really , really, really need to hire a FACT CHECKER.
PUSD received the Golden Watchdog Award in 2005, for efficiently using tax dollars connected to Prop U that was approved by voters in 2002.
I could find no evidence or link that PUSD got a Golden Watchdog Award "as a result of having passed Proposition C and moving decisively to obtain severely needed improvements." Prop C was passed in 2008, 3 yrs after the award was given to PUSD
Why let the FACTS get in the way of a story?
To all who believe that people, no matter how good their intent; they have to be let go when they failed to perform their jobs.
I have started a campaign to obtain 1000 signatures to request the San Diego County District attorney and the San Diego Grand Jury to open investigations into this bond. One state senator also has called for these investigations. I have obtained over 250 signatures as on this date.
If you are willing to help, please contact me at tom1827@att.net
Tom Moore
You could probably stand "near" any Poway elementary or middle school and collect those thousand sigs in a few hours.
Lots of you have made good points and strong arguments in these comments about Mr. Mangum's lack of judgement, his "apology" that was lacking in so many ways and the fact that he can't be trusted. Each of you should submit letters to the editor making those same points. MANY more people read the printed version than read these comments. Send your letters to editor@pomeradonews.com.
I just wanted to take a moment to thank a stranger. Thanks Joan Palmer, of Rancho Bernardo. We appreciate your caring and support as we traverse down a very difficult road with our dog.
Those who have met Benny get it. He's an exceptionally handsome white shepherd mix with sharp defined ears and gorgeous brown eyes. And he smiles. There is something so unusual about him, his loving and good nature. We grieve to see him disabled and wish he didn't have his problems, as he was such a happy and social guy. He loved to meet strangers either people or dogs, he should have been an ambassador. He even likes cats.
We're looking into having him assessed by a physical therapist as we're not confident he can tackle Dog wheels now. He's a very old dog, so he just mostly lays down and still loves to go out onto the grass in the shade. So it won't be a lot longer that we have him, abut I can tell you it's the most excruciating experience to decide to euthanize a loving faithful pet.
There have been so many kind people in RB who know us and how we care for him and they've been great, many of them dog owners themselves.
So thank you Joan, we appreciate your letter and I'm glad you feel the way you do.