Mangum, Vaus clash at Poway forum over PUSD bonds
By Steve Dreyer
Poway City Council candidates Steve Vaus and Jeff Mangum clashed briefly during Monday night’s candidate forum on the question of Mangum’s role in the Poway Unified School District bond controversy.
Mangum restated his position that he was not on the school board in May 2011 when the board voted to proceed with the issuance of $105 million in school construction bonds.
“I did not vote for the bond, period,” Mangum told about 75 people attending a forum in Old Poway Park. “Anyone who tells you otherwise is not telling the truth.”
Vaus said Mangum voted to issue the bonds at the Oct. 11, 2010 PUSD board meeting, two months before his final term ended.
“He helped light the stick of dynamite,” Vaus said of Mangum.
The exchange took place in response to a question from the audience asking whether candidates felt the bond issue, along with the demise of the city’s redevelopment agency, would strain relationships between the city and the school district.
The capital appreciation bonds, authorized by PUSD voters in February 2008, were sold in 2011 at interest rates of around 7 percent. Since interest was deferred and no payments will be made for 20 years, the bonds will cost taxpayers about $1 billion when paid off. That’s a ratio of about 9:1.
Mangum on Monday night said that non-Mello-Roos taxpayers in the district are paying on average about $165 per year to repay school bonds. At the end of the 40-year period, they will be paying about $500 per year, he said, “not a crushing blow.” Meanwhile, property owners on the west side of the district, in Mello-Roos districts, are currently paying three-to-four times as much for their newer schools, he noted.
Asking on Tuesday to explain his November 2010 vote to proceed with the bonds, Mangum said that at the time, the district was anticipating getting a rate of about 3 percent. However, not long after the vote “the bond market tanked” and the district did not proceed with the issuance.
Mangum said that in November 2010 he and the board knew that the second issuance (“Series B”) of Proposition C bonds would be expensive, along that lines of 6:1. But the money was needed to repay bridge loans the district had made to speed up the school construction work in light of rising costs, he said.
Asked Tuesday to respond to Mangum’s explanation, Vaus said that “He (Mangum) approved the blueprint that led to the billion dollar bond.”
Monday night’s outdoor forum was sponsored by the Friends of the Poway Library and the Poway Woman’s Club.
Among other topics covered during the 90-minute forum were:
• Loss of redevelopment tax revenue – Cunningham criticized the “dysfunctional (state) Legislature” for taking “tens of millions” of tax dollars from the city, even though the Poway redevelopment program was using the money “properly and efficiently.” He called for new private-public partnerships to further advance the city’s redevelopment goals. Mangum noted the loss of redevelopment money also included a $2.5 million hit to the city’s general fund, or about 8 percent of that budget. Vaus said the state “robbed our piggy bank” and that the city will need to some up with creative ways to move forward on redevelopment. Vineyard quipped that “Governor Moonbeam has done it to us again.”
• Water rates – All four candidates expressed satisfaction with the city’s current two-tiered water rate schedule. Cunningham said he’d like to see the city eventually move to an “allocation method” where rates would be based on factors such as lot size and number of people living in a home.
• City employees – All four candidates said they felt the level of city services have not been affected by the 20 percent reduction in city employees in recent years. Vineyard added he felt that perhaps City Hall had been overstaffed prior to the cuts.
• Public safety – None of the four candidates support the creation of a separate police department for Poway. Vineyard said he would like to see local calls to the sheriff’s department handled by a Poway-based dispatcher. Regarding the fact that Poway station captains rotate out every couple of years, Vaus said that Poway is a “step up the ladder” and that the city gets the “best and brightest” of the department’s leadership.
• Trash collection – Vaus, Cunningham and Mangum endorsed an open, competitive bid process for future trash contracts. Vineyard said he was satisfied with the current service.
• Traffic on Espola Road – Vaus, Cunningham and Mangum said they opposed construction of a roundabout near Poway High School.
• “South Poway” issues – Vineyard said there is a perception that “South Poway” is not treated fairly by the City Council. “Whether it’s the truth or not doesn’t matter,” he said. Vineyard noted he is the only candidate living in that part of town. Vaus, Cunningham and Mangum disagreed with Vineyard. “I’ve looked all around and I can’t find the line,” Vaus said. “In my 16 years on the school board, I never made a decision based on geography,” added Mangum.
The four candidates also agreed:
• They oppose the city extending water lines east toward Highway 67;
• Education is an effective tool against drug use by Poway teens. Vaus noted that he organized a Town Hall on the subject after receiving no support for the idea during a presentation before the City Council.
• Providing services to senior citizens should be a high city priority.
• The city’s branch of the county library system is important and should be kept technologically up to date.
• They all get along with their neighbors.
City votes on Nov 6 will elect two candidates to the City Council. Cunningham is seeking a second, four-year term. Two-term Councilwoman Merrilee Boyack is stepping down.
Related posts:
- Four are early entrants to Poway City Council election
- City Council forum works around no-bond ruling
- Committee formed to study controversial PUSD bonds
- Vaus leads Poway City Council candidates in raising cash, spending
- Poway City Council candidate forum is Thursday night
Short URL: http://www.pomeradonews.com/?p=29265
Posted by Steve Dreyer
on Oct 9 2012. Filed under Local News, Poway.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
Last night, even though Cunningham criticized the dysfunctional democratic state of CA, he is playing both sides because he is a registered Democrat ( tax and spend ). Vote carefully
What the article doesn't say is that Vaus had a bit of a tantrum when Mangum pointed out areas where Vaus tried to embellish the truth, so Vaus used a totally unrelated question that wasn't even about the bonds to attack Mangum — again using misrepresentions to do so. The audience was not impressed with how Vaus handled it. Makes me wonder how he would act if he actually made it onto the council.
Entertainers and Politicians don't mesh. Right Arnold!
I take it you hated Reagan? oooo – gotcha!
I don't live in the past. ohh- gotcha back!
Mangum is still lying. The bonds approval that he voted on in October 2010 reflected actually a slightly HIGHER payoff than what occurred in July 2011. He absolutely knew the details and he is still refusing to accept responsibility for his role in the bond mess. Just because he wasn't there on the final day doesn't mean he isn't fully responsible in October 2010. The 2009 Series A bond were a 7 to 1 payoff. Could Mangum really not have read what he was voting for? Did Mangum rely on someone just "telling" him what the bond paperwork said? If that's the reason then there is a failure to perform his duties.
I attended this last night. A few things that dissappointed me: When asked about the crime in the area, and all felt it was at a low? It may be low in comparison to other cities, but this is Poway, and since I've lived here the crime had gotten worse! Over half the crimes committed, are done by individuals on drugs! To hear the city council also wouldn't support previously in helping with the town hall meeting in substance abuse? Then the school bond issue….One candidate denies he was a part of it, yet his signature is on it! So many unanswered questions & issues everyone wants to sweep under the rug & not deal with!
My entire outlook changed after last night on all four candidates. I've been a Cunningham supporter for years. Cunningham you dissapointed me turning the other cheek last night to many of the issues Poway is facing, it's not perfect, stop pretending! Mangum you worry me, either your memory fails you or your a liar when you say you had no part in the school bond. Vaus, I'll be following you closely, you stood up to some of the issues our Poway is Facing & I admire that. Vineyard you have a lot to learn still
Wow, I had to read your entire comment only to find out you'll be voting for Vaus. All you Vaus supporters are so coy. Not buying it.
Omg because Mangum supporters aren't?
Embellish the truth? I went and looked at the papers myself. There's Mangum's signature. How is that misrepresentation? I get that Mangum wasn't there on the final vote but he sure as heck was there on the first one.
My take on last night? Finally, someone who will not pretend that our city is perfect and has the guts to ask the questions. How stupid that "David" calls that a tantrum. Grow up. It's called democracy.
Mangum and Cunningham seemed like the status quo types who would not question anything. That type of "leadership" got us stuck with a billion dollar bond. We don't need more of that.
For all you folks who believe what Steve Vaus is spewing and who are calling Jeff Mangum a liar, you may want to read the article posted today by the Voice of San Diego, the investigative paper who originally exposed the bond issue. In the listing of "players," Mr. Mangum's name is nowhere to be found. It appears Jeff Mangum is owed an apology from a lot of people.
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/education/article_...
Katie – the Voice didn't delete Mangum's name because he isn't a party – they are only listing the CURRENT members of the Board. NO ONE owes Mangum anything. He OWES us an apology. Oh wait. We got that sorry apology a couple of weeks ago. Something about being a mind reader. So give it up. The OCTOBER 2010 resolution WHICH CONTAINED ALL THE DETAILS was set in motion by Mangum and seconded by Vanderveen. In NOVEMBER 2010 Mangum forwarded the resolution to the County BOS to approve. He KNEW. Don't you get that? HE KNEW IT ALL.
Katie the VOSD article contained a huge oversight and that was to not include Mangum. The article only contained those at the end of the issue. Mangum was part and parcel of the October 2010 vote which is virtually identical to what was passed in 2011. I guess you're just too stubborn to actually ready the documents or you're just naive enough to believe that this is just all ok.
The only difference is the interest rate in 2011 was actually a smidge lower than what he voted for. He also voted for $31 million in illegal premiums. Mangum needs to stop hiding behind your skirt. The entire Board, Mangum included, should be held financially liable for their behavior.
Fact Check: I've read the documents from the October 2010 PUSD board meeting. The vote then was to allow the bond sellers to sell the bonds – to negotiate an interest rate. The only interest rate mentioned in the documents is a negotiation cap – a limit on what the negotiators are allowed to do.
But those bonds were never sold. They were withdrawn from the market before any interest rate was negotiated. So we don't know what the interest rate would have been. That kind of blows the argument that the interest rates on the bonds voted on in October 2010 were the same as May 2011.
Maybe some of you just don’t understand what you are reading? I’d prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise I would need to suspect your motives for why you keep saying the interest rate in October 2010 and the one in May 2011 was the same. It was the NEGOTIATION CAP on the interest rate that was the same.
No one said they were the same. We said they were close. Actually the final rate was a bit better than what was authorized in 2010. We also need to ask ourselves why there the call feature was never a part of any of the bonds. I suspect the Board was given the choice in 2009 and 2010 between getting excessive premiums or paying for the call feature they opted to go with paying for expensive bonds in order to pull cash out to pay for the interest rate on earlier bonds. You can't remove Mangum from the equation in 2009 or 2011. You just can't.
Let's try again: There was never any interest rate assigned to the October 2010 set of bonds. The rate hadn't been negotiated yet. That 's what they were authorizing the bond sellers to do — negotiate a rate.
Let's try some synonyms and see if one of them finally connects. The rate you all keep referring to is the ceiling, the cap, the limit that the negotiators were not supposed to go over. The document uses the exact wording "not to exceed." Many of you are trying to incorrectly say that the limit was the actual interest rate. You are all wrong. The 2010 bond authorization was withdrawn from the market so it never had any interest rate assigned to it.
Well let's try explaining this to you again. The resolution that you say was dropped was the very resolution attached to the validation action for the court to approve. The details were known in 2010. The general payoff was known in 2010. If you mean the actual interest rate you are correct – but you're splitting hairs. The Board knew in October and submitted to the County Board AND the court that the resolution passed in October 2010 would be substantially the same as what occured in July 2011.
And just for argument's sake – it doesn't actually matter what happened to that October 2010 resolution. What does matter is that it confirms Mangum supported what the District was doing financially. That is all we really need to know now isn't it?
Well, "Anonymous for now," the tantrum I was referring to is when Vaus used a question totally unrelated to what was being asked (it was a question about our library) to attack Mangum again because Mangum had made Vaus look bad on the previous bond question. Were we seeing the real Vaus? Makes me nervous to have him on the city council if he can't control his temper any better than that.
Steve is one of the most level headed guys you'll ever meet and has a better grasp of reality than your buddy Mangum. Vaus didn't throw a damn tantrum and for people who weren't there your accusing him of doing that is ridiculous.
Wow. That's a tantrum? Going back to a prior question to make his point clearer? My gosh, you're right! That's such a temper!
All I have to say is that you must be some seriously old guy with thin skin that doesn't like any of those pesky whipper-snappers asking annoying questions.
Poway has had enough of the "old guard–don't ask questions–do what staff tells you to–all is well in Poway" kind of leaders. I don't doubt you're nervous. People are actually paying attention now. That's got to be making your blood pressure rise.
Katie – Just so you know – Steve Vaus isn't behind Thanks a Billion or any of the other articles and editorials that have been written – any more than Jim Cunningham or Gary Vineyard are. So back off the "spewing" comments honey. He hasn't spewed anything other than solid facts and an positive record of serving this community. And so far no billion dollar nightmares.
Doesn't mean his people aren't. And since you seem to be so sure of what Vaus is and is not up to, I'm guessing you fall into that category.
Agree with comment about vineyard needing to learn more. He might bring a businessman perspective but has not paid enough attention to what the city issues are.
He may lack in experience, but Vineyard was the most level headed one last night. We could use his fresh blood. The other three acted like spoiled little brats.
Vineyard has no clue what is going on. He still thinks we have tiered water rates and a redev agency. See his chieftain nterview.
The situation we have with the City Council election reminds me of a beauty contest that
took place in my old Oklahoma hometown. We could not find a winner.
I find reasons not vote for any of them, with few reasons to support them. I hope some clarity will come forth before election time.
One things for certain. All this bickering between the Vaus and Mangum camps sure bodes well for Cunningham. Out of sight, out of mind. His seats safe for another four years.
Since when did Addressing an issue or confronting a Lie be considered a Tantrum?
Since when did out of sight, out of mind make a campaign seat safe?
Do you want a candidate to tell you what you want to hear, then do nothing about it?
Or Do you want a candidate that addresses problems & works on issues?
Seems to me, if you are someone that gets along with every single person & have no problems with anyone, then you haven't faced or confronted problems in this world. NO human gets along with everyone, especially when their standing up for an entire community.
To Walker: It was sort of the other way around. Vaus was confronted on his misrepresentations. Hence the tantrum — the desire to attack again to see if he could score a hit with more misrepresentations, even if it meant going outside the boundaries to do it. Again, do we want someone with that type of personality sitting on our city council? Makes me nervous.
There were no misrepresentations David. What you refer to as misrepresentations in Mangum's eyes are viewed as facts by the rest of the conscious world. Vaus calling out the fraud isn't a tantrum. It is really unlikely it was a tantum and simply an overstatement and exaggeration by you and the two other Mangum supporters at the event.
Was this debate recorded so everyone could watch it later?
From what you said, it sounds like you weren't there, MoneyMoney. The crowd was not impressed with Vaus' cheapshot.
I was there. THe only ones who were upset were the Mangum cheerleaders in the middle. The people around me were saying, "Yeah, what about that?"
Maybe all candidates should all have a breakfast, lunch or meeting spot to ocassionally meet voters/citizens to further talk the issues. Vaus mentioned that, and another example Councilmember Grosch is generally available to meet with citizens on issues of concern.
Of course, they can't always agree with everyone's point of view, but it is nice to know some want and will listen.
Many citizens have serious questions about the bonds that are still thoroughly unanswered and it is somewhat questionable about Mr. Mangum's role. In the first place the bond issues needed to be made clear to the public and publicized openly for input. Then after the story broke it should not have been swept under the table and then lectured on what they should think about it by the Superintendant and Mr. Mangum. Difficult questions and conservation are good.
To Guest: After Vaus' off-the-subject diatribe, Cunningham began his turn to answer the library question by saying "To respond to the question that was asked…" and the audience applauded. Seems to me the audience was not impressed with Vaus sliding off topic just to launch an attack.
David, I was in attendance and from what I saw and heard, you speak the truth. Good luck trying to convince all the Vaus homeys though. Their guy can do no wrong no matter how you look at it.
I was truly hoping the reasonable folks of Poway could see through the dog and pony show to have real change in Poway. Unfortunately it looks like we may be headed for more of the same.
Well, at least all the North Poway residents will be well taken care of.
Too bad Vaus & Vinyard didn't answer the question about the library. I want to vote for candidates that have a committment to supporting and sustaining our library. Cunningham and Mangum took the question seriously and gave thoughtful answers guess who I am voting for.
David- You're either dilusional or you were not there & heard a wrong version of how the night went! Mr. Vaus did indeed answer the question first then proceeded to correct a false statement Mr. Mangum had made previously! Mr. Cunninghams answer to the question was also the exact answer Mr. Vaus had give previously & not a single person clapped to his answer, because we had heard that answered the same way previously. You need to reconsider your sources if someone relayed wrong how the evening went or YOU ARE CLEARLY DILUSUONAL. There were NO tantrums, The only applauding that happened was actually after one of Mr. Vaus's answers. Yes there was videotaping from the evening that will be posted.
Sorry, KM, that you have selective hearing. The applause for Cunningham came at the beginning of his library answer when he began his remarks by referencing the need to get back to the subject of the question that was asked. Mr. Mangum then appropriately used his closing remarks to address Vaus' misrepresentations.
I hope there is a legitimate video of the entire event — an unedited version that is provided by those who sponsored the event so that we can trust the accuracy.
Vaus didn't launch an attack. You perceive it that way because you are so pigheaded in your absolute conviction that Mangum can do no wrong. People are fallible. The bond issue was a huge lapse in judgment and it goes back to 2007. Get over it. We're tired of reading the same arguments over and over and over again. Mangum needs to sit this one out. His credibility is shot for the time being. Sorry your guy isn't going to get elected this time. Can we just move on? Seriously folks.
If all these Vaus supporters are so upset about the bond issue, why were there so few people at the PUSD Board forum? They had the opportunity to question the board members who actually approved the bonds! I think they don't really care that much about it, they just want to smear Jeff Mangum!
We were theren't because there isn't any point. There's only one challenger for two spots. Plus as we have seen any legitimate questions about the bond have been squashed so why waste a perfectly good evening staring at Vanderveen and listening to crickets?
Riiiight .
Yes the numbers were few. However controversial questions submitted on the bond issues were as usual tossed aside, even those there was an extra 45 minutes of time. It was disheartening why the serious bond questions were disgarded. There was plenty of time for serious explanation and discussion.
Question submitted: With the discovery of the costs, scandal and the humiliation that the last bond has caused the community; why do you feel that the resignation of the board members and top administrator should not occur?
Perhaps a little strong, but if no wrong has been done explain it please.
Because that's not a relevant question.