San Diego County Taxpayers Association should be ashamed

Thor's AssistantPress Releases / Media Advisories 18 Comments

Share

   

SDCTA Mea Culpa
iPads Actually Costing Taxpayers $4,000

Earlier this week SDCTA released its analysis showing iPads bought by the San Diego Unified School Board will cost taxpayers $2,500 apiece.  Yesterday, the Voice of San Diego fact-checked our analysis and, unfortunately, we were wrong.

The Voice of San Diego calculated that the School Board is paying as much as $4,000 per iPad; 60 percent more than what SDCTA originally reported.

SDCTA strives to provide the most accurate information to the public, and we sincerely apologize for our mistake.  Mea Culpa.

Click here for SDCTA’s additional ballot measure recommendations.

Share

Comments 18

  1. I’m sorry, but as I see it, BOTH Voice AND SDCTA got it wrong. I’m told that the $4,000 figure assumes about a 5% interest rate — about standard for current long term muni bonds.

    But CAB’s with their odd deferred structure are issued with AT LEAST another 100 basis points (1% interest). We’ve seen these bonds issued with between a 6% and 7% interest rate.

    Assuming the CAB interest rate is “only” 6%, that would tack hundreds of dollars of additional potential interest on the bond for the iPads. My guess is that it would raise the cost from the Voice iPad figure of $4,000 to about $4,600 or a bit more.

    NOTE: I have NOT taken the time to run that figure. It’s complicated, because of potential call features in such bonds.

    But the point is, everyone’s wrong but me. So there!

    They should ALL be ashamed.

    Did I mention that this tongue-in-cheek “debate” is GREAT STUFF for us Prop Z opponents? Felt I should include that observation.

  2. Brian,

    SDCTA is opposing CC b/c of the District’s plans to buy iPads for students, among other faults with their plans for their bond program. AA and EE do not include plans to do the same.

  3. Brian,

    Feel free to read our reports on each of the school bond measures we’ve reviewed: http://www.sdcta.org/Resources/Ballot_Recommendations.asp. Better yet, if you’d like to come to our office and review the binders full of planning documents each of the school districts (even those we’ve opposed) have submitted to us we’d love to have you. They’re all public documents and we welcome you or anyone to review. Just email me chris@sdcta.org and we can set up a time.

    I understand you may disagree with our association on school bonds. I get it. What I take issue with is that you’re willing to throw the baby out with the bath water and criticize our organization as a whole, despite our alignment on an overwhelming majority of the issues. If that’s where you want to leave it, so be it.

  4. I saw Brian’s question as a legitimate one, not necessarily critical. Yet, I see SDCTA’s approach to bond support or opposition — whether I agree 100 percent of the time with the outcomes — as more of a due diligence process; looking at whether the needs are justified by the district and what kind of planning has been utilized to help guarantee costs and project efficiencies. The fact that SDCTA, as a result of this process, does support some bonds while opposing others, flies in the face of the sentiment that government should not be obligating taxpayers with any ongoing debt at all. I get that sentiment as well, while most often agreeing with it. Yet, having been involved with SDCTA for a few years now, I can say — again, whether I disagree with each board vote — that no other organization in San Diego is vetting bond and other measures with the diligence and level of detail that association staff brings to bear. Such diligence and strict criteria has resulted in many tax measures being defeated by the voters, while in other cases pushing districts to improve their programs. No process is perfect, and improvements are consistently made, such as recent SDCTA efforts to have districts address the use of CABs up front. But, knowing that bond measures will pass, there is a place for organizations like the GOP to say no across the board from a philosophical standpoint, as well as organizations that saber rattle from a process, cost and management standpoint. The two often complement each other; and when the SDTCA opposes a measure, the organization often uses its clout with the best in the arena.

  5. I pretty much agree with Barry. I’m an SDCTA member, and active on the Issues Committee. SDCTA has a set of criteria somewhat different than mine, so we sometimes disagree on issues (primarily bonds).

    But I’d say that the research they do is first rate. I sometimes draw different conclusions from such research, but that’s just me. I HIGHLY respect the effort and the honesty of the staff.

    There are some conflict of interests inherent in such an organization funded by businesses. But there’s no way a grassroots taxpayer group could put forth the professional effort that SDCTA manages.

    One other point — SDCTA today is MUCH better than SDCTA in 1999, when we felt compelled to form our grassroots San Diego Tax Fighters as a true taxpayer alternative. Not only is SDCTA today taking better positions on taxes in general — they are more active in actually OPPOSING such taxes — taking point on some matters such as SDUSD’s Prop Z. That’s a major step forward, IMHO.

  6. This is why SDRostra is valuable. Look at the four fellas we hear from here giving us perspective on the SDCTA and their bond reviews.

  7. Post
    Author

    Thanks, Eric, that is greatly appreciated. We would, of course, encourage some gals as well, not just the fellas.

  8. “What I take issue with is that you’re willing to throw the baby out with the bath water and criticize our organization as a whole, despite our alignment on an overwhelming majority of the issues”

    You’ll have to point out where I did such a thing, Chris.

    In both AA and EE, the majority of the proceeds go towards curing what was intentional deferred maintenance; years of robbing Peter to pay Paul more. Less than 10% of those bond issues go towards technology infrastructure upgrades.

    While I appreciate the need to modernize the curriculum, neither District has made efforts to eliminate programs which are not essential. I”m reducing it to the ridiculous but, if you need a better intranet infrastructure, to teach communications, it might make sense to shutter ham radio operations.

    My take is that the majority of the bond issues are the result of willful negligence on past boards. It seems a bit unfair to blame the taxpayers for the misdeeds of former politicians. If we should do such a thing, why not just pass Prop 30 and throw out pension reform?

    If I’m missing something, in my cursory analysis, please correct me.

  9. Brian,

    The implication by some has been our positions can be bought and paid for by certain members. I hope you don’t fall into that camp. I doubt Barry Jantz believes his vote can be bought because of a few individuals that happen to sit on our Board.

    In any event, while we may differ on this policy decision (and I bet you don’t agree with every elected official on every policy decision and can still support him/her) my hope is that we can partner on future issues. Even more so should we get a friendly administration in SD.

  10. Red Herring, Chris. I’ll ask again.

    What issues convinced SDCTA, to ask taxpayers to voluntarily give more money, to people who have a proven record of poor stewardship? Lets make this about issues and not personalities.

  11. Brian makes a good point about deferred maintenance. It seems to occur in all districts, though the degree of such mishandling of our general funds varies DRAMATICALLY between districts.

    I really dislike rewarding such districts for their “poor boy” claims when the money that SHOULD have been spent properly maintaining OUR assets is spent instead by board members for more rewarding items — primarily employee compensation improvements demanded by the unions, who often run these institutions by putting their stooges in political office.

    It seems to be that too many districts INTENTIONALLY “maintain” a rundown area of the schools — providing the media with a reverse Potemkin Village tour of disrepair to sell gullible reporters on the “need” for more taxpayer funding.

  12. Brian,

    It’s not a red herring. You asked for an example and I gave you one. And my hope is that you don’t believe that…so do you?

    Are there districts that have been bad stewards of taxpayer dollars and have purposefully let facilities deteriorate or wasted taxpayer dollars? Absolutely, and we have noted those and opposed those bonds. Especially this cycle. But there are those districts that have never passed a bond in their history, have put in the necessary money to maintain their facilities and have gotten to a point where they need a capital investment to make major upgrades and modernization. As I’m sure Richard can attest, since he has sat in on these presentations many times, our staff does not simply just look at pictures of falling down classrooms and give our blessing.

    Our role, as Barry mentioned earlier, is to ensure that when they are asking for this investment each district is prepared to move forward on those projects in a responsible manner and they can deliver the projects promised to voters. Furthermore, it the responsibility of the voting public to elect board members that will act responsibly and spend those dollars effectively and set aside the dollars in the future to maintain these facilities once they’re built.

    If we DID NOT do this, you’ll simply have districts pass bonds and promise the world without any accountability. And b/c of Prop 39 (which SDCTA opposed btw), almost every bond measure passes, especially during a presidential election cycle.

  13. “It’s not a red herring. You asked for an example and I gave you one. And my hope is that you don’t believe that…so do you?”

    No, I asked you to point out where I said such a thing and you offered a red herring fallacy about “the implication of some people”. To answer your direct question, I never really formed an opinion about the SDCTA but I”m learning more with each comment..

    “Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the voting public to elect board members that will act responsibly and spend those dollars effectively and set aside the dollars in the future to maintain these facilities once they’re built.”

    Got it. The battered wife got what she deserved. I actually don’t disagree with that argument but I’m less inclined to subsidize the next wife beater.

    Chris, your appeals to higher authorities (in this case Richard and Barry) are a logical fallacy. I’m simply asking you to articulate your organization’s advocacy, to encumber the property owners in Encinitas, Del Mar, Carmel Valley & Solana Beach, with a huge second mortgage on their properties, or refute the “obstructionist argument” I’ve presented against the mortgage.

    You’re a paid political operative–this shouldn’t be hard for you.

  14. See Brian? They support raising your taxes for no legitimate reason; they just want to make sure they raise your taxes for no legitimate reason their way.

    Not sure why you are worried about this, Brian.

    Chris, please accept my apologies on behalf of the San Diegan people for questioning your stance.

  15. When the Poway Unified School District board met last week, Superintendent John Collins announced the district was hiring a forensic accountant to examine its controversial 2011 bond deal, in which it agreed to borrow $105 million and ultimately repay almost $1 billion .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.