Advertisement

News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education

Mixed Results for California Bonds

Several of California’s fast-growing community college districts won voter support Tuesday to issue bonds to repair and expand facilities. More than $1 billion in projects were at stake in the votes and while results are still unofficial, early results gave several districts reason to celebrate. Others were disappointed as measures went down to defeats that were not even close.

Nearly a half-billion dollars’ worth of bonds were approved by voters for the Foothill-De Anza Community College District, with The San Jose Mercury News reporting that the measure was ahead by a comfortable margin. (Such bond votes must be backed by 55 percent of voters in relevant districts.) Information released by the district said that the funds were needed both to add and to modernize facilities, with an emphasis on providing training for health-care facilities and meeting standards for earthquake safety and access for people with disabilities.

Allan Hancock College was also happy last night, with unofficial results giving the college’s $180 million bond request 56.9 percent approval, with just about all of the votes counted. In materials prepared to encourage voter support, college officials noted that 75 percent of the buildings on its main campus are 40 years or older. The college, like Foothill-De Anza, also cited the need for modern facilities to train health care and emergency response workers.

Voters also appeared to have approved $286 million for the Contra Costa Community College District. A preliminary count by election officials, with all precincts reporting, had the measure receiving just over 56 percent of the vote. Early returns — with less than half of precincts reporting — indicated strong backing for a $390 million measure for Peralta Community College District.

Despite similar arguments, Cuesta College saw its $310 million in bonds go down in defeat. Officials told The San Luis Obispo Tribune News that as a result of the vote, they would need to reconsider some of the college’s commitments to various programs. Officials said they would also examine why voters rejected the bond. Some anti-tax activists suggested that they would have backed a smaller measure.

Sierra College also saw its bond measure rejected, with only 43 percent of voters backing a measure to authorize $78 million for facilities repair. The Sacramento Bee (registration required) reported that some opposition to the bond came from residents upset that the college had designed the bond so that some portions of the college’s tax district would be excluded from having to finance it. While college officials said this was done because some of those areas had passed previous bonds, other residents said the move was unfair.

The largest measure for community colleges would have provided more than $700 million in financing for the Mt. San Jacinto Community College District — and it was voted down. College leaders plan to discuss the vote tomorrow and have said that a loss in the bond election would make it impossible for the college to serve the students projected to enroll there in the coming decades. Republican politicians and anti-tax activists have rallied against the bond proposal, saying the money isn’t needed.

Scott Jaschik

Got something to say?


Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Advertisement

Comments

Allan Hancock College v. Cuesta College Bond

I believe that some comparisons and contrasts between Hancock’s (AHC) and Cuesta’s bond campaigns might be useful.

Cuesta College Foundation gave $104,000 to the pro-bond committee. AHC gave zero. That surely leaves donors making unrestricted contributions wondering whether or not the Foundation Board will direct their money to projects with a direct student benefit.

One faculty member at Cuesta gave $100 to the pro-bond committee. 25 at AHC gave a total of $4,250 to theirs.

One staff member at Cuesta gave $100 to the pro-bond committee. 4 at AHC gave a total of $550.To me, that speaks volumes about what the faculty and classified staff thought about each administrations ambitious bonds and was reflective of the level of input they felt they had in the bond and in the setting of priorities for the use of the bond money.

Cuesta withheld their actual priorities from the public while AHC was forthcoming about theirs.Cuesta mailed “educational” material (using district funds) to voters with the only balancing “con” issue being the cost to a property owner of $25 per $100,000 of assessed property value.

Cuesta advertising and advocacy spoke of renovation and repair as the primary focus of the bond, while only allocating 14% of the bond proceeds to such projects, while at the same time, in on-campus planning meetings with faculty and staff (weeks before the election) Cuesta administration dictated the priorities (which didn’t include renovation and repairs) to the campus community. When asked as to why this wasn’t really a “planning meeting” if the priorities were pre-determined, Cuesta administration responded that the Superintendent/President and her cabinet decide priorities, not this committee.

Cuesta administration ignored input from voters during early bond workshops early in the year which urged them not to go for $310MM, but to go for the $40-50MM needed for renovation and repairs. It seems AHC did not do so and was very inclusive of public input.

I believe Cuesta was trying to build a third campus right next to a neighboring campus in a district which doesn’t have the population to support three campuses.

In my opinion, AHC and supporters operated a clean campaign whereas Cuesta made quite a few important mistakes.

In the end, I believe that voters in the Cuesta district saw the bond proposal as too expensive, wide-ranging and poorly focused with no concrete plan.

I congratulate AHC for their “win". I believe they deserve it on the merits of their cause and the way in which they conducted themselves.

As the chair of one organization which provided the other side of the story to go with the nice face Cuesta was putting on the bond, I believe Cuesta administration’s non-inclusive management style was completely ineffective in making their case to a well-informed voter population. None of my organization’s members are against education — most had _never_ voted against an education bond in their life.

I hope my comments help other districts avoid some of the mistakes made by Cuesta administration.Thank you for reading my comments.

R. D. Gilligan, at 5:45 pm EDT on June 7, 2006

Advertisement

 Jobs Related to Mixed Results for California Bonds

or search for jobs directly.

Payroll Administrator
Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research

Whitehead Institute (MIT Affiliate) an experienced payroll administrator to join a fast paced accouting and finance office. see job

Instructor / Mental Health Clinician
University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center-Downtown Denver

Posting Description: University of Colorado Denver Instructor/Mental Health Clinician The Kempe Center for ... see job

Assistant/Associate Vice Chancellor of Institutional Research and Planning
Western Carolina University

Job Duties: Reporting to the Chancellor, Western Carolina University seeks an Assistant/Associate Vice Chancellor of ... see job

Assistant or Associate Professor — Tenure Track
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job

Assistant Professor
East Carolina University

East Carolina University, a constituent institution of the University of North Carolina, is a doctoral institution with an ... see job

Senior Research Associate
NC State University

Join the Pack! A community with nearly 8,000 faculty and staff, and 30,000 students. NC State is one of the largest employers ... see job

Postdoctoral Scholars — School of Physical Sciences, Department of Physics & Astronomy
University of California, Irvine

The Department of Physics and Astronomy anticipates openings for Postdoctoral Scholars. Requirements: Applications are being ... see job

Biology
South Texas College

South Texas College Job Announcement # 2010 – 3008 Position pending Board Approval of FY10 Budget Please note that only ... see job

Associate Director for Cancer Prevention and Control
University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center-Downtown Denver

Posting Description: University of Colorado Denver Associate Director for Prevention and Control University ... see job

Associate Director- Revised 9/12/08
Princeton University

Position Summary: The Office of Audit and Compliance (OAC) at Princeton University is seeking a ... see job