STEVE SMITH -- What’s Up?

About 10 minutes into a breakfast meeting with school board member Dana

Black two months ago, I thanked her for her time and commitment as a

board member.

Black and I disagree on a number of issues, but it does not lessen my

appreciation of her efforts on behalf of our children. The same is true

for my appreciation of board members Judy Franco, Jim Ferryman, Serene

Stokes, Wendy Leece, Martha Fluor and David Brooks.

Now, let’s try this again.

I’m not against a school bond to fix our schools. I’m opposed to giving

the money ($110 million from the bond; $53 million in matching funds,

contributed by your fellow taxpayers from around the state; $163 million

total) to this particular school board.

I have asked for two things: accountability -- quite different from the

apology some folks believe I want -- and some financial history that will

show taxpayers this board is capable of administrating $163 million in

public funds.

This is not too much to ask before we hand over that much money. Almost

anyone reading this would have to supply far more information than that

just to buy a used car.

Apparently, accountability is not the way the game is played if you’re a

school board member. Accounting for yourself is a weakness; it’s for

suckers. People who account for themselves are the wimps who don’t know

how to work the system. Accounting for yourself might show that you make

mistakes, that you’re human, and we all know what creatures those humans

are.

Instead, you can have other people make your excuses for you, while you

avoid the spotlight. And instead of addressing the issues, it doesn’t

hurt to have your spokespeople attack the messenger, either.

Last month, the school board discussed the arrangements for the Citizen’s

Oversight Committee, which is to be the watchdog for the spending of $163

million tax dollars. The new committee will have either five, seven or

nine people from each school making up “site-based committees.”

They’ll be the local folks who will watch over the structural changes to

their neighborhood school. Ironically, the very first of eight stated

purposes of this committee is to “provide accountability.” What a

concept.

So, here’s the total so far. According to its Web site, the district has

22 schools. Giving the school board the benefit of the lowest number of

committee members -- five -- the Oversight Committee starts at 110

people.

But wait, there’s more. The other part of the Oversight Committee is the

“district-based committee.” Yes, their first purpose is also to “provide

accountability.” This committee will be made up of 25 more people with,

as it reads in the proposal, “leeway for the committee to expand with

board approval.”

The suggested members of this sleek, built-for-speed committee include,

among others, one representative each from the Orange County Treasurer’s

Office, the Board of Realtors, the Newport-Mesa Administrators Assn., the

California School Employees Assn., and the chambers of Commerce of Costa

Mesa, Newport Harbor and Corona del Mar.

So, giving the school board the benefit of the smallest possible numbers,

taxpayers are supposed to put their faith and trust in the oversight of

$163 million in upgrades and repairs in the hands of no less than 23

committees totaling no less than 135 people with the possibility that

figure could balloon to more than 223 people.

That’s the way it works on the school board. Defer maintenance on the

schools for years, don’t account for your actions, then ask property

owners to raise their own taxes to bail you out while you tell them how

“thrilling” it is.

And to mollify critics, establish a labyrinth of oversight committees and

bureaucracies so large and unwieldy, they’ll be finishing up their

introductions to each other just as the last nail is driven into the last

repair job.

Oh, yes, and in between, let others blame a local columnist for the

rotten state of our schools.

Our schools need to be repaired, but the proposed system for oversight is

another bureaucratic behemoth, yet another example of poor administration

of public resources.

Excuse me for wanting to know where our tax dollars went or where they

are going.

Excuse me for wanting to know why our kids were sent to decrepit schools.

Excuse me for wanting at least one of the seven public servants on the

school board to step forward and account for their actions.

Excuse me if I want them to requalify for the tremendous privilege of

spending $163 million in tax dollars contributed by hard-working

citizens.

Excuse me for wanting a better system. And excuse me if I’m tired of

reading how it’s my fault that our schools are falling apart.

Today, I’m upping the ante. In addition to my requests for accountability

and to have a panel other than the board responsible for spending the tax

dollars, taxpayers should also be told why this bond was not floated

years ago when the need for repairs was obvious and would have cost far

less than what they do now.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for a board member to address these

issues. Just stay tuned for more attacks on the messenger.

* STEVE SMITH is a Costa Mesa resident and freelance writer. He can be

reached via e-mail at o7 [email protected] , or call our Readers

Hotline at (949) 642-6086.