JOSEPH N. BELL -- The Bell Curve

Whenever I write a column in support of the upcoming Newport-Mesa school

bond issue, there is one reaction I can always count on. It comes from a

retired Newport Beach teacher and counselor and former Grand Jury member

named Kent Moore. He takes issue with me respectfully, but strongly.

Since I have long regarded support of the school bond as a virtual

no-brainer, it seemed to me useful to meet Moore and try to understand

his objections.

I’ve always believed that if your own position is not strong or secure

enough to allow you to look squarely at the opposition, you need to

rethink it. So I met with Moore last week and talked about the school

bond over coffee for almost two hours.

I must say that this took some courage on his part, since he knew my

feelings and didn’t know how I would treat what he said in print. I’ll

try to represent his objections as clearly as possible with one comment

up front: I left our meeting even more firmly committed to support of the

bonds.

Moore’s opposition falls into three principal areas:

* The Newport-Mesa Unified School District Board of Education, by its

performance over the last 10 years (especially in allowing a $4-million

embezzlement, committing $47 million to the disastrous Citron investment

pool, and failure to set aside money for school repairs and

construction), has proven itself untrustworthy and therefore should not

be trusted with the proper and efficient use of the bond funds.

* We have no assurance that the money will be used strictly for the

repair of school buildings. In fact, there is some evidence that it

won’t.

* The refusal of the school administration and school board members to

admit and apologize for their improper behavior contradicts the message

of accountability we try to send our students.

I asked Moore if, in view of his accusations against the board -- which

come close to criminal malfeasance -- he had ever run for the board

himself or worked to put up opposing candidates so his objections could

be aired in a campaign. He said he hadn’t because he didn’t think the

electorate cared.

He said he “didn’t want to come across as anti-education” and freely

admitted the urgent need for school repairs in Newport-Mesa.

So what, I asked him, would bring you around to supporting these bonds?

Two things, he said: if board members would apologize individually and

publicly for their past errors and if he had absolute assurance that the

money would go strictly for the repair of school buildings.

To that end, he gave me a laundry list of projects to be addressed with

the bond money that he considers frivolous and outside the pale of

“bricks and mortar.”

Whenever we got into more abstract questions, he referred to that laundry

list or the refusal of board members to apologize. When I asked him how

-- because he admits the dire need -- he would suggest providing our kids

with safe and healthy schools if his opposition helps shoot down the

school bond, he said: “I guess we’d just have to go back to square one

and start over with a board that has the trust of the public.”

By way of balance, I took Moore’s complaints to two members of the

Newport-Mesa school board: Dana Black and Jim Ferryman. I’ll touch on

their responses here, then deal with their strongly held views in support

of the bond issue in my next column.

Their first -- and most emphatic -- rejoinder to Moore’s criticism was

that the board and school administration he condemns so vigorously no

longer exist. Only two members are still serving who were on the school

board during the embezzlement and county bankruptcy -- and one of them

voted against participation in the Citron fund.

The present board took shape less than four years ago and began almost

immediately to take preliminary steps toward assessing building needs and

exploring funding avenues -- a long and painstaking process.

Black and Ferryman were puzzled at the suggestion that there is some sort

of hidden agenda that will allow the bond funds to be used in

inappropriate ways. Never have so many safeguards been attached to public

money.

Measure A itself is as specific as it can be within the limited space

given it on the ballot. But local voters who want to know more need only

consult the district’s Educational Facilities Master Plan, which details

and describes every proposed expenditure -- and is available at all 29

local public schools and the district office.

Moore’s “laundry list” was made up of isolated items excerpted from this

document, and the virtue of each item can be argued individually. He may

not agree -- perhaps you and I may disagree with some of them, too -- but

they are single items in a $163-million repair and construction bill that

necessarily includes design and implementation costs that Moore also

finds objectionable. And all this is subject to the scrutiny of a

citizens’ oversight committee.

Finally, the board members tell me they are in no mood to apologize for

the hard and earnest work they’ve done to stabilize this school district

and move vitally needed rehabilitation of school structures along to this

point.

Moore regards the lack of such an apology as a failure on the part of the

board to demonstrate accountability to our students. I would suggest that

the passage of Measure A would be a much more dramatic example of

accountability on the part of the voters of this district to the growing

acute needs of our schoolchildren.

* JOSEPH N. BELL is a resident of Santa Ana Heights. His column appears

Thursdays.