This letter is in response to Mark White’s letter of Aug. 16. While I know that The Signal, not the author, decides on the headline, instead of “Dereliction of Duty,” Mr. White’s letter should be entitled “Misinformation and Why I Don’t Belong on the Saugus School Board.”
Mr. White starts his arguments by saying “one thing that stood out was the rush to get this on the Nov. 5 ballot” and he refers to “a recent district survey.”
In fact, the survey referred to by Mr. White was conducted in June 2022. If a survey was done more than two years before the board made a final decision how can Mr. White claim the decision was rushed? He also claims, “with the new rules for general obligation bonds,” that 55% is needed to pass a general obligation bond measure. These rules are hardly new, they were passed in November 2000 as part of Proposition 39, which amended the state Constitution. Mr. White seems to have a limited understanding of the word “rush” and the importance of timely decisions. Delaying critical matters that impact the safety and wellbeing of our teachers and students is unacceptable.
Mr. White also asks a question related to a proposed state bond measure: “If there is a $10 billion statewide bond would SUSD and the other Santa Clarita Valley districts be entitled to a proportionate amount of these funds, regardless of if our new bond/tax didn’t pass?” But Mr. White answers his own question by describing the state money as “potential partial matching funds.” And this was explained multiple times at the two meetings Mr. White attended. State funds are “potential” (not guaranteed), “partial” (only a percentage of certain projects) and “matching” (a local district has to fund a project before state matching funds are allocated). Moreover, reimbursement often occurs years after project completion.
Mr. White’s claim of no cost estimate is inaccurate. The Aug. 1 resolution and exhibits clearly outline the $187 million bond measure, detailing specific projects as mandated by state law. While Mr. White may want to play armchair cost-estimator in his spare time, cost estimation is best left to the school district’s expert architects.
Mr. White then whips out his crystal ball to claim this bond measure has a term of “34 years with an option to extend it to just over 40 years.” After a bond measure is approved, the actual bonds are not issued until funds are needed and are often issued in different series over time (e.g. Series A, Series B etc.). The term and pricing of each series is determined when it is sold and is based on market conditions at that time. While some of these bonds may be issued with a 30-year term, as Mr. White points out, SUSD has issued series with terms less than that. And, as has happened in the past, bond series may be refinanced after issuance to lower interest costs or may be repaid early altogether.
Mr. White’s claim that board meeting minutes are inaccessible is false. The district has posted minutes for the past 10 years. His suggestion to permanently store all meeting recordings is impractical. SUSD is unique in the SCV for posting meeting recordings, and the retention policy is determined by the board. To modify this policy, Mr. White should submit a formal request to the superintendent, not through a newspaper opinion piece.
Mr. White’s letter is clearly littered with misinformation, unsupported predictions, poor logic and faulty conclusions. It should be ignored except the part where he says, “I am not opposed to using bond financing to ensure the safety of our schools. Yes, many are 50-plus years old and need repairs and upgrades.” That is the only part that makes sense. Otherwise, maybe Mr. White should attend more than just a couple of board meetings before making outrageously false claims.
Katherine Cooper
Saugus
