Marne Foster

For the second time in recent months, San Diego Unified School Board President Marne Foster is facing official scrutiny over her conduct.

The California Attorney General’s Office has questioned the legality of a raffle held at an unusual July 25 fundraiser in which Foster sold tickets to pay for college debt and expenses of two of her sons. This account is from the Union-Tribune:

Organizers of a fundraiser held last month to help pay off debt and college costs for the sons of San Diego school board President Marne Foster have been given until Sept. 9 to show that a raffle-like drawing held at the event was conducted legally.

 

The state Attorney General’s office sent a letter to C. Anthony Cole Repertory Dance Theatre on Aug. 10 to inquire about the drawing that generated money at the Brothers 2 College benefit held on July 25 at the Neighborhood House Association headquarters.

 

The letter includes a summary of state legal requirements for holding raffles, including the code provision that authorizes eligible organizations to conduct raffles provided they are registered with the California Attorney General Registry of Trusts.

The fundraiser was already in the news because of conflict of interest questions. A flier for the event featured San Diego Unified’s logo; it was also publicized on the Facebook page for Foster’s district. The fundraiser was held at a local facility that has a school district contract that Foster voted for last year. The event was attended by representatives of groups, such as the local teachers union, which hope to stay on Foster’s good side.

Grand jury knocks interference at son’s school

This controversy comes in the wake of a May report from the San Diego County Grand Jury calling on the school district to impose tougher rules for board member behavior because of Foster’s alleged interference with teachers, counselors and the principal of the School of Creative and Performing Arts, a high school attended by her son. The Voice of San Diego detailed the allegations.

Foster’s son was a student at SCPA. Foster and [Principal Mitzi] Lizarraga did not like each other. This is one of the few things on which they agree.

 

Lizarraga said Foster regularly used her position on the school board to push for special treatment for her son. She pressured his teachers to tweak grades and attendance records, Lizarraga said, and demanded a counselor for her son with whom she had a personal relationship.

Lizarraga says her staff was forced to write a favorable college recommendation for Foster’s son and that she was ousted as principal at her behest. She left San Diego Unified last year and now is principal of an arts school in Los Angeles.

Foster denies any wrongdoing. She has not commented on the attorney general’s questions about her July 25 fundraiser, but depicted criticism of it as politically motivated.

Foster says if there was any improper behavior at the School of Creative and Performing Arts, it was by staff members, which took out their differences with her on her son.

In its formal response to the grand jury report, the school district challenged the assertion that it had inadequate ethical standards and said the allegations against Foster were too vague to act upon.

San Diego Unified is the second largest school district in California, with more than 130,000 students.

Foster, a community college teacher, was elected to the board in 2012.

A court ruling is expected within weeks on whether certain documents should be considered in a lawsuit against California’s High-Speed Rail Authority.

The state has argued for limiting the evidence to documents, such as business plans and environmental reviews, from formal Authority proceedings. Project opponents are arguing for broadening the scope of evidence to documents related to decisions that they say were made outside the public’s eye.

Attempts to Halt Project

Opponents are attempting to halt the $68 billion dollar project by showing that the Authority cannot achieve the trip times promised in the taxpayer bond funding the project, that the voters did not approve the planned system of sharing tracks with commuter and freight rail, and that the financial viability of the project just doesn’t add up.

Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny is weighing whether to consider as part of the case two documents in particular: a travel time analysis prepared by opponents, and declarations submitted by the opponents in 2013. A hearing in Tos, Fukuda and Kings County v. California High-Speed Rail Authority was held late last month in Sacramento.

The Attorney General’s office argued against considering the expert declarations. The declarations, which include a statement from the former head of the high-speed rail project, question the viability of the rail’s promised travel times as well as the overall finances of the project. They also question the legality of the blended system of sharing tracks.

The AG’s office says the declarations should have been presented as commentary for the Authority’s 2014 business plan in order to be allowed in the administrative record.

Opponents said the declarations were presented to the Authority’s attorneys in 2013 and that should suffice as delivery to the Authority.

Transparency in Question

Opponents also argue that the Authority has made decisions outside the public view, through informal, or closed-door decisions, and that the public was not allowed to challenge the Authority’s thinking before key decisions were made.

Example: The Authority’s attorneys submitted a declaration from one of its chief program managers, engineer Frank Vacca. In that declaration Vacca says the authority can make the time required in Prop. 1.  This declaration was never debated and discussed at any board meeting.

The AG’s office says that the declaration was not an official decision by the Authority; it only offered proof that the Authority could achieve the two-hour, 40-minute time requirement.

Opponents have requested but not received the computer model inputs that inform the rail authority’s time analysis. They say because they have not been able to analyze those numbers, the public did not have a chance to debate or challenge the thinking behind the analysis.

Opponents gave another example of an informal decision reached without public discussion: to limit train speed to 125 mph in urban areas. The opponents said the authority decided on the speed limit, then presented the decision as a done deal to the public. Opponents submitted records of those presentations, to 40 cities, and the attorney general’s office did not oppose allowing those records to supplement the Administrative record.

Appellate Court Postpones Ruling

On Aug. 13, 2013, project opponents received a favorable ruling for the first part of their case, which challenged the adequacy of the Authority’s funding plan. That ruling was overturned on appeal July 31, 2014, when the court said it was too early to decide the funding issues.

The appellate court determined that opponents would have to wait to challenge the funding plan when construction was imminent and money was about to be spent. To date, the Authority has used only federal funds to prepare to construct early phases of the project in the Central Valley.

A hearing on the merits of the case is set for Feb. 11.

The Fresno Bee has key details:

The Fresno Unified School District is asking the California Supreme Court to reverse a recent appellate court opinion criticizing its use of a no-bid contract, saying it could negatively impact hundreds of school districts and contractors across the state.

 

Fresno Unified attorneys said in the petition, filed earlier this week, that a 5th District Court of Appeal opinion released last month concerning a leaseback contract with Harris Construction has far-reaching consequences for the way school districts handle building projects.

 

“The Court of Appeal’s opinion and the issues presented by this petition impact hundreds of school districts and contractors who have participated, either currently or in the past, in hundreds of millions of dollars of lease-leaseback contracts on thousands of projects throughout the state,” the petition says. “The lease-leaseback arrangement between FUSD and Harris was structured exactly the same way as other school districts throughout California have structured their lease-leasebacks for years.”

 

Leaseback agreements were designed to allow cash-strapped districts to build schools by going outside of the traditional competitive bidding process and handpicking consultants who will front the cost of a project and then be repaid by the district in increments over time.

 

Contractor Stephen Davis took Fresno Unified to court, alleging that its contract with Harris Construction to build the $37 million Rutherford B. Gaston Middle School was not a true leaseback because the district had the money to pay for the project upfront. Davis also alleges the district broke state conflict-of-interest laws by allowing Harris Construction to provide pre-consulting services for a project it was ultimately awarded.

Trustee says FBI probing; superintendent surprised

Meanwhile, per the Bee, a Fresno Unified trustee says federal law enforcement as well as California appellate judges appears to have concerns about the Gaston deal.

“Attorney General Kamala Harris moved Thursday to preserve California’s restrictions on concealed-weapons permits, seeking a rehearing of a federal appeals court ruling that would allow law-abiding citizens throughout the state to carry handguns in public.

“Harris, on behalf of the state, asked the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for permission to intervene in the case, involving a lawsuit against the San Diego County sheriff over gun permit restrictions … .

“San Diego’s sheriff, Bill Gore, the sole defendant in the case, announced last Friday that he would not ask the court for a rehearing, raising the possibility that the ruling would become final without further appeals. Thursday was the court’s deadline for an intervention request by Harris, who ordinarily defends state laws in court but was not named as a party to the case. …

“C.D. Michel, lawyer for the California Rifle and Pistol Foundation, and individuals who challenged the San Diego County system, said the appeals court should refuse to let Harris enter the case.

“‘The state of California has been in this case from day one by virtue of the fact that Sheriff Gore was in there as a state actor,’ Michel said. He said Harris had turned down invitations from both sides to enter the case at the outset, and is seeking to intervene now only because she disagrees with the ruling.”

Chortling over rebuke to CA gun haters

There’s quite a bit of chortling in gun-rights circles over these developments. California likes to think it’s the national leader in scorning guns and gun owners, and now the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, of all courts, has gotten in the way.

That chortling should extend specifically to the incompetence of Harris and her staff. It evidently never occurred to them that the Second Amendment of the Constitution might apply in California. Now it’s time to play catch-up with some Indignant Posturing.

This follows on her amazing two-step in the bullet-train case. In August, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny ruled that the state’s plan to build the first segment of the project broke state law because of its incomplete environmental reviews and shaky financing. In a subsequent “remedies” hearing, Harris’ office didn’t take issue with Kenny’s finding that the state’s plan broke state law. Instead, it held that work could continue using federal funds. In November, Kenny issued two follow-up rulings basically blocking use of state funds in construction of the project.

Two months later, Harris’ office put out a new opinion that held Kenny’s original ruling was wrong. Huh?

Epic klutziness. But if you don’t like the bullet train and/or fear Harris will be governor some day, it’s been fun to watch.