A proposed $9 billion state bond for school construction projects includes multimillion-dollar project requests from districts where student enrollment has declined, a CalWatchdog investigation has found.

The measure, on the 2016 ballot, is supported in large part by a cadre of interests led by developers, architects, contractors and educators. Among the talking points from proponents is a professed $2 billion in projects that await funding, in all nearly 400 requests from districts that have been either approved or requested by districts. 

Most of the money is aimed at improving schools or building more, and in some cases for districts that are struggling to attract students.

Declining Enrollment

West Contra Costa Unified has seen enrollment dip by 2,000 students to 30,596. Voters in the Northern California district approved a $360 million bond measure in 2012. The district is asking for $47 million more in state funding.

At Los Angeles Unified, the second largest school district in the U.S. in terms of students, enrollment has dropped 12 percent since 2005 to 646,683 in 2014-15.  It has $43 million worth of requests for state funding. The number of certified staff, which includes teachers along with upper-level administrators, has also dropped at L.A. Unified, by 8 percent in the last decade.

Then there’s the case of Centinela Valley Union High School District, where voters approved bond measures in 2008 and 2010 totaling $196 million. Over that same period, district Superintendent Jose Fernandez was handed a perk-laden contract that added up to $663,000 in compensation in 2013.  Fernandez was fired last year after the package was revealed.

Enrollment in the district dropped from 8,000 to 7,878 between 2005-06 and 2014-15 as the two bond measures were passed.

Statewide, public enrollment has remained static for the last five years.

Here’s a look at the districts with recently voter-approved bonds and projects on the waiting list for state bond funds. The listing includes the margin of approval and the ballot language, as well as the dollar amount of the district’s request with the state.

RELATED – Developers Lobby Pushes Statewide Education Bond

For an interactive map of the info listed below, CLICK HERE

Oakland Unified

• 2012: $473 million approved by 84 percent of voters “to improve the quality of Oakland schools and school facilities to better prepare students for college and jobs, to upgrade science labs, classrooms, computers and technology, improve student safety and security, repair bathrooms, electrical systems, plumbing and sewer lines, improve energy efficiency and earthquake safety.”
• On the list: $3.1 million

West Contra Costa Unified

• 2012: $360 million approved by 64 percent of voters “to make schools safe, complete essential health/safety repairs, qualify for State matching grants, shall West Contra Costa Unified School District upgrade schools for earthquake safety and handicap accessibility, remove asbestos, upgrade science labs, restrooms, vocational classrooms, technology and energy systems to reduce costs, install lighting and security systems, and acquire, repair, construct, equipment, sites and facilities.”
• On the list: $47 million

San Ramon Unified

• 2012: $260 million approved by 57 percent of voters “to improve local elementary, middle and high school classrooms, labs and learning facilities by adding classrooms to prevent school overcrowding; upgrading fire, security and earthquake safety; updating science labs, and instructional technology infrastructure for 21st-century learning; improving energy efficiency; and renovating, constructing and equipping schools, facilities and classrooms.”
• On the list: $2.7 million

Chico Unified

• 2012: $78 million approved by 65 percent of voters. “The bond funds could be expended only for the purposes specified in the ballot measure, including: improving student access to computers and modern technology, repairing or replacing leaky roofs and plumbing systems, upgrading heating, ventilation and cooling systems.”
• On the list: $3.4 million

Clovis Unified

• 2012: $298 million approved by 65 percent of voters “to maintain excellent neighborhood schools, offset state budget cuts, and retain/attract quality teachers by: Upgrading classrooms/science labs/fire safety systems/libraries; Improving energy efficiency systems; Enhancing vocational education facilities; Fixing deteriorating roofs/plumbing/bathrooms; Ensuring handicapped accessibility; and Acquiring sites, constructing/equipping school facilities.”
• On the list: $37.7 million

Fresno Unified

• 2010: $280 million approved by 75 percent of voters “to offset state budget cuts, attract quality teachers, and repair classrooms by: Upgrading vocational education classrooms/science labs/technology/libraries; Improving security/fire safety/restrooms/plumbing/ventilation systems; Increasing handicapped access; Securing state matching funds; Replacing deteriorating portables; Preventing dropouts by improving alternative schools; Acquiring, constructing, repairing campuses/facilities/equipment.”
• On the list: $43.7 million

Washington Unified

• 2012: $22 million approved by 73 percent of voters “to better prepare Washington Union High School students for college and quality jobs, shall Washington Unified School District upgrade technology in classrooms, job-training labs, and student- support facilities; modernize science labs; rehabilitate deteriorated roofs, plumbing, electrical, lighting, ventilation; improve safety; and acquire/construct/repair instructional and athletic sites, facilities and equipment.”
• On the list: $7.4 million

Orland Unified

• 2008: $21.9 million approved by 56 percent of voters for new construction and modernization.
• On the list: $1.8 million

Eureka City Unified

• 2014: $49.75 million approved by 57 percent of voters “to upgrade every school site and help improve education by: upgrading career technical/job training classrooms; investing in technology/science labs; repairing aging classrooms; qualifying local schools for matching state funds; and constructing/acquiring facilities, classrooms, sites and equipment.”
• On the list: $364,590

Los Angeles Unified

• 2008: $7 billion approved by 69 percent of voters “to improve student health, safety and educational quality, shall the Los Angeles Unified School District: continue repair/upgrade of aging/deteriorating classrooms, restrooms; upgrade fire/earthquake safety; reduce asbestos, lead paint, air pollution, water quality hazards; build/upgrade specialized classrooms students need to meet job/college requirements; improve classroom Internet access.”
• On the list: $43.6 million

Centinela Valley Union High School District

• 2010: $98 million approved by 65 percent of voters “to protect students from earthquakes; remove asbestos, lead paint, and other safety hazards from schools; and improve learning and academic achievement, shall the Centinela Valley Union High School District issue $98,000,000 in bonds, at legal rates, to repair, acquire, and construct local schools, sites, and facilities, including libraries, classrooms, science labs, and academic academies; and replace aging plumbing, heating, electrical, and school security systems.”
• 2008: $98 million approved by 71 percent of voters “to improve the quality of education/student safety/reduce overcrowding, shall Centinela Valley Union High School District issue $98,000,000 in bonds, at legal rates, to repair/acquire/construct local schools, sites, facilities, libraries, classrooms, science/computer labs, ensure earthquake safety, remove mold/asbestos, upgrade fire safety/security systems, leaky roofs, restrooms, plumbing/electrical/heating/cooling systems.”
• On the list: $28.3 million

Redondo Beach Unified

• 2012: $63 million approved by 64 percent of voters “to prepare students for success in high school, college, and the workforce; acquire, construct, upgrade, furnish, and equip school facilities, including career and technical facilities, improve classroom technology, and make energy efficiency improvements to reduce operating costs and put more money in classrooms.”
• 2008: $145 million approved by 66 percent of voters “to improve the quality of education, complete the renovation of local schools, make health and safety improvements, upgrade and modernize existing classrooms and school buildings, including multipurpose rooms, and improve student support facilities at the High School, including the library, computer and science labs and athletic facilities.”
• On the list: $2.4 million

Anderson Valley Unified

• 2010: $15.2 million approved by 65 percent of voters “to acquire, construct, and improve classrooms and facilities, including repairing, upgrading, and modernizing Anderson Valley Elementary, improving student access to modern technology at Anderson Valley Junior Senior High, improving energy efficiency, installing solar panels to reduce energy costs.”
• On the list: $754,796

Calistoga Joint Unified

• 2010: $42 million approved by 65 percent of voters “to renovate and improve Calistoga schools, improve school libraries, upgrade classrooms, modernize computer networks, build a new gym and a cafeteria, install solar energy systems, replace aging roofs, old heating, electrical, plumbing, cooling and ventilation systems with energy efficient systems.”
• On the list: $442, 693

Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified

• 2008: $200 million approved by 57 percent of voters to “authorize the School District to issue and sell bonds of up to $200,000,000 to finance school facilities projects.”
• On the list: $5.7 million

Anaheim City School District

• 2010: $169 million approved by 64 percent of voters “for the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation or replacement of school facilities, including the furnishing and equipping of school facilities or the acquisition or lease of real property for school facilities.”
• On the list: $5.4 million

Savanna Elementary School District

• 2012: $28.75 million approved by 59 percent of voters “in order to protect the quality of education at our schools, provide safe and modern school facilities, and complete priority school renovation that would otherwise not occur due to State budget cuts, and in so doing increase health, safety, welfare and educational effectiveness of classrooms for students.”
• 2008: $24.9 million approved by 72 percent of voters “to improve student learning and safety in neighborhood schools, shall Savanna Elementary School District rehabilitate 46-50-year old classrooms and school facilities, upgrade fire/safety/security systems, repair or replace deteriorated roofs, electrical, plumbing, restrooms, heating, and ventilation, and improve classroom technology and school libraries.”
• On the list: $6.4 million

Tustin Unified

• 2012: $135 million approved by 60 percent of voters “to better prepare students for college and high-demand jobs, improve students’ technology skills for today’s higher standards, retain qualified teachers, improve instruction and career training in science, math and skilled trades, and maintain high-quality education; shall Tustin Unified School District upgrade classrooms, science labs, equipment, instructional technology and infrastructure.”
• On the list: $12.7 million

Desert Sands Unified

• 2014: $225 million approved by 69 percent of voters “to upgrade classrooms, labs for career/technical education classes to prepare students for college/good-paying jobs in math, science, engineering, technology/ skilled trades, repair deteriorating roofs, plumbing/electrical systems, acquire, renovate, construct/equip classrooms, sites/facilities to keep pace with technology.”
• On the list: $15.5 million

Val Verde Unified

• 2012: $178 million approved by 62 percent of voters “to protect the quality of education in our local schools, relieve overcrowding and provide safe/modern schools, shall the Val Verde Unified School District update computers/technology in classrooms/science labs/libraries; provide facilities/equipment for career training/education; make funds available to attract/retain qualified teachers and protect academic instruction; construct new high school facilities to relieve overcrowding.”
• On the list: $43.9 million

Temecula Valley Unified

• 2012: $165 million approved by 64 percent of voters “in order to acquire, construct and reconstruct school facilities, and provide for supporting infrastructure at the existing school site of the Temecula Valley Unified School District, and in so doing increase health, safety, welfare and educational effectiveness of classrooms for students.”
• On the list: $3.1 million

Corona-Norco Unified

• 2014: $396 million approved by 57 percent of voters to “upgrade classrooms, science lands, computers, career-training technology to support high-quality instruction in math, science, engineering, technology/skilled trades, repair/replace leaky roofs, floors, plumbing/hazardous materials where needed, address overcrowding, improve student safety/security, repair, construct, acquire, equip classrooms, facilities/sites.”
• On the list: $2.8 million

San Juan Unified

• 2012 $350 million approved by 60 percent of voters To improve the quality of education at every school, modernize aging classrooms, upgrade technology, provide 21st century learning opportunities, improve student safety and become eligible for millions in additional State dollars
• On the list: $454,883

Cajon Valley Union

• 2008: $156.5 million approved by 64 percent of voters “to improve the quality of education, upgrade and construct classrooms and joint-use gymnasiums, increase access to computers and technology, replace 50-year old schools, make safety and security improvements, improve energy efficiency, and make the District eligible for State-matching grants.”
• On the list: $2.9 million

San Diego Unified

• 2012: $2.8 billion approved by 62 percent of voters “to repair neighborhood schools and charter schools with funding the state cannot take away by: Repairing deteriorating 60-year-old classrooms, libraries, wiring, plumbing, bathrooms and leaky roofs; Removing hazardous mold, asbestos, and lead; Upgrading fire safety systems/doors; Upgrading classroom instructional technology, labs and vocational education classrooms.”
• On the list: $2.2 million

San Marcos Unified

• 2010: $287 million approved by 63 percent of voters “to maintain excellent local schools, repair aging, deteriorating classrooms/schools, attract quality teachers and offset State cuts by: removing asbestos, lead paint, repairing roofs, plumbing, wiring; preventing overcrowding; upgrading instructional technology, libraries, science labs; improving seismic, fire and student safety; and improving disabled access.”
• On the list: $36.9 million

Stockton Unified

• 2014: $114 million approved by 67 percent of voters “to increase student access to computers; maintain and upgrade educational technology; upgrade classroom security systems for increased student safety; upgrade technology servers, routers, switches and storage area networks; and significantly reduce borrowing costs.”
• 2012: $156 million approved by 74 percent of voters “in order to repair, equip, acquire and construct classrooms, school facilities, playgrounds and athletic fields; replace portables with permanent classrooms; and reduce overall borrowing costs.”
• 2008: $464.5 million approved by 69 percent of voters “to improve the quality of education and student access to computers and technology, renovate science labs, repair restrooms, modernize and upgrade schools and classrooms throughout the District, construct additional classrooms and facilities, replace outdated temporary portable classrooms with permanent classrooms, and qualify the District for millions in State matching funds.”
• On the list: $9.3 million

Belmont-Redwood Shores School District

• 2014: $48 million approved by 65 percent of voters “to add elementary and middle school classrooms and science labs for math, science, reading and writing programs, relieve school overcrowding, provide updated classroom computers and instructional technology for quality 21st Century education, repair, construct, acquire classrooms, facilities and equipment, add restrooms to accommodate growing student enrollment.”
• 2010: $25 million approved by 66 percent of voters “to continue quality education/prevent classroom overcrowding, shall Belmont-Redwood Shores School District repair/replace leaking roofs, provide additional classrooms for science, math, general instruction, construct, acquire, repair classrooms/ facilities/sites/equipment, meet current fire/safety codes, improve disabled access, upgrade technology, replace outdated electrical, plumbing, heating, ventilation, safety/security systems.”
• 2010: $35 million approved by 64 percent of voters “to continue quality education, shall Belmont-Redwood Shores Elementary School District (SFID) repair/replace leaking roofs, construct, acquire, repair classrooms/facilities/sites/equipment, meet current fire/ safety codes, improve disabled access, provide science classrooms/additional classrooms to prevent overcrowding, upgrade technology, replace outdated electrical, plumbing, heating, ventilation, and security systems.”
• On the list: $6.2 million

Burlingame Elementary School District

• 2012: $56 approved by 67 percent of voters “to maintain excellent local schools by modernizing science labs, upgrading instructional technology/computers, adding classrooms/reopening an existing school to reduce current overcrowding, upgrading classrooms to meet current safety codes, renovating heating and electrical systems to save money.”
• On the list: $1.5 million

Sequoia Union High School District

• 2014: $265 million in bonds approved by 65 percent of voters “to support high quality education and upgrade local high schools with funding that cannot be taken by the state by adding classrooms, science labs, and schools to avoid overcrowding, provide updated classrooms technology, labs, and career technical facilities; renovate aging classrooms and repair, construct, or acquire equipment, classrooms, and facilities”
• 2008: $165 million approved by 66 percent of voters “to create a 10 year technology fund for upgrading classroom computers; to improve energy efficiency; to build classrooms for career, technical, and vocational education courses; and to improve, expand, modernize and construct classrooms and facilities at Carlmont, Menlo-Atherton, Sequoia, and Woodside High Schools and other district sites.”
• On the list: $11.2 million

East Side Union High School District

• 2014: $113.2 million approved by 68 percent of voters “to increase student computer access; upgrade educational software; keep pace with 21st century technological innovations; and implement statewide testing requirements at Andrew Hill, Calero, Evergreen Valley, Foothill, Independence, James Lick, Mt. Pleasant, Oak Grove, Piedmont Hills, Santa Teresa, Silver Creek, Yerba Buena, W.C. Overfelt, Adult-Ed, alternative and District charter schools.”
• 2012: $120 million approved by 71 percent of voters “to upgrade computer/science labs; improve security/safety; repair, equip, and construct classrooms/facilities at Andrew Hill, Calero, Evergreen Valley, Foothill, Independence, James Lick, Mt. Pleasant, Oak Grove, Piedmont Hills, Santa Teresa, Silver Creek, Yerba Buena, W.C. Overfelt, and District adult, alternative, and charter schools; and acquire property for new schools.”
• On the list: $5 million

Franklin-McKinley School District

• 2010: $50 million approved by 70 percent of voters “to provide safe, modern neighborhood schools with updated computer technology, maximize energy efficiency to save money, improve student learning for local elementary school students by acquiring, upgrading, constructing, equipping classrooms, sites/facilities, science/computer labs, replacing aging roofs, plumbing, heating, ventilation/electrical systems, improving fire alarms, school security/earthquake safety.”
• On the list: $511,489

Rincon Valley Union School District

• 2014: $35 million approved by 67 percent of voters “to continue critical renovation, modernization and safety upgrades to District schools, add classrooms to avoid overcrowding, make needed upgrades to libraries, science and computer labs, improve access to classroom technology, improve energy efficiency to save money, and renovate, construct, acquire classrooms, sites, facilities and equipment.”
• On the list: $1.47 million

Windsor Unified School District

• 2008: $50 million approved by 63 percent of voters “to build new classrooms to relieve severe overcrowding, replace aging portables with permanent classrooms, build science labs, upgrade classroom computers and technology and to secure state matching funds.”
• On the list: $2.8 million

After more than a century in California’s political spotlight, the state’s initiative process will be getting a major revise next year. Even more surprising, both Democrats and Republicans in the famously partisan Legislature are happy to see it happen.

While Republicans made up most of the limited opposition when SB1253 made its way through the Legislature, the two GOP leaders, state Sen. Bob Huff of Diamond Bar (Los Angeles County) and Assembly member Kristin Olsen of Modesto, both voted “aye.”

“It was a bipartisan effort,” said former state Sen. Darrell Steinberg of Sacramento, the Democrat who authored the bill. “People like the initiative process but believe it can be improved.”

The measure opens the way for increased collaboration between lawmakers and backers of initiatives by requiring the Legislature to hold a joint public hearing on a proposed initiative as soon as 25 percent of the required signatures are collected. It also calls for the attorney general to open a 30-day public review before approving an initiative for circulation and lets supporters amend the initiative during that time.

A much-bigger problem: Slanted ballot language

These reforms make sense and should lean to cleaner ballot measures.  But if one looks back over the past 15 years, all of the biggest outrages in the initiative process involved another problem that the Legislature declined to try to fix: the extraordinary way that the last three attorneys general — Bill Lockyer, Jerry Brown and Kamala Harris — have slanted ballot language to achieve the outcome that Democratic special interests prefer.

Gov. Schwarzenegger’s bid to use a 2005 special election to force through major reforms was hurt badly by Lockyer’s ballot titles and language. Proposition 76 would have created a rainy-day fund and a less chaotic budget process. Lockyer made it sound like an attempt to hurt school kids, titling it “State Spending and School Funding Limits. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.”

In one week alone in 2010, then-Attorney General Jerry Brown had his ballot language thrown out by judges who agreed that Brown wasn’t playing fair on a ballot measure challenging AB 32 and one making it easier to pass a state budget without Republican votes. (He tried to sabotage the first one, Prop. 23, and promote the second one, Prop. 25.)

Kamala Harris has continued this unfortunate tradition. This CalWatchdog post looks at her attempt to help trial lawyers with their misleading 2014 ballot measure.

Lockyer, Brown and Harris all say they don’t draft the language; instead, they depict it as a chore that they leave to their “professional staffs.” But if that were the case, then why have all three AGs opposed reforms transferring ballot-language responsibilities to the FPPC, the LAO or a panel of retired judges?

Because they know being able to compose ballot language on measures digging with the biggest issues of the day gives the California attorney general extraordinary power.

The worst ballot-language abuser of all

But the twist to all this is that the single worst abuser of the privilege of writing ballot descriptions was the Legislature itself. In 2008, Democrats in the Assembly and Senate directly wrote the highly misleading title and summary for Proposition 1A, the measure which provided $9.95 billion in bond seed money for the bullet-train project. Here’s the summary:

SAFE, RELIABLE HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN BOND ACT. To provide Californians a safe, convenient, affordable, and reliable alternative to driving and high gas prices; to provide good-paying jobs and improve California’s economy while reducing air pollution, global warming greenhouse gases, and our dependence on foreign oil, shall $9.95 billion in bonds be issued to establish a clean, efficient high-speed train service linking Southern California, the Sacramento/San Joaquin Valley, and the San Francisco Bay Area, with at least 90 percent of bond funds spent for specific projects, with federal and private matching funds required, and all bond funds subject to independent audits?'”

This prompted a Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association lawsuit. That suit led a state appellate court to issue a jaw-dropping decision that forever banned the Legislature from writing ballot language.

But there’s something particularly odious about how Harris has put her finger on the scale of justice with the ballot language for a trial-lawyer measure to up the amount they can wring out of doctors through medical-malpractice lawsuits. Dan Walters had the details earlier this week:

“This is the official ‘title and summary’ of a proposed 2014 ballot measure, as prepared by Attorney General Kamala Harris’ office:

“‘Drug and Alcohol Testing of Doctors. Medical Negligence Lawsuits. Initiative Statute. Requires drug and alcohol testing of doctors and reporting of positive test to the California Medical Board. Requires Board to suspend doctor pending investigation of positive test and take disciplinary action if doctor was impaired while on duty. Requires doctors to report any other doctor suspected of drug or alcohol impairment or medical negligence. Requires health care practitioners to consult state prescription drug history database before prescribing certain controlled substances. Increases $250,000 cap on pain and suffering damages in medical negligence lawsuits to account for inflation.’

“A voter who is approached to sign petitions for this measure would naturally assume that its primary thrust is eliminating drug-addled doctors, and if it qualifies for the ballot, one can be certain millions of dollars will be spent on its behalf to drive home that seemingly lofty goal.

“In fact, however, its real aim is reflected very briefly in the final sentence — to modify the state’s 38-year-old cap on ‘pain and suffering’ damages in medical malpractice cases.'”

Oh, the hilarity: AG’s office administers ethics test

Now there is a very strong chance that a judge will throw out Harris’ ridiculously slanted ballot language. But that doesn’t hide the corrupt intent of our attorney general: to benefit her fellow lawyers, by legal hook or crock.

Here’s what’s funny: Googling “California state government ethics” turns up the fact that the AG’s office is responsible for administering an ethics test to state officials!

“Government Code section 11146 requires all covered state officials to complete an ethics orientation conducted by their agency every two years. The Attorney General’s Office and the Fair Political Practices Commission have devised this core course that may be incorporated into an ethics orientation by any state agency.

“Under the law, your agency must provide a public record of who has taken its ethics orientation. If this core course is a part of your agency’s ethics orientation as mandated by the law, make sure that you are following your agency’s procedures for completing this aspect of the orientation.”

But has Harris taken the test? If so and she passed, she’s since forgotten what it means to be ethical.

This is one more example of a point I made earlier this week when writing about the Bay Area Rapid Transit system: Corrupt, dishonest behavior that would lead to civil or criminal sanction in the private sector is taken for granted in the public sector.

Were she chief counsel for a corporation that behaved this horribly, Kamala Harris would be pilloried, and correctly so. In Sacramento, however, she faces little blowback — and is probably chortling at the brazen way she has figured out how to reward her friends in the trial-lawyer community.

Great, just great.