Fresno Unified – CalWatchdog.com

Fresno Unified has big, related legal headaches

Chris Reed — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:00:25 +0000

Fresno Unified — California’s fourth-largest school district — is reeling from a state appeals court ruling that imperils the way it’s been doing bidding for school construction projects. At the same, the $37 million deal that led to the court setback is also reportedly being probed by the FBI over allegations of corruption.

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.

The FBI is investigating Fresno Unified School District’s use of a lease-leaseback construction agreement, according to school board member Brooke Ashjian.

But there was no mention of an investigation at a news conference held Wednesday evening by Superintendent Michael Hanson to “shed additional light” on the contract in question.

Ashjian said he was interviewed by an FBI agent about the district’s use of a lease-leaseback agreement with Harris Construction to build Rutherford B. Gaston Middle School.

The Fresno DA is also now concerned:

The Fresno County District Attorney’s Office is looking into Fresno Unified School District’s lease-leaseback deal with a local construction firm.

District Attorney Lisa Smittcamp said Thursday that her office’s Public Integrity Unit is “monitoring the situation” concerning a controversial multimillion-dollar deal the school district made with Harris Construction to build Rutherford B. Gaston Middle School. But, “at the present time, no official investigation is being conducted,” she said.

Superintendent insists district did what was best

Fresno Unified board leaders and district superintendent Michael Hanson insist that they came up with an innovative way to finance a needed project at a time when district budgets were particularly stressed. But as the appellate court ruling on the lease-leaseback deal stated, conflict of interest rules are cut and dried.

A contractor who assisted in drafting the equivalent of a request for bids should not then be a bidder, according to the interpretation of state laws that has been the norm in California for decades and was affirmed in an expansive 2001 brief from the state Attorney General’s Office.

Harris Construction is considered politically influential in Fresno County circles. Letters to the editors and social media have accused the construction firm and school district of having a you-scratch-my-back-I’ll-scratch-yours relationship.

But Fresno Trustee Ashjian won’t disclose what was the focus of the FBI’s interviews, and Superintendent Hanson’s supporters depict corruption talk as being a political hit instead of a genuine scandal.

The FBI doesn’t appear to see need for a sense of urgency in resolving many investigations of financial corruption in California. Bob Filner was reportedly a target of investigation by the FBI the entire time he was San Diego mayor before being forced out in August 2013 after eight months on the job due to a lurid sex-abuse scandal. The allegations focus on claims Filner made demands of developers before approving their projects, such as giving $100,000 to a cause favored by the mayor. The scuttlebutt in San Diego is that federal charges seem likely — but not anytime soon.

Fresno’s school leaders may already be in a similar limbo.

CA Board of Education sides with teachers union on school funding

Chris Reed — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 15:33:02 +0000

The State Board of Education, led by Gov. Jerry Brown’s longtime ally Michael Kirst (right), has decided to back up state Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson’s interpretation of a key state education reform, the 2013 Local Control Funding Formula Act. Brown and Kirst are so close — having worked together since 1974 — that this is the effective equivalent of the governor’s direct endorsement.

The 2013 measure guides additional dollars to districts with high concentrations of English-learner students, foster children and impoverished families, altering the funding formulas that have driven disbursement of state dollars for decades. Even before the reform became law, reform groups warned the funds will be steered into operating budgets and used to pay for raises for teachers orchestrated by their powerful unions.

A January Legislative Analyst’s Office report surveyed 50 California school districts, including the 11 largest, on how they were handling LCFF moneys. The LAO concluded that some districts were better than others, but that not one district had adequate safeguards.

In February, the Fresno County Office of Education formally asked the state Department of Education for guidance: Could broad raises be given with the additional funding?

Bureaucrat for tough standards, but his boss isn’t

The midlevel bureaucrat who responded in April — Jeff Breshears, administrator for the Department of Education’s Local Agency Systems Support Office — said that could only happen in unusual circumstances. The California Teachers Association strongly disagreed, as Edsource reported:

The Local Control Funding Formula was created to give maximum flexibility to school districts, and that includes creating competitive salaries to reduce teacher turnover, said Claudia Briggs, communications assistant manager for the CTA.

“We believe the law is clear: The money can be used to attract and retain quality teachers in the classroom, to lower class sizes and to restore programs that were cut,” said Briggs. And she said the CTA disagrees with the education department’s position that districts cannot use supplemental dollars for across-the-board raises if fewer than 55 percent of the students are English learners and low-income children.

“All control dollars are sent with no strings attached to suit the best needs of students. So if the percentage is below 55 percent, districts can absolutely still use those funds” for pay raises, she said.

After Brashears’ memo became public knowledge in recent weeks, Torlakson overruled his subordinate and said the funds could be used for broad teacher raises if districts could make the case that this would help English-learners and the other struggling students the LCFF was meant to assist.

Assemblywoman takes on party establishment — again

None of this sits well with a liberal second-term Assembly member who has already tangled with the Democratic Party establishment on teacher tenure and rules on how police body cameras can be used. In a statement published on the Union-Tribune’s website, San Diego’s Shirley Weber expressed frustration with Torlakson’s interpretation. Here are excerpts:

While teacher salaries are of great importance, supplemental and concentration grants are intended to achieve greater equity in our educational system by improving education outcomes for low-income students, English language learners and foster children. The Superintendent’s correspondence makes no connection to more equitable outcomes and use of those funds for salaries. Lowering the burden of proof for salary increases only further exacerbates circumstances that the poverty supplemental and concentration grants are intended to mitigate. …

The Legislature’s intent was clear when it enacted LCFF and the State Board reinforced this intent when it adopted regulations that these supplemental and concentration dollars were to “increase or improve” services and be “principally directed” to low income students, English learners and foster youth. Significant investments have already been made towards LCFF and an effective mechanism has yet to be implemented to actually track how these supplemental and concentration resources are being invested. There must be no ambiguity about who should benefit from these investments.

Weber is a former San Diego school board president and San Diego State professor.