With enrollment down in most parts of California but with compensation costs still going up because of automatic salary increases and soaring pension costs, school districts should sweat the spending of every last dollar. Instead, officials’ first reaction to budget pressure has often been to figure out how to use costly long-term borrowing to cover short-term obligations. Millions of electronic devices that work on average for less than two years will be paid off by school bonds not maturing until the 2040s and 2050s. Locally, funds from a 2008 San Diego Unified bond were immediately used for routine maintenance. No family would use a 35-year payback plan to buy an iPad or fix the backyard fence. But in the world of school finance, such decisions are often seen as shrewd, not foolhardy.
It is this backdrop that makes a “no” vote on Proposition 2 — which would authorize the state to borrow $8.5 billion for K-12 schools and $1.5 billion for community colleges for “construction and modernization” — among the easiest decisions on the ballot. If approved, history shows it will be used by many school boards across the state to ease immediate fiscal headaches, not for long-term improvements. State lawmakers knew this when they placed the measure on the ballot.
But when it comes to specific local bonds, they deserve to be judged on their merits. Which brings us to Measure HH, the $3.5 billion bond measure sought by the San Diego Community College District, which has about 80,000 students at San Diego City College, Mesa College and Miramar College and the seven campuses of the San Diego College of Continuing Education.
A member of the Editorial Board who worked for the district for years personally witnessed the chaotic implementation of two previous bond measures. In 2008, our reporting showed the rubber-stamp quality of district bond “oversight.”
But after meeting with district officials and reviewing the bond’s specific provisions, we’ve come to agree with the San Diego County Taxpayers Association’s analysis. Building off the question “what are you building and why?” it looked at the safeguards included to guarantee focused spending on construction and renovation. The association concluded that this bond — unlike many it has reviewed over the years — deserves .
Our focus also looks to the bigger picture: Would Measure HH help SDCCD do even better in providing the skilled workers needed by such local employers as NASSCO? We think so. Specific projects at Miramar College and the College of Continuing Education would expand their capacity to meet demand in important programs. Projects at City College and Mesa College would improve learning conditions for campuses that are now built to capacity and have many aging facilities. Would it help SDCCD do even better in meeting its responsibility to create paths for talented but disadvantaged students to four-year universities? The case for this is murkier.
We are very much aware that some veteran observers of the district who believe in its mission don’t believe in its leadership. They welcome new Chancellor Gregory Smith and hope he will improve its mediocre batting average in living up to past promises.
But despite this history, we are willing to take a leap of faith that safeguards will work and lead to the district being an even stronger driver of local jobs and prosperity. If it es, we will pay close attention to its implementation. We hope we are ed by of the community in riding herd on the district. Many have specific insights into individual campuses because of their own experiences and those of family . May they help provide the scrutiny that the spending of $3.5 billion in taxpayer funds demands. We suggest a “yes” vote on Measure HH.
