CUSD’s Major Disconnect Between Their Official Ballot Documentation & Unofficial Propaganda, Vote NO on Prop E

disconnected wire friedThe Disconnect in CUSD’s Information Fries Coroando Taxpayers

There’s a major disconnect between CUSD’s official ballot documentation and unofficial community propaganda.

The official ballot documentation proves CUSD intends to spend the proposed Prop E property tax hike money on the School Pool mess and obsolete tech equipment upgrades.

The unofficial community propaganda claims CUSD intends to spend the proposed Prop E property tax hike money on “quality of education” and “class size.”

Don’t be bamboozled by the unofficial propaganda.

Read the official documentation like we did.

The Only Vote is NO on Prop E on June 3

cropped-chalkboard21.jpgUnderstand that CUSD’s major disconnect doesn’t only fry Coronado taxpayers.

CUSD’s major information disconnect also proves that the Prop E tax hike is a scam, a ruse, a ploy.

The only vote is NO on Prop E on June 3!


Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Articles

“Class Size” is a Scam, Vote NO on Prop E

class size scare tacticsThe Scam: “Class Size”

We explained that “quality of education” is a ruse used by CUSD to pull at voters’ heartstrings in order to persuade them to vote against the best interests of our community for the Prop E property tax hike.

So, too, “class size” is a scam.

By the way, did you know the middle school classrooms in China have up to 150 students? They are well-behaved and focused on learning. Chinese students far surpass California students in virtually every subject of learning, including math and science.

Middle school classroom full in ChinaIn truth, “class size” doesn’t guarantee “quality of education.” It’s a scam.

CUSD is pushing “quality of education” and “class size” in their ballot materials, along with their community propaganda, as reasons to vote for the Prop E property tax hike.

But in reality, CUSD won’t spend the proposed Prop E tax hike money on either “education quality” or “class size.”

Instead, CUSD plans to spend the Prop E tax hike money on:

  • School pool debts and ongoing school pool operating costs, and
  • “Tech” which goes obsolete virtually immediately and CUSD is supposed to pay out of the General Fund, not bond debt with principle plus interest.

pool-lap-swimmersThe Scam Explained

Read the facts about the CUSD “quality of education” ruse in our prior article by clicking here.

The same facts apply to the “class size” scam.

Forget CUSD’s community propaganda and worthless campaign promises. They aren’t worth the paper upon which they’re written.

When you read ALL of the official documentation, it’s painfully obvious that CUSD doesn’t intend to spend the proposed Prop E property tax hike money on “class size” or “quality of education.”

cropped-chalkboard21.jpgThe Only Option: Vote NO on Prop E on June 3

Don’t be fooled into voting for the scam, the ploy, the ruse.

Vote NO on Prop E on June 3, Coronado!

Tagged with: , , , , , ,
Posted in Articles

“Quality of Education” is a Ruse, Vote NO on Prop E

The Ruse: “Quality of Education”

In their unofficial propaganda spewed saround our community, CUSD claims that Prop E will help preserve CUSD’s “quality of education.” It’s the emotional hook by which CUSD hopes to hoodwink Coronado voters into voting in yet another property tax hike with Prop E.

scam alertIndeed CUSD’s ballot Prop E is deceptively worded with the phrase “protect quality of education” in it. In this way, Prop E is a scam.

Not surprisingly, the official documentation on Prop E provides no information on how CUSD intends to do protect “quality of education” with the Prop E  property tax hike money.

CUSD expects Coronado voters to show blind faith in their unofficial propaganda and to ignore the official documentation on Prop E.

The Reality: Official Ballot Documentation Lacks “Quality of Education” Projects

But if you read the Prop E official documentation, then you will see that indeed they provide solid information to prove that CUSD DOESN’T intend to use the proposed Prop E tax hike money to preserve the “quality of education” for students:

  • COUNTY COUNSEL’S INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS OF PROP E: Proceeds from the sale of bonds authorized by this proposition may be used by the District 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.

This language in red means the 2005 Certificates of Participation that financed the School Pool construction costs of $8.5 million which costs Coronado homeowners approximately $17-25.5 million, including cost of debt service. 

Read the full independent analysis by County Counsel by clicking here.

  • CUSD’S WEBSITE EXPLANATION OF PROP E PROJECTS: FAQs. How will the bond money be used? Proposition E funds can pay for the following: Upgrade classrooms to keep pace with changing technology; Provide improved, up-to-date technology infrastructure; Upgrade instructional technology in the classroom for improved student learning; Provide and maintain up-to-date technology, data and communications equipment; Upgrade and pool-lap-swimmersexpand wireless systems, telecommunications, and Internet and network connections, upgrade electrical wiring, data networks and broadband; Upgrade and replace computers, hardware and infrastructure systems, classroom and library technology and teaching equipment to enhance instruction; Repair or replace worn-out roofs, plumbing, and electrical systems; Upgrade fire alarm systems to automatic systems, repair fire safety equipment, add sprinklers and fire safety doors to make students safe in the event of an emergency; Upgrade and install security systems, such as security lighting, and fencing; Upgrade emergency communication systems to improve student safety; Install energy efficient systems to save money and protect the quality of instruction; Improve heating, ventilation, air conditioning and lighting systems, doors and windows to increase energy efficiency to save money; Refinance lease-purchase obligations to provide additional funding for education purposes.

Notice how CUSD sneaks the real reason they want the Prop E property tax hike in as the very last of a long list that you’ll probably be too tired to read fully. That’s the School Pool fiasco that CUSD superintendent and CUSD trustees created for Coronado taxpayers.

You can read the list by clicking here.

Click on the drop down FAQ “How will the bond money be used?”

What Protects “Quality of Education”?

Extended family in living room smilingNo THING or PROJECT or BUILDING UPGRADE at which you CUSD wants to throw our money protects CUSD’s “quality of education.”

Not iPads, not “tech” upgrades, not any of the things listed in CUSD’s project list or other materials will do it.

PEOPLE are the key.

It’s not WHAT, but WHO, protects the quality of education of students in Coronado:

  • Engaged parents with high expectations for their children,
  • Loving grandparents with time to provide guidance,
  • Supportive siblings to provide good examples,
  • Caring mentors with time to tutor,
  • Energetic teachers that are qualified to instruct.

If you ignore CUSD’s propaganda and read the official documentation, it’s patently obvious that Prop E has very little to do with protecting the “quality of education.”


Technology Isn’t “Quality of Education”

CUSD claims above that “tech” and other changes to the physical classroom environment protect the “quality of education.”

Now that’s CUSD stretching the truth beyond the pale!

When taxpayers think of “quality of education,” it isn’t “tech” with built-in obsolescence and “energy efficient systems” associated with the physical classroom environment.

Also the above-listed “tech” and other “upgrades” surely don’t require $29 million face value of financing as sought by Prop E.

Vote NO on Prop E on June 3

cropped-chalkboard21.jpgThe School Pool fiasco will cost around $29 million in band aids so the CUSD superintendent and CUSD trustees can “kick the can” to the next generation to clean up their mess.

Vote NO on Prop E on June 3 because it’s wrong to make Coronado taxpayers pay AGAIN for CUSD’s financial mismanagement that resulted in the School Pool fiasco.

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Articles

Students Lose, Cronies & Carpetbaggers Win, Vote NO on Prop E


carpetbagger and scalawagIt’s easy to see who are the winners and losers with Proposition E, the proposed property tax hike on Coronado homeowners that will be passed through to Coronado renters.

Prop E Winners

The winners are cronies and carpet-baggers who teamed up to orchestrate this Proposition E property tax hike scam:

A) A local crony who has sold and rolled over hundreds of millions of dollars of Coronado General Obligation Bond Debt, as well as Coronado Redevelopment Debt, over the years.  He may even have had a hand in CUSD’s Certificates of Participation Debt.

CUSD’s Redevelopment Debt and Certificate of Participation Debt were issued WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL.

Needless to say, Coronado taxpayers have paid for his services and for the bond debt service that he helped to orchestrate in Coronado over the years.

Coronado officials from the City, CUSD, and the now-defunct Coronado Redevelopment Agency accumulated this debt over the years on behalf of Coronado taxpayers. Coronado taxpayers are responsible to pay back all of the debt.  The Coronado Redevelopment Agency was also called the Community Development or CDA.

Voters didn’t approve the majority of the Debt!

B) Carpet-baggers from the international firm of Piper Jaffray, Ltd. Piper Jaffray’s American headquarters is in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Piper Jaffray’s European headquarters is in London, England. Over the years, Piper Jaffray has taken in a mind-boggling amount of public tax dollars through public bond offerings and other public financing schemes that they have orchestrated around and outside of the USA.

Prop E Losers

frustrated-studentThe losers are:

  1. Coronado homeowners, who face yet another property tax hike if Proposition E passes,
  2. Coronado renters who will have the property tax hike passed through to them if Proposition E passes, and
  3. Coronado public school STUDENTS, who don’t have a chance of getting any real benefit out of the Prop E school bond scheme. Since CUSD failed to give us the important information on how they intend to spend the proposed Prop E bond money, it’s obvious that it won’t be spent on students. 

That’s why the Prop E scheme is a scam. CUSD is trying to hoodwink voters into believing that Prop E will help students and keep property values high.  That makes us chuckle because it’s untrue. That makes us outraged because we deserve the truth from CUSD.

Students and teachers aren’t expected to get any real benefit from Proposition E because if Prop E passes CUSD will use up the Prop E bond money to pay for:

  • School Pool boondoggle
  • Superintendent’s and Administrators’ salaries, benefits and pensions
  • Proposition KK General Obligation Bond debt service from 1998 that we’re still paying off
  • Certificates of Participation debt from 2005 that CUSD gave their notice of intent to default upon.
  • Redevelopment Bond debt that’s off-balance-sheet at CUSD.

The required papers they’ve filed for their Prop E bonds contain boilerplate language for their cookie-cutter bond campaign to raise our property taxes.

Vote NO on Prop E on June 3!


Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Articles

San Diego County Taxpayers Association Recommended YES Vote on Poway’s Infamous Prop C School Bonds in 2008, Vote NO on Prop E!

CUSD Trying to Hoodwink Coronado Voters About Non-Endorsement of Prop E by SDCTPA

For reasons that defy logic and common sense, CUSD is crowing around town about how the San Diego County Taxpayers Association (SDCTPA) took a NEUTRAL position on CUSD’s Prop E.

Vote-NoFor those who may not know, a NEUTRAL position is NOT an endorsement. Only a YES vote recommendation is an endorsement.

SDCTPA failed to recommend a YES vote on CUSD’s Prop E. Therefore SDCTPA didn’t endorse CUSD’s Prop E. That means vote NO on Prop E, Coronado!

We explain in other places on this website why CUSD should be ashamed that SDCTPA failed to recommend a YES vote on CUSD’s Prop E. After all, SDCTPA has virtually never met a school bond debt financing scheme it didn’t like.

You can read our prior KissTheSchoolBondGoodbye article on the PROBLEMS that SDCTPA found in CUSD’s Prop E property tax hike scheme by clicking here.

There’s one more important fact about SDCTPA that you need to know.

SDCTPA Earned Public Scorn for Endorsing YES Vote on Poway School Bonds

In 2008, SDCTPA recommended a YES vote on the Poway Unified School District’s (PUSD’s) Prop C property tax hike for PUSD’s school bond financing scheme!

So you see, truly, SDCTPA has virtually never met a school bond proposition that they didn’t like.

Insane stampPUSD’s Prop C has been called “insane,” “beyond loan sharking,” and incapable of winning voter support “if PUSD had told the truth” about their tax hike scheme. And yet, SDCTPA recommended voters vote YES on PUSD’s Prop C in 2008! Truly outrageous.

You can read our prior KissTheSchoolBondGoodbye article about how CUSD should be ashamed that SDCTPA failed to endorse CUSD’s Prop E property tax hike by clicking here.

SDCTPA got into a lot of trouble with voters for recommending YES on the Poway school bond debt financing scheme.

  • San Diego Reader May 11, 2013 article Taxpayers Association Slams Bonds It Once Endorsed: Poway’s Bond Gets Grand Golden Fleece Award by clicking here
  • Voice of San Diego (VOSD) August 6, 2012 article Where Borrowing $105 Million Will Cost $1 Billion: Poway Schools by clicking here.

SDCTPA Tried to Deflect Public Scorn by Giving “Grand Golden Fleece” Award to Poway Schools

You should know that in the August 6, 2012 VOSD article above, author Will Carless writes about SDCTPA’s endorsement for a YES vote on Poway’s insane school bond scheme to raise property taxes in Poway:

Indeed, [then-SDCTPA] President Lani Lutar’s name was first on a list of five local dignitaries named on the ballot as supporting the bond.

San Diego County Taxpayers Association logoLutar said had she known the full implications of the bond, she would not have recommended the association support it.

The [SDCTPA] recently started studying capital appreciation bonds to fully understand their impact. Its main case study: Poway Unified.

Last month, [SDCTPA] changed its criteria for endorsing school bonds. In the future, it will ask districts how, exactly, they will finance their bonds. If a district plans on using expensive long-term capital appreciation bonds [CABs] like Poway’s, it won’t get the association’s backing.

“Poway should have been more forthright with us,” Lutar said. “Had we known then what we know now, we would probably have taken a different path.”

Naturally we ask, if CUSD’s Prop E bond doesn’t use expensive long-term CABs like Poway, then why did SDCTPA fail to endorse CUSD’s Prop E?

The answer is: Because CUSD’s Prop E must be really, really bad.

SDCTPA Doesn’t Represent Taxpayers

Also, note that in his May 11, 2013 San Diego Reader article, author Don Bauder quotes a blogger W.C. Varones as writing:

taxpayer with taxes on back in sackThe San Diego County Taxpayers Association represents developers and crony capitalist interests, not taxpayers. It is a pay-to-play organization, and its board and executive committee are a who’s who of people doing business with government agencies.

So true.

That’s why Coronado voters should follow the recommendations of:

  • San Diego Tax Fighters and
  • Coronado Taxpayers Association for Excellence in Public Education . . .

. . . and vote NO on Prop E on June 3! 



Tagged with: , , , , , ,
Posted in Articles, Endorsements

San Diego County Taxpayers Association Found 15 Serious PROBLEMS With CUSD’s Tax Hike Scheme, Vote NO on Prop E

CUSD Failed to Provide Important Information for Prop E

As we’ve said in prior KissTheSchoolBondGoodbye articles, CUSD isn’t being honest with Coronado voters. That’s a fact.

CUSD hasn’t told us how they’re going to spend the property tax hike money proposed by the Prop E school bonds.

Vote-NoThis fact is validated by San Diego County Taxpayers Association (SDCTPA) who noted in black and white that CUSD wasn’t honest with them, too.

In their analysis of Prop E, SDCTPA stated several times that in several areas CUSD failed to provide important information to SDCTPA that SDCTPA had requested.

The truth is that CUSD hasn’t provided important information for their proposed property tax hike in CUSD’s Prop E bond financing scheme. As such, CUSD has a unlimited nerve demanding that Coronado voters approve a tax hike on Coronado homeowners and renters with Prop E.

SDCTPA Notes Several Problems With CUSD’s Prop E Tax Hike Scheme

SDCTPA noted several problems with CUSD’s Prop E property tax hike. They are BIG RED FLAGS for Coronado voters!

F gradeHere are three of those problematic BIG RED FLAGS. SDCTPA notes in its materials:

  1. On page 6 of 13 that: SDCTA requested information pertaining to the actual costs of the projects but the information has not been provided [by CUSD]. 
  2.  On page 8 of 13 that: The District [CUSD] has not provided future costs estimates from bond proceeds aside from annual maintenance costs and COPs payments.
  3. On pages 9-11 of 13 that: CUSD has failed to meet SDCTPA criteria for recommending YES vote on Prop E in three categories: Program Description, Program Budget & Funding, and Program Execution Plan.

If you have time, you can read the full SDCTPA analysis of the failings of CUSD’s Prop E by clicking here.

SDCTPA Failed to Endorse YES Vote for CUSD’s Prop E

missing-informationBecause of CUSD’s missing information that they failed to provide upon request, SDCTPA failed to endorse a YES vote on CUSD’s Prop E.

Since SDCTPA usually endorses YES votes on such bonds, it’s highly significant that they failed to do so for the Prop E tax hike scheme.

Coronado Voters Should Follow SDCTPA and Vote NO on Prop E on June 3

Coronado voters should do the same as SDCTPA.

unanswered questionsClearly CUSD has failed to provide Coronado voters with important information on their Prop E tax hike scheme.

Since SDCTPA wouldn’t recommend a YES vote on Prop E without important information, Coronado voters should do the same and vote NO on Prop E.

Prop E is too risky. CUSD has failed to provide us with important information on how they’re going to spend the Prop E bond money they seek. 

CUSD has raised too many unanswered questions in their failure to provide important information to SDCTPA as well as to Coronado voters.

So Coronado voters, vote NO on Prop E on June 3!

Tagged with: , , ,
Posted in Articles, Endorsements

CUSD’s Prop E Tax Hike Uses Similar Tricks as Poway’s Infamous Prop C Tax Hike Debacle, Vote NO on Prop E!

Say NO to Propety Tax IncreaseHistory Getting Ready to Repeat Itself 

Do you remember the infamous Poway Unified School District (PUSD) bonds that made national headlines?

The basic facts are that for $105 million face value of bonds, Poway voters approved the PUSD Prop C tax hike in 2008. In return, Poway homeowners are indebted to pay $1 BILLION over forty years between 2011 and 2051!

You can read about the PUSD Prop C tax hike debacle by reading:

  • Voice of San Diego (VOSD) August 6, 2012 article Where Borrowing $105 Million Will Cost $1 Billion: Poway Schools by clicking here,
  • CalWatchDog August 8, 2012 article The Right Way, The Wrong Way and the Poway of School Bond Financing by clicking here,
  • New York Times article August 16, 2012 Schools Pass Debt to the Next Generation by clicking here.

Just like CUSD’s Prop E property tax hike scheme is outrageous for reasons you’ve read about on this website, so too, the 2008 PUSD tax hike is an outrageous tax hike scheme.

Similarities Between Coronado & Poway Tax Hike Propositions

The probability is great that if CUSD could issue CABs, then it would do so. Since CABs have come under strict public scrutiny and since the California State Legislature is contemplating outlawing CAB use by California school districts, CABs aren’t available to CUSD at this time.

magician-with-money-small-billsIf the California State Legislature fails to outlaw CABs, we predict that CUSD will come back in the future and try to issue CABs.

Still there are many similarities between CUSD’s Prop E tax hike scheme and Poway’s Prop C tax hike scheme. Both are tax hike schemes presented by the school districts with slick sleight of hand tricks that are impossible for voters to fully understand.

Remember the biggest losers in both tax hike schemes are the homeowners and taxpayers in both Coronado and Poway.

In truth, the similarities far outweigh the differences between CUSD’s Prop C and PUSD’s Prop C property tax hikes to fund school bond debt financing.

Indeed there are many similarities between the 2008 PUSD Prop C debacle and the 2014 CUSD Prop E debacle. Three of those similarities are:

  1. In both Coronado and Poway, voters weren’t provided enough information. Reading the ballot statement and pro-school bond ballot arguments, it impossible for voters to understand the extreme tax burden these property tax hike schemes place directly on homeowners, and indirectly on renters to whom the  property tax hikes are passed through.
  2. truth-lies-signCUSD and PUSD refused to make the hard choices, cut costs, and balance their budgets. Both school districts “kicked the can” and demanded that homeowners raise property taxes on themselves through ill-advised propositions.
  3. CUSD and PUSD didn’t tell the truth. If they were honest, then voters wouldn’t ever vote for the tax hikes in the propositions that both school districts put on the ballot.

What the Future May Hold For Coronado

In the August 6, 2012 VOSD article, author Will Carless notes what people are saying about the Poway bond:

  • “If they ever told the truth, they would never get these approved by the voters.” ~ Glenn Byers, Los Angeles County assistant treasurer and tax collector.
  • “This is way worse than loan sharking. And Poway is the poster child. What they have done is absolutely insane.”~ Michael Turnipseed, executive director of the Kern County Taxpayers Association in central California.

Six years ago in 2008 Poway voters were fooled into approving Poway Proposition C.

Will Coronado voters also be fooled into voting for the Prop E property tax hike on June 3?

Many years from now, will there be VOSD, CalWatchDog and New York Times articles published about the insane Coronado school bond debt financing scheme called Prop E in 2014?

Will those future articles reveal that Coronado voters weren’t provided enough information in the ballot statement and other CUSD materials to make informed decisions on whether or not to raise property taxes on themselves and their neighbors? Will those articles say that CUSD didn’t tell the truth because if they did, then Coronado voters would never have voted for  the Prop E property tax hike? Will they state that CUSD’s Prop E tax hike scheme merely allowed CUSD to “kick the can” instead of make the hard choices to cut costs, balance their annual budgets and get their finances in order?

mark-twain-it-s-easier-to-fool-people-than-to-convince-them-they-have-been-fooledIf Coronado voters allow CUSD to bamboozle them on June 3, then Coronado will be led down the same garden path as voters were in Poway six years ago.

There is no such thing as a free lunch, Coronado.

If Coronado voters truly care about CUSD students, then they will send a strong message to CUSD that the CUSD superintendent and trustees must get their financial house in order, cut costs, balance their annual budgets, and stop “kicking the can” down the road.

Coronado voters can send this strong message with a NO vote on Prop E.

Vote NO on Prop E on June 3!



Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Articles

CUSD is Playing a Sneaky Shell Game with $28 Million School Pool Boondoggle, Vote NO on Prop E


The School Pool, also called the BBMAC, will always be one of the many financial elephants in the room for CUSD.

CUSD has proven to us that they’re incapable of managing the School Pool. They’ve had around 8 years to succeed, but all they have done is failed every year. Enough is enough!

CUSD is in over its head and lacks the required skills and experience to successfully run the School Pool.

BEFORE CUSD built it, members of our community predicted it would fail. They were right. CUSD was wrong.

Now, CUSD demands that WE raise our property taxes on OURSELVES through Prop E in order to pay for THEIR School Pool failures.

Do you think that the CUSD plan for the $29 million Prop E tax hike CUSD seeks is:

$28 million to “kick the can” on the School Pool boondoggle +

$1 million for “tech” upgrades that will become obsolete, break, and walk away from school buildings (iPads) before the bond principle & interest are paid off by Coronado homeowners and renters?

Sneaky Shell Game with School Pool Costs

There are three sneaky ways that Prop E property tax hike will be used to pay for the School Pool mess.

This total school pool fiasco to date is expected to cost Coronado taxpayers around $28 million, including principle, interest, lost operating costs, and ongoing operating costs.

In their materials, CUSD has told us they will play a sneaky shell game of “freeing up” OUR tax dollars in the CUSD general fund which is supposed to pay for operating costs with the Prop E tax hike on Coronado homeowners:

  1. pool-lap-swimmersCosts of construction. CUSD is going to pay the debt service on the $8.5 million cost to construct the pool. CUSD financed the pool construction and other things WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL through complex public debt instruments called Certificates of Participation, or COPs. In 2005, CUSD issued $11 million face value COPs to construct the School Pool and other things. Our cost to pay back that debt, including principal and interest, is $22-33 million — double or triple the face value of the COPs! Thanks for incurring additional debt WITHOUT OUR APPROVAL, CUSD. In their desperate greed to construct a pool they couldn’t afford, CUSD used COPs  — issued WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL — with a face value of $8.5 million which costs Coronado taxpayers around $17-25.5 million for the School Pool, including cost of debt service! Now in their Prop E tax hike campaign, CUSD cryptically refers to paying off the COPs with the Prop E property tax hike proceeds as “refinance lease-purchase obligations.” A sneaky trick, indeed. CUSD counts on you NOT knowing that the “lease-purchase obligations” are in fact the COPs that CUSD issued WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL to pay for the School Pool construction costs. CUSD is sneaky, sneaky, sneaky with their Prop E tax hike campaign!
  2. Lost Operating Costs. CUSD is going to pay back their total annual operating cost LOSSES for the School Pool — estimated at around $1.6 million. In a article you can read by clicking here, CUSD said it lost over $200,000 on the School Pool for the year because expenses exceeded revenue. If CUSD lost around $200,000 each year on the School Pool, then CUSD’s total annual operating losses are around $1.6 million.
  3. Ongoing Operating Costs. CUSD is going to pay their ongoing annual operating costs to run the School Pool. What are the true operating costs? Are they approximately $500,000 operating costs for 2011 as CUSD stated in the same article mentioned in # 2 above? We don’t know because CUSD refuses to open their books for close inspection by the public. They have been sued by an individual employed by Coronado residents to conduct a forensic audit on CUSD’s books. The lawsuit against CUSD to force them to open their books to the public isn’t resolved yet. It’s troubling that CUSD isn’t transparent about how they spend OUR property tax dollars. Public finances should always be made available to the public. What is CUSD hiding?

The Solution to the Problem – YMCA Should Manage School Pool

YMCA-LogoThe only solution is for CUSD to get out of the way and let YMCA professionals manage the School Pool.

The YMCA has the skills and experience to successfully manage the School Pool and keep it financially sound.

The YMCA is also trained and experienced in protecting children from personal harm from outside individuals who rent out the School Pool.

The YMCA lives up to its mission on its website: We focus our work in three key areas, because nurturing the potential of kids, helping people live healthier, and supporting our neighbors are fundamental to strengthening communities. The YMCA of San Diego County has 17 successful locations in North County, Mid County and South County, including Poway, Mission Valley and La Jolla. Click here to view them all. To read about La Jolla YMCA, click here. To view the La Jolla YMCA pool schedule, click here.

Years ago San Diego County YMCA professionals met with CUSD representatives at the School Pool site. They offered to manage the School Pool. They gave open, honest recommendations for a reasonable plan to manage the School Pool to make it financially solvent. The YMCA said they would have success in running the School Pool at a profit.

Simply put, the YMCA professionals were confident in their plan to manage the School Pool. The YMCA was also confident in their ability to have the School Pool make a profit after its 8 years of ever-growing losses under CUSD mismanagement of the pool.

Unbelievably, CUSD turned down the YMCA! When questioned, the CUSD superintendent said that the YMCA claimed that CUSD “had to build a second story” on top of the School Pool building. That’s not true.

When pressed further, the superintendent couldn’t give any other reason why CUSD turned away the only people who could save the School Pool — the YMCA.

In truth, the YMCA professionals offered a long-range plan for the future which might — or might not — include expanding the School Pool building to include a bigger weight room area for cross-training purposes. This might — or might not — include a second story on the School Pool building. In their extensive experience, the YMCA has found that swimmers also like to cross-train with weights. With adequate room for weight training by swimmers, the School Pool would be even more profitable. 

The weight room wasn’t a requirement . . . ever.  And it wasn’t for immediate implementation . . . ever. It was a suggestion for future consideration that could further increase the profitability of the School Pool after the YMCA had managed it and straightened out the School Pool finances.

CUSD twisted the facts and lost even more credibility from this episode.

But it’s not too late. The YMCA is still open to communication from CUSD. The YMCA could manage the School Pool if CUSD was honest with them, opened the School Pool books, and allowed the YMCA to do what they do best — run pools successfully.

The Problem to the Solution – Prop E Property Tax Hike on Homeowners

After turning down help from the YMCA, now CUSD demands that we burden ourselves with yet another property tax hike . . . again  . . . in order to bail CUSD out . . .  again . . . because they are incapable of successfully Say NO to Propety Tax Increasemanaging the School Pool . . . which they’ve demonstrated for the last 8 years.

Prop E won’t help CUSD students.

Prop E won’t help CUSD teachers.

Prop E is another property tax hike that CUSD will use to temporarily prop up the failed School Pool so they can “kick the can” to a future CUSD superintendent and future CUSD trustees who may one day have the courage to do the right thing and enter into a reasonable contract with YMCA for School Pool management.

Vote NO on Prop E on June 3!

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Articles, School Pool Boondoggle

San Diego County Taxpayers Association’s NEUTRAL Statement Means Vote NO on Prop E




The board members of San Diego County Taxpayers Association (SDCTPA) have almost never met a school bond they didn’t like.

SDCTPA board usually always recommends YES on such public bond debt financing schemes because they are usually intended for CAPITAL improvement projects in school districts around San Diego County.

The reason for their usually enthusiastic support of school bonds is that SDCTPA is composed of all of the people who stand to gain financially through new business when public bonds for CAPITAL project costs are passed —

  • Builders & developers
  • Construction project managers
  • Capital project “study” designers & authors
  • Consultants
  • Engineers
  • Architects
  • Attorneys
  • And the like.

SDCTPA Doesn’t Represent Taxpayers

As noted in the San Diego Reader:

The San Diego County Taxpayers Association represents developers and crony capitalist interests, not taxpayers. It is a pay-to-play organization, and its board and executive committee are a who’s who of people doing business with government agencies.

You can read more about the San Diego Reader article by clicking here.


When the SDCTPA board FAILS to recommend a YES vote on a school bond proposition, there is something really wrong with that particular school bond.

Vote-NoSo the fact that SDCTPA FAILED to recommend a YES vote on Coronado Proposition E speaks volumes.

SDCTPA’s tepid NEUTRAL statement tells us everything we need to know.

It’s obvious to us that SDCTPA recognizes that the Prop E bond proceeds are meant to pay CUSD’s OPERATING costs, not CAPITAL project costs. Since the SDCTPA board doesn’t have the opportunity to gain financially from Prop E, they’re staying NEUTRAL.

Cause for CUSD’s Embarrassment

To us SDCTPA’s tepid NEUTRAL statement is nothing for CUSD to crow about as they do in their campaign.

It is, however, a cause for their embarrassment.

We think that if Prop E was a normal school bond without red warning flags, then SDCTPA would have enthusiastically recommended a YES vote.  Instead STCPTA failed to do so.

Prop E is a Non-Starter

CUSD’s failure to get a YES recommendation from SDCTPA is a big red flag that Prop E is a non-starter

It’s wrong for CUSD to pay for OPERATING costs with school bond DEBT. Debt includes principal plus interest as the cost of debt service.

How is it wrong? Prop E is a slippery slope of financial mismanagement.

Prop E is CUSD’s way of “kicking the can” and refusing to make the hard choices now to balance their annual budgets and keep their costs down.

In reality, we understand that SDCTPA’s NEUTRAL statement confirms that the right thing to do is  . . . VOTE NO on E on June 3!  




Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Articles, Endorsements

CUSD Superintendent Refused to Answer Questions About Prop E, Vote NO on Prop E

Prop E is Bad for Coronado

Here’s proof that CUSD has failed its homework.

CUSD failed its due diligence and failed to disclose the negative impacts of Prop E bonds upon our Coronado community homeowners.

As a result, there are too many unanswered questions.

That’s another reason why we strongly recommend you vote NO on Prop E on June 3.

F gradeWhat’s the proof?

Below are three emails from Coronado community leader, homeowner & taxpayer Pete Fagan to CUSD superintendent Jeff Felix and to CORONADO TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION FOR EXCELLENCE IN PUBLIC EDUCATION.  Coronado resident Pete Fagan is an attorney in private practice, a former military JAG attorney and father to CUSD graduates.

In the first email, you’ll see Pete’s direct questions to CUSD superintendent Jeff Felix.  Pete’s questions are highly relevant to Prop E.

In the same first email, Jeff’s responses — in red — are dismissive and incomplete.  

Jeff’s answers are also disappointing because they are merely political spin in favor of CUSD’s goal — which is another property tax hike on Coronado homeowners.

The second email is Pete’s follow up to Jeff’s response email because the superintendent’s “answers” were dismissive and disappointing. Pete asks for answers that Jeff failed to provide.

The third email is Pete’s final statement of CUSD’s failure to do its due diligence research BEFORE the CUSD board voted unanimously to place the Prop E tax hike on the ballot this June.

It’s shocking that CUSD is campaigning to raise OUR property taxes but they haven’t done THEIR research!

There are too many unanswered questions. Vote NO on Prop E.

funny-dog-ate-my-homework(1) Email from Pete Fagan, Esq. to CUSD Superintendent Jeff Felix in black; Superintendent Felix’s responses in red

Hi, Jeff,

As we approach election day [June 3] and voting on the School bond issue, there are still a lot of unanswered questions. In order to make a better decision on how to vote, can you please answer the following questions:

1. How many school aged children who live in Coronado go to private schools such as Francis Parker, Bishops, OLP [Our Lady of Peace], etc.

This is not information that school districts gather nor are we required to prepare reports relating to these data.

2. How much money does CUSD contribute annually to maintain the pool?

This information is available to the public on our website at   Beginning in 14-15 the District will no longer contribute special funds to the BBMAC for operations since that department will begin to make a profit in that fiscal year. It is estimated that the BBMAC saves the district over $150K each year in costs associated with water sports. We also estimate that the BBMAC brings to Coronado over $300K annually in tourism during the winter months.*

* [According to a 2011 Coronado Patch article on the school pool, or BBMAC, CUSD’s total losses were over $200,000 for the year because pool expenditures exceeded revenues by more than $200,000. Also, according to the BBMAC website, the school pool cost $8.5 million to construct. The debt service on the construction costs have’t been paid off because CUSD gave the city notice of CUSD’s intent to default on the 2005 Certificates of Participation Debt that CUSD issued without voter approval for the construction of the school pool. CUSD isn’t transparent with its information about its public finances and how it uses our public tax dollars. CUSD has been sued by an individual representing Coronado taxpayers. The goal of the lawsuit is to force CUSD to open its books so a forensic audit can be conducted on CUSD finances. According to articles on Coronado Patch, initial review of CUSD information show financial irregularities and mismanagement of public tax dollars.]

3. How much has the school district received from new construction funds in Coronado for each of the past 5 years?

This information is available to the public on our website at   On average we receive less than $200K each year from Fund 25 Developer Fees.

4. What is the annual salary for each of the following for each of the past 5 years, and what is the name of the person serving in each capacity?

Staff information is available on the CUSD website at  Specific salary schedule information can be found at .

a. Superintendent

b. Assistant Superintendent for Business Services (CBO)

c. Assistant Superintendent for Student Services (CSSO)

elementarystudents_excitedcomputerd. Director of Curriculum & Instruction

e. Director of Human Resources

f. Technology Coordinator

g. Director of Aquatics

h. Principals of each school


5. What benefits does each of these employees receive, to include bonuses if any for each of the past five years?

This information can be found on our website at  Administrators who have a credential are given the same benefit package as credentialed teachers. Those benefits can be seen in the “Agreement Between the Association of Coronado Teachers and Coronado Unified School District” link on that same page.  A few other administrators who are classified receive similar benefits as described in the link on that same page entitled “California School Employees Association: AFL-CIO Contract.”

6. What efforts have been made to lobby for more money from the state, state senators, and state representatives?

Both Dr. Butler and I have used various means to contact legislators, work with lobbying groups, work with specific lobbyists, and work with professional organizations. These groups and individuals include: California School Board Association, Association of California School Administrators, California School Finance Reform Coalition, School Innovations & Advocacy, Inc., Small School District Association, School Services of California, and the San Diego County Office of Education. I have also met several times with Marty Block and Scott Peters. Several school board members have also lobbied on behalf of the district.

090304-N-3271W-0827. What efforts have been made to obtain additional impact funds from the federal government due to the large military population?

We receive over $1.2 M each year in federal impact aid. Due to our lobbying efforts, we were able to avoid a significant decline in revenue as a result of sequestration.

8. How many property owners in Coronado have children currently attending schools within CUSD?

9. How many property owners are there in Coronado?

10. How many registered voters are there in Coronado?

11. How many of the registered voters in Coronado own property in Coronado?

12. How many of the registered voters in Coronado have children currently attending schools within CUSD? 

Questions 8-12 are requests for information that we do not collect, nor are we required to keep.  I believe you can find answers to these questions by referring to the San Diego Registrar of Voters and the San Diego Association of Governments (abbreviated SANDAG).

Please also confirm the following information that appears on the CUSD web site as being accurate:

A. 41% of students are military affiliated

B. 10% of students are Inter district transfers

C. Board voted in 2011 to give the Superintendent a “Supplemental Retirement Plan” in addition to his regular retirement plan

School year Amount of Superintendent’s “Supplemental Retirement Plan”:

2011/2012 $5,000

2012/2013 $10,000

2013/2014 $20,000

2014/2015 $35,000.**

**[Total superintendent’s “Supplemental Retirement Plan” is $70,000! We can’t trust the CUSD school board trustees. They could vote unanimously again to raise Jeff’s “Supplemental Retirement Plan” even higher in the future. This is the kind of waste of our property tax dollars that CUSD must cut out, instead of demanding that we raise OUR property taxes again with Prop E.]


Pete Fagan

math cat can't afford dog(2) Pete Fagan, Esq. follow up to CUSD Superintendent Jeff Felix


I understand that the responses tend to have some “spin” that would tend to support your efforts in the bond initiative, but the questions you don’t have responses to have a real impact on the property owners of Coronado and I would think that before CUSD placed this on the ballot, you would have done more research to find out what the impact was, how many benefited, etc. In other words, it looks like CUSD didn’t do their homework on the demographics and impact before voting to place this on the ballot.

Although the specific salary schedules are on the web site, it doesn’t say which level each is paid. Please provide the information requested. Please treat this as a Public Records Act request if you cannot otherwise provide the data as requested.

Are you confirming the data at the end of my original email?

Pete Fagan


. . . Absolutely. My opinion is that if the [CUSD] board really cared about the impact they would have the answers to these questions. He tries to spin each of his answers, and ignores his retirement bonus that is outrageous in light of the [CUSD self-proclaimed] budget crisis.

How many residents send their kids to private schools on or off island should certainly be a concern for a superintendent touting how great our schools are – why then do some parents send their kids elsewhere and still have to pay the bond?

Any good campaign team would have the answers to these questions BEFORE they try to put it on the ballot.

As for salary, he refers me to a chart but doesn’t say where on the chart each person falls and who had increases and how much over each of the past 5 years.

You can feel free to pass these thoughts along as well.







Tagged with: , , , , , ,
Posted in Articles