Former Cuesta College executive questions $275 million bond
Letter to the editor
By William Benjamin
Former Executive Director of Human Resources at Cuesta College
Cuesta College is asking the property owners of San Luis Obispo County to pony up more property taxes to finance a $275 million dollar bond, for the next 34 years. Their justification is to repair, “Leaking roofs, failing air conditioning and heating units and a swimming pool that will soon no longer meet regulatory requirements,” “… meet a state mandate to make modular buildings safer by replacing them with permanent classrooms, upgrade technology, build a job and career training facility in the North County, and eliminate or refinance millions of dollars in debt from past construction and campus upgrades.”
According to the President, Gil Stork, “This is not about expansion, not about building for the future, it is about protecting the public’s investment of what we have right now.” So if this bond includes no plans for future construction, does that mean Cuesta will be coming back for another bond before this one is paid off? Given the status of state financing, the only way to finance any such future construction would be through additional property taxes.
Before you vote, you may want to examine the Sept. 27 article in the Tribune a little more closely. Having viewed it firsthand, there’s no doubt that Cuesta’s crumbling buildings and infrastructure are in need of some major repair and replacement. One has to ask, why wasn’t this a priority in the last bond, instead of new construction? That new construction was never paid off and the voters are now being asked to refinance it as part of this new bond (approximately $21 million dollars in past debt). Who’s been watching the fiscal store these past years? The swimming pool is a case in point. The liner is constructed of aluminum and has been deteriorating for years, leaking thousands of gallons of water every year. Why wasn’t any money appropriated from the last bond or from state allocations or use fees to create a replacement fund?
The replacement of modular buildings on the North County campus in Paso Robles is even more interesting. The State of Califonia mandated that all modular buildings at K-12 schools and community colleges be removed by 2006. The legislature then granted an extension, allowing them to be retained until 2015. The modular buildings on the North County campus and the main campus in SLO are military surplus. They did not meet the Division of the State Architect’s requirements for safe classrooms then, and they don’t now. They were erected under an exemption that allowed for local building codes to supercede the DSA requirements. However, in reviewing the various options for remodeling or replacement, Terry Reece, Director of Facilities Services, Planning and Capitol Projects, reported to the Board of Trustees that an examination of the buildings revealed that they don’t even meet local building codes; some of them are not even anchored to their foundations. Therefore, they are not even fit for occupation. Why has it taken all these years to discover this and why have students and staff been put at risk?
Toni Sommer, Vice President of Administrative Services, who serves as the Chief Financial Officer of the District and oversees the construction and maintenance programs, has presided over the financial operations of the college throughout this entire period. While other employees were experiencing salary freezes, furloughs, and layoffs, many of her staff received salary increases and promotions. Recently, she was reported to the California Fair Political Practices Commission for failing to disclose financial interests. Only in response to the complaint did she file a Statement of Economic Interests, reporting a lavish dinner, attended by her and her husband, including $100 bottles of wine, given by a College vendor at Cannery Row in Monterey in December of 2012. Yet, according to documents submitted to the Fair Political Practices Commission, she had never previously reported any such conflicts of interest, despite the fact that she attends several such meetings or conferences per year and sits on several Boards, all of which receive financial support from vendors. Last year she purchased a home in Idaho and announced her intention to sell her home and business in Paso Robles and retire to Idaho next year. Recently, she has escalated her retirement plans and her position at the College is now listed as open. Did the FPPC investigation or Equal Employment Opportunity litigations, in which she was named, prompt her to retire early? If so, that may be a blessing. Is this the kind of leadership you want overseeing bond construction, financed with your taxpayer dollars?
The article further states that, “Enrollment had dropped 30 percent in the past four years, largely in response to state budget cuts and its struggle with accreditation.” Other colleges, such as Allan Hancock, have experienced comparable budget cuts yet continue to grow and retain their accreditation. Cuesta was placed on warning and then “show cause” by the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, the final step before closure by the state, which most likely would have resulted in a takeover by Allan Hancock. That put Cuesta in the same situation as Compton, San Francisco, and College of the Redwoods.
The problem started in 2008 when Cuesta wrote a self-deprecating report which put ACCJC on notice. It failed to take the necessary steps to correct the cited deficiencies and slid further and further towards the abyss. In response, newly appointed President Dr. Stork recommended the termination of Dr. Cathleen Greiner, the Vice President of Academic Affairs, who also served as the Accreditation Liaison. Greiner, who saw herself as a scapegoat for the college’s problems, threatened to sue, and a deal was finely worked out to buy out the remainder of her contract and guarantee her a positive reference for future employment. The buyout cost the College over $350,000. She subsequently secured a position as a Dean at an Orange county college district.
Meanwhile, enrollment continued to decline. Back in 2008 when the problems began, the college inexplicably cancelled its entire summer schedule, resulting in a significant loss of revenue. In a panic move to increase enrollment and meet the quota for state dollars, the college decided to gamble on an expanded summer session for 2013. Despite the increase in enrollment, errors in accounting for student registrations resulted in the college failing to meet its target, causing it to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars. These accounting errors were the failure of a number of staff members in the Student Services and President’s office, however neither they nor their supervisors suffered the same fate as Dr. Greiner.
Another factor in ACCJC’s decision to place Cuesta on warning and show cause was its lack of “administrative capacity.” At the time of the self study in 2008, Cuesta had been through two short-term Presidents and employed two of the three Vice Presidents and an Executive Director as interim appointments. Oddly, in 2014 when show cause was removed, the college had two different interim Vice Presidents and two interim Deans and an interim Executive Director. Among the current Cabinet, composed of the President, three Vice Presidents, two Executive Directors, and four Deans, the President and two of the Vice Presidents are all internal candidates who only recently became “permanent,” having served under the previous failed regimes, while one of the Deans never held a comparable position prior to Cuesta, one is from out of state, the remaining three have resigned their positions after serving one year or less and one of the Executive Directors is an interim retiree. It would seem that Cuesta’s “administrative capacity” is even more meager than when they were cited in 2008. Moreover, many of the aforementioned individuals have been named in Equal Employment Opportunity complaints and lawsuits within the past couple of years; actions which are still under investigation or litigation.
Dr. Stork is credited as saying that Cuesta is “working on” programs to enroll more students. Due to the generosity of an anonymous donor, Cuesta received a gift of several of millions of dollars in investments, which allowed it to offer tuition-free registration to all graduating seniors in the county, under the “Promise” program. This desperate measure to increase enrollment is a great gift to the students, many of whom are eligible for other forms of financial aid, but generates nothing in revenue.
“Measure L has been endorsed by the college’s faculty and classified unions and by the Associated Students, Academic Senate and the Management Senate.” Given that neither the faculty, classified staff, or managers have received any cost of living adjustments or other raises, other than the mandated annual step increases, while the administrative assistants to the President and Vice Presidents and other favored employees have received raises and promotions within the last two years, this is surprising. Many employees have received no increases of any kind since 2008, a fact that is largely responsible for the failed negotiations with the faculty and classified unions since their last contracts were ratified in 2011. Both unions are currently working under expired contracts. The failure of the College to negotiate in good faith is one factor which caused the faculty union to withhold support for the previous bond measure in 2006.
The case for needed repairs and improvements to Cuesta College is pretty clear. But what the taxpayers need to ask themselves is whether this is the leadership they can trust with their money. Property values and taxes in San Luis Obispo are already high. Do you want to gamble your hard-earned dollars on a College administration which has shown itself incapable of managing its finances? The Cabinet serves at the discretion of the President who, in turn, reports to the Board of Trustees, which is an elected body. You can make your opinions known to the Board through the President’s office.
Submitted by William Benjamin
Very good article that points out the ever-growing need of governments (i.e. schools) and their insatiable appetite for more money. It never seems to be enough and the fact that this bond only fixes prior problems and doesn't address the future is symptomatic of government entities – they don't look ahead, while never thinking about being thrifty with economics in mind. Sounds like we need new blood and a fresh outlook on spending the public's hard earned money.
Cuesta borrowed millions to pay for an under-utilized state-of-the-art theatre complex and then canceled the theater program.
One correction: Summer session was canceled in 2010, not 2008. Several faculty members publicly pleaded to the president and the board that it not be canceled and the board refused to discuss the issue… We lost quite a few students to Allan Hancock Colllege. My daughter, a Cal grad, still in HS at the time, had to travel from Atascadero to Santa María to take to classes that summer!
To be clear, Cuesta is a gem in SLO County and it does need the bond to continue to provide top-notch transfer education and career training programs.
I have been informed the Theater Program was scaled back, not canceled. Also, the performing arts center has greatly benefited the Music Program, I glad to report!
Passage of Measure L will benefit our students in many ways!
I can answer one of Mr Benjamin's questions regarding why the "past bond" didn't address some of his issues: Because only ONE bond has EVER been passed to support Cuesta College and that was in 1974! Yes, when the college was first built and that bond has been paid off.
Nancy Mann, San Luis Obispo
Excellent letter and I agree with it 100 percent as someone that use to work in the business side of education. The point is this…all forms of government including education receive plenty of funding. That is why I always vote NO on all bonds, tax increases, fees, etc. The problem lies with the money grabbing unions and poor agency management. Cuesta does have some 50 year old buildings, so why have they not saved for 50 years to repair them? Why did they spend money on new construction (another performing arts center) when those funds could have been spent on repairs and improvements to other buildings? I could go on and on. Just vote NO, send a message that all the lies, hype and rhetoric will not work anymore. START SAVING, NO MORE SALARY INCREASES AND QUIT ASKING THE TAXPAYERS TO COVER FOR ALL YOUR MISTAKES!
From the way I read it, NJ Mann, it's a matter of semantics. Obviously, he's not talking about the 1974 bond. I think he is calling the COPS loan the "last bond"–the money Cuesta received within the last decade or so that was used to build the CPAC, parking lots, etc. instead of getting money to fix the crumbling infrastructure. Where was the priority? Now, if it passes, Measure L is going to be used to pay back the COPS loan–and fix the crumbling infrastructure. That's what I think he is saying.
Interesting and insightful article! Thanks Mr Benjamin. The general press is quite biased in their support. You tell the really story!
Thanks to everyone for your corrections. $19.1M of Cuesta's long-term debt is in the form of Certificates of Participation (COPS), not bonds. According to Cuesta's 2012-2016 Long-term Fiscal Plan, "The district's current long-term debt (COPS) was incurred to finance scheduled maintenance and capital outlay projects." COPS, which are nothing more than loans, were taken out in 2003, 2006, and 2009. They were supposed to be paid through, "…a surcharge on the facilities use rates by outside users," i.e. by renting out facilities such as the Cultural and Performing Arts Center. This under-utilized facility has never generated the revenue it was designed to. Don't get me wrong, I've attended many fine performances of the drama and music departments in this facility. But it has contributed almost nothing to the repayment of the debt, which then has to come out of the College's general fund. This debt was an issue for the Accreditation Commission when they placed Cuesta on Show Cause. Dr. Stork's rationale, as stated in the Fiscal Plan, was that this debt is less than some other District's expenses for retiree benefits; what does that have to do with it? Now the taxpayers are being asked to shoulder this debt, the result of poor fiscal planning and management.
Thanks to everyone for their corrections to dates, etc. $19.1 million of Cuesta's debt is in the form of Certificates of Participation (COPS), not bonds, as Ms. Mann, Cuesta Biology instructor, points out. According to Cuesta's 2012-2016 Long-term Fiscal Plan, "The District's long-term debt (COPS) was incurred to finance scheduled maintenance and capital outlay projects." COPS, which are nothing more than loans, were taken out in 2003, 2006, and 2009. They were supposed to be repaid through, "a surcharge on the facilities use rates by outside users," e.g. by renting out facilities such as the Cultural and Performing Arts Center (CPAC). Many colleges, such as College of the Canyons, generate considerable revenue through the rental of their PACs and other facilities, including parking fees. Cuesta, on the other hand, has never retired the $19.1 million debt, which then has to be paid out of the general fund, which is why there's inadequate money for deferred maintenance. Don't get me wrong; I've attended many excellent performances by the drama and music departments; that's not the point. The Accreditation Commission cited this debt when placing Cuesta on warning and show cause. But the College's response to the Accreditation Commission was that Cuesta's COPS debt is less than some other District's obligations for retiree benefits; what does that have to do with it? The taxpayers are now being asked to shoulder the debt which is a result of poor fiscal planning and management on the part of the College, while also paying for deferred maintenance which was supposed to be addressed in the COPS, according to the Fiscal Plan.
then he should say it! And a cops bond is NOT paid for in the same way a bond is UNLESS the proposed bond is passed and $ from that used to pay off the LOANS.
o·pin·ion əˈpinyən/noun
A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. As seen here.
I am the Cuesta College faculty curriculum chair, full-time Nutrition instructor, and I serve on 8 committees, 7-8 taskforces and sub-committees, and as advisor to 3 ASCC (student) clubs. The few negative comments I hear about the bond are from people who are distanced from the college or who are disgruntled in some manner. We are doing amazing things at Cuesta! Today we had a fabulous and productive 4 hour strategic planning meeting with over 100 faculty, staff, admin, etc. Cuesta is where every local high school student should begin his/her education! Vote yes on L-this is a really great thing for the whole community!
Very good article that points out the ever-growing need of governments (i.e. schools) and their insatiable appetite for more money. It never seems to be enough and the fact that this bond only fixes prior problems and doesn't address the future is symptomatic of government entities – they don't look ahead, while never thinking about being thrifty with economics in mind. Sounds like we need new blood and a fresh outlook on spending the public's hard earned money.
Cuesta borrowed millions to pay for an under-utilized state-of-the-art theatre complex and then canceled the theater program.
One correction: Summer session was canceled in 2010, not 2008. Several faculty members publicly pleaded to the president and the board that it not be canceled and the board refused to discuss the issue… We lost quite a few students to Allan Hancock Colllege. My daughter, a Cal grad, still in HS at the time, had to travel from Atascadero to Santa María to take to classes that summer!
To be clear, Cuesta is a gem in SLO County and it does need the bond to continue to provide top-notch transfer education and career training programs.
I have been informed the Theater Program was scaled back, not canceled. Also, the performing arts center has greatly benefited the Music Program, I glad to report!
Passage of Measure L will benefit our students in many ways!
I can answer one of Mr Benjamin's questions regarding why the "past bond" didn't address some of his issues: Because only ONE bond has EVER been passed to support Cuesta College and that was in 1974! Yes, when the college was first built and that bond has been paid off.
Nancy Mann, San Luis Obispo
Excellent letter and I agree with it 100 percent as someone that use to work in the business side of education. The point is this…all forms of government including education receive plenty of funding. That is why I always vote NO on all bonds, tax increases, fees, etc. The problem lies with the money grabbing unions and poor agency management. Cuesta does have some 50 year old buildings, so why have they not saved for 50 years to repair them? Why did they spend money on new construction (another performing arts center) when those funds could have been spent on repairs and improvements to other buildings? I could go on and on. Just vote NO, send a message that all the lies, hype and rhetoric will not work anymore. START SAVING, NO MORE SALARY INCREASES AND QUIT ASKING THE TAXPAYERS TO COVER FOR ALL YOUR MISTAKES!
From the way I read it, NJ Mann, it's a matter of semantics. Obviously, he's not talking about the 1974 bond. I think he is calling the COPS loan the "last bond"–the money Cuesta received within the last decade or so that was used to build the CPAC, parking lots, etc. instead of getting money to fix the crumbling infrastructure. Where was the priority? Now, if it passes, Measure L is going to be used to pay back the COPS loan–and fix the crumbling infrastructure. That's what I think he is saying.
Interesting and insightful article! Thanks Mr Benjamin. The general press is quite biased in their support. You tell the really story!
Thanks to everyone for your corrections. $19.1M of Cuesta's long-term debt is in the form of Certificates of Participation (COPS), not bonds. According to Cuesta's 2012-2016 Long-term Fiscal Plan, "The district's current long-term debt (COPS) was incurred to finance scheduled maintenance and capital outlay projects." COPS, which are nothing more than loans, were taken out in 2003, 2006, and 2009. They were supposed to be paid through, "…a surcharge on the facilities use rates by outside users," i.e. by renting out facilities such as the Cultural and Performing Arts Center. This under-utilized facility has never generated the revenue it was designed to. Don't get me wrong, I've attended many fine performances of the drama and music departments in this facility. But it has contributed almost nothing to the repayment of the debt, which then has to come out of the College's general fund. This debt was an issue for the Accreditation Commission when they placed Cuesta on Show Cause. Dr. Stork's rationale, as stated in the Fiscal Plan, was that this debt is less than some other District's expenses for retiree benefits; what does that have to do with it? Now the taxpayers are being asked to shoulder this debt, the result of poor fiscal planning and management.
Thanks to everyone for their corrections to dates, etc. $19.1 million of Cuesta's debt is in the form of Certificates of Participation (COPS), not bonds, as Ms. Mann, Cuesta Biology instructor, points out. According to Cuesta's 2012-2016 Long-term Fiscal Plan, "The District's long-term debt (COPS) was incurred to finance scheduled maintenance and capital outlay projects." COPS, which are nothing more than loans, were taken out in 2003, 2006, and 2009. They were supposed to be repaid through, "a surcharge on the facilities use rates by outside users," e.g. by renting out facilities such as the Cultural and Performing Arts Center (CPAC). Many colleges, such as College of the Canyons, generate considerable revenue through the rental of their PACs and other facilities, including parking fees. Cuesta, on the other hand, has never retired the $19.1 million debt, which then has to be paid out of the general fund, which is why there's inadequate money for deferred maintenance. Don't get me wrong; I've attended many excellent performances by the drama and music departments; that's not the point. The Accreditation Commission cited this debt when placing Cuesta on warning and show cause. But the College's response to the Accreditation Commission was that Cuesta's COPS debt is less than some other District's obligations for retiree benefits; what does that have to do with it? The taxpayers are now being asked to shoulder the debt which is a result of poor fiscal planning and management on the part of the College, while also paying for deferred maintenance which was supposed to be addressed in the COPS, according to the Fiscal Plan.
then he should say it! And a cops bond is NOT paid for in the same way a bond is UNLESS the proposed bond is passed and $ from that used to pay off the LOANS.
o·pin·ion əˈpinyən/noun
A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. As seen here.
I am the Cuesta College faculty curriculum chair, full-time Nutrition instructor, and I serve on 8 committees, 7-8 taskforces and sub-committees, and as advisor to 3 ASCC (student) clubs. The few negative comments I hear about the bond are from people who are distanced from the college or who are disgruntled in some manner. We are doing amazing things at Cuesta! Today we had a fabulous and productive 4 hour strategic planning meeting with over 100 faculty, staff, admin, etc. Cuesta is where every local high school student should begin his/her education! Vote yes on L-this is a really great thing for the whole community!