Town Square

Post a New Topic

PUSD holds secret meeting to discuss how it will spend $270MM of taxpayer money

Original post made by FalseNews and AlternativeFacts, Mission Park, on Sep 11, 2017

On Monday evening, the PUSD convened a Facilities Master Plan (FMP) "Kick-Off" meeting of 17 "committee members".

The meeting was not noticed to the public, and for members of the public who did attend, they were not allowed to speak.

The primary purpose of this secret meeting was to come up with a spending plan for the $270MM the voters authorized in last November's Election.

The $270MM is by far the LARGEST debt ever taken on by the Pleasanton Taxpayer.

Currently, the PUSD has NO PLAN on how that money is to be spent.

Basically, they have $270MM of taxpayer money, and now want the community to have a "trust-us" attitude that they will spend the monies on fiscally wise manner.

There was even talk at the meeting that bond money will be used to fund expenses typically funded through general funds, thus "freeing up" general fund monies.

All done under the cloak of secrecy, without any input from the public (whose wallets the money is coming from).

Is anyone else in Pleasanton as outraged as I am?


Comments (10)

2 people like this
Posted by Jimmy The Jet
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 12, 2017 at 8:54 am

Jimmy The Jet is a registered user.

Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

"PUSD holds secret meeting to discuss how it will spend $270MM of taxpayer money"

Is this Headline truthful?

48 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Sep 12, 2017 at 10:11 am

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

The meeting wasn't posted.
The discussion was about use of $270MM bond.
The public was allowed to attend, after inquiring, but were not allowed to comment.

2 people like this
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Sep 12, 2017 at 10:57 am

PUSD may not have a detailed plan on how to use the money (hence, the meeting), but I'm pretty sure that they have a general plan: The plan communicated to voters before the bond vote.

It sounds like you're trying to re-campaign the entire bond issue all over again, but it's way too late for that. The bond passed and now it's up to PUSD to come up with specific plans on how to spend the money.

39 people like this
Posted by Julie Testa
a resident of Vineyard Hills
on Sep 12, 2017 at 11:04 am

The Bond that was passed is a Capital Projects bond. PUSD promised transparency and accountability to rebuild trust that was lost from illegal misuse of previous bond money. This is NOT a move-the-money-around to back fill the general fund account. This is not a maintenance fund or money to fund pet projects. To rebuild the public trust PUSD must be transparent and honor the promises made to the taxpayers.

49 people like this
Posted by Julie Testa
a resident of Vineyard Hills
on Sep 12, 2017 at 11:09 am

I believe this post is intended to alert the community to discussion that is taking place that does not honor the commitments communicated to voters before the bond vote.

Like this comment
Posted by FalseNews & AlternativeFacts
a resident of Mission Park
on Sep 12, 2017 at 11:37 am

Jimmy the Jet...

Thank you for your post

I was at the meeting.

1) The meeting was not noticed to the public
2) Jimmy the Jet please request the PPT slides presented by the consultants, and can make your conclusion as to the content of the subject matter.


5 people like this
Posted by Jtjh
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Sep 12, 2017 at 1:06 pm

It seems to me that the first question that needs to be asked is:

Was the Board under any regulatory obligation to inform the public of the meeting; or was it perfectly in compliance in not doing so?

23 people like this
Posted by Julie Testa
a resident of Vineyard Hills
on Sep 12, 2017 at 2:30 pm

Is meeting a minimal compliance standard sufficient when PUSD campaigned on a promise of transparency? Is there an issue of trust when a committee member who is also on the bond oversight committee proposed using the 30 million dollars identified to build a school should be diverted for other purposes? I believe community members should have been invited and allowed to speak at that meeting.

16 people like this
Posted by The game of Hopscotch
a resident of Del Prado
on Sep 12, 2017 at 3:50 pm

There are no term limits on the school board so people are on there forever long after their kids graduate. They have no urgency to reduce overcrowding because most of the time, their kids aren't even enrolled in the public schools.

The bottom line is that PUSD by tradition sells off all available land to housing developers, then they claim they are "too poor" to build a school. They have done this since the 1970s. They basically use the excuse that the place they have purchased to build a school is no longer a "growth area;" therefore, they will sell it and pick another site they need to purchase. This is all a lie. They never actually build anything. They just play hopscotch all over time buying and selling land that they never intend to build anything on.

PUSD sold off 30 acres along Vineyard Avenue that was supposed to be a middle school and an elementary school, all for a little over $3 million, so that Amador S&L could place houses on it. PUSD sold it and told the city of Pleasanton that PUSD would build a middle school in the Fairlands neighborhood. That was a complete lie. That never materialized so then they said they would hold the $3 million in the bank to build another middle school and another elementary school somewhere else.

It never happened. Usually when a development is approved by the city, the PUSD never asks for land to be set aside for a school. When they have done so in the past, they then sell it off to developers to build houses on top of it.

Then they went to the city of Pleasanton and said that selling off the 30 acres was a mistake and they needed to repurchase land along Vineyard to build Neal. And it has sat empty ever since.

Unlike other school districts, new schools are never built and land sales always are spent on fees for consultants, which are usually lawyers connected to Kinglsey Bogard or Lozano Smith or FFF or some other law firm.

Of course the $3 million they banked for the 30 acres along Vineyard is now long gone. As is practically every single dollar they earned from hopscotch land sales and developer impact fees.....

24 people like this
Posted by Pleasanton Parent
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Sep 12, 2017 at 4:13 pm

Pleasanton Parent is a registered user.

While this doesn't sound like it was a secret meeting it does sound like it's on the wrong footing to start out.

I'm actually more upset the public wasn't allowed to speak - this is our money. We set the rules

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Couples: "The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work" by John Gottman
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,056 views

California's permanent drought is getting worse
By Tim Hunt | 4 comments | 778 views

The Steps to Success for the College Transfer Student
By Elizabeth LaScala | 0 comments | 439 views

Plant With Purpose helping families to grow out of poverty
By Jeb Bing | 0 comments | 124 views


Nominations due by Sept. 17

Pleasanton Weekly and are once again putting out a call for nominations and sponsorships for the annual Tri-Valley Heroes awards - our salute to the community members dedicated to bettering the Tri-Valley and the lives of its residents.

Nomination form