Notice how it always says on the ballot that proceeds (borrowed money) can not be used for administrative salaries but then the citizens bond oversight committee (CBOC) says that borrowed money can be used for district administrators "working on the bond program" (which means any administrator that has been reclassified as a "bond administrator").

That is why you should never vote for school bonds. They are never for the children. CBOC's are worthless.

In that report, nearly $500K for new administrators. Doesn’t make them bad, just very costly. The board set aside $7.4MM more for overheads for the life of the bond (allowed). Also, the CBOC essentially confirms the audit report. They do not look at actual payments to confirm funds go where they should; they rely on the auditor.

The Citizens Bond Oversight Committee is supposed to represent the taxpayers and voters, not the district leadership nor wall street banks and accounting firms. If you rely on the auditor then why have a CBOC other than for looks?

Let's look at the language in the new March measure:
"raising approximately $21,300,000 annually with rates averaging $43.10 per $100 of assessed valuation while bonds are outstanding, with independent oversight, audits, and no money for administrators"

Can we agree that "no money for administrators" is a lie? If they can freely lie about "no money for administrators" then what else in the measure are they lying about?

I was disappointed by the latest mailer (are they only being mailed to PUSD parents?). A few of the supporters don’t live here and won’t pay—why isn’t that disclosed. Also, one person is listed as a superintendent, but was an interim. If they can’t get the small things listed correctly and honestly, I worry about the bigger things.

The bond oversight committee can only confirm if the bond money was spent per state law (which includes not only capex, but what is considered opex in the rest of the world). They can't comment if the money is spent efficiently, in the best interest of students, or to the greatest need. Just a rubber stamp.

Agree. Compliance does not mean fiscal responsibility

Regarding fiscal responsibility:

Friday over night the football field lights at Foothill Highschool were on all night. They were on all day Saturday, they were on over night Saturday, they were on all day Sunday, they were on all night Sunday, they were still on 0530 hours Monday morning. They are on now as I write this. That was a seventy-two hour duration with the lights remaining on, now approaching 96 hours.

I have emailed board members regarding this issue over the years, the response was, the janitor left them on.

As a parent of both a middle schooler and elementary schooler they have left me with no choice but to vote down any future bonds. They have proven to have no responsibility for spending the money and only care about lining their pockets. The amount allocated to even fundamental, basic renovations is consistently way higher than anyone would pay outside of government associated work. This is the equivalent of our city taking their car to the dealership for an oil change. Someone with actual real world knowledge of project management should be given a voice in awarding these bids and managing the funds.

I would strongly recommend a NO vote on M and any other bond issue for the PUSD. They have proven themselves untrustworthy time and time again.

Hmmmmmm…...Amador football field lights were on as well. Not sure about all night but pretty darn early Sunday morning (5am or so)

PUSD is scurrying to put out positive image so the Measure M would pass. The entire process of funding School Improvements with Bond money is a ridiculous idea. PUSD should rely on its budget allocation. They get funding from State, County, City, Lottery allocation and yet every 3-4 years they come back and tax the residents. It is not fair and responsible. Audit Committee report is carefully worded statement to hide their lack of fiscal responsibility. Vote NO on Measure M. PUSD is wasting your money.

Oh, the 2008 market crash lives on! Every school bond since CALPERS bet wrong on the market back then has been proposed for everything but the real reason they are needed--the billions in unfunded teacher pensions that "have to be honored". By diverting funds from existing budgets to begin attacking the unfunded problem, normally budgeted items, (i.e., building retrofits, maintenance, anything but salaries, etc.) have gotten shortchanged and "require" additional bond funds. This dishonesty alone is the main reason to vote no on M and any other school bond until the pension problem is resolved. Another is the absence of a senior exemption.