Accountability

I am running a Write-In Campaign for District 1 Supervisor. Questions have been asked about lawsuits I have previously filed.  As a candidate for a non-partisan public office, I believe these questions deserve a reply.

I have been a plaintiff in two lawsuits in my life. The first was nearly 40 years ago and the group I represented was called Confine the Mine.  I was the president of this group. We were citizens trying to protect our property from the impacts of open pit mining in our neighborhood. The respondents in this case were Sonora Mining Corporation and Tuolumne County.  We spent years trying to get the County to enforce their Conditional Use Permit. We paid our attorney and hydrogeologist tens of thousands of dollars for their expertise.  When it was clear that the Harvard Pit would be closed and future projects abandoned, we settled the lawsuit for reimbursement of our legal expenses.

I was at the Board of Supervisors meeting when they considered acquiring the SMC property.  I warned the Board not to buy the property because the County would be liable for reclamation costs; my arguments fell on deaf ears.  I wish I could say that my years of advocacy on behalf of our community caused the mine to shut down, but it just isn’t true.  Sonora Mining Corporation shut down because the price of gold was too low to operate profitably. The County continues to pay reclamation costs to the tune of $1 million per year.

More recently, a group called CASBA – Citizens Against School Bond Abuse filed a lawsuit against the Sonora High School District and its Board of Trustees for their determination to use over half of the $23M bond money for an aquatic center, a project not specified in the Measure J bond issue that appeared on the 2015 ballot.  As a member of this group, I agreed to sign the lawsuit as plaintiff.  CASBA included Sonora High teachers and a former Principal, as well as other prominent citizens who had raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for school upgrades. 

I always voted for school bonds and felt betrayed by the school district and its Board. Our group attended Board meetings for nearly a year in the hope that they would prioritize classrooms, the cafeteria, and other needed renovations before commencing the aquatic center construction.  We also pointed out that the construction costs for this project would be much greater than their estimated $4.5 Million price tag. Final costs for the aquatic center exceeded $12M.

A bit of background on school bonds might help you understand why I was so frustrated with the school’s plan.  In the 2000 election California voters passed Proposition 39 which allows school bonds to pass with 55% rather than a stringent 66.7% of the vote if the bond meets certain requirements. The requirement in Section Three, part (c) is: “To ensure that before they vote, voters will be given a list of specific projects their bond money will be used for.” If a school named specific projects in the bond proposal, it would need only 55% for passage. 

Measure J got 56% of the vote but it failed to cite specific projects.  There was no mention of demolishing the existing pool, of demolishing the tennis courts, or of building a new bridge over the creek. The word “pool” does not appear in the bond, nor does “aquatic center.”  The bond consultant informed the Board that if they used the word “pool” in the bond, voters would not approve it. Measure J did not provide the required “specific projects” to qualify as a Proposition 39 (55%) bond. 

CASBA sued and in response the school district requested that the lawsuit be dismissed; the judge agreed.  We decided not to appeal. Sonora High’s legal expenses were minimal.  

In November we will be voting on another Sonora High School bond.  I’ll be looking to see if specific projects are identified.