|
By Jorge Casuso
June 19 -- The School District faces a crisis in
“public trust” that could jeopardize future tax
measures and is currently losing millions of dollars by not
acting on a $268 million bond approved by voters in November,
former District CFO Winston Braham warned in an email to The
Lookout.
Braham sent the comments after School Board members publicly
questioned his testimony last Tuesday to the City Council,
which withheld $530,000 in funding until the District halts
its use of confidentiality clauses in agreements with former
staff and Special Education parents. (see
story)
“At a minimum, a huge public trust issue needs attention,”
Braham wrote. “If the district persists in lying to
the public, questions of confidence and public integrity will
persist.
“The board is missing the mark,” he said. “It's
not about an ex-employee, nor who said what when. It should
all be about what's next for the District.”
District officials must “fix the problem or correct
the now negative public perception” if they expect local
voters to approve increases to two parcel taxes -- Measure
S, approved by voters in June 2003, and Measure Y, approved
in November 2000.
Public confidence also could be boosted if the District moves
to issue some of the $268 million in General Obligation bonds
approved last November.
“Given the increase in cost of building materials and
changes in interest rates, the $268 million is likely shrinking
by 2 percent monthly,” Braham wrote. “In real
terms, you have already lost $30 million. Again, the focus
must not be on me, but the business of the district.”
Braham also questioned the board’s contention that
he had lied when he told the council he had no knowledge of
settlement agreements with Special Education parents. Braham
said the board misunderstood the question from Council member
Ken Gender that he was responding to.
“Note, my response to the question regarding my knowledge
of certain Special Ed expenditures was specific to ‘side
agreements,’ which as I stated, if they existed I have
never seen them nor would have knowledge as to the cost associated
with any promise or promises they contained,” he said.
Despite board members’ contention that the District
has successfully curbed legal costs associated with settlement
agreements with Special Ed parents, the District has failed
to control the overall expenditures of the program, which
amount to some $20 million a year, Braham said.
“While it is true that Legal Fees for Special Ed went
down (because related work is now being done internally),
there continues to be significant and disproportionate increases
in most all other areas,” Braham wrote.
“For the board to continue to focus on legal fees in
justifying their continued use of an ill-advised practice
is like defining an elephant by simply feeling its tail. Many
parts of Special Ed contribute the $20 million yearly expenditures.”
Braham also questioned Board member Dr. Jose Escarce’s
contention that the former CFO had failed to come up with
a “budget” that reflected the board’s tentative
decision to grant the teachers a 5 percent pay raise.
“By State Law the District must develop and adopt their
Fiscal Budget by the end of June of each Calendar Year,”
Braham wrote. “I left in November 2006 in the middle
of the 2006-'07 Fiscal Budget, a budget I developed and brought
to the Board.
“The current Interim CFO arrived there in early 2007
and as required by law had no choice but to develop the 2007-'08
Fiscal Budget... hopefully against a sensible plan similar
to the one I developed prior to my exit.”
Braham said he was required to submit a recovery plan, instead
of a budget, because the tentative teachers raise approved
by the board could not be paid for and would in fact have
put the district some $7 million in the red over three years.
Braham put a check mark next to the words, “I am unable
to certify” when he submitted to County Education officials
a copy of AB 1200, a document certifying the District’s
ability to meet the costs of the raise.
“Whenever the AB 1200 Document suggests that a proposed
Bargaining Contract cannot be sustained, a Fiscal Recovery
Plan is a must, or the board might chose to make other financial
changes in order to correct it and then submit a second AB
1200,” Braham said.
As to contentions that Braham did not give board members
a copy of the document, the former CFO responded:
“The Superintendent (Dianne Talarico) clearly had the
AB 1200. So, if assuming I did not share it, why did not The
Superintendent? She reports directly to them. . . She is still
employed there.
“Go after her, but don’t blame and lie about
an ex-employee.”
| 
