Did MDUSD Mess Up in Talking to Chevron About a Solar Energy Deal and in Rushing to Get Measure C on the June Ballot?

The Mt. Diablo Unified School District has been on the receiving end of some pretty negative articles over the past week. In a series of articles, the Contra Costa Times has accused the district's administrators and trustees of engaging in deceptive, desperate, and money-wasting practices with regards to two issues:

1) A $70 million deal with Chevron Energy Solutions to install solar energy at 51 sites in the K-12 district.

2) The decision-making process behind putting the Measure C bond measure on June's ballot.

But one popular local blogger and an MDUSD trustee, who also publishes on a MDUSD community blog,  question the motives behind these stories, as well as the newspaper's professionalism in publishing them in the way it has.  

"Has the CCTimes  gone into attack mode?" So asks blogger, Mister Writer, in a post titled Sex, Lies and Measure C--Is the Times out to Get the MDUSD? "Certainly their reports have had a sting since they came out to oppose Measure C, back several months when it was first put on the ballot." 

"Now don't mistake this to be an endorsement of district conduct," Mister Writer continues. "They have certainly had a lot to go after recently, but what I keep reading from the Times are recycled angles from stories already written that have been turned to focus the angle from a new point of view and make… a brand new story when there is no brand new story to be had. The vote has been cast. Like it or not."

Here are the subjects of the Times recent "attack" articles: 

--The Chevron Energy Solutions deal: This solar project, possibly the largest such project in a public school district in the country, would have been paid for out of the $348 million bond measure C. But the district backed away from awarding a no-bid contract to Chevron after the Times said it raised questions about "secret meetings" between the district's superintendent and Chevron. 

--As for Measure C, which passed with 61 percent of the vote, the Times has published articles suggesting that the district and trustees were in such a rush to get some kind of revenue-generating measure on June's ballot that they moved forward with Measure C without having adequate information, such as how much it would cost in the long-term ($1.8 billion by one oft-quoted projection) and which projects would on the fix-up list.

Money from this bond measure, which required approval of 55 percent of voters, must be used to upgrade or build new campus facilities. It can't be used to pay teachers' salaries or fund programs. However, Measure C supporters argued that the measure would free up money for teachers and programs from funds that would otherwise be used for facility improvements.

But as the Times Theresa Harrington wrote: "Mt. Diablo trustees did not know what facilities improvement projects were needed when they voted March 9 to place a $348 million bond measure on the ballot."

Harrington added that "the district's list of improvements to be completed with the bond was not finalized until April, too late to be included in the voter information pamphlet." Confusion arose among principals, she said, who were given two weeks to submit their project wish lists; some, such as Northgate Principal John McMorris, who was hoping for a new stage, were unsure of whether the projects they requested made it onto the final list.

Harrington writes:

"The district had originally been considering a parcel tax to bring much-needed revenue and help restore budget cuts. But after the voters failed to approve a parcel tax in May 2009, and subsequent polling showed the district was unlikely to get the two-thirds approval needed to pass such a tax in June, the district shifted gears in February and began planning for a bond measure, which needed 55 percent voter approval."

--In another story, Harrington said that district officials were refusing to disclose the results of the poll they relied on when deciding to place Measure C on the ballot.  

All these stories are pushing buttons:

In defense of the district's dealings with Chevron over the solar project, MDUSD Trustee Gary Eberhart accused the Times of trying to stay competitive and relevant when it is losing readers to blogs like Mister Writer and Claycord.

On the MDUSD blog, Eberhart called the Times coverage of this issue more than "factually inaccurate." He denies that any meetings between the district and Chevron were held in secret. He explains that Chevron was one company that the district had meetings with, and that those Chevron meetings took place over the course of about 20 months in a variety of locations, including the district office and at restaurants and as part of the district's public Facilities subcommittee meetings.

"With all that we have learned during our time spent discussing solar with Chevron," Eberhart wrote on the blog, "with all that we have learned reviewing contracts that other school districts in the state have entered into, and with all we have learned about the financing methodologies available to our school district, we believe that we are in an excellent position to put together a solar program that will effectively and efficiently save our District well over $100 million dollars."

Mister Writer addressed the Times' examination of the decision making that went into putting Measure C on the ballot. "As far as a series of stories, it seemed more that the Times wanted to continue the MDUSD beatings rather than shape up to deal with the fact that the voters spoke out at a 61 percent win," he said. 

He picked apart the Times stories and found instances in which the Times writers suggest officials are guilty poor judgement--or worse--in rushing to get  Measure C on the June ballot. In Mister Writer's view this rush was nothing more than an effort to get the measure "on the ballot by the deadline as opposed to doing nothing….big conspiracy!"

Mister Writer also asks "where's the story" in the Times article about the district's refusal to release results of the Measure C voter poll, which at least two trustees reportedly relied upon in their decision to put Measure C on the ballot. Mister Writer notes that the district met the letter of the law by acknowledging the Times request for the poll.

"So where is the story?" he asks. "The Times openly opposed Measure C because it would ultimately cost five times its initial value, but then it was no secret that the bond would stand the better chance of passage, especially given the failure of the previous parcel tax to achieve the needed 2/3rd majority.  In both that situation and that of Measure C the voter turnout was in support of both, the latter being 69 percent."

The Times is hosting a live chat 11 a.m. Wednesday with Times staff writers Theresa Harrington and Matt Krupnick on these stories about Measure C and the MDUSD solar project.