The following article was extracted from the Millbrae - San Bruno edition (The Sun) of the Independent, September 15, 1999 . It was also published in the other Peninsula editions of the Independent serving South San Francisco, Colma, Brisbane, Daly City, Foster City, Hillsborough and Burlingame. The Redwood City, Belmont and San Carlos editions should publish it on Wed. Sept. 29, 1999.
Page 1A
College bond-marketing
campaign called ill-timed
Trustee candidate accuses board of misusing funds
By David Burutto
Independent Newspapers
After placing a $148 million bond on the November
ballot, the San Mateo County Community College District Board of Trustees has been accused
of promoting the bond via a marketing campaign paid for with public funds.
College district board of trustees candidate Jack Hickey has
characterized the college district's recent marketing campaign to promote the three
colleges in the district and their respective programs, as thinly veiled promotion of the
bond.
Although the current marketing campaign sponsored by the district,
which includes the College of San Mateo, Skyline and Canada Colleges, has coincided with
the bond, board members deny one had anything to do with the other.
In fact, said district trustee Tom Constantino, the marketing
materials and advertisements make no reference to the bond at all.
Instead, the materials describe programs offered through the
colleges and feature testimonials from students describing their experiences at the
colleges.
The marketing campaign, said Constantino, actually stems from a
"needs assessment" commissioned by the district in 1996 when the district
experienced declining enrollment at its three campuses. "The findings of that study
indicated that many people lacked an awareness of the colleges," he said. "They
received little information at home or from the press. From that we decided that we should
have a more aggressive outreach and marketing effort."
Hickey, a Libertarian and candidate vying for a seat on the five
member district board, is staunchly opposed to the bond, characterizing it as a de facto tax. "I am opposed to the bond measure because it adds essentially one percent tax," he said.
"In other words, it is effectively a tax override of the Jarvis-Gann Act (Proposition
13)."
When the college district commissioned the needs assessment in
1996, however, the district had no funding available for the suggested marketing a campaign.
That changed in September of last year when the district was
informed by the state that it did not have to make its annual contribution to the
California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPers).
For the past two years, according to CalPers spokesman Brad
Pacheco, the investments from the state pension fund have performed so well, earning as
much as 19 percent in 1998, that contributions from school employers were reduced to zero
percent for that year.
For the college district, that freed up approximately $738,000.
With the unanticipated funds, the district board, according to Constantino, diverted
$250,000 into the outreach program suggested in the 1996
needs assessment which had never been funded. Subsequently, after soliciting several bids,
the board engaged Bay Relations, a Daly City-based
de facto - I am familiar with de facto and de jure I did not use either in this
instance, but the tax would definitely be de jure, and would be a result of the bonded
indebtedness contained in Measure A, to be paid by future homeowners.
because it adds essentially one percent tax - this is a misquote. The next sentence is accurate. Jarvis-Gann
imposed a 1% limit on property tax. Measure A would increase property taxes above
that 1%.
outreach program - a.k.a. PR
campaign apparently targeted to influence voters.