It’s rare to see a California local government rescind a vote. But on October 4, 2016, the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors voted 5-0 to rescind a controversial and probably illegal vote taken three weeks earlier to satisfy the political demands of construction unions.
On September 13, the board had voted 3-2 to direct staff to negotiate a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) with construction trade unions for a $41 million county hospital expansion. Organizations that defend fair and open bid competition for public contracts were caught by surprise. There was nothing on the September 13, 2016 meeting agenda to indicate board discussion – let alone action – concerning a government-mandated Project Labor Agreement.
But some people seemed to know a vote would happen. Union officials and activists attended the September 13 meeting and called on the Board of Supervisors to negotiate a Project Labor Agreement. At least one Supervisor was ready to make a motion for it even though the proposal was introduced to the board via public comment.
In addition to undermining the public interest, the vote appeared to be illegal. Under the California Ralph M. Brown Act, an elected governing board cannot vote on items without notifying the public in advance that such items will be considered for action. This is a basic principle of open and transparent government.
But having a law and actually enforcing it are sometimes two different things. Frequently the public encounters insurmountable challenges in making California local governments accountable for violating what’s commonly called “the Brown Act.” In this case, opponents of government-mandated Project Labor Agreements needed persistence and determination to confirm the illegal action and get it rectified.
A video record of the meeting posted on the county website after the meeting strangely cut off before the vote, thereby depriving the public of a source to prove what had happened. A reporter who covered the September 13 Board of Supervisors meeting for the local newspaper insisted that the board had not taken a vote to negotiate a Project Labor Agreement. Members of the public trying to obtain draft meeting minutes were frustrated by what seemed to be bureaucratic delays.
Yet there was one reliable witness at the meeting who was paying close attention to the proceedings. This witness was sure that a 3-2 vote had been taken specifically to authorize staff to negotiate a union Project Labor Agreement to include as a bid specification for the San Joaquin General Hospital Phase 2 Acute Care Patient Wing Expansion Project.
Eventually, the county was able to restore the video to completeness and provide the order of the board. It was indeed a vote directing staff to negotiate a Project Labor Agreement with unions, with the agreement to come back for ratification at the September 27 board meeting. (Allowing only two weeks for “negotiations” of a major labor relations contract suggests that union officials and some county supervisors were going to pressure staff to hastily sign off on a standard boilerplate agreement that unions typically introduce at the start of negotiations.)
The plot was now proven. A coalition of organizations banded together and hired a law firm to send a letter to the Board of Supervisors demanding that the vote be nullified. Meanwhile, the Board of Supervisors cancelled its September 27 meeting for unknown reasons. Then the Board of Supervisors scheduled an agenda item at the October 4 meeting to rescind the original September 13 vote.
But supporters of fair and open bid competition on taxpayer-funded contracts even struggled at the October 4 board meeting to get that 5-0 vote to correct the apparently illegal action. Hundreds of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) activists repeatedly disrupted and delayed the meeting to express displeasure with their own contract negotiations. When a representative of the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction was speaking during public comment to urge the board to rescind their Project Labor Agreement vote, someone set off the fire alarm, resulting in the evacuation of the building.
In the past 20 years, the militant union activism and underhanded political tricks formerly concentrated in a few urban centers of California have rippled out 75 miles to places such as San Joaquin County. While many fiscal conservatives are fleeing the state or dying, those who choose to remain in California must monitor their local government agendas and make elected officials accountable when they violate the law for a special interest group.
Union Creates Bedlam at San Joaquin Supervisors Meeting – Stockton Record – October 4, 2016
Kevin Dayton is the President & CEO of Labor Issues Solutions, LLC, and is the author of frequent postings about generally unreported California state and local policy issues at www.laborissuessolutions.com. Follow him on Twitter at @DaytonPubPolicy.
On June 7, 2016, voters in nine California counties in the San Francisco Bay Area will vote on a proposal (Measure AA) to annually assess a $12 tax on every property parcel. This tax would apply equally to each parcel, ranging in assessed property value from Google headquarters in Mountain View to a $30,000 trailer in Vallejo.
The tax money would go to the obscure Oakland-based San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority, established in 2008 by state law as a regional agency. Regional governments are increasingly popular in California, in part because state laws such as the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32) and Senate Bill 975 (2008) are compelling local governments to collaborate on public policy.
Governed by officials appointed by local governments, these regional governments often lack press oversight and public accountability. That creates a power vacuum that groups eager for taxpayer funding can fill for their own advantage. Construction unions have seized the opportunity.
In the case of the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority, union Building Trades Councils of the nine affected counties want to control future construction contracts funded by this parcel tax. On February 24, 2016, the board of the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority considered a policy requiring construction companies to sign a Project Labor Agreement with unions as a condition of working on contracts greater than $100,000 funded by the proposed parcel tax.
In front of a full room of union officials from the entire region, almost every Bay Restoration Authority board member expressed strong support for a government mandate for construction contractors to obtain their workforce (including apprentices) from the union hiring hall and make all employee fringe benefit payments to union health care and pension funds. One board member dared to assert that the parcel tax was actually about Bay restoration and not labor unions. She also questioned how the union deal would affect volunteer organizations. But in the end, she voted with the rest of the board to proceed with continued development of the Project Labor Agreement policy.
Objections came from construction business associations, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the Contra Costa (County) Taxpayers Association, Ducks Unlimited, a construction company based in Sonoma that specializes in wetlands restoration projects, and one ordinary citizen from El Sobrante. The board voted to create an ad hoc committee to work with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and Ducks Unlimited to neutralize their opposition to the Project Labor Agreement.
Why is this regional agency implementing a Project Labor Agreement policy? Some of the union love is ideological and some of it is based on politics back at the local governments of the appointed board members. Much of it is presumably intended to convince the unions to provide major financial and organizational help to the Measure AA campaign to convince voters to approve the parcel tax.
Union campaign assistance is needed because of one major obstacle to voter passage of the $12 annual parcel tax: under Proposition 13 (approved by state voters in 1978), a two-thirds supermajority of all voters in the nine Bay Area counties must approve the tax increase. This threshold will be difficult to exceed, even in a region that strongly supports environmental causes. Both the Left and the Right have reasons to reject this tax.
In addition, the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority has a logistical challenge in putting one tax measure on the ballot in nine different counties. This is an unprecedented effort that has provoked many legal questions and required significant interaction with county election officials. (Unlike the opposition to the Measure AA parcel tax, the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority has taxpayer funds to get answers to legal questions.)
Big corporations (such as Pacific Gas and Electric) are eagerly supporting this regressive property tax, as it gives them an image of environmental activism while putting the burden of paying for the restoration on ordinary homeowners who had nothing to do with degrading San Francisco Bay in the first place. Nevertheless, union activism will also be needed to overcome voter resistance to sending their tax money to an obscure agency in Oakland.
A Project Labor Agreement locks in that union support. But could it backfire on the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority?
Ironically, the board’s decision to give unions monopoly control over the construction contract workforce has inspired the development of organized opposition to the parcel tax. It also creates for voters a clearly identifiable example of insider politics, favoritism for special interest groups, and fiscal irresponsibility.
Kevin Dayton is the President & CEO of Labor Issues Solutions, LLC, and is the author of frequent postings about generally unreported California state and local policy issues at www.laborissuessolutions.com. Follow him on Twitter at @DaytonPubPolicy.
Where there is innovation, there is union interference.
Marin Clean Energy, the first “Community Choice Aggregation” program in California, is planning to build a solar farm on a “brownfield” in the City of Richmond. Only one party objected to the project on environmental grounds: “Bay Area Citizens for Responsible Solar,” a front group for California Unions for Reliable Energy (CURE).
It’s just the latest in a series of environmental objections by unions to bend the policies of Community Choice Aggregators.
What Are Community Choice Aggregation Programs?
Community Choice Aggregation programs are authorized in California by Assembly Bill 117, signed into law by Governor Gray Davis in 2002. The concept was elaborated in Senate Bill 790, signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown in 2011. The California Public Utilities Commission regulates Community Choice Aggregation.
These programs allow electric customers to circumvent buying power from major investor-owned public utilities such as Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE) and San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E). Instead, customers purchase electricity bought or generated by government-run utilities organized as a “Joint Powers Authority.”
Investor-owned utilities maintain transmission and distribution infrastructure and perform other services for customers. When a local government joins a Community Choice Aggregation program, electric customers in that jurisdiction are automatically transferred to that program unless the customer pro-actively chooses to opt-out and remain with the investor-owned utility.
Community Choice Aggregators are independently managed and directed by an appointed board that represents participating local governments. For example, the board of Marin Clean Energy includes representatives of the following governments now participating in the program: the Marin County cities of Novato, Corte Madera, Fairfax, San Anselmo, Larkspur, Belvedere, San Rafael, Tiburon, Ross, Mill Valley, and Sausalito; the Solano County city of Benicia; the Contra Costa County cities of Richmond, El Cerrito, and San Pablo; the County of Marin, and unincorporated parts of the County of Napa. Other cities in the San Francisco Bay Area are in the process of joining the program, and they will have representation on the board.
Programs such as Marin Clean Energy market themselves as having lower rates and generating more power from “renewable” energy sources, such as solar, wind, bioenergy, geothermal, and small hydro. Marin Clean Energy claimed that in January 2016 its generation rates were 14% lower on average than PG&E’s generation rates and would have been even lower without a “Power Charge Indifference Adjustment” (PCIA) fee charged to customers who do not choose to remain with PG&E.
Community Choice Aggregation Is a Juicy Target for the Left
As shown by the California High-Speed Rail project, any ambitious project or program proposed in California is immediately targeted by numerous leftist interest groups that see an opportunity to advance their agenda. From the beginning, unions targeted Community Choice Aggregation programs as a vehicle to organize the “renewable energy” workforce through a so-called “Blue-Green Alliance.”
In fact, Senate Bill 790 included an obscure provision – added at the demand of union lobbyists – to allow ratepayer money to be diverted into Labor-Management Cooperation Committees that fund environmental objections to energy projects and make massive contributions to campaigns to pass or defeat ballot measures.
See the October 18, 2012 UnionWatch article Mysterious Union Slush Fund Spends $100,000 Against Costa Mesa Charter, featuring a link to the TheTruthAboutPLAs article A Genuine California Union Conspiracy: Senate Bill 790 and the California Building Trades Council’s Ratepayer Funded Political Slush Fund, which links to the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction’s “Investigative Report: A Genuine Union Conspiracy.”
In 2012, the California Construction Industry Labor Management Trust (“CILMT”) began submitting comments to the California Public Utilities Commission about proposed regulations for Community Choice Aggregators.
Unions Don’t Like Competition
Marin Clean Energy has been targeted by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local Union 1245, which represents employees at Pacific Gas & Electric. This union argued that the Community Choice Aggregation programs would harm the environment by buying power from Shell Energy North America, which generates more than 90% of its power from non-renewable sources, including coal. For example, in a June 4, 2014 letter to the Napa County Board of Supervisors, IBEW Local 1245 demanded that the Napa County Board of Supervisors prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) before joining Marin Clean Energy.
IBEW Local 1245 also targeted the CleanPowerSF Community Choice Aggregation program and demanded an Environmental Impact Report before the implementation of that program:
What unions really want is a Project Labor Agreement.
If You Plan to Build a Solar Plant in California, Expect Union Hassles
A position paper of the “East Bay Clean Power Alliance” entitled “Promoting a Labor-friendly Alameda County Community Choice Energy Program” calls for all construction under a Project Labor Agreement and explains how Community Choice Aggregation programs would bring construction workers into a union:
As a public program, it can prioritize public good over profit, and work with unions to generate high-road, family-sustaining jobs, utilize union apprenticeship and other entry-level job programs, and offer pathways out of poverty, especially in low income communities…A Community Choice energy program can be a unique vehicle for opening up the largely non-union community-based energy sector to union employment. This is possible because of the program’s ability to set work standards and also to aggregate smaller installation projects into larger projects more amenable to union labor agreements.
The idea is that a Community Choice Aggregation program would negotiate a Project Labor Agreement with California Unions for Reliable Energy (CURE), a Sacramento-based coalition of unions, to cover all solar construction and maintenance, large and small.
Marin Clean Energy Is Targeted with Greenmail
According to the Marin Clean Energy website, “many local solar projects are under development in MCE’s service area including MCE Solar One, Cooley Quarry, Buck Institute, and Cost Plus.” A company signatory to the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers won the contract to build the Buck Institute solar project.
MCE Solar One is the biggest solar plant proposed by Marin Clean Energy: a 10.5 megawatt project to be built on a 49-acre landfill site near a refinery in Richmond owned by Chevron. According to the Marin Clean Energy website, “Local communities are gearing up for construction of the largest publicly owned solar project in the Bay Area!”
Not so fast.
Unions were targeting this project, as shown through public comment at an August 19, 2015 community meeting about the project. On September 29, 2015, a group called “Bay Area Citizens for Responsible Solar” submitted a 31-page letter plus expert testimony and exhibits objecting under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for MCE Solar One, also known as the Richmond Solar PV Project. What sounds like a community environmental organization is actually a front group for California Unions for Reliable Energy (CURE).
Staff wasn’t impressed, as shown in the response to the union comments:
As is typical with union environmental objections, attorneys for California Unions for Reliable Energy submitted another round of comments at the last minute objecting to the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). After examining the documents at the November 19, 2015 meeting of the Marin Clean Energy board, legal counsel declared that the late submissions contained nothing new of concern. The board unanimously approved the FEIR.
One board member said “it is a sad day that CEQA has really become less and less about the environment and more and more about power. Governor Brown has tried to address this with reform to CEQA and this item follows that direction.”
Don’t count on that reform coming anytime soon.
California construction trade unions continue to protect the environment from the scourges of renewable energy and infill development. A chart below provides examples of their achievements for the planet in 2015.
Meanwhile, 2015 ends with the annual chatter at the state capitol that “maybe next year” will be the year that the California legislature amends the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to end such nonsense. Inspiring this goal for 2016 is an August 2015 study, In the Name of the Environment: Litigation Abuse Under CEQA, which provides new evidence about the distortion of this law by unscrupulous parties.
California’s environmental laws give the public significant authority in ensuring that state agencies and local governments appropriately protect the environment when considering new projects or programs. Allowing the public to play a key role in environmental protection is a check and balance against government ignorance, incompetence, and corruption.
But giving the public a legal role in environmental protection provides a powerful weapon for organizations or individuals who have selfish or ideologicial motivations to prevent construction. It also allows businesses to hinder the growth and prosperity of their competition. And it gives organizations an opportunity to extort private developers and public agencies into making payouts or granting economic concessions that aren’t related to environmental protection. (This practice is sometimes called “greenmail” because it is blackmail using environmental laws.)
The most-feared wielders of California’s environmental laws are labor unions. If you doubt this, note over the years how often corporations and business groups condemn all kinds of CEQA abuse in public without ever mentioning unions as a chief ringleader of the practice. A typical example is this April 15, 2015 op-ed in the San Diego Union-Tribune: CEQA Reform: Don’t Allow Gaming of the System.
A reader would not learn that one of the most aggressive advocates of union CEQA abuse victimized one of the co-authors of that op-ed with one of the most notorious examples of union CEQA abuse. Read the www.UnionWatch.org story at Finally Got It! Secret Union Deal for San Diego Convention Center.
The State Building and Construction Trades Council of California (with its front group California Unions for Reliable Energy, or CURE) remains the primary obstacle to CEQA reform, not environmentalists or even other unions that routinely use CEQA to win concessions. They are the gatekeepers to CEQA exemptions granted for government agencies and private developers. Two kinds of projects have risen above state environmental protection: major league professional sports facilities and high-speed rail. It is not coincidental that construction trade unions have Project Labor Agreements or Project Labor Agreement commitments on such work.
Here’s a chart of construction union activity in 2015 involving the California Environmental Quality Act or the Warren-Alquist Act (for power plant licensing at the California Energy Commission).
|Table A-1||California K-12 School Districts||Ranked by
|1||Los Angeles Unified School District||646,683|
|2||San Diego Unified School District||129,779|
|3||Garden Grove Unified School District||92,354|
|4||Long Beach Unified School District||79,709|
|5||Fresno Unified School District||73,543|
|6||Elk Grove Unified School District||62,888|
|7||San Francisco Unified School District||58,414|
|8||Santa Ana Unified School District||56,815|
|9||Capistrano Unified School District||54,036|
|10||Corona-Norco Unified School District||53,739|
|11||San Bernardino City Unified School District||53,365|
|12||San Juan Unified School District||49,114|
|13||Oakland Unified School District||48,077|
|14||Sacramento City Unified School District||46,868|
|15||Riverside Unified School District||42,339|
|16||Clovis Unified School District||41,169|
|17||Sweetwater Union High School District||41,018|
|18||Stockton Unified School District||40,057|
|19||Fontana Unified School District||39,470|
|20||Kern High School District||37,318|
|21||Poway Unified School District||35,629|
|22||Fremont Unified School District||34,208|
|23||Moreno Valley Unified School District||34,170|
|24||San Jose Unified School District||32,938|
|25||San Ramon Valley Unified School District||31,954|
|26||Mt. Diablo Unified School District||31,923|
|27||Anaheim Union High School District||31,659|
|28||Irvine Unified School District||31,392|
|29||Twin Rivers Unified School District||31,035|
|30||West Contra Costa Unified School District||30,596|
|31||Lodi Unified School District||30,349|
|32||Bakersfield City School District||30,076|
|33||Temecula Valley Unified School District||30,016|
|34||Chino Valley Unified School District||29,937|
|35||Chula Vista Elementary School District||29,806|
|36||Orange Unified School District||29,473|
|37||Montebello Unified School District||29,062|
|38||Saddleback Valley Unified School District||29,028|
|39||Desert Sands Unified School District||28,999|
|40||Visalia Unified School District||28,267|
|41||William S. Hart Union High School District||26,983|
|42||East Side Union High School District||26,760|
|43||Rialto Unified School District||26,225|
|44||Glendale Unified School District||26,168|
|45||Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School District||25,595|
|46||Vista Unified School District||25,377|
|47||Pomona Unified School District||25,311|
|48||Antelope Valley Union High School District||24,619|
|49||Chaffey Joint Union High School District||24,598|
|50||Tustin Unified School District||24,059|
|51||Torrance Unified School District||23,947|
|52||Hesperia Unified School District||23,735|
|53||Palm Springs Unified School District||23,332|
|54||Colton Joint Unified School District||23,322|
|55||Manteca Unified School District||23,188|
|56||Downey Unified School District||22,698|
|57||Murrieta Valley Unified School District||22,698|
|58||Hayward Unified School District||22,555|
|59||Ontario-Montclair School District||22,521|
|60||Lake Elsinore Unified School District||22,258|
|61||Grossmont Union High School District||22,220|
|62||Compton Unified School District||22,106|
|63||Palmdale Elementary School District||21,956|
|64||Newport-Mesa Unified School District||21,905|
|65||Hemet Unified School District||21,414|
|66||Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District||21,366|
|67||Redlands Unified School District||21,326|
|68||ABC Unified School District||20,998|
|69||Oceanside Unified School District||20,980|
|70||San Marcos Unified School District||20,452|
|71||Pajaro Valley Unified School District||20,438|
|72||Madera Unified School District||20,415|
|73||Val Verde Unified School District||19,841|
|74||Conejo Valley Unified School District||19,727|
|75||Hacienda la Puente Unified School District||19,642|
|76||Folsom-Cordova Unified School District||19,527|
|77||Alvord Unified School District||19,390|
|78||Jurupa Unified School District||19,330|
|79||Escondido Union School District||19,204|
|80||Anaheim City School District||19,164|
|81||Cupertino Union School District||19,079|
|82||Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District||18,960|
|83||Coachella Valley Unified School District||18,878|
|84||Napa Valley Unified School District||18,610|
|85||Pasadena Unified School District||18,586|
|86||Antioch Unified School District||18,352|
|87||Baldwin Park Unified School District||18,316|
|88||Simi Valley Unified School District||17,821|
|89||Alhambra Unified School District||17,617|
|90||Panama-Buena Vista Union School District||17,469|
|91||Ventura Unified School District||17,366|
|92||Oxnard Union High School District||17,148|
|93||Tracy Joint Unified School District||16,935|
|94||Oxnard School District||16,916|
|95||Cajon Valley Union School District||16,601|
|96||Huntington Beach Union High School District||16,343|
|97||Burbank Unified School District||16,332|
|98||Santa Maria-Bonita School District||16,026|
|99||Paramount Unified School District||15,681|
|100||Santa Barbara Unified School District||15,593|
|101||Central Unified School District||15,584|
|102||Santa Clara Unified School District||15,298|
|103||Modesto City Elementary School District||15,259|
|104||Lancaster Elementary School District||15,149|
|105||Rowland Unified School District||15,055|
|106||Vallejo City Unified School District||14,996|
|107||Modesto City High School District||14,969|
|108||Lynwood Unified School District||14,776|
|109||Pleasanton Unified School District||14,768|
|110||Walnut Valley Unified School District||14,532|
|111||Salinas Union High School District||14,437|
|112||Apple Valley Unified School District||14,401|
|113||Fullerton Joint Union High School District||14,396|
|114||West Covina Unified School District||14,213|
|115||Turlock Unified School District||14,127|
|116||Porterville Unified School District||14,119|
|117||Victor Valley Union High School District||13,889|
|118||Chico Unified School District||13,739|
|119||Ceres Unified School District||13,694|
|120||Fullerton Elementary School District||13,678|
|121||Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District||13,653|
|122||Etiwanda Elementary School District||13,652|
|123||Natomas Unified School District||13,630|
|124||Inglewood Unified School District||13,469|
|125||Yuba City Unified School District||13,366|
|126||Bellflower Unified School District||13,149|
|127||Whittier Union High School District||12,983|
|128||Evergreen Elementary School District||12,857|
|129||Vacaville Unified School District||12,837|
|130||Rocklin Unified School District||12,738|
|131||San Dieguito Union High School District||12,645|
|132||Palo Alto Unified School District||12,527|
|133||New Haven Unified School District||12,459|
|134||Alum Rock Union Elementary School District||12,386|
|135||Covina-Valley Unified School District||12,274|
|136||Victor Elementary School District||12,181|
|137||La Mesa-Spring Valley School District||12,144|
|138||San Lorenzo Unified School District||12,070|
|139||San Mateo-Foster City School District||11,858|
|140||Gilroy Unified School District||11,840|
|141||Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District||11,632|
|142||Upland Unified School District||11,380|
|143||Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District||11,289|
|144||Las Virgenes Unified School District||11,259|
|145||Santa Rosa High School District||11,244|
|146||Sanger Unified School District||11,204|
|147||Franklin-McKinley Elementary School District||11,193|
|148||Carlsbad Unified School District||11,049|
|149||Alameda Unified School District||11,020|
|150||Menifee Union Elementary School District||11,011|
|151||Pittsburg Unified School District||10,969|
|152||Oak Grove Elementary School District||10,921|
|153||Fremont Union High School District||10,792|
|154||Merced City Elementary School District||10,788|
|155||Lucia Mar Unified School District||10,710|
|156||San Jacinto Unified School District||10,698|
|157||Monterey Peninsula Unified School District||10,653|
|158||Perris Union High School District||10,510|
|159||Berkeley Unified School District||10,442|
|160||Adelanto Elementary School District||10,378|
|161||Milpitas Unified School District||10,281|
|162||Los Banos Unified School District||10,260|
|163||Roseville Joint Union High School District||10,223|
|164||Bonita Unified School District||10,146|
|165||Lompoc Unified School District||10,076|
|166||Woodland Joint Unified School District||10,055|
|167||Merced Union High School District||10,039|
|168||Los Alamitos Unified School District||9,914|
|169||Saugus Union School District||9,911|
|170||Roseville City Elementary School District||9,820|
|171||Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint Unified School District||9,779|
|172||Kings Canyon Joint Unified School District||9,775|
|173||Sequoia Union High School District||9,693|
|174||Marysville Joint Unified School District||9,647|
|175||Arcadia Unified School District||9,582|
|176||Westminster School District||9,503|
|177||Tulare City School District||9,497|
|178||Escondido Union High School District||9,442|
|179||Morongo Unified School District||9,439|
|180||El Monte Union High School District||9,388|
|181||Redondo Beach Unified School District||9,364|
|182||Castro Valley Unified School District||9,361|
|183||Greenfield Union School District||9,345|
|184||Azusa Unified School District||9,277|
|185||Lincoln Unified School District||9,277|
|186||Calexico Unified School District||9,263|
|187||Beaumont Unified School District||9,256|
|188||Alisal Union School District||9,153|
|189||Dublin Unified School District||9,151|
|190||El Rancho Unified School District||9,129|
|191||Salinas City Elementary School District||9,125|
|192||Western Placer Unified School District||9,116|
|193||South San Francisco Unified School District||9,111|
|194||East Whittier City Elementary School District||9,064|
|195||Redwood City Elementary School District||9,042|
|196||El Monte City School District||9,031|
|197||Ocean View School District||9,010|
|198||Morgan Hill Unified School District||9,000|
|199||Westside Union Elementary School District||8,941|
|200||Hawthorne School District||8,809|
|201||Davis Joint Unified School District||8,626|
|202||San Leandro Unified School District||8,617|
|203||Sylvan Union Elementary School District||8,565|
|204||Brentwood Union Elementary School District||8,562|
|205||Hueneme Elementary School District||8,396|
|206||San Mateo Union High School District||8,321|
|207||Liberty Union High School District||8,087|
|208||Novato Unified School District||8,029|
|209||Washington Unified School District||7,978|
|210||Centinela Valley Union High School District||7,878|
|211||Snowline Joint Unified School District||7,826|
|212||Santa Maria Joint Union High School District||7,782|
|213||Berryessa Union Elementary School District||7,758|
|214||Glendora Unified School District||7,733|
|215||South Bay Union School District||7,646|
|216||Campbell Union School District||7,642|
|217||San Luis Coastal Unified School District||7,636|
|218||Delano Union Elementary School District||7,600|
|219||Campbell Union High School District||7,453|
|220||Pleasant Valley School District||7,401|
|221||Mountain View Elementary School District||7,345|
|222||Jefferson Elementary School District||7,111|
|223||Claremont Unified School District||7,046|
|224||Lennox School District||7,022|
|225||Manhattan Beach Unified School District||6,890|
|226||Huntington Beach City Elementary School District||6,864|
|227||El Dorado Union High School District||6,810|
|228||Sunnyvale School District||6,787|
|229||Culver City Unified School District||6,757|
|230||Newhall School District||6,739|
|231||Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District||6,715|
|232||Moorpark Unified School District||6,703|
|233||Dinuba Unified School District||6,580|
|234||Paso Robles Joint Unified School District||6,555|
|235||Santee School District||6,472|
|236||Selma Unified School District||6,447|
|237||San Gabriel Unified School District||6,410|
|238||Magnolia Elementary School District||6,403|
|239||Ukiah Unified School District||6,349|
|240||Fountain Valley Elementary School District||6,305|
|241||Lawndale Elementary School District||6,300|
|242||Newark Unified School District||6,196|
|243||Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District||6,145|
|244||Lakeside Union Elementary School District||6,135|
|245||Whittier City Elementary School District||6,124|
|246||El Centro Elementary School District||6,101|
|247||Patterson Joint Unified School District||6,024|
|248||Brea-Olinda Unified School District||5,977|
|249||Temple City Unified School District||5,953|
|250||Hanford Elementary School District||5,934|
|251||Barstow Unified School District||5,920|
|252||Alta Loma Elementary School District||5,917|
|253||Monrovia Unified School District||5,903|
|254||National Elementary School District||5,829|
|255||Perris Elementary School District||5,821|
|256||Ramona City Unified School District||5,697|
|257||Hollister School District||5,669|
|258||Shasta Union High School District||5,561|
|259||Union Elementary School District||5,533|
|260||Santa Rosa Elementary School District||5,466|
|261||Santa Paula Unified School District||5,459|
|262||Encinitas Union Elementary School District||5,445|
|263||Sulphur Springs Union School District||5,437|
|264||Windsor Unified School District||5,415|
|265||Acalanes Union High School District||5,402|
|266||Travis Unified School District||5,398|
|267||Petaluma Joint Union High School District||5,397|
|268||Rosedale Union Elementary School District||5,397|
|269||Tulare Joint Union High School District||5,325|
|270||Oakdale Joint Unified School District||5,292|
|271||Orcutt Union Elementary School District||5,269|
|272||Charter Oak Unified School District||5,158|
|273||Buckeye Union Elementary School District||5,157|
|274||Fallbrook Union Elementary School District||5,113|
|275||Mountain View Whisman School District||5,065|
|276||Garvey Elementary School District||5,051|
|277||La Habra City Elementary School District||5,022|
|278||Kerman Unified School District||4,997|
|279||Buena Park Elementary School District||4,985|
|280||Oakley Union Elementary School District||4,946|
|281||Rio Elementary School District||4,946|
|282||Sierra Sands Unified School District||4,944|
|283||Benicia Unified School District||4,924|
|284||Soledad Unified School District||4,915|
|285||Jefferson Union High School District||4,906|
|286||Atwater Elementary School District||4,855|
|287||San Ysidro Elementary School District||4,842|
|288||Moreland School District||4,825|
|289||South Pasadena Unified School District||4,767|
|290||Santa Cruz City High School District||4,731|
|291||Atascadero Unified School District||4,722|
|292||Central Elementary School District||4,701|
|293||Oak Park Unified School District||4,693|
|294||Los Altos Elementary School District||4,675|
|295||San Rafael City Elementary School District||4,635|
|296||Sonoma Valley Unified School District||4,635|
|297||San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District||4,613|
|298||Banning Unified School District||4,599|
|299||New Jerusalem Elementary School District||4,536|
|300||Center Joint Unified School District||4,533|
|301||Little Lake City Elementary School District||4,512|
|302||North Monterey County Unified School District||4,493|
|303||Centralia Elementary School District||4,491|
|304||Del Mar Union Elementary School District||4,399|
|305||Coalinga-Huron Unified School District||4,367|
|306||Burton Elementary School District||4,347|
|307||Tehachapi Unified School District||4,272|
|308||Paradise Unified School District||4,265|
|309||Delano Joint Union High School District||4,235|
|310||Martinez Unified School District||4,221|
|311||Ravenswood City Elementary School District||4,216|
|312||Beverly Hills Unified School District||4,212|
|313||Tamalpais Union High School District||4,165|
|314||Lindsay Unified School District||4,163|
|315||Valley Center-Pauma Unified School District||4,155|
|316||Julian Union Elementary School District||4,142|
|317||Placer Union High School District||4,137|
|318||Central Union High School District||4,106|
|319||Cutler-Orosi Joint Unified School District||4,083|
|320||Wiseburn Unified School District||4,065|
|321||La Canada Unified School District||4,058|
|322||Acton-Agua Dulce Unified School District||4,043|
|323||Norris Elementary School District||4,041|
|324||Cypress Elementary School District||3,990|
|325||Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District||3,978|
|326||Bassett Unified School District||3,959|
|327||Waterford Unified School District||3,954|
|328||Lemon Grove School District||3,922|
|329||Belmont-Redwood Shores Elementary School District||3,900|
|330||Imperial Unified School District||3,898|
|331||Duarte Unified School District||3,896|
|332||Albany City Unified School District||3,881|
|333||Lake Tahoe Unified School District||3,881|
|334||Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School District||3,881|
|335||Brawley Elementary School District||3,878|
|336||Oro Grande Elementary School District||3,857|
|337||Gateway Unified School District||3,853|
|338||Hanford Joint Union High School District||3,845|
|339||Amador County Unified School District||3,825|
|340||Dixon Unified School District||3,808|
|341||Mountain Empire Unified School District||3,804|
|342||Fillmore Unified School District||3,774|
|343||Eureka City Schools||3,722|
|344||Goleta Union Elementary School District||3,701|
|345||Rescue Union Elementary School District||3,700|
|346||Rim of the World Unified School District||3,695|
|347||Galt Joint Union Elementary School District||3,693|
|348||Ripon Unified School District||3,680|
|349||Loomis Union Elementary School District||3,636|
|350||Rincon Valley Union Elementary School District||3,632|
|351||Enterprise Elementary School District||3,622|
|352||Walnut Creek Elementary School District||3,608|
|353||Wasco Union Elementary School District||3,584|
|354||Richland Union Elementary School District||3,530|
|355||Lafayette Elementary School District||3,525|
|356||Romoland Elementary School District||3,505|
|357||Del Norte County Unified School District||3,502|
|358||El Segundo Unified School District||3,477|
|359||McFarland Unified School District||3,469|
|360||San Carlos Elementary School District||3,457|
|361||Greenfield Union Elementary School District||3,448|
|362||Redding Elementary School District||3,440|
|363||Lammersville Joint Unified School District||3,433|
|364||Parlier Unified School District||3,418|
|365||Cambrian School District||3,378|
|366||Cabrillo Unified School District||3,373|
|367||Eastside Union Elementary School District||3,353|
|368||Eureka Union School District||3,338|
|369||Los Gatos Union Elementary School District||3,320|
|370||Burlingame Elementary School District||3,304|
|371||Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union High School District||3,302|
|372||Corcoran Joint Unified School District||3,293|
|373||Santa Rita Union Elementary School District||3,292|
|374||Stanislaus Union Elementary School District||3,292|
|375||Fruitvale Elementary School District||3,259|
|376||Mill Valley Elementary School District||3,242|
|377||Lemoore Union Elementary School District||3,228|
|378||Lowell Joint School District||3,209|
|379||Spencer Valley Elementary School District||3,205|
|380||Palo Verde Unified School District||3,177|
|381||Coronado Unified School District||3,169|
|382||South Whittier Elementary School District||3,153|
|383||Pacifica School District||3,150|
|384||Mendota Unified School District||3,146|
|385||Solana Beach Elementary School District||3,146|
|386||San Marino Unified School District||3,143|
|387||Konocti Unified School District||3,130|
|388||Standard Elementary School District||3,121|
|389||Arvin Union School District||3,101|
|390||Calaveras Unified School District||3,079|
|391||Laguna Beach Unified School District||3,074|
|392||Southern Kern Unified School District||3,043|
|393||Empire Union Elementary School District||3,034|
|394||Nevada Joint Union High School District||3,003|
|395||San Benito High School District||3,003|
|396||Washington Unified School District||2,993|
|397||Exeter Unified School District||2,979|
|398||Lamont Elementary School District||2,958|
|399||Newman-Crows Landing Unified School District||2,946|
|400||Lucerne Valley Unified School District||2,921|
|401||Menlo Park City Elementary School District||2,904|
|402||Nuview Union School District||2,894|
|403||Escalon Unified School District||2,849|
|404||Riverbank Unified School District||2,835|
|405||Dehesa Elementary School District||2,809|
|406||San Bruno Park Elementary School District||2,796|
|407||Weaver Union School District||2,796|
|408||Roseland School District||2,755|
|409||Piedmont City Unified School District||2,706|
|410||Mojave Unified School District||2,696|
|411||Delhi Unified School District||2,686|
|412||Ocean View School District||2,682|
|413||Ojai Unified School District||2,680|
|414||Oroville City Elementary School District||2,678|
|415||Rosemead Elementary School District||2,668|
|416||Keppel Union Elementary School District||2,641|
|417||Farmersville Unified School District||2,626|
|418||King City Union School District||2,623|
|419||Mountain View Elementary School District||2,611|
|420||Reef-Sunset Unified School District||2,606|
|421||Livingston Union School District||2,602|
|422||Salida Union Elementary School District||2,576|
|423||Castaic Union School District||2,568|
|424||Orinda Union Elementary School District||2,529|
|425||Cucamonga Elementary School District||2,517|
|426||Mt. Pleasant Elementary School District||2,502|
|427||Carmel Unified School District||2,492|
|428||Templeton Unified School District||2,487|
|429||Scotts Valley Unified School District||2,482|
|430||Fowler Unified School District||2,477|
|431||Gonzales Unified School District||2,477|
|432||Millbrae Elementary School District||2,469|
|433||Bear Valley Unified School District||2,453|
|434||Fallbrook Union High School District||2,439|
|435||Maricopa Unified School District||2,438|
|436||Jefferson Elementary School District||2,425|
|437||Fairfax Elementary School District||2,412|
|438||River Delta Joint Unified School District||2,404|
|439||Savanna Elementary School District||2,392|
|440||Petaluma City Elementary School District||2,379|
|441||San Rafael City High School District||2,365|
|442||Santa Cruz City Elementary School District||2,361|
|443||Lemoore Union High School District||2,340|
|444||Kingsburg Elementary Charter School District||2,334|
|445||Ross Valley Elementary School District||2,320|
|446||Firebaugh-Las Deltas Unified School District||2,296|
|447||Woodlake Unified School District||2,291|
|448||Bonsall Unified School District||2,287|
|449||Marcum-Illinois Union Elementary School District||2,283|
|450||Linden Unified School District||2,278|
|451||Silver Valley Unified School District||2,278|
|452||Dos Palos Oro Loma Joint Unified School District||2,277|
|453||Oroville Union High School District||2,272|
|454||Galt Joint Union High School District||2,263|
|455||Orland Joint Unified School District||2,254|
|456||Hilmar Unified School District||2,253|
|457||Carpinteria Unified School District||2,239|
|458||Robla Elementary School District||2,231|
|459||Chowchilla Elementary School District||2,190|
|460||Red Bluff Union Elementary School District||2,163|
|461||Hughson Unified School District||2,146|
|462||Plumas Unified School District||2,130|
|463||Live Oak Elementary School District||2,108|
|464||Taft City School District||2,079|
|465||Saratoga Union Elementary School District||2,069|
|466||West Sonoma County Union High School District||2,069|
|467||Auburn Union Elementary School District||2,060|
|468||Soquel Union Elementary School District||2,054|
|469||Gridley Unified School District||2,051|
|470||Gorman Elementary School District||2,050|
|471||Corning Union Elementary School District||2,043|
|472||South Monterey County Joint Union High School District||2,033|
|473||Pacific Grove Unified School District||2,012|
|474||Dixie Elementary School District||1,999|
|475||Yosemite Unified School District||1,982|
|476||Byron Union Elementary School District||1,963|
|477||Helendale Elementary School District||1,959|
|478||Earlimart Elementary School District||1,952|
|479||Willits Unified School District||1,942|
|480||Bishop Unified School District||1,939|
|481||Muroc Joint Unified School District||1,936|
|482||Golden Valley Unified School District||1,923|
|483||Old Adobe Union School District||1,886|
|484||Anderson Union High School District||1,885|
|485||Winton School District||1,885|
|486||Brawley Union High School District||1,878|
|487||Fort Bragg Unified School District||1,873|
|488||Bellevue Union Elementary School District||1,872|
|489||Gustine Unified School District||1,863|
|490||Moraga Elementary School District||1,852|
|491||Alpine Union Elementary School District||1,845|
|492||Newcastle Elementary School District||1,844|
|493||Golden Plains Unified School District||1,831|
|494||Mariposa County Unified School District||1,806|
|495||Armona Union Elementary School District||1,804|
|496||Los Nietos School District||1,767|
|497||Live Oak Unified School District||1,757|
|498||Beardsley Elementary School District||1,753|
|499||Central Union Elementary School District||1,748|
|500||Wasco Union High School District||1,747|
|501||Northern Humboldt Union High School District||1,739|
|502||Grass Valley Elementary School District||1,733|
|503||John Swett Unified School District||1,699|
|504||Kelseyville Unified School District||1,681|
|505||Middletown Unified School District||1,667|
|506||Healdsburg Unified School District||1,650|
|507||Wright Elementary School District||1,622|
|508||Riverdale Joint Unified School District||1,620|
|509||Red Bluff Joint Union High School District||1,601|
|510||Holtville Unified School District||1,597|
|511||Pioneer Union Elementary School District||1,577|
|512||Lakeport Unified School District||1,556|
|513||Hillsborough City Elementary School District||1,546|
|514||Reed Union Elementary School District||1,546|
|515||Winters Joint Unified School District||1,521|
|516||Larkspur-Corte Madera School District||1,504|
|517||Hermosa Beach City Elementary School District||1,479|
|518||Colusa Unified School District||1,456|
|519||Pierce Joint Unified School District||1,443|
|520||Willows Unified School District||1,443|
|521||Mark West Union Elementary School District||1,433|
|522||Caruthers Unified School District||1,428|
|523||Piner-Olivet Union Elementary School District||1,419|
|524||Thermalito Union Elementary School District||1,409|
|525||Cloverdale Unified School District||1,394|
|526||Las Lomitas Elementary School District||1,386|
|527||Mesa Union Elementary School District||1,385|
|528||Fortuna Elementary School District||1,381|
|529||Williams Unified School District||1,377|
|530||McCabe Union Elementary School District||1,368|
|531||Wheatland School District||1,341|
|532||Wilsona Elementary School District||1,333|
|533||Black Oak Mine Unified School District||1,314|
|534||Sierra Unified School District||1,309|
|535||Denair Unified School District||1,293|
|536||Twin Hills Union Elementary School District||1,286|
|537||Guadalupe Union Elementary School District||1,282|
|538||Palermo Union Elementary School District||1,275|
|539||Lakeside Union School District||1,274|
|540||Saint Helena Unified School District||1,269|
|541||Placerville Union Elementary School District||1,249|
|542||Heber Elementary School District||1,233|
|543||Pleasant Ridge Union Elementary School District||1,229|
|544||Kentfield Elementary School District||1,223|
|545||Kingsburg Joint Union High School District||1,222|
|546||Valle Lindo Elementary School District||1,222|
|547||Cascade Union Elementary School District||1,202|
|548||Calipatria Unified School District||1,196|
|549||Mammoth Unified School District||1,193|
|550||Plumas Lake Elementary School District||1,189|
|551||Fall River Joint Unified School District||1,169|
|552||Aromas/San Juan Unified School District||1,164|
|553||McKinleyville Union Elementary School District||1,141|
|554||Pixley Union Elementary School District||1,122|
|555||Hart-Ransom Union Elementary School District||1,109|
|556||Sonora Union High School District||1,101|
|557||Summerville Union High School District||1,097|
|558||Mother Lode Union Elementary School District||1,088|
|559||Keyes Union School District||1,085|
|560||Cottonwood Union Elementary School District||1,083|
|561||Chawanakee Unified School District||1,068|
|562||Fortuna Union High School District||1,066|
|563||Blochman Union Elementary School District||1,063|
|564||Evergreen Union School District||1,063|
|565||Arcata Elementary School District||1,059|
|566||Taft Union High School District||1,059|
|567||Edison Elementary School District||1,056|
|568||Bennett Valley Union Elementary School District||1,048|
|569||Rio Bravo-Greeley Union Elementary School District||1,035|
|570||Hope Elementary School District||1,031|
|571||Orange Center School District||1,031|
|572||Chowchilla Union High School District||1,026|
|573||Klamath-Trinity Joint Unified School District||1,025|
|574||Santa Ynez Valley Union High School District||1,025|
|575||Susanville Elementary School District||1,012|
|576||Yreka Union Elementary School District||984|
|577||Meridian Elementary School District||978|
|578||Esparto Unified School District||976|
|579||Oak Grove Union Elementary School District||975|
|580||Spreckels Union Elementary School District||974|
|581||Durham Unified School District||960|
|582||Corning Union High School District||959|
|583||Liberty Elementary School District||958|
|584||Terra Bella Union Elementary School District||946|
|585||Jamul-Dulzura Union Elementary School District||945|
|586||Waugh Elementary School District||942|
|587||Washington Union Elementary School District||933|
|588||Mupu Elementary School District||917|
|589||Sebastopol Union Elementary School District||898|
|590||Orchard Elementary School District||890|
|591||Raisin City Elementary School District||883|
|592||Nevada City Elementary School District||879|
|593||Lassen Union High School District||873|
|594||South Bay Union Elementary School District||869|
|595||McSwain Union Elementary School District||865|
|596||Borrego Springs Unified School District||864|
|597||Bass Lake Joint Union Elementary School District||858|
|598||Strathmore Union Elementary School District||858|
|599||Westside Elementary School District||854|
|600||San Miguel Joint Union School District||849|
|601||Kernville Union Elementary School District||840|
|602||Needles Unified School District||835|
|603||Calistoga Joint Unified School District||832|
|604||Modoc Joint Unified School District||823|
|605||Vineland Elementary School District||823|
|606||Columbia Elementary School District||820|
|607||Sundale Union Elementary School District||820|
|608||Mark Twain Union Elementary School District||816|
|609||Placer Hills Union Elementary School District||801|
|610||Banta Elementary School District||795|
|611||Mattole Unified School District||780|
|612||Kings River-Hardwick Union Elementary School District||778|
|613||Southern Humboldt Joint Unified School District||776|
|614||Planada Elementary School District||766|
|615||San Pasqual Valley Unified School District||759|
|616||El Tejon Unified School District||744|
|617||North County Joint Union Elementary School District||742|
|618||Wheatland Union High School District||735|
|619||Cardiff Elementary School District||731|
|620||Sutter Union High School District||726|
|621||Bret Harte Union High School District||723|
|622||Hamilton Unified School District||719|
|623||Penn Valley Union Elementary School District||717|
|624||Harmony Union Elementary School District||714|
|625||Antelope Elementary School District||712|
|626||Pollock Pines Elementary School District||706|
|627||Gravenstein Union Elementary School District||704|
|628||Laton Joint Unified School District||704|
|629||Coast Unified School District||703|
|630||Stone Corral Elementary School District||702|
|631||Emery Unified School District||695|
|632||Rancho Santa Fe Elementary School District||691|
|633||Yreka Union High School District||670|
|634||Ravendale-Termo Elementary School District||665|
|635||Sonora Elementary School District||660|
|636||Trinity Alps Unified School District||660|
|637||Scott Valley Unified School District||658|
|638||West Park Elementary School District||657|
|639||Grant Elementary School District||655|
|640||Richgrove Elementary School District||651|
|641||Gold Trail Union Elementary School District||637|
|642||Union Hill Elementary School District||634|
|643||Alpaugh Unified School District||629|
|644||Portola Valley Elementary School District||629|
|645||Buellton Union Elementary School District||626|
|646||Tipton Elementary School District||612|
|647||Chatom Union School District||597|
|648||Solvang Elementary School District||591|
|649||Pacific Union Elementary School District||588|
|650||Siskiyou Union High School District||579|
|651||Cutten Elementary School District||577|
|652||Vallecito Union School District||577|
|653||Pacheco Union Elementary School District||575|
|654||Lost Hills Union Elementary School District||574|
|655||Alta Vista Elementary School District||573|
|656||Los Molinos Unified School District||567|
|657||Briggs Elementary School District||561|
|658||Columbia Union School District||556|
|659||San Pasqual Union Elementary School District||553|
|660||Luther Burbank School District||552|
|661||Mendocino Unified School District||551|
|662||Biggs Unified School District||542|
|663||Anderson Valley Unified School District||540|
|664||Happy Valley Union Elementary School District||537|
|665||Knightsen Elementary School District||532|
|666||Camino Union Elementary School District||529|
|667||Palo Verde Union Elementary School District||529|
|668||Pleasant View Elementary School District||522|
|669||Sausalito Marin City School District||521|
|670||Upper Lake Union Elementary School District||521|
|671||Shoreline Unified School District||519|
|672||Oak Valley Union Elementary School District||518|
|673||Mt. Shasta Union Elementary School District||517|
|674||Le Grand Union High School District||505|
|675||Soulsbyville Elementary School District||503|
|676||Loma Prieta Joint Union Elementary School District||496|
|677||Ferndale Unified School District||494|
|678||Camptonville Elementary School District||489|
|679||Woodville Union Elementary School District||481|
|680||Franklin Elementary School District||477|
|681||Los Olivos Elementary School District||471|
|682||Gold Oak Union Elementary School District||463|
|683||Jamestown Elementary School District||462|
|684||Kings River Union Elementary School District||462|
|685||Monson-Sultana Joint Union Elementary School District||461|
|686||Tulelake Basin Joint Unified School District||460|
|687||Brittan Elementary School District||457|
|688||Brisbane Elementary School District||456|
|689||Curtis Creek Elementary School District||449|
|690||Meadows Union Elementary School District||449|
|691||Montecito Union Elementary School District||448|
|692||Woodside Elementary School District||438|
|693||Jacoby Creek Elementary School District||427|
|694||Washington Colony Elementary School District||427|
|695||Liberty Elementary School District||414|
|696||Kit Carson Union Elementary School District||411|
|697||Oak View Union Elementary School District||411|
|698||College Elementary School District||408|
|699||Rockford Elementary School District||407|
|700||Gerber Union Elementary School District||404|
|701||Laytonville Unified School District||404|
|702||Eastern Sierra Unified School District||399|
|703||Vallecitos Elementary School District||396|
|704||Round Valley Unified School District||394|
|705||Foresthill Union Elementary School District||393|
|706||Le Grand Union Elementary School District||392|
|707||Pacific Union Elementary School District||385|
|708||Summerville Elementary School District||385|
|709||Westwood Unified School District||382|
|710||Bayshore Elementary School District||378|
|711||Arcohe Union Elementary School District||374|
|712||Lone Pine Unified School District||374|
|713||Island Union Elementary School District||373|
|714||Sierra-Plumas Joint Unified School District||372|
|715||Ross Elementary School District||367|
|716||Westmorland Union Elementary School District||363|
|717||Bella Vista Elementary School District||355|
|718||Forestville Union Elementary School District||354|
|719||Alview-Dairyland Union Elementary School District||352|
|720||Sunnyside Union Elementary School District||352|
|721||Arena Union Elementary School District||347|
|722||Seeley Union Elementary School District||345|
|723||Ballico-Cressey Elementary School District||344|
|724||Buttonwillow Union Elementary School District||343|
|725||La Honda-Pescadero Unified School District||340|
|726||Big Oak Flat-Groveland Unified School District||339|
|727||Chualar Union School District||337|
|728||Freshwater Elementary School District||336|
|729||Elverta Joint Elementary School District||334|
|730||Rio Dell Elementary School District||331|
|731||Janesville Union Elementary School District||328|
|732||Colfax Elementary School District||320|
|733||Lakeside Union Elementary School District||318|
|734||Lassen View Union Elementary School District||314|
|735||Fort Sage Unified School District||313|
|736||Maxwell Unified School District||312|
|737||Sequoia Union Elementary School District||305|
|738||Butte Valley Unified School District||302|
|739||Upper Lake Union High School District||302|
|740||East Nicolaus Joint Union High School District||301|
|741||Warner Unified School District||297|
|742||Mountain Valley Unified School District||296|
|743||Pioneer Union Elementary School District||292|
|744||Shandon Joint Unified School District||292|
|745||Lagunitas Elementary School District||286|
|746||Manzanita Elementary School District||284|
|747||Maple Elementary School District||282|
|748||Springville Union Elementary School District||278|
|749||Sunol Glen Unified School District||278|
|750||Twain Harte School District||274|
|751||Guerneville Elementary School District||270|
|752||Millville Elementary School District||266|
|753||Lucerne Elementary School District||263|
|754||Cinnabar Elementary School District||257|
|755||Waukena Joint Union Elementary School District||257|
|756||Geyserville Unified School District||253|
|757||Clay Joint Elementary School District||250|
|758||Trona Joint Unified School District||250|
|759||South Fork Union School District||249|
|760||Junction Elementary School District||246|
|761||Weed Union Elementary School District||244|
|762||Richfield Elementary School District||243|
|763||Southside Elementary School District||243|
|764||Somis Union School District||237|
|765||Hope Elementary School District||236|
|766||Wilmar Union Elementary School District||234|
|767||Cuyama Joint Unified School District||233|
|768||Potter Valley Community Unified School District||230|
|769||Semitropic Elementary School District||230|
|770||Johnstonville Elementary School District||227|
|771||Loleta Union Elementary School District||227|
|772||Richmond Elementary School District||226|
|773||Traver Joint Elementary School District||226|
|774||North Cow Creek Elementary School District||225|
|775||Hughes-Elizabeth Lakes Union Elementary School District||223|
|776||Scotia Union Elementary School District||220|
|777||New Hope Elementary School District||216|
|778||Shaffer Union Elementary School District||209|
|779||Columbine Elementary School District||208|
|780||Pond Union Elementary School District||208|
|781||Di Giorgio Elementary School District||207|
|782||Butteville Union Elementary School District||205|
|783||Black Butte Union Elementary School District||204|
|784||Elk Hills Elementary School District||203|
|785||Capay Joint Union Elementary School District||201|
|786||Dunham Elementary School District||201|
|787||Pleasant Grove Joint Union School District||201|
|788||Montague Elementary School District||200|
|789||Monroe Elementary School District||197|
|790||Winship-Robbins School District||197|
|791||Paradise Elementary School District||196|
|792||Cayucos Elementary School District||193|
|793||Ducor Union Elementary School District||191|
|794||Grenada Elementary School District||190|
|795||Big Pine Unified School District||189|
|796||Blue Lake Union Elementary School District||188|
|797||Buena Vista Elementary School District||187|
|798||Big Valley Joint Unified School District||186|
|799||Douglas City Elementary School District||186|
|800||Trinidad Union Elementary School District||184|
|801||Hydesville Elementary School District||183|
|802||Princeton Joint Unified School District||177|
|803||Golden Feather Union Elementary School District||176|
|804||Chicago Park Elementary School District||173|
|805||Lake Elementary School District||173|
|806||El Nido Elementary School District||172|
|807||Alvina Elementary School District||171|
|808||San Antonio Union Elementary School District||170|
|809||Mt. Baldy Joint Elementary School District||167|
|810||West Side Union Elementary School District||166|
|811||Shasta Union Elementary School District||165|
|812||Baker Valley Unified School District||162|
|813||Two Rock Union School District||161|
|814||Plaza Elementary School District||160|
|815||Cold Spring Elementary School District||158|
|816||Fieldbrook Elementary School District||157|
|817||Julian Union High School District||157|
|818||General Shafter Elementary School District||153|
|819||Point Arena Joint Union High School District||153|
|820||Browns Elementary School District||150|
|821||Kenwood School District||150|
|822||Merced River Union Elementary School District||150|
|823||Clear Creek Elementary School District||149|
|824||Bonny Doon Union Elementary School District||146|
|825||Nuestro Elementary School District||145|
|826||Valley Home Joint Elementary School District||144|
|827||Three Rivers Union Elementary School District||143|
|828||Shiloh Elementary School District||141|
|829||Tres Pinos Union Elementary School District||141|
|830||Big Springs Union Elementary School District||137|
|831||Gratton Elementary School District||137|
|832||Round Valley Joint Elementary School District||136|
|833||Happy Valley Elementary School District||134|
|834||Pleasant Valley Joint Union Elementary School District||133|
|835||Ballard Elementary School District||132|
|836||Magnolia Union Elementary School District||130|
|837||Mission Union Elementary School District||129|
|838||Plainsburg Union Elementary School District||129|
|839||Reeds Creek Elementary School District||126|
|840||Cuddeback Union Elementary School District||123|
|841||Latrobe School District||123|
|842||Burrel Union Elementary School District||121|
|843||Midway Elementary School District||120|
|844||Mountain Elementary School District||120|
|845||Alexander Valley Union Elementary School District||119|
|846||Belleview Elementary School District||118|
|847||Vista del Mar Union School District||118|
|848||Bolinas-Stinson Union School District||117|
|849||Roberts Ferry Union Elementary School District||117|
|850||Happy Camp Union Elementary School District||116|
|851||Bangor Union Elementary School District||114|
|852||Surprise Valley Joint Unified School District||114|
|853||Pacific Elementary School District||108|
|854||Stony Creek Joint Unified School District||106|
|855||Alta-Dutch Flat Union Elementary School District||103|
|856||Howell Mountain Elementary School District||101|
|857||Southern Trinity Joint Unified School District||101|
|858||Lagunita Elementary School District||100|
|859||San Ardo Union Elementary School District||100|
|860||Outside Creek Elementary School District||99|
|861||Twin Ridges Elementary School District||97|
|862||Big Sur Unified School District||96|
|863||Burnt Ranch Elementary School District||96|
|864||Snelling-Merced Falls Union Elementary School District||96|
|865||Pine Ridge Elementary School District||95|
|866||Lakeside Joint School District||93|
|867||Leggett Valley Unified School District||92|
|868||Kirkwood Elementary School District||91|
|869||Bradley Union Elementary School District||89|
|870||Junction City Elementary School District||89|
|871||Monte Rio Union Elementary School District||89|
|872||Mulberry Elementary School District||85|
|873||Allensworth Elementary School District||84|
|874||Knights Ferry Elementary School District||84|
|875||Whitmore Union Elementary School District||84|
|876||Alpine County Unified School District||83|
|877||Raymond-Knowles Union Elementary School District||83|
|878||Saucelito Elementary School District||82|
|879||Owens Valley Unified School District||81|
|880||Dunsmuir Elementary School District||79|
|881||McKittrick Elementary School District||78|
|882||Pioneer Union Elementary School District||74|
|883||Canyon Elementary School District||68|
|884||Mountain Union Elementary School District||68|
|885||McCloud Union Elementary School District||66|
|886||Castle Rock Union Elementary School District||61|
|887||Horicon Elementary School District||61|
|888||Igo-Ono-Platina Union School District||57|
|889||Garfield Elementary School District||58|
|890||Santa Clara Elementary School District||56|
|891||Dunsmuir Joint Union High School District||55|
|892||Nicasio School District||55|
|893||Delphic Elementary School District||54|
|894||San Lucas Union Elementary School District||52|
|895||Big Creek Elementary School District||51|
|896||Lewiston Elementary School District||51|
|897||Feather Falls Union Elementary School District||50|
|898||Pope Valley Union Elementary School District||50|
|899||Caliente Union Elementary School District||49|
|900||Peninsula Union School District||43|
|901||Hornbrook Elementary School District||42|
|902||Manchester Union Elementary School District||42|
|903||Belridge Elementary School District||40|
|904||Big Lagoon Union Elementary School District||40|
|905||Linns Valley-Poso Flat Union School District||40|
|906||Willow Creek Elementary School District||39|
|907||Junction Elementary School District||37|
|908||Gazelle Union Elementary School District||36|
|909||Graves Elementary School District||36|
|910||Bridgeville Elementary School District||35|
|911||Death Valley Unified School District||35|
|912||Oak Run Elementary School District||33|
|913||Fort Ross Elementary School District||32|
|914||French Gulch-Whiskeytown Elementary School District||32|
|915||Flournoy Union Elementary School District||30|
|916||Citrus South Tule Elementary School District||29|
|917||Bitterwater-Tully Elementary School District||27|
|918||Kneeland Elementary School District||27|
|919||Seiad Elementary School District||27|
|920||Montgomery Elementary School District||26|
|921||Cienega Union Elementary School District||25|
|922||Desert Center Unified School District||24|
|923||Mountain House Elementary School District||22|
|924||Laguna Joint Elementary School District||18|
|925||Willow Grove Union Elementary School District||18|
|926||Indian Diggings Elementary School District||17|
|927||Indian Springs Elementary School District||16|
|928||Kashia Elementary School District||16|
|929||Elkins Elementary School District||15|
|930||Hot Springs Elementary School District||15|
|931||Little Shasta Elementary School District||14|
|932||Orick Elementary School District||13|
|933||Coffee Creek Elementary School District||12|
|934||Forks of Salmon Elementary School District||11|
|935||Jefferson Elementary School District||11|
|936||Trinity Center Elementary School District||11|
|937||Maple Creek Elementary School District||10|
|938||Klamath River Union Elementary School District||9|
|939||Silver Fork Elementary School District||9|
|940||Union Joint Elementary School District||9|
|941||Green Point Elementary School District||8|
|942||Panoche Elementary School District||7|
|943||Bogus Elementary School District||6|
|944||Blake Elementary School District||5|
|945||Lincoln Elementary School District||5|
California’s construction trade unions greatly expanded their campaign in 2015 to get local elected officials to require construction companies to sign a Project Labor Agreement with unions as a condition of winning a public works contract.
In 2015, 47 California local governments considered a union Project Labor Agreement mandate for future taxpayer-funded construction contracts. On a few occasions in 2015, Project Labor Agreements were on the meeting agendas of three California local governments on the same day.
Most of these 47 Project Labor Agreements will, would, or would have applied to bundles of future construction projects planned for many years into the future.
The number of Project Labor Agreement threats at California local governments can be graphed as a line that rises gradually higher for 15 years (1994-2008), then curves more dramatically upward in the following 6 years (2009-2014), and finally shoots up 150% in the last year (2015). This 22-year trend can also be depicted as radiation starting from the urban core of California coastal cities that spreads at a quickening pace deep into the suburbs.
See the table below listing the 47 governments and the status of their Project Labor Agreement activities.
|Fawzy I. Fawzy||UC Los Angeles||$354,469|
|Dennis L. Matthews||UC Davis||$342,636|
|Marvin Marcus||UC Los Angeles||$337,346|
|John S. Greenspan||UC San Francisco||$326,070|
|George W. Breslauer||UC Berkeley||$315,720|
|Heinrich R Schelbert||UC Los Angeles||$314,027|
|Allan D. Siefkin||UC Davis||$309,593|
|Nosratola D Vaziri||UC Irvine||$308,320|
|Joe W. Gray||Lawrence Berkeley||$303,856|
|Richard W Roll||UC Los Angeles||$303,170|
Numerous local K-12 school districts and community college districts throughout California have entangled themselves in controversies over facilities construction funded by borrowed money obtained through bond sales. These controversies include the irresponsible sale of Capital Appreciation Bonds, inappropriate expenditures using bond proceeds, and questionable contracts for bond underwriting, construction program management, and project delivery. There has even been overt corruption.
An informed California taxpayer would probably conclude that stronger independent oversight is needed for bond finance and facilities construction at the state’s local educational districts. And, in fact, there is a structural check and balance now established in state law that can be assigned responsibility for greater oversight: the citizens’ bond oversight committees at school and college districts.
Construction Unions Resent Independent Oversight of Bond Measures
But the people of California should expect in 2016 to see their state government weaken – not strengthen – the powers of citizens’ bond oversight committees. These committees aren’t necessarily popular. Some district administrators and their lawyers and consultants apparently regard these committees as a meddling annoyance at best or an infuriating hinderance at worst. They certainly won’t object to weaker bond oversight committees.
But the sharpest distaste for citizens’ bond oversight committees comes from construction trade union officials. Oversight committees and their ability to independently evaluate policy proposals can sometimes undermine union efforts to implement policies such as Project Labor Agreements.
Independent citizens’ bond oversight committees have credibility with elected board members, the news media, and the public. They hold an official, formal role within a government to review policies and issue recommendations. They represent specific grassroots citizen constituencies in the community such as taxpayers, senior citizens, and parents. And they can generally review policies and make honest recommendations without worrying about political retaliation from special interests that provide campaign contributions, volunteers, and infrastructures.
Not surprisingly, citizens’ bond oversight committees usually don’t see an advantage in requiring construction contractors to sign a labor agreement with terms and conditions negotiated between union representatives and school district representatives. Why would a public agency want to impose a requirement in bid specifications that would obviously cut competition and raise costs of construction?
Bond Oversight Committees Were Meant to Protect the Interests of Taxpayers
In 2000, Governor Gray Davis and the Democrat-controlled California legislature enacted a state law mandating independent citizens’ bond oversight committees under certain conditions. This was part of a strategy to increase the passage rate for school and community college bond measures. Voters needed to be convinced that their interests as taxpayers would be protected even if the threshold for passage of school and college bond measures dropped from a two-thirds supermajority to a 55% supermajority.
The strategy worked. Voters approved a statewide ballot proposition reducing the threshold from two-thirds to 55%, and the passage rate for educational bond measures increased from 55% (from 1987 through 2000) to 82% (from 2001 through 2014). Educational districts were compelled to create and manage citizens’ bond oversight committees, although not always in compliance with state law.
The current purposes, functions, and organizational structure of these citizens’ bond oversight committees are outlined in California Education Code Section 15278-15282.
Citizens’ Bond Oversight Committees Object to Union Project Labor Agreements
There was no indication in 2000 that citizens’ bond oversight committees would object to government-imposed union monopolies for construction contracts. After all, the elected boards of only two local educational districts in California (the Los Angeles Unified School District and the West Contra Costa Unified School District) had considered Project Labor Agreement mandates at that time. The chaotic, raucous battles at California local governments over Project Labor Agreements had not yet become routine.
But as school and college bond measures became more frequent and much bigger in size after 2000, unions began aggressively lobbying school and college districts for Project Labor Agreements on facilities construction. Some citizens’ bond oversight committees were disturbed by this union pressure to change long-standing contracting policies (never mentioned during the bond measure campaigns) and decided they had a responsibility to make a recommendation on them. And the committees could cite state laws that gave them the authority to make such a recommendation:
1. California Education Code Section 15278 (b) states that “The citizens’ oversight committee shall actively review and report on the proper expenditure of taxpayers’ money for school construction.” Project Labor Agreements are never referenced in ballot language for bond measures (they are almost always implemented after voters approve the borrowing) and therefore it is debatable whether or not it is proper.
2. California Education Code Section 15278 (b)(5) says the citizens’ bond oversight committee has responsibility for “Reviewing efforts by the school district or community college district to maximize bond revenues by implementing cost-saving measures, including, but not limited to…” The reference to “but not limited too” was legislative intent for the Oversight Committee to have the authority to review matters such as unorthodox bidding requirements. Because unions (incredibly) claim PLAs are cost-saving measures, the bond oversight committees certainly have authority to review such proposals.
At the end of this article is a comprehensive list of actions taken by citizens’ bond oversight committees about Project Labor Agreements.
Unions May Try to Use the State Legislature to Neutralize Another Structural Check and Balance
What can unions do to suppress the independent activism of citizens’ bond oversight committees? Can the unions convince the legislature and Governor Brown to weaken citizens’ bond oversight committees, and can they do it without harming the ability of K-12 school and community college districts to win bond measures?
Opponents of Proposition 39 argued correctly in 2000 that the citizens’ bond oversight committee requirement used to promote Proposition 39 was based on a law passed by the legislature and would not be safely lodged in the California Constitution. That law could be repealed or amended by the legislature at any time.
That time is likely to be 2016.
The November 2016 ballot will include a $9 billion statewide bond measure. In addition, more than 150 school and college districts in California are expected to place a bond measure on the presidential primary and general election ballot. Unions want monopoly control of this work, and they don’t want to deal with continued flowering of local community resistance through bond oversight committees.
Since Governor Brown was elected in 2010, union lobbyists at the state capitol have diligently chipped away at structural checks and balances so they can realize the potential of a “one-party state” to achieve social change. For example, unions have been working for five years to neutralize powers granted to charter cities and other local governments under the California Constitution.
With the exception of political columnist Dan Walters, few political observers have highlighted this union-driven movement in California to centralize governance at the state capitol at the expense of local governments. In particular, construction union interests always seem able to preempt local control despite Governor Brown’s alleged support for the governance principle of “subsidiarity.”
Explaining the decision to strip power from citizens’ bond oversight committees will not be a challenge. Few Californians understand the cynicism and emptiness of policymaking at the California State Capitol. Unions will convince their legislative allies to justify weakened citizens’ bond oversight committees with arguments that they are broadening accountability and allowing educational districts to divert resources to the classroom.
And even if the citizens’ bond oversight committees are transformed into empty shells with no authority to review or make recommendations on anything of substance, voters are likely to continue approving 82% of bond measures (or perhaps 90% or higher in 2016 when Hillary Clinton is on the ballot). School and community college districts will continue to declare to voters in prominent ballot language that there will be independent citizens’ oversight of bond expenditures. Districts and their bond measure campaign consultants will assume – probably accurately – that 95% of voters won’t know the difference, and the other informed 5% had planned to vote against the bond measure anyway.
Watch for union-sponsored bills in 2016 that tackle their problem of independent citizens’ bond oversight committees.
History of Actions of Citizens’ Bond Oversight Committees on Project Labor Agreements
Although the Citizens Bond Oversight Committee at Los Angeles Unified School District – established locally through Proposition BB – was aware that the district and unions were negotiating a Project Labor Agreement in 1997-1999, the committee did not issue any statements or recommendations about it. This Project Labor Agreement preceded the passage of Proposition 39 in 2000.
From 2003 through 2006, five Citizens’ Bond Oversight Committees voted on recommendations concerning Project Labor Agreements:
1. San Jose Unified School District
On November 10, 2003, the Bond Oversight Committee for San Jose Unified School District voted 8-1 for the following motion: “At its meeting of November 10, the Measure F Oversight Committee was not convinced that adoption of a PLA would improve the efficiency of the expenditure of Measure F funds. The Oversight Committee therefore requests the Board of Education to refrain from adopting a PLA for Measure F.” The one vote against the resolution was an organizer for the local Carpenters union. In the end, the school board never voted on a negotiated Project Labor Agreement.
2. Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District
On February 24, 2004, the Bond Oversight Committee for Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District voted unanimously to recommend against approval of a PLA for future school construction. The school board subsequently voted 4-3 against negotiating a Project Labor Agreement.
3. Mt. Diablo Unified School District
On March 3, 2005, the Bond Oversight Committee for Mt. Diablo Unified School District voted 15-1 to recommend against approval of a PLA for future school construction. In the end, a Project Labor Agreement was imposed on some summer classroom renovation projects.
4. Sacramento City Unified School District
On August 3, 2005, members of the Bond Oversight Committee for Sacramento City Unified School District released a 15-page report backing their position that “since a problem does not seem to exist with regard to construction cost overruns, project delays or labor disputes within the district, and since clear and convincing evidence has not been submitted to substantiate the benefits of a Project Stabilization Agreement, the Citizens Bond Oversight Committee recommends that the Sacramento City Unified School District not enter into a Project Stabilization Agreement.” The school board subsequently voted 5-1 for a Project Labor Agreement.
5. Chabot-Las Positas Community College District
On July 25, 2006, the Bond Oversight Committee voted 4-2 to recommend to the board against using a PLA and to include this recommendation in the oversight committee’s annual report. District administrators and legal counsel argued that the oversight committee had no business making a recommendation. The college board voted 7-0 for a Project Labor Agreement.
By 2006, administrators and contract attorneys for school and college districts were obviously trying to suppress the desire of citizens’ bond oversight committees to review proposed Project Labor Agreements. A narrow legal interpretation about the role of bond oversight committees began circulating. This interpretation essentially confined the committees to a role of approving an annual report produced for the district showing that proceeds from bond sales were spent on construction and not on teacher and administrator salaries or general operating expenses.
From 2006 through 2015, numerous K-12 school and community college districts in California considered and approved Project Labor Agreements with unions. While some oversight committees received reports at their meetings from district staff about the proposed Project Labor Agreements, only four citizens bond oversight committees voted on a formal recommendation.
6. San Diego Unified School District
An editorial in the April 24, 2009 San Diego Union-Tribune reported on the district’s opposition to letting the bond oversight committee review Project Labor Agreements:
The policy was hastily adopted without any real scrutiny by district staffers. Voters were never told this costly requirement would be imposed before Proposition S was approved – or else they never would have approved it. But when members of the bond measure’s Independent Citizens Oversight Committee raised these and other issues, they were told to butt out. Mark Bresee, the school district’s general counsel, told committee members that their role as an “independent representative of all taxpayers” – Bresee’s term – didn’t mean they had a right to kibitz about the district’s possible adoption of a Project Labor Agreement…Thankfully, the bond oversight committee told Bresee and the school board majority to take a hike.
Then, as reported in the Voice of San Diego on May 26, 2009:
Staffers from San Diego Unified discouraged the bond oversight committee from weighing in on whether or not to adopt an agreement or how to do so, arguing that the research was so polarized and the question so political that there was no way to make a factual recommendation. The bond overseers disregarded their advice, then deadlocked on the issue of whether a contractor group should join the unions and the school district and the bargaining table.
That vote on May 21, 2009 was 4-4-1, and union officials had been prominent in contending that the oversight committee had no authority to discuss the issue. The board subsequently voted 3-2 for the Project Labor Agreement.
7. San Gabriel Unified School District
In 2010, the Bond Oversight Committee for recommended against a Project Labor Agreement. The board subsequently voted 3-2 for the Project Labor Agreement.
8. Oxnard Union High School District
On December 9, 2014, the district’s Citizens Bond Oversight Committee voted 4-1 to recommend that the board reject a Project Labor Agreement because of the likelihood of increased costs and other reasons. Nevertheless, the board voted 3-2 for a Project Labor Agreement.
9. San Bernardino Community College District
The bond oversight committee voted on December 12, 2014 to oppose the Project Labor Agreement, but the board voted 4-3 to approve it. Here is an excerpt from one of its reports:
More notable was the Board of Trustees passing a “Community Benefits Agreement” this December. This agreement is better known as a “Project Labor Agreement”, and these agreements give substantial advantages to union contractors vs. non-union contractors. The Bond Oversight Committee spent a significant amount of time and effort to determine if there was cost savings, as required under Section 5 of California Educational Code 15278. We gathered information from local businesses, trade groups, staff and other interested parties, and determined there was no clear cost savings, and a potentially significant (10-20%) cost increase with no benefit to the community. The committee made every attempt to communicate this decision to the Board, but we were not allowed to make our findings to the Board prior to the Board of Trustees voting to approve this agreement.
Despite consistent opposing arguments from student organizations and local stakeholders, as well as not taking the time to even hear the Citizens Bond Oversight Committee, regardless of our clear desire to present our well-researched findings and conclusion, the Community Benefits Agreement was approved. This rush to make a decision prior to hearing our report we find irresponsible, and we wish to make these actions known to the public.
Now, in 2015, citizens’ bond oversight committees in a high school district and a community college district in San Diego County want to hold meetings to discuss proposed proposed Project Labor Agreements and possibly make recommendations to the boards about the proposal. Union officials are unhappy about this. One request has been granted and one has been rejected.
10. Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District
At the Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District, the board voted 3-2 to delay a vote on negotiating a Project Labor Agreement in order to give the Bond Oversight Committee a chance to discuss the proposal and provide input to the board. That meeting is scheduled for November 12, 2015.
11. Sweetwater Union High School District
Despite repeated requests from representatives of its citizens’ bond oversight committee for a chance to make a recommendation, the board of the Sweetwater Union High School District shows no indication of letting that happen. As reported in the October 30, 2015 San Diego Union-Tribune, “Members of the Citizens’ Bond Oversight Committee criticized the board’s lack of transparency and called for a four-month moratorium to allow for study of the costs and benefits, to no avail.” The October 31, 2015 Chula Vista Star-News explained the view of one board member that the district has to pass the Project Labor Agreement in order for the bond oversight committee to know what’s in it:
Trustee Paula Hall brought the resolution to negotiate a project labor agreement forward. Hall said she has been having issues with her email so she didn’t get a chance to read the CBOC’s letter for a moratorium, but is aware of their concerns from them speaking out at previous board meetings. Hall said the board never sent the item to the CBOC because there is no information for them to look over as the board only passed a resolution. “There’s nothing to review,” she said. “There is no project labor agreement negotiated.”
It remains to be seen if the citizens’ bond oversight committee at Sweetwater Union High School District will ever get the chance to review a Project Labor Agreement and make a recommendation.
Construction trade unions in California are likely to be celebrating on November 3, 2015 as voters approve another set of local school bond measures and launch another round of taxing, borrowing, and spending.
Eight school districts in California are asking voters to approve a total of nine bond measures for school facilities construction on the November ballot. These proposals would authorize school districts to borrow money for facilities construction by selling bonds to investors. It would not be unreasonable to predict that voters will approve all nine bond measures.
Two of the nine bond measures are on the ballot for voters in and around the City of San Rafael, in Marin County. San Rafael City Schools is asking permission from voters to borrow $108 for the elementary school district and $161 for the high school district, for a total of $269 million. The district is assuming future enrollment growth and projecting continued increases in assessed property valuation. It has current debt service of $177 million in outstanding principal and interest accumulated from previous bond measures.
Pay-to-Play and Other Entanglements
Firms that won district contracts related to preparing the bond measure are involved in the campaign. In a typical example of so-called “pay-to-play” contracts for bond measures, a financial advisory firm obtained a no-bid contract from the district in June for $15,000 in pre-election and $65,000 in post-election bond advisory services. It has contributed $9500 to the campaign. A consulting firm that won a contract from the district to perform a “Bond Feasibility Survey” for the bond measures – and found the bond measures to be feasible – has earned $13,507 from the campaign. Another firm involved in the feasibility survey has contributed to the campaign. In addition, a public relations consultant who was involved with the feasibility survey is working for the campaign and has received $7,500 so far (see below).
Construction Trade Unions Have Dominated the Campaign to Pass the Bond Measure
Construction unions have directly contributed $31,000 of the $90,950 in reported contributions through October 26, 2015 to the campaign to pass Measures A and B. That is 34% of the total. (See the chart at the end of this article.) Unions had contributed $20,000 of the first $30,000 raised by the campaign, thus supplying valuable seed money for operations.
A Carpenters Union hall is the site of the campaign phone bank. Services from the Northern California Carpenters Regional Council to the campaign are reported through October 17, 2015 as an in-kind contribution of $10,034.
A public relations consultant who used to be the Director of Public and Governmental Relations for the Northern California Carpenters Regional Council has been paid $7500 through October 17, 2015 for campaign-related work. This consultant was also involved in the feasibility study.
There Is No Organized Opposition
No one submitted an argument in opposition to the bond measures, so the Official Voter Guide only includes arguments in support. No one has filed papers with the California Fair Political Practices Commission or the County of Marin to establish an opposition campaign fund. The Marin United Taxpayers Association appears to be dormant on this issue. However, at least a handful of individual informed citizens are vehemently opposed to the bond measures, as shown in posted comments in response to Marin Independent-Journal newspaper articles and an editorial endorsing the bond measures.
The Likely Outcome
Deprived of an opposing perspective, voters in this area of Marin County will likely approve both bond measures at a percentage well above the 55% needed for passage. Then, because of the extensive involvement of construction trade unions in the campaign, the school board will likely vote soon after the election to require construction companies to sign a Project Labor Agreement with unions as a condition of performing under a contract funded by the bond measures. That union monopoly on construction may cost taxpayers an extra $25-40 million, but with $269 million authorized to borrow and pay back over the next 30-40 years, who’s worried about it today?
Source of Contribution Information: Form 460s and Form 497s for Committee For Strong San Rafael Schools – Yes on A&B
The eastern suburbs of San Diego (“East County”) have been and are still regarded as politically conservative. But even this area isn’t impervious to the political movement in California toward European-style social democracy. Labor unions and their political allies have recently gained political control of an East County local government and are now exercising their power.
But there is resistance. While the suburbs of San Francisco and Los Angeles have largely surrendered to “Progressive” policies during the past 20 years, there’s still a well-organized, well-funded effort in the San Diego region to defend fiscal responsibility, fair and open competition for government contracts, and freedom of choice for contractor employees. This effort will be tested at the October 20, 2015 meeting of the elected board of trustees of the Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District.
Unions Angle for a Monopoly on Suburban Educational Construction
As seen at many suburban educational districts in California, leadership in the Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District has shifted during the past few election cycles from traditionally pragmatic board members to board members who are interested in social change and supported by union interests. One recent subtle indication of this transformation was a board endorsement of rather unconventional political activists speaking on campus. Now, the board is becoming more aggressive and obvious in advancing a new agenda through the college.
On October 20, the board will vote on this resolution: “Directing Staff to Negotiate the Terms of a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) for Projects Funded by Proposition V, State Bonds/Parking and Other Facilities Funding.” In other words, the board intends to give construction trade unions a monopoly on future construction contracts for the district.
This means construction companies will have to sign a deal negotiated by the college district’s representatives and union representatives. Left out of the negotiations will be contractors and their business associations, including associations that traditionally negotiate labor agreements. Contractors have one role: sign the agreement someone else negotiated for them.
In a typical Project Labor Agreement, unions supply all workers (including apprentices). Fringe benefit payments from employers on behalf of workers are directed into union-affiliated trust funds. And workers pay union dues and fees.
Adopting a government-mandated Project Labor Agreement is contrary to specific language included in the district’s August 7, 2012 bond resolution. That language was meant to assure voters in the November 2012 election that the district wouldn’t require contractors to sign a union agreement as a condition of working on projects funded by the $398 million Proposition V bond measure. Here is the language:
(j) …the District will promote fair and open competition for all District construction projects so that all contractors and workers, whether union or non-union, are treated equally in the bidding and awarding of District construction contracts…
Contrary to common sense and legislative intent, the district now claims that this provision actually means it is allowed to require its contractors to sign Project Labor Agreements. The district’s argument is based on a web of federal and state laws and court decisions often interpreted to mean that if a contractor chooses not to operate like a union company or a worker chooses not to be represented by a union, they’re not victims of discrimination.
Instead, they’re simply making a free choice to refuse to abide by conditions that a government – as a participant in the marketplace – establishes for awarding a contract. In other words, if you choose not to be affiliated with a union, don’t complain. You’re still free to bid on a different project, find another job, find another trade or profession, or join the exodus of the rest of your kind and leave California for Texas, Florida, or the 23 states that ban Project Labor Agreements.
Groups Decide to Expose the Scheme to the Public
Presumably the college district’s board and administrators haven’t been too worried about pulling this bait-and-switch on voters. In 2000, 53% of California voters approved Proposition 39, which reduced the voter approval threshold for most school and college bond measures from two-thirds to 55%. In the following 15 years, the accountability and oversight protections in the California Constitution and in state law related to Proposition 39 have been narrowed, whittled away, and neutralized to virtual uselessness.
Nowadays California school and college districts routinely circumvent or evade state laws regarding school construction finance and implementation. Their lawyers and advisors exploit every ambiguity in law to justify finance and spending decisions that voters never would have tolerated. (Using bond proceeds – borrowed money that must be paid back with interest – to buy iPads for students is one of many examples.)
Public accountability is infrequent. Legal or political consequences are rare. But in this case of the Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District, people are determined to expose and stop it.
The San Diego County Taxpayers Association issued a press release revoking its 2012 endorsement of Proposition V if the Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District board votes for the Project Labor Agreement. Its endorsement in 2012 has been predicated on the bond resolution that committed to fair and open bid competition on district construction funded by Proposition V.
To increase public awareness of the betrayal, the San Diego County Taxpayers Association also sent a mailer informing voters of the Project Labor Agreement vote:
At the same time, the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction – a statewide organization with significant strength in San Diego – also sent a mailer informing voters of the Project Labor Agreement vote:
It’s expected that the board of the Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District will vote on October 20, 2015 to negotiate a Project Labor Agreement with unions. They are bound to the unions like a contractor and its employees are bound to a Project Labor Agreement. But their political careers may end when East County citizens living in the district express their opinions with their own votes.
Whenever California voters approve a sizable bond measure to fund construction at a school or community college district, union lobbyists quickly scramble to win control of the work through a Project Labor Agreement. At the Salinas Union High School District, a flood of union campaign money preceded a September 29 board vote to abandon negotiations and impose a Project Labor Agreement under terms demanded by the unions.
In November 2014, 60.3% of voters in Salinas, California authorized the Salinas Union High School District to borrow $128 million for facilities construction by selling bonds to investors. Information provided to voters about the bond measure did not indicate any intention of the school district to require its construction contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement with unions. In fact, the district had successfully completed a previous bond-funded construction program without a Project Labor Agreement mandate.
Four months after voters approved the borrowing, a Project Labor Agreement discussion appeared as an item on March 24, 2015 board agenda. After the head of the Salinas Valley Federation of Teachers urged the board to mandate a Project Labor Agreement, most of the board members declared their enthusiastic support for it.
On May 26, the board voted 5-1 to negotiate a Project Labor Agreement with the unions. Unless the district could negotiate different terms to protect fair and open bid competition on its contracts, the union agreement would require all contractors on a new high school to obtain their journeymen and apprentices from the unions, pay all employee fringe benefits to union trust funds, and arrange for their workers to pay union dues and fees.
To the dismay of board members, the finalized Project Labor Agreement did not come back for quick approval.
District staff and its attorney tried to work in the interest of the district to negotiate better terms and conditions, rather than simply signing the standard Project Labor Agreement template provided by the union attorney. Throughout the summer, union negotiators were unwilling to budge on a variety of provisions.
In the meantime, the Salinas Valley Chamber of Commerce, the Salinas Taxpayers Association, and several local and regional construction associations informed the public about the union plot. The Chamber of Commerce even publicized the names and official public phone numbers of board members.
It was a rare and unexpected occasion of public accountability for the policy decisions of the school board. In fact, most news coverage of the Salinas Union High School District from March through September was about construction labor issues, not the education of high school students.
Board members responded angrily during board meetings and in local newspaper articles about what was happening. They complained about negative community attention generated by business groups and the barrage of critical phone calls. They also expressed frustration with the district’s failure to surrender to union negotiating demands. At board meetings, they responded to questions from the district’s negotiating attorney by showing disinterest and even contempt for the arcane but important issues disputed in the proposed agreement.
It’s reasonable to assume that the unpleasant public attention to this issue worried the three incumbent board members up for re-election on November 3, 2015. All three of them supported the Project Labor Agreement.
Starting at the beginning of August, the unions supporting the Project Labor Agreement (the Salinas Valley Federation of Teachers, the California School Employees Association, and the Monterey/Santa Cruz Building and Construction Trades Council) began funding the campaigns of those three incumbents running for re-election. In fact, these unions were the only major contributors to their campaigns. See the timeline below.
At the September 22 meeting board meeting, the attorney representing the school district began yet another presentation outlining areas of disagreement between the unions and the district regarding the Project Labor Agreements, As usual, she sought direction from the board. But for some reason, a majority of the school board chose this time to terminate the negotiations. They scheduled a special board meeting on September 29 solely to vote on the version of the Project Labor Agreement desired by the unions.
At that meeting, the board voted 5-1 for the Project Labor Agreement. Union officials organized an impromptu celebration rally outside of the school district headquarters and had photos taken with some of the board members who voted for it. The unions’ investment of money in the board members’ campaigns had presumably helped to ensure approval of the Project Labor Agreement.
Whether the union campaign contributions ensure re-election of the board members remains to be seen.
Who decides what action items are on a school board agenda? A case in Monterey County, California reveals that unions think they can make some of those decisions.
In November 2014, voters in the Salinas Union High School District authorized the district to borrow $128 million for school construction by selling bonds to investors. By March 2015, the elected board of trustees revealed their plan (never mentioned during the campaign to pass the bond measure) to require construction companies to sign a Project Labor Agreement with trade unions as a condition of working under a contract to build a new high school. In late May, the board voted 6-1 to direct the district to negotiate the Project Labor Agreement with union officials.
But apparently union leaders never intended to participate in serious give-and-take “negotiations” with the district for this union deal. They wanted it their way.
Union officials and their lawyer failed to agree with district administrators and their lawyer on numerous matters, as revealed during lengthy board discussions at summer board meetings to clarify the board’s will on specific provisions in the Project Labor Agreement.
On August 18, it looked like the negotiations were over and an agreement had been reached. The Monterey Bay Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO emailed a notice to the community announcing a board vote on August 25.
Information about the Project Labor Agreement being ready and scheduled for final board approval must have come from inside sources. The district had not posted the August 25 board agenda yet, and a draft agenda was not available to the public.
That notice was a surprise to local construction companies, who did not have a representative invited to take part in the negotiations for the Project Labor Agreement despite being one of the three parties that would need to sign it. But as unions warned in their notice, the opposition planned to “be there in full force.”
Assuming that union leaders had connections with the school district and influence to get items on the agenda, leading opponents of the Project Labor Agreement dutifully circulated the union notice among hundreds of community leaders in Monterey County who did not support it.
But on August 21 – three days later – when the Salinas Union High School District released the August 25 board meeting agenda, there were no items about a Project Labor Agreement. The union information was wrong.
Has California school and community college facility construction become a perpetual government stimulus program for politically-favored construction trade unions?
Fifteen years ago, it was obvious that many school and college districts in California needed new construction, modernization, or renovation of their facilities for the safety and comfort of students, teachers, administrators, and support staff. That’s why 53% of California voters approved Proposition 39 in November 2000. It reduced the threshold for voter approval of school bond measures from two-thirds to 55%, increasing the passage rate for educational bond measures from under 50% to more than 80%.
But the purpose of borrowing money for school construction seemed to evolve after the 2008 economic collapse and subsequent November 2008 election.
Debt started piling up from relentless and repeated bond sales to investors. The “need” for more construction seemed immeasurable and unquenchable. Scandals began to pop up as clever people began to figure out how to manipulate the loopholes and ambiguities in ten year-old state laws regarding finance and construction of educational facilities.
Meanwhile, construction trade unions became much more aggressive in trying to monopolize educational construction by lobbying elected school board members for Project Labor Agreements. And local school and college elected boards became much more willing to grant those union monopolies.
Local elected officials in California recognized that political circumstances had changed. To quote a San Diego Unified School District board member immediately before the 3-2 vote on May 26, 2009 for a Project Labor Agreement:
I think the bigger picture that people are realizing – and this is what scares some people – is that San Diego is changing, the United States is changing…this is a different city…we are looking at a different community.
What has resulted from this change? A lot of debt has been imposed on future generations of Californians.
The California Policy Center released a report in July 2015 entitled For the Kids: California Voters Must Become Wary of Borrowing Billions More from Wealthy Investors for Educational Construction. This report identified $146 billion in authorized borrowing from 2001 to 2014 for California educational facility construction and $200 billion in existing debt service from bonds sold to pay for California educational facility construction.
In response to this report, some taxpayer advocates have asserted that momentum for additional local educational bond measures is propelled by construction trade unions that see local education districts as ripe targets to accumulate a pool of guaranteed government work. Union leaders remain nervous about the state’s economic prospects. They don’t want a painful revival of membership unemployment rates of 25%-50% experienced from 2009 to 2012.
Is this argument valid?
Below is a list of all of the K-12 school and college bond measures approved by voters in the last four primary and general elections (in 2012 and 2014) that became targets of construction unions for a government-mandated Project Labor Agreement (PLA).
Bond Measures Approved by Voters in June 2012
|Amount Authorized to Borrow||Name of School or College District||Voter Approval Percentage||Project Labor Agreement Activity|
|West Valley-Mission Community College District||
Board approves PLA for upcoming “pilot project” 8/20/13.
|Milpitas Unified School District||
Board approves PLA 12/11/12.
Bond Measures Approved by Voters in November 2012
|San Diego Unified School District||
PLA approved in 2009 extends to this bond measure.
|Coast Community College District||
Board votes 5/15/13 to end consideration of a PLA.
|Oakland Unified School District||
PLA approved in 2004 extends to this bond measure.
|Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District||
Board discusses PLA 11/20/14.
Board votes for contract to negotiate PLA 4/16/15.
|West Contra Costa Unified School District||
PLA approved in 2000 extends to all bond measures.
|Cerritos Community College District||
Board discusses PLA 4/16/14 and 6/4/14.
|Solano Community College District||
Board approves PLA 12/4/13.
|Sacramento City Unified School District||
Board votes 1/23/14 to extend PLA approved in 2005 to this bond measure.
|Rancho Santiago Community College District||
Board approves PLA 3/24/14.
|Alum Rock Union Elementary School District||
Board approves PLA 6/18/13.
|East Side Union High School District||
Revised PLA approved in 2009 extends to this bond measure.
|Lynwood Unified School District||
Board approves PLA 2/12/13.
|Inglewood Unified School District||
Board approves PLA 10/26/12.
|Chula Vista Elementary School District SFID No. 1||
Board approves negotiations for a PLA 4/15/15.
|Oxnard School District||
Board approves PLA 6/24/15.
|Sacramento City Unified School District||
Board votes 1/23/14 to extend PLA approved in 2005 to this bond measure.
|Antioch Unified School District SFID No. 1||
Board approves PLA 11/13/13.
|Whittier City Unified School District||
Board approves PLA 1/13/15.
|Washington Unified School District||
Board imposed a union-backed apprenticeship requirement for contractors and used it to disqualify non-union company from contract.
Bond Measures Approved by Voters in June 2014
|Fremont Unified School District||
Board approves negotiations for a PLA 8/12/15.
|Contra Costa Community College District||
Board approves PLA 10/10/12 for all projects of $2 million or more.
|Culver City Unified School District||
Community Budget Advisory Committee discusses PLA 5/27/15.
Bond Measures Approved by Voters in November 2014
|Santa Clara Unified School District||
Board discusses PLA 3/26/15.
PLA discussion scheduled for 8/13/15.
|Sonoma County Community College District||
Union officials have openly declared intent to lobby for a PLA.
College administrators have met with legal counsel regarding PLA.
|San Mateo County Community College District||
Board discusses PLA 7/8/15.
|Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District||
Board discusses PLA 3/25/15.
|San Luis Obispo County Community College District (Cuesta)||
Board discusses PLA 2/4/15.
Board voted down PLA negotiations at 3/4/15 meeting.
|Hayward Unified School District||
Board votes for PLA 6/24/15.
|Vacaville Unified School District||
Board discusses PLA 3/9/15.
Board votes for PLA negotiations 6/25/15.
|Alameda Unified School District||
PLA discussion scheduled for 8/11/15.
|Santa Rosa High School District||
Union officials have openly declared intent to lobby for a PLA.
|Salinas Union High School District||
Board discusses PLA 3/24/15 and 5/12/15.
Board votes for PLA negotiations 5/26/15.
|East Side Union High School District||
PLA that applied to Measures G and E amended – apparently administratively – to cover Measure I.
|Azusa Unified School District||
Board discusses PLA 3/17/15.
|Pittsburg Unified School District||
Ballot arguments against the bond measure focused on PLAs imposed on previous bond measures; supporters’ rebuttal defended the PLAs.
|Berryessa Union School District||
Board votes for contract to negotiate PLA 3/10/15.
|Santa Rosa Elementary School District||
Union officials have openly declared intent to lobby for a PLA.
|Washington Unified School District||
Board imposed a union-backed apprenticeship requirement for contractors and used to disqualify non-union company from contract.
|Bassett Unified School District||
Board voted for PLA negotiations 1/20/15.
Over the past 15 years, local elected officials in California have frequently claimed publicly and privately that union Project Labor Agreement mandates for taxpayer-funded construction contracts are the most intense, time-consuming, and divisive issues they’ve ever considered.
When Project Labor Agreements are placed on local government meeting agendas, modern records are often broken for the number of speakers at meetings of that particular government. Meetings stretch for several hours as factions argue and attack each other over whether or not unions should control the workforce for lucrative construction contracts worth millions or even billions of dollars. The excitement and controversy attracts the attention of news media. Local business, community, and political leaders exert their own pressure on elected officials. Routine business (such as educational policy) is suspended as board members and staff try to understand, navigate, or sidestep the arcane policy arena of construction labor issues.
Personal written confirmation about the agonies of considering a Project Labor Agreement mandate was recently provided by one of ten applicants for a vacancy on the board of the Alameda Unified School District. He was a board member of the San Gabriel Unified School District when it voted on a Project Labor Agreement mandate in 2010. Here is some background about that fight, followed by his own perspective of what caused the divisiveness.
In 2009, the Los Angeles-Orange County Building and Construction Trades Council began pushing a Project Labor Agreement proposal at the San Gabriel Unified School District (located just east of Los Angeles). The board was split on the proposal.
When the Project Labor Agreement was publicly introduced for board consideration, a large and vocal group in San Gabriel organized to oppose it. The group was led by influential community leaders who had supported the bond measure in the 2008 election and were outraged to see outside special interests interfere with the traditional bidding process and raise the cost of construction.
Union representatives made a formal presentation in support of the Project Labor Agreement at the February 2, 2010 board meeting. Then opponents of the Project Labor Agreement were scheduled to make a formal presentation at the April 6 board meeting.
Well in advance of the meeting, union activists from throughout the Los Angeles area occupied the meeting room seats and effectively prevented numerous San Gabriel residents opposed to the PLA from entering. At one point there was a ruckus outside the room as angry people clamored to squeeze into the meeting room while police tried to limit the number of people in the room to the legal capacity. The board chairwoman (opposed to the Project Labor Agreement) fruitlessly asked if out-of-town attendees would be willing to give up their seats.
The board voted 3-2 to place a resolution on the next meeting agenda to direct staff to negotiate a Project Labor Agreement with the Los Angeles-Orange County Building and Construction Trades Council. The board then approved the resolution on a 3-2 vote on April 20.
Despite continued opposition from community leaders and a flurry of mailers to residents criticizing the proposal, the board ended up voting 3-2 on November 1o, 2010 in front of approximately 100 irate residents to give the unions their desired Project Labor Agreement.
The most aggressive proponent of the union deal was Scott Svonkin, who had ambitions to run for the board of the Los Angeles Community College District (where he is now board president). Another board member who voted for the deal was Phillip Hu, although he was more measured and civil in expressing his position.
Five years later, Hu would cite his experience with the Project Labor Agreement fight as a qualification as he sought an appointment to the Alameda Unified School District board. Here is the excerpt from his application, dated January 8, 2015.
This interpretation insinuates that the elected board’s discord over the Project Labor Agreement and the community objections to it were based on class consciousness. An older, wealthier white establishment opposed a government policy that guaranteed jobs to workers represented by unions that defend the interests of working class immigrants and non-white residents. Residents who were paying for the construction with their taxes were resisting redistribution of wealth under a just system.
Hu does not address arguments against the Project Labor Agreement based on phrases and words such as “fiscal responsibility,” “freedom of choice,” “fair and open competition,” and “merit.” It would be interesting to see if he regards these words as intellectual cover for the selfish interests of the “more affluent, more homogenized, the traditional power base.”
Note that Hu may have a predisposition to see the world through the lens of “class consciousness.” In his application for the Alameda Unified School District board, Hu identifies himself as Government Affairs Director/Communications Director of Public Employees Union Local No. 1.
***As I prepared to hit the Publish button for this post, a Tweet from Alameda Unified School District announced that the board selected Phillip Hu to fill the vacancy. Seven months after moving to Alameda, Mr. Hu is poised to vote for another Project Labor Agreement. (In November 2014, voters approved Measure I and authorized the district to borrow $179.5 million for school construction via bond sales.)