Unions Seek Control of Recent California School Bond Measures
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 |
$350,000,000 |
59.8% |
Board approves PLA for upcoming “pilot project” 8/20/13. |
Milpitas Unified School District |
$95,000,000 |
64.1% |
Board approves PLA 12/11/12. |
Bond Measures Approved by Voters in November 2012
San Diego Unified School District |
$2,800,000,000 |
61.8% |
PLA approved in 2009 extends to this bond measure. |
Coast Community College District |
$698,000,000 |
57.2% |
Board votes 5/15/13 to end consideration of a PLA. |
Oakland Unified School District |
$475,000,000 |
84.4% |
PLA approved in 2004 extends to this bond measure. |
Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District |
$385,000,000 |
68.1% |
Board discusses PLA 11/20/14. Board votes for contract to negotiate PLA 4/16/15. |
West Contra Costa Unified School District |
$360,000,000 |
64.4% |
PLA approved in 2000 extends to all bond measures. |
Cerritos Community College District |
$350,000,000 |
70.3% |
Board discusses PLA 4/16/14 and 6/4/14. |
Solano Community College District |
$348,000,000 |
63.5% |
Board approves PLA 12/4/13. |
Sacramento City Unified School District |
$346,000,000 |
70.1% |
Board votes 1/23/14 to extend PLA approved in 2005 to this bond measure. |
Rancho Santiago Community College District |
$198,000,000 |
72.6% |
Board approves PLA 3/24/14. |
Alum Rock Union Elementary School District |
$125,000,000 |
79.5% |
Board approves PLA 6/18/13. |
East Side Union High School District |
$120,000,000 |
71.6% |
Revised PLA approved in 2009 extends to this bond measure. |
Lynwood Unified School District |
$93,000,000 |
57.4% |
Board approves PLA 2/12/13. |
Inglewood Unified School District |
$90,000,000 |
86.1% |
Board approves PLA 10/26/12. |
Chula Vista Elementary School District SFID No. 1 |
$90,000,000 |
68.8% |
Board approves negotiations for a PLA 4/15/15. |
Oxnard School District |
$90,000,000 |
66.4% |
Board approves PLA 6/24/15. |
Sacramento City Unified School District |
$68,000,000 |
67.9% |
Board votes 1/23/14 to extend PLA approved in 2005 to this bond measure. |
Antioch Unified School District SFID No. 1 |
$56,500,000 |
62.8% |
Board approves PLA 11/13/13. |
Whittier City Unified School District |
$55,000,000 |
72.4% |
Board approves PLA 1/13/15. |
Washington Unified School District |
$22,000,000 |
72.8% |
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 |
$650,000,000 |
61.2% |
Board approves negotiations for a PLA 8/12/15. |
Contra Costa Community College District |
$450,000,000 |
57.6% |
Board approves PLA 10/10/12 for all projects of $2 million or more. |
Culver City Unified School District |
$106,000,000 |
76.3% |
Community Budget Advisory Committee discusses PLA 5/27/15. |
Bond Measures Approved by Voters in November 2014
Santa Clara Unified School District |
$419,000,000 |
69.4% |
Board discusses PLA 3/26/15. PLA discussion scheduled for 8/13/15. |
Sonoma County Community College District |
$410,000,000 |
63.1% |
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 |
$388,000,000 |
66.2% |
Board discusses PLA 7/8/15. |
Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District |
$375,000,000 |
57.4% |
Board discusses PLA 3/25/15. |
San Luis Obispo County Community College District (Cuesta) |
$275,000,000 |
62.6% |
Board discusses PLA 2/4/15. Board voted down PLA negotiations at 3/4/15 meeting. |
Hayward Unified School District |
$229,000,000 |
77.4% |
Board votes for PLA 6/24/15. |
Vacaville Unified School District |
$194,000,000 |
62.0% |
Board discusses PLA 3/9/15. Board votes for PLA negotiations 6/25/15. |
Alameda Unified School District |
$179,500,000 |
62.8% |
PLA discussion scheduled for 8/11/15. |
Santa Rosa High School District |
$175,000,000 |
64.0% |
Union officials have openly declared intent to lobby for a PLA. |
Salinas Union High School District |
$128,000,000 |
60.3% |
Board discusses PLA 3/24/15 and 5/12/15. Board votes for PLA negotiations 5/26/15. |
East Side Union High School District |
$113,200,000 |
67.9% |
PLA that applied to Measures G and E amended – apparently administratively – to cover Measure I. |
Azusa Unified School District |
$92,000,000 |
56.2% |
Board discusses PLA 3/17/15. |
Pittsburg Unified School District |
$85,000,000 |
68.5% |
Ballot arguments against the bond measure focused on PLAs imposed on previous bond measures; supporters’ rebuttal defended the PLAs. |
Berryessa Union School District |
$77,000,000 |
69.3% |
Board votes for contract to negotiate PLA 3/10/15. |
Santa Rosa Elementary School District |
$54,000,000 |
69.1% |
Union officials have openly declared intent to lobby for a PLA. |
Washington Unified School District |
$49,800,000 |
67.4% |
Board imposed a union-backed apprenticeship requirement for contractors and used to disqualify non-union company from contract. |
Bassett Unified School District |
$30,000,000 |
62.4% |
Board voted for PLA negotiations 1/20/15. |
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.