Hardly a 'hit piece'

State auditors find disturbing practices at Delta College

By The Record
November 16, 2008 6:00 AM

In the words of a San Joaquin Delta College spokesman: "It's a hit piece."

More precisely, a politically motivated hit piece, according to spokesman Greg Greenwood, reacting to yet another highly critical assessment of how the college has handled the $250 million bond approved four years ago.

And our response: So?

Who cares if the audit was politically motivated (it came at the urging of state Sen. Michael Machado, D-Linden)? What district taxpayers should care about is what state auditors say they found. And they found plenty, just like county grand jurors did last summer.

In pushing Measure L, Delta officials made pie-in-the-sky promises about satellite campuses and sprucing up the main campus. What did college officials do? They built athletic fields and bought electronic message boards - check them out the next time to drive by the campus on Pershing or Pacific avenues - instead of fixing leaking roofs, faulty electrical wiring, upgrading existing buildings or building new ones.

The excuse offered up earlier by Delta President Raul Rodriguez: "It was important for people to see the visual results of bond spending."

Huh? Really? They didn't even start pushing dirt around for the new athletic facilities until last year, three years after Measure L was passed. And the idea that most district voters associate improving higher education at a community college by building athletic fields is absurd on its face.

To most people, especially those who for years will be paying off the $250 million bonds, what comes to mind are things like biology labs and classrooms and updated library facilities and more classes available to the far-flung reaches of the college district.

There's not a lot to show for $250 million, not a lot of "visual results".

State Controller's Office auditors did find that in addition to spending millions on athletic fields and message boards, the college also spent $283,382 in bond on a new financial information system that included sending college staffers to 18 campuses around the nation.

Only later were those expenses shifted out of the bond account and to the college's general account.

"Not one penny has been charged to the bond," Greenwood said, adding that there has been "an enormous amount of scrutiny on this (bond) money."

Not everyone agrees, especially state auditors who called the Citizens Oversight Committee "passive, perfunctory and ineffective." At least one member of that panel argues that auditors didn't understand the committee's job, and besides its authority is limited by state law.

And the question that statement begs is: if true, why have an oversight committee?

College officials promised a point-by-point rebuttal to the audit, and last week the 10-page answer was sent to Jeffrey V. Brownfield, the chief of the division of audits in the Controller's Office.

The college's response was somewhat similar to its answer to the blistering grand jury report last summer.

Among other things, jurors said the college had essentially lost about $30 million in bond money on its Mountain House campus project in the south county by delays and plain old bad decisions.

The district's answer to jurors: yeah, we could have done better.

The district's answer to state auditors: on five specific points auditors raised, the college disagreed with four, and agreed with one (that the college could have done better retaining oversight committee members).

The college awaits the auditors' final report, to which the district rebuttal will be attached.

Before that, college officials will face Dr. Brian King, head of the recent accreditation team that visited Delta College earlier and placed the college on warning status. He will be at Delta on Monday for a follow-up and plans a public town hall meeting in the Tillie Lewis Theatre at 3 p.m.

Accreditation is imperative. Without it Delta College becomes a high school with fees. Students wanting to transfer to four year colleges will have more trouble.

This storm of reports and continued controversy goes a long way toward explaining why two long-term trustees did not seek re-election Nov. 4 year and two others were thrown out of office by voters.

A new board majority is promising a new attitude, more oversight of the taxpayers' money and more engagement with district residents.

No matter how energetic this new crop of trustees they can't get back the millions squandered and the time wasted.

They can set in motion the actions to see that things change, that it doesn't happen again.

Source