This letter is in response to Mark White’s letter of August 16. While I realize that the title is determined by The Signal and not the author, rather than “Dereliction of Duty,” Mr. White’s letter should really be titled “Misinformation and Why I Don’t Belong on the Saugus School Board.”

Mr. White begins his argument by saying, “What was striking was the rush to get this on the November 5 ballot,” and he refers to “a recent precinct poll.”

In fact, the poll Mr. White mentioned was conducted in June 2022. If a poll was conducted more than two years before the panel made its final decision, how can Mr. White claim the decision was rushed? He also claims that “with the new general obligation bond rules,” 55% is required to pass a general obligation bond measure. These rules are hardly new, they were passed in November 2000 as part of Proposition 39, which amended the state constitution. Mr. White seems to have a limited understanding of the word “rushed” and the importance of timely decisions. Delaying critical matters affecting the safety and well-being of our teachers and students is unacceptable.

Mr. White also asks a question about a proposed state bond measure: “If there is a $10 billion state bond, would SUSD and the other Santa Clarita Valley districts be entitled to a pro rata amount of those funds regardless of whether our new bond/tax is not passed?” But Mr. White answers his own question by referring to the state money as “potential partial matching funds.” And this was explained multiple times at the two meetings Mr. White attended. State funds are “potential” (not guaranteed), “partial” (only a percentage of certain projects), and “matching funds” (a local district must fund a project before state matching funds are allocated). Additionally, repayment often occurs years after project completion.

Mr. White’s claim that there is no cost estimate is incorrect. The August 1 resolution and the appendices clearly and in detail outline the $187 million bond and list specific projects as required by state law. While Mr. White would like to play cost estimator from his couch in his spare time, the cost estimate is best left to the school district’s expert architects.

Then Mr. White pulls out his crystal ball and claims this bond has a maturity of “34 years with the option to extend it to just over 40 years.” After a bond is approved, the actual bonds are not issued until the funds are needed, and are often issued in different series over time (e.g. Series A, Series B, etc.). The maturity and price of each series are set at the time of sale and are based on market conditions at the time. While some of these bonds are issued with 30-year maturities, as Mr. White points out, SUSD has issued series with shorter maturities. And as has happened in the past, bond series can be refinanced after issuance to reduce interest costs, or they can be paid off early in full.

Mr. White’s claim that board meeting minutes are not accessible is false. The district has released the last 10 years of minutes. His proposal to permanently retain all meeting records is impractical. SUSD is the only one in the SCV that releases meeting records, and the retention policy is set by the board. To change this policy, Mr. White should make a formal request to the superintendent, not a newspaper op-ed.

Mr. White’s letter is obviously full of misinformation, unproven predictions, poor logic, and faulty conclusions. It should be ignored except for the part where he says, “I am not opposed to using bonds to keep our schools safe. Yes, many are over 50 years old and need repairs and upgrades.” That is the only part that makes sense. Otherwise, perhaps Mr. White should attend more than a few board meetings before making outrageously false claims.

Catherine Cooper

Saugus