Saturday, July 22, 2017

Mixed messages, part 5: Blank check?

As I wrote in the previous post, the district began developing “informational” materials about the bond proposal, including a bond presentation that it would show to the public. The presentation gave no indication that the board might be able to change the plan after bond passage. Under the heading of “Frequently Asked Questions,” it stated:


This unhelpful statement was consistent with the district’s theme of “keep it simple” because “the details get complicated.” It wasn’t long, though, before the statement was deleted from the presentation. In its place, a new answer appeared:
Q: Is the GO Bond a blank check?

A: The bond referendum provides voter approval to the District to sell bonds for many projects in accordance with the FMP. Operationally, the District will sell the actual bonds as approved by the referendum to fund the projects in increments with various legal requirements. These incremental sales will list specific projects for which the funds from that sale must be used for only those projects specifically within a 24-month period.
That sure sounds different from “No.” Does it answer the question at all?  In any event, this item, too, later disappeared from the FAQ.  The district’s website no longer discusses whether the bond is a “blank check.”

Continued in part 6.

at

No comments:

Post a Comment

The simplest way to comment is to choose "Name/URL" in the drop-down box, then just type in whatever screen name you'd like to use. You can leave the URL field blank. I'd prefer that people use screen names rather than the "Anonymous" option, because it can get too hard to tell the various anonymous commenters apart in any given thread.

If you don't see your comment appear right away, send it again. It might have gotten caught in the spam filter. If I see the same comment come in twice, I'll know to check the filter.