School District Accused of Using Funds for Politics

Two Huntington Beach residents have asked the Orange County district attorney’s office to investigate their allegations that the Huntington Beach Union High School District has illegally spent more than $300,000 to promote the $123-million facilities bond that goes before voters next month.

William D. Fitzgerald Jr. and his father filed a request for information on the matter with the district in mid-September and recently wrote to the district attorney to complain about the expenditures, saying that the district is in violation of the Election Code.

The Fitzgeralds contend it is illegal for the district to have hired consultants to push for voter approval of the bond.

But Supt. Susan Roper said the complaint is unfounded.

“It’s not true,” Roper said. “It really comes down to his opinion, [because] the facts simply don’t support his allegations.”

The issue is whether the district violated a section of the state’s Election Code that bars districts and their employees paid by public tax dollars from using district money or resources to advocate a stance on a bond measure.

Roper agreed that the district spent almost $340,000 from Jan. 1 through the end of August, when reports were last turned in, but said the money has been spent preparing informational materials, not campaign literature.

Other districts in California have hired consulting firms for the same purpose.

Roper said a separate group of parent and community volunteers has been doing the fund-raising to pay for help from other consultants to sway voters. Since the supporters are not paid by tax dollars, they can advocate passage of the bond.

The district attorney’s office is reviewing the Fitzgeralds’ claims, but it is too soon to tell whether they have a case, Deputy Dist. Atty. Carolyn Carlisle-Raines said.

“It’s far too early to say whether we can give any credence at all to what the gentlemen are saying, whether there’s any evidence of any criminal behavior,” Carlisle-Raines said.

Reviewing the situation could take weeks, but a decision will probably be made before the Nov. 9 election, she said.

“Private citizens themselves can certainly take any position they wish to,” Carlisle-Raines said. “The issue would arise if it seems that public funds are being used.”

If proof is found that the state code has been violated, “one statute in particular would have some criminal ramifications,” Carlisle-Raines said.

The Fitzgeralds, conservative Republicans who say they are generally anti-tax on all issues, believe the bond issue stems from what they see as poor fiscal management by the district.

“Other districts manage just fine on the same amount of money that Huntington Beach has,” the elder Fitzgerald said.

But they say they also are concerned about the way the issue has been promoted, even calling the later-than-typical election date a district strategy to confuse potential opponents of the bond (fixed-income retirees, for example) and keep all but pro-bond parents out of the voting booths.

“People will see results from the elections on Nov. 2 and think, ‘Oh, my God, I forgot to vote,’ and they’ll assume the elections have already been held,” the elder Fitzgerald said. “If you want to pass a bond issue, it’s the primary strategy for keeping everyone else but parents of students from voting.”

But Roper said the board chose a later date to give voters more time to learn about the issue.

“There’s no particular reason other than it’s more convenient from the standpoint of getting people informed,” she said. “[The Fitzgeralds are] making this much more complex than it really is.”