Better bond oversight touted
Taxpayer association calls housing measure committee ‘a paper tiger’
SAN JOSE — The last time Santa Clara County voters approved a huge bond measure —$840 million for hospital upgrades in 2008 — it came with assurances that a citizens oversight committee would serve as a watchdog over spending. Those upgrades are now years behind schedule and millions of dollars over budget, while committee members said they were kept in the dark about festering problems.
As county officials seek voter approval in November for $950 million in bonds for affordable housing, they now are assuring voters that its oversight committee watchdog will have sharp eyes and teeth.
“We are not aware of any other jurisdiction using this enhanced model of bond oversight,” said a county report on the oversight ordinance the board of supervisors unanimously approved this week.
Even so, taxpayer advocates are skeptical.
Mark Hinkle, president of the Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association, called such an oversight committee “rigged” and “a paper tiger, not worth the paper in the voter’s handbook that it’s printed on.”
While such oversight committees are common, officials stress that this model goes beyond what’s typical. In the report, Board President Dave Cortese and Cindy Chavez called it “groundbreaking for its independence, expertise and transparency.”
That includes analysis of whether the funds are being spent “efficiently, effectively and in a timely manner,” whether the issuance of bonds and investment of bond funds is fiscally prudent, and the ability to recommend any changes to the measure that would better serve the stated purpose of creating housing for the homeless and low-income residents.
An independent auditor will directly report to the committee “to the greatest extent allowed by law,” reads the county report.
Critics have lambasted the county for a lack of oversight transparency with the Measure A hospital upgrades in 2008. While there was an oversight committee, its role was limited and growing problems were kept in closed session meetings due to pending litigation between the county and the builder.
Members of the oversight panel said they were told that there were “acceptable delays” that were “totally within reason,” and reports to the county’s Health and Hospital Committee — also responsible for reviewing progress — indicated setbacks and delays but no serious problems.
County observers have said that a new oversight model is essential to bolster voter confidence in the bond, which needs
a two-thirds vote to pass. A survey taken in the spring indicated the vote will be close.
Board President Dave Cortese and Supervisor Cindy Chavez pitched the expanded oversight model, calling it “the most trans- parent and rigorous model that exists anywhere in the country.”
She said they built on models recommended by the California League of Bond Oversight Committees and “made several novel, groundbreaking enhancements.”
That includes including professional representation on the committee from an attorney, certi- fied public accountant, investment professional, housing advocate, and organizations involved with labor, business and civics. In addition to the board appointments, there will be a representative from the Santa Clara County Cities Association as well as the county assessor as a standing member.
It has garnered sup- port from the League of Women Voters, which called it “among the most rigorous, robust oversight mechanisms that we have reviewed” and “a strong step in making sure the bond is used as intended by voters, making sure every cent goes to the creation of affordable housing in Santa Clara County.”
Michael Turnipseed, president of the state bond oversight committee and a head of the Kern County Taxpayers Association, wrote a letter to the board calling it a “commendable step” but said that doesn’t necessarily mean he supports the bond itself.
Hinkle said the committee “can’t be considered neutral or objective by any stretch of the imagination when the majority of the oversight committee is chosen by the board or committee that they’re supposed to oversee.”
“Clearly,” he said, “they’re not going to nominate or appoint truly skeptical or objective folks for that committee.”