Why Bonds Lost: Multiple Choice Question

Startled by losses at the polls, backers of multimillion-dollar school bonds in Moorpark and Thousand Oaks on Wednesday pointed to a slew of explanations, including voter complacency and anger at seeing the same measures twice in five months.

Supporters and foes of Moorpark’s $16-million bond and Conejo Valley’s $97-million measure sought to explain why voters in eastern Ventura County--an area known for good schools--rejected bond measures Tuesday while residents in Ventura, Oxnard, Camarillo and Ojai recently approved similar measures.

No single answer fit the bill.

“Ultimately, I’m baffled. I thought these would make it,” said Herbert Gooch, an associate professor of political science at Cal Lutheran University. “But I think a lot of people thought, ‘What the hell’s going on here? We just voted on these bonds.’ That might have created a little animosity.”

Although official results aren’t expected until Friday, unofficial counts show the Conejo bond failed with 63.3% of the vote, shy of the two-thirds majority necessary for approval. Moorpark’s bond failed with 61% in favor. Both measures came closer to approval when first placed before voters in November. The bond failures were blamed on a variety of factors: a lack of flashy, tangible renovations; fiscal conservatism and socioeconomic factors, among them.

“I wish I knew why these two bonds didn’t pass,” Ventura County Schools Supt. Charles Weis said. “Both these communities seem proud of their schools. . . . Sometimes people are just penny-wise and pound-foolish.”

Former Moorpark Councilwoman Eloise Brown suggested that residents were peeved to see school bonds they defeated in November back on the ballot so soon. In addition, pushing a costly special election in April, when the June primary and the November election are just around the corner, “was seen as particularly arrogant,” she said.

“It’s really discouraging when our educators don’t understand what ‘No’ means,” said Brown, who campaigned against the Moorpark bond. “It’s only two letters.”

District Officials Ponder Options

School officials in both districts said Wednesday that their needs--such as building new rooms for class-size reduction, preparing for enrollment growth, adding wiring for computers, mending roofs and adding air conditioning--have not evaporated.

But they were reluctant to discuss if--or when--they might go back to voters to ask for the money again.

“I think in some point in time, we are going to have to access bond money,” said Moorpark Assistant Supt. Frank DePasquale. “What I don’t know is what our next steps are.”

Moorpark officials will be meeting for the next few weeks to analyze the information and figure out what to do about pursuing another bond measure. The amount of the bond, however is unlikely to change, DePasquale said.

“We think it’s a modest and fair amount.”

Conejo Valley school officials declined to discuss their future bond plans.

School chiefs in the west county--where the majority of bonds passed with flying colors over the last year--were sympathetic to the plight of the Conejo Valley and Moorpark superintendents.

Over the last two years, voters have embraced school bonds in the Ventura, Ojai, Fillmore, Ocean View, Pleasant Valley, Hueneme, Rio and Oxnard high school and elementary school districts.

Voter complacency in the manicured communities of eastern Ventura County may explain the contrast, suggested Ventura schools Supt. Joseph Spirito, whose district recently won voter approval for an $81-million bond measure.

“People live on a street in a beautiful home in Thousand Oaks, and they make assumptions that the schools are that way too,” Spirito said. “They just don’t believe that their schools could be unpainted and have terrible landscaping.”

Gooch agreed. “I think people were lulled by a sense of complacency,” he said. “There is this perception that ‘The schools are already good, so what’s the ruckus about?’ ”

Differences between east and west county in socioeconomic status, income and family size may also have played a role, Gooch said. “If your kids don’t attend public school, are already out of public school or you only have one kid, you feel differently than if you have five kids and they’re all in public school,” he said.

Bond Size May Have Been a Factor

Some suggested the bonds might have passed if they were to pay for something more compelling than repairs, maintenance and miscellaneous upgrades.

It’s much easier to get voters excited about new schools than computer wiring and parking lot repaving, Spirito and Gooch agreed.

In Thousand Oaks, holdover hostility from a nasty recall battle in November could still be galling the electorate, Gooch said. What’s more, the sheer size of the bond, at $97 million the largest in Ventura County history, could have scared off some voters.

Trimming that amount could have appeased some critics, Gooch believes.

Thousand Oaks bond critic Jere Robings, president of the Ventura County Taxpayers Alliance, agreed. He said the bond--to be repaid by taxpayers over 30 years--was too much for most homeowners to bear.

“They should have pruned down the list and made it a shorter amount of time,” Robings said. He suggested the district “go back and prioritize what is essential” and throw out some of its requests, including air conditioning and sand boxes.

Moorpark school official DePasquale saw one more possibility for the losses: The bond elections came a mere day before tax day.

“I think that was definitely something that entered people’s mind,” he said.