Who Do You Trust? LACCD or LA Times?

Coby King with MWW Group, public releations consultant, Tuesday afternoon  released this statement
by LA Community College District Chancellor Daniel LaVista, in connection with the publication
of the first two articles in the Los Angeles Times series on LACCD’s
Building Program:

The Los Angeles Times published two articles
on the Los Angeles Community College District’s bond-funded Building
Program, with more apparently to appear over the coming week.  In the
main article, the Times acknowledges the pressing need for renovations
and the valuable improvements paid for with bond money.  We, on the
other hand, acknowledge that there were past problems with planning and
oversight. However, the articles’ implication is that problems with the
$6 billion Program have overshadowed these improvements.  The Times is
wrong.  Of course, in any construction program of this magnitude and
scope there are going to be issues.  We have rigorous new systems in
place to address these issues to ensure we are meeting our
responsibilities for accountability.

In
fact, this program, one of the most heavily audited and examined in the
history of public construction, has been found over and over again to
be well-managed, careful with taxpayer dollars, and committed to
innovative management and reducing impacts on the environment.  And
while we take the issues identified by the Times seriously, it is
important to keep a sense of perspective.  Los Angeles voters have
approved three separate bond measures, totaling almost $6 billion. No
one can deny that this money was desperately needed to modernize each of
the LACCD’s nine colleges, most of which were in various states of
decay and disrepair.  No one can deny that investment in community
colleges is a critical part of our economic recovery.  No one can deny
that the benefits of LACCD’s Building Program are real, and are being
delivered safely and in an environmentally responsible manner.  In fact,
our latest count shows that the building program has completed nearly
50 major projects (with budgets over $5 million), changing the faces of
each of the District’s nine colleges. 

After
ignoring the good news of the Program for years, the Times spent 20
months on this investigation and now picks at a few issues in what
appears to be a sensationalist series published right before trustee
elections.  The timing is suspect, and the reporting is one-sided.  So
far, we are sorely disappointed.  While the
Times notes that half the $6 billion is still to be spent and there is
time to “correct” things, I say to the Times that with only two articles
published, there is an even better opportunity to correct their
sensationalist tone and one-sided and biased reporting.

We
at the LACCD take the management of the Program very seriously.  Our
regular annual audits over the years, which have examined the Program’s
performance and finances, and have been conducted by outside,
independent firms, have yielded consistently good marks.  At the same
time, issues that the audits have identified (not surprising in a $6
billion program) have been quickly and forthrightly addressed by the
Program’s management.  We have also taken corrective measures when
others, including the Times, have identified issues.  This commitment to
improvement is part of the Program’s DNA, and is an aspect noted by the
auditors themselves. 

LACCD has over the past two years taken a number of steps to strengthen program management.  The board of trustees has:

1)      Approved
the creation of an independent Office of Inspector General to report to
the board and conduct on-going reviews of performance, financial
integrity and legal compliance of the Program.   The first IG took
office in October. 

2)      Approved the creation of a whistleblower program so that staff may report on issues that need investigating. 

3)      Taken a variety of other steps to tighten controls on contractor compensation and selection. 

These
actions and many others put the District and the Program on the leading
edge of management of bond-funded capital programs in California.  

As
to the construction issues raised in the article, especially those at
Valley College, City College, and East LA College, we have rectified
many of the issues and we are making progress on the others. To the
extent that the Times identifies issues that neither we nor our auditors
were aware of, we will move aggressively to take corrective action. As
to the article published on contractor contributions, we have to ask,
where’s the news?  The fact that companies seeking public contracts
contribute to bond measures and elected officials is not new or news. 
In fact, we applaud those companies who, just like interested
individuals, contributed to our various bond measures.  Without private
support, it would have been impossible to educate the public on the
desperate need for renovation at our nine colleges. 

As
to implications that these contributions brought favorable treatment,
such insinuations are ludicrous.  We are not aware of any evidence, and
the Times has not presented any, that contributions to either bond
measure campaigns or trustee elections have influenced the selection of
contractors.  LACCD’s bond construction program has very strict
protocols governing how construction contracts are awarded, and these
procedures are followed closely.  In fact, it is impossible for one
person, be he or she a staffer on the Program Management team, an
employee of LACCD itself, or a member of the Board to Trustees, to award
a contract.

In
fact, LACCD’s Trustees are quite insulated from the process.  They have
no role in the evaluation of individual construction contract proposals
except where there is a bid protest.  Their main function with respect
to contract awards is to ratify staff recommendations in this area.  So
the idea that contractors made contributions to trustees and as a result
received contracts is ridiculous.

The
bottom line is that students, faculty, staff, and the communities
surrounding the colleges are already greatly benefitting from the
improved facilities.  Thanks to the Program, students are being better
prepared for important careers in health care, child development, high
technology, and public safety, or to transfer to a four-year college if
that is their goal.  The stimulus effect of the Program’s spending is
one of the very few bright spots in today’s Southern California
economy.  Finally, the Program’s attention to environmental
responsibility is also important to coming generations.

The
improvements we are making to our colleges are not just for today or
the next few years, but are meant to provide benefits over the coming
decades.    The LACCD’s Building Program is and continues to be a great
investment by the people of Los Angeles.  With these improvements,
everyone benefits, and for a long time to come.