PRIORITY: Fiscal Responsibility & Long-Term Stewardship

Good stewardship means making the right investments — and governing them well.

Strong public schools require investment — in academics, educators and student supports, technology, and safe, functional facilities that can serve students for decades.

Fiscal responsibility is not simply about spending less. It means understanding the need, making deliberate choices about where limited resources will have the greatest impact, and putting the governance in place to protect major commitments over time.

I support investing in our schools’ facilities. I do not support Measure I as written.

Carmel Unified School District has real facility needs. Aging roofs, HVAC, plumbing and electrical systems, safety and accessibility improvements, aging buildings, portable classrooms and other capital needs deserve serious investment.

My concern is not the worthiness of those investments.

I do not support Measure I as written because I do not believe voters should authorize $250 million before stronger guardrails governing how that money will ultimately be prioritized and deployed are in place.

Measure I contains important protections. Bond proceeds are restricted to authorized capital purposes, and independent audits and citizen oversight are required.

Those safeguards matter.

But the measure itself expressly states that its project list does not establish a particular priority among projects. Projects may be phased based on Board priorities and available funding, while decisions involving project scope, timing, location and prioritization are left to subsequent Board action. It also makes clear that approval does not guarantee every listed project will ultimately receive funding.

That gives this Board and future Boards substantial discretion over which authorized projects move forward, in what order and at what scope.

Some flexibility is necessary. Construction costs change. State funding opportunities change. District needs change. Emergencies happen.

I am not arguing for a project list frozen for decades. I am arguing for a clear framework governing how priorities are established, how they can change, and how those decisions are explained publicly before voters grant the authorization.

Compliance is necessary. Stewardship asks another question.

The Citizens’ Bond Oversight Committee and independent audits provide important safeguards around the use of bond proceeds.

But there is a difference between compliance oversight and investment governance.

Compliance oversight helps ensure that public money is spent for authorized purposes. Investment governance asks an additional question: whether the district selected the right project, at the right scope, at the right time and at a responsible cost.

Being authorized to spend money on a project does not necessarily mean that project should come first.

For an authorization of this scale, voters should be able to understand which needs are highest priority, what major projects are expected to cost, what criteria will determine what gets funded first, and what happens publicly when priorities or project scopes materially change.

That does not eliminate Board discretion.

It governs it.

The guardrails should come before the authorization.

I believe a $250 million authorization should be accompanied by a clear public capital framework: understandable prioritization criteria, project sequencing and estimated costs; transparent explanations for significant changes; and regular public reporting as bond proceeds are committed and major projects move forward.

The objective isn't to predict every condition the district will encounter over the life of the bond.

It's to establish how consequential decisions will be made when conditions change.

That distinction matters to me because I've spent roughly two decades working in fast-moving technology environments where consequential investment decisions had to be made despite changing conditions and incomplete information.

Good decision-making didn't require knowing everything that would happen in advance. It required defining the problem clearly, understanding the investment, establishing how decisions would be made as circumstances changed, and measuring whether the investment delivered what it was intended to deliver.

Public institutions are different from private companies. But I believe that discipline matters even more when the money belongs to taxpayers.

What happens after November matters too.

If Measure I does not pass, the district's facility needs will not disappear.

I would support returning promptly to the community with a facilities and financing proposal that addresses the highest-priority needs while incorporating stronger governance and accountability from the outset. A failed measure should be an opportunity to improve the proposal, not a reason to postpone necessary work indefinitely.

If voters approve Measure I, their decision should be respected.

My responsibility as a Board member would then be to help govern its implementation as responsibly as possible — with clear prioritization, transparent project and spending information, disciplined decisions about project priorities, scope and spending, and public explanations when costs, scope or priorities materially change.

My position on Measure I would not become a reason to obstruct what voters approved. It would become a reason to insist on strong stewardship of the authority they granted.

Responsible stewardship is not about reflexively saying no.

It is about making sure that when we say yes, we understand what we are committing to and have put the governance in place to protect that commitment for the years ahead.