Members say school bond committee in trouble

Benjamin Grove

Monday, March 29, 1999 | 10:53 a.m.

The citizens committee that oversees billions of tax dollars earmarked for school construction in Clark County is struggling.

Some members of the Bond Oversight Committee say the panel is plagued by absenteeism at meetings, infrequent communication with the School Board and lack of direction. Now they want to transform their "rubber stamp" committee into a more powerful watchdog.

"We are at a point where there is $3.5 billion worth of school bond projects to be completed and we need to be in a position where we can administer that effectively and efficiently," committee member Ken Evans said. "We're trying to give ourselves the focus and the structure to be able to do that for the long haul."

The committee originally formed in 1989, after voters in 1988 approved $675 million in tax increases to pay for new schools.

The committee was created to make sure the money was spent "within budgetary guidelines" and that there was "evidence of acceptable progress toward goals," according to district documents.

But not all the money was carefully managed -- of the 77 schools promised, only 57 were built.

Even then, there was unrest among the original six members of the committee. Committee Chairwoman Patricia Bendorf quit after a year, saying the School Board had ignored the committee.

In 1994, school officials assured taxpayers that a redesigned version of the committee -- 19 high-profile Las Vegas leaders -- would keep a close eye on $605 million in school bond money.

But some observers say the committee has seldom followed the money closely.

"The bond oversight committee was supposed to be just that," said district watcher Glenn Nelson, who follows education issues for the conservative group Nevada Concerned Citizens. "What the district did was take the good names of the members on the committee and used them as window dressing as a way of selling the bond."

Others say the goal of the committee was never to count every penny.

"They were there to do the macro-oversight in gross terms to make sure that what had been promised was delivered," said David Broxterman, a district facilities manager who has worked closely with the committee.

Broxterman added that the district has internal and external auditors who review bond expenditures.

Members of the current committee said their panel sometimes struggles for several reasons.

For one, its 19-member makeup is unwieldy.

Committee members vary widely in their expertise, from construction to finance and accounting to city management. But the group has been shy of a quorum at five of the past 14 monthly meetings, held at 1:30 p.m. at McCarran Airport. Some members rarely show.

"You've got to make it meaningful for people and it's just not that," committee member Louis Overstreet said. "They don't feel like their talents are being used. Why waste an entire afternoon in a meeting?"

Now that voters have passed the largest school bond ever -- $3.5 billion to be used for 88 new schools -- it's the perfect time to retool and re-energize the committee, several members said.

Committee members recently formed "working groups" within the committee to focus their energies on land use, design, construction, finance and community relations.

Most committee members also want to hire two consultants -- a construction management firm and an accounting firm -- that could perform audits. The School Board gave the committee $85,000 for consultants.

"Now is the time to change the bond oversight committee from a rubber-stamp committee into a committee with a definite purpose," committee member LuAnn Day told the School Board at a meeting this month.

Board member Sheila Moulton assured her, "The potential of that committee is absolutely awesome, so when you ask for clear-cut guidance, I think you don't deserve anything less than that."

Board members and committee members are trying to schedule a work session so the two groups can define the committee's job.

"In my personal opinion, I don't think our job is to critique change orders or the number of change orders," committee chairman Bob Broadbent told the board last week. "I don't think we ought to be micro-managing your job."

Still, board member Lois Tarkanian said she expects the committee to make specific suggestions about trimming costs and building better schools.

"Why would we have financial management people on there if we didn't want them to see if we are spending our money wisely?" Tarkanian said. "I don't expect them to go through every detail, but we have major decisions being made here."

Board president Ruth Johnson agreed that the committee should keep an eye on the bottom lines.

"They've got the technical expertise," Johnson said. "We rely on them."