Susan Luzzaro

Susan Luzzaro is a Reader contributor. See staff page for published articles.

Comments by susan

Ed's gone, but this Sweetwater shenanigan isn't

oskidoll, you have an interesting point--was the initial deal in 2005 legal? I, personally, have begun to hate to write about these property deals because they have so many legal and ethical questions surrounding them and are difficult to explain fully. But property issues, in which I am including the purchase--or not--of a new district office on the east side. seem to be driving the district as much as student need. So we must pay attention to them. Plan Nine/California Trust maintains that one of the *benefits *of the 501(c)3 is that the status protects district properties from other local agencies acquiring them at a discounted price. The other *benefit* is there is flexibility in the disposal of surplus property. In other words, 7-11 committees are not necessary to declare property surplus. This can be countered with ethical and logical arguments. As you have observed, the initial deal doesn't seem to have been brought to the public. Then, is it ethical to say the district, using public resources, has purchased a piece of property but squirreled it away and is not going to ask the question--is this property surplus? And then there is the fact that the district did hold 7-11 meetings to consider whether or not the property was surplus. Putting aside the flawed nature of the meetings, this sends the message that the district saw as its duty and its choice to ask whether or not the property was surplus.
— November 20, 2014 11:44 a.m.

Join our
newsletter list

Enter to win $25 at Broken Yolk Cafe

Each newsletter subscription
means another chance to win!

Close