{"id":5176,"date":"2021-01-28T10:59:56","date_gmt":"2021-01-28T17:59:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sandiegonewsdesk.com\/?p=5176"},"modified":"2021-01-28T16:39:34","modified_gmt":"2021-01-28T23:39:34","slug":"did-taxpayers-fund-cindy-martens-nomination","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sandiegonewsdesk.com\/?p=5176","title":{"rendered":"Did Taxpayers Fund Cindy Marten\u2019s Nomination?"},"content":{"rendered":"

First published on Reopen San Diego Unified<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

We received a spreadsheet of CARES Act spending from a Public Records Request filed last year. On it was $37,500 paid to\u00a0The Raben Group<\/a>, a Washington DC based Lobbyist Firm. It appears San Diego Unified\u00a0used stimulus funding<\/a> to hire a lobbyist to ask for more stimulus funding.<\/p>\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n
\n

When we saw the name \u201cRaben Group\u201d on the spreadsheet we knew they were lobbyists because they were already on our radar. In fact, we were supposed to receive all the emails between Superintendent Marten and The Raben Group through public records release tomorrow. We\u2019ve been waiting 10 weeks<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Just days prior to the nomination of Superintendent Marten to Deputy Secretary of Education, San Diego Unified told us\u00a0it will be 3 more weeks<\/a>\u2026. just about enough time to ensure Marten\u2019s confirmation. Why are they stalling? What is in the emails?<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s some background\u2026 As we reviewed board documents from the start of the school closures we noticed\u00a0buried in line item 42<\/a> of 44 of the April 28th<\/sup> Superintendent\u2019s Consent Agenda was an item for \u201cGovernmental Outreach Services\u201d with The Raben Group. That sounds benign enough, but it was for $150,000 so we decided to look at the contract. Oddly the contract was\u00a0only partially there<\/a>. It was missing Attachment A \u2013 the scope of work. We\u2019ve done a lot of reading of Board documents and this is the first we\u2019ve seen missing its Attachment A.<\/p>\n

What does it say about the San Diego Unified School Board that they voted to spend $150,000 without even realizing half the contract was missing?<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

How did they know what work they were approving? It\u2019s illegal for the Board to meet and discuss topics without public notice. Even 1-1 meetings with Superintendent Marten may be \u201cserial meetings<\/a>\u201d if they are trying to build consensus. If the Board didn\u2019t meet serially, then we have a Board that treats tax payer money like its personal slush fund\u2013 $150,000 isn\u2019t worth a single question or second glance? This is a perfect example of the lack of transparency and accountability at San Diego Unified.<\/p>\n

Missing Attachment A: Oversight or Intentional?<\/h3>\n

We don\u2019t know but it definitely\u00a0made us curious<\/a>.\u00a0\u00a0When we finally got\u00a0a copy of it<\/a>. Here is what the scope says:<\/p>\n

Such services shall include:<\/p>\n