Earmarks: Klein Entangles Sierra College in Lobbyist Corruption

In 2002 Aaron Klein said "He supports those who support him. John (Doolittle) has always been a great friend and great ally of mine."

No one has fully explained why the Doolittle faction decided to take over Sierra College in 2004. Sierra had long been a conservatively managed college, growing successfully with little public fanfare since 1957. Veteran trustee Barbara Vineyard is fond of recalling that the trustees weren't even aware of each other's party affiliation or political philosophy. Nevertheless, a Sierra College trusteeship provided a convenient and vulnerable political starting point for Klein. As Doolittle's 24 year old ideological protege, Klein brought neither a college education nor experience in managing a complex institution.

Winning was not cheap. Running a joint campaign with Scott Leslie, the two neophytes spent $98,089 to take board seats, joining allies Jerry Simmons and Nancy Palmer in gaining majority control. This amount was more than ten times the maximum previously spent on any Sierra College trustee election. Almost all the money came from partisan sources. Their campaign was based on trumped-up charges of fiscal mismanagement together with a personal assault on the college's president, Kevin Ramirez. The previous incumbents spent virtually nothing to resist and were, like lambs, led to political slaughter.

Payback began quickly.

After disposing of Ramirez within 60 days of election in November, 2004, they used their newfound power to divert a chunk of the college's strained operating budget to their patron in Washington D.C.

In March, 2005, they informed Morgan Lynn, interim president, that the college was going to retain a Doolittle-connected Washington lobbyist in order to seek favor for earmarks. The lobbyist, Peter Evich, formerly Doolittle's legislative director for five years, was to be paid $5000 per month beginning on July 1, 2005.

There was no consideration of alternatives, no competitive process, and no specification of deliverables. (Only ten per cent of community colleges nationwide retain Washington lobbyists.)
This heavy handed approach offended the college's staff, but they were told not to object because "we have four votes" (out of seven trustees).

To meet the legal requirement of board approval, the contract was buried in the consent agenda (i.e. items not normally requiring discussion) at the May 10, 2005 board meeting as item 12469, III. 14: Approval of MOA, Van Scoyoc Associates. The minutes of the meeting show there was no board discussion, even though this was the first federal lobbyist in the college's history.

This arrangement persisted for 26 months without further board review ignoring that the initial contract period was specified to be 12 months. The college paid the lobbyist a total of $133,305 from its operating budget. It was finally terminated by the college in August, 2007 because of other pressing needs. (As an indication of the significance of this amount, the total allocated for instructional equipment in the 2008 -2009 budget is only $75,000.)

Part of the public's money flowed back to Doolittle in the form of political contributions by Evich. Public records show that he donated at least $1900 to Doolittle in 2006. Evich is among former Doolittle staffers who have been contacted by the FBI regarding their investigation of Doolittle. Concern arose beginning in July, 2006 that Evich was on the short-list of potentially indictable individuals in the scandal, and that the college's reputation could be damaged. Yet Evich continued to be paid until August, 2007.

If this arrangement had been openly discussed on campus, it almost certainly would have been rejected for several reasons. First, the priority of hiring a Washington lobbyist versus other uses of the funds would have been debated. Second, the propriety of choosing a lobbyist based primarily on his connection to a local partisan figure would have been disputed. Third, the integrity of seeking a relationship whose payoff, if any, would be in earmarks would have been challenged. Fourth, the certainty that some public money would flow back to a local politician from college operating funds would have been reviled.

Many citizens share a deep moral distrust of the concept of earmarks. From 1995 to 2005, the number of annual appropriations earmarks grew from 1,439 to 13,997 in what has been labeled the "currency of corruption" between lawmakers and lobbyists. An earmark is inherently corrupting both to the giver and the receiver in that it represents a lawmaker unilaterally appropriating money paid by all taxpayers for the benefit of favored patrons.

Tangible documentation of the contract in the college's files amounts to a few pages of notes. A single $300 thousand earmark for "a mechatronics workforce training initiative" was finally approved last week. However, the college has previously won $600 thousand of competitive federal grants in this area, using the considerable skills of its own faculty grant writers and with no lobbyist involvement.

Nevertheless, trustee Klein again initiated the same questionable process three months ago. In June 2008, he identified a lobbying firm, Potomac Partners, closely connected to Doolittle interests, and referred President Leo Chavez to them.

At the Board Retreat in July, Klein boasted that because of his close personal relationships with the previous congressman and the next one, he believes there is the strong likelihood that the college can attract tens of millions of dollars of federal funds. Moreover, he stated that he had initiated conversations with his presumed congressional winner, Tom McClintock, and that McClintock had personally assured him there would be a positive relationship with Sierra College.

This public, political report at a non-partisan board meeting is astonishing in at least two dimensions. First is his presumption of the winner in what is generally regarded to be a closely contested race. Second he contradicts McClintock's highly public stand in opposition to continuing the profligate use of earmarks.

In a report he authored in August, Klein claimed "Sierra College has productive working relationships with present and future congressional leaders both in the Senate and House of Representatives, and we have already initiated informal discussions with them about the potential of dramatically increasing federal funding for the college."

These so-called productive relationships have existed during Klein's entire tenure, and netted little, if anything. Yet, he is ideologically opposed to advocating local responsibility for our own community college in favor of earmarked support from the citizens of Compton, New Orleans and everywhere else but home.

Potomac Partners submitted a proposal to the college dated August 8, 2008. It wasn't until the following week that Klein introduced a motion requesting board approval to seek federal funding. This proposal was followed by a conference call on September 8 from Potomac's principal, Rick Alcalde, and his associate, Dan Feliz, concluding with a request for immediate verbal commitment from the college. President Chavez rejected the request knowing that, even given the previous act of the majority, this matter still must go to the board.

A google search of "Rick Alcalde" and "Potomac Partners" shows this lobbying firm has links with virtually every name connected to the current scandal in Washington up to, and including, Jack Abramoff. The possibility of Sierra College contracting with this firm after an open and cautious public discussion is beyond any responsible comprehension.

Don't get me wrong. Seeking Sierra College's fair share of federal funding through legitimate appropriations channels and procurement processes is worth pursuing. However, giving taxpayer money to crony lobbyists already under the glare of a federal investigation is unethical. Furthermore, Klein's initiating board dialog with McClintock - as his assumed winner - shows no respect for our democratic processes. Everyone should be disturbed at these blatant abuses of a non-partisan, elected office.

Yuba-Net
Bill Martin is a Sierra College Trustee. He can be reached at wllm61@sbcglobal.net