The Morgan Hill Unified School District is moving ahead with plans to place a bond measure and parcel tax before voters in November 2026, hiring consultants and laying groundwork for what officials say would be a badly needed infusion of cash for aging facilities and a strained operating budget.
The district has engaged Bay Area-based municipal finance firm Dale Scott & Co. to perform pre-election services including polling and advisory services as the board gauges the community’s appetite for a new bond or parcel tax. Research is currently ongoing, with the firm expected to report its findings to the MHUSD Board of Education in late March or early April.
But the effort has been clouded by concerns regarding one trustee’s participation in bond-related discussion and votes while her husband serves as the district’s bond director.
In a written statement, Veronica Andrade, MHUSD Trustee for Area 7, responded to recent allegations that her marriage to Bond Services Director Joe Andrade represented a possible conflict of interest. In the Feb. 16 statement, she addressed what she describes as “unfounded accusations from a small but vocal group” calling for Andrade to recuse herself.
“Every decision I have made since being elected to the board has been guided by a commitment to integrity, transparency and full compliance with the law,” she wrote. “I understand that in today’s environment, allegations can circulate quickly, particularly on social media. However, repetition of a claim does not make it legally valid.”
Leading the critics is Chris Robell, a new Morgan Hill resident and self-appointed fiscal watchdog who has emerged as the most vocal public critic of the district’s bond and parcel tax push. A retired financial professional, Robell began attending school board meetings in October and has since hired an attorney to challenge the Dale Scott contract and filed a complaint with the FPPC over the Andrade conflict of interest question.
“Veronica Andrade’s husband is the bond director. How is that legit?” Robell asked in a recent interview. “Go ask 10 of your friends, ‘Do you think it’s okay?’ … You can probably guess what 10 of your friends would say.”
In a Jan. 16 letter responding to Robell’s complaint, FPPC Enforcement Division chief Kendall Bonebrake declined to pursue enforcement, finding “no evidence that a potential bond measure would create a conflict of interest under the Political Reform Act.”
“The alleged financial interests of the individual were not reportable interests as determined by the Conflict of Interest Code for the Morgan Hill Unified School District, including a primary personal residence and income from a government agency,” Bonebrake wrote. “After review of the complaint and evidence provided, the Enforcement Division will not pursue an enforcement action in this matter.”
Despite the FPPC’s ruling, Andrade plans to recuse herself from further board activities related to the pursuit of a bond in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
“I also understand the importance of public trust and the need to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest,” she wrote. “That is why I will be recusing myself from all future agendized discussions and votes regarding a bond measure. I am, and always have been, committed to public transparency, integrity and compliance with the law.”
Andrade’s recusal has the potential to impact the success of a new bond or parcel tax, removing a likely “yes” vote to place the measure on the November ballot, calling into question whether the money spent on the Dale Scott contract would bear any fruit.
“You should, before you waste money on advisors, figure out who has the votes,” Robell said. “Placing a Proposition 39 bond measure on the ballot requires a two-thirds vote of the board—not a simple majority. If three trustees oppose pursuing a bond, then the bond is dead in the water. So approving consultant contracts now with just a simple majority is an exercise in futility and a waste of public funds.”
District officials say new revenue from a bond is crucial to upgrade dilapidated facilities at local schools, including P.A. Walsh, where “temporary” portable structures have been used as classrooms for more than 30 years.
Meanwhile, the district also faces a structural spending deficit, with projections estimating the district’s unrestricted General Fund will decline from $42.4 million in fiscal year 2025–26, down to only $12.2 million in 2027–28, according to a Jan. 15 letter from Santa Clara County Superintendent of Schools David Toston.
“Structural deficit spending is not sustainable and may lead to fiscal insolvency if ongoing expenditures are not brought into alignment with projected revenues,” Toston wrote.
Board of Education President John Horner said the parcel tax proposal is intended to help balance this losing equation by augmenting the district’s revenue with funds which, unlike bond money, can be used to pay for ongoing expenditures like teachers’ salaries.
“With the uncertainty of state and federal revenues, do our local voters have a willingness to backstop a portion of that?” Horner asked in a November interview. “The only mechanism available for that is a parcel tax.”
Don’t ask us to pay more for your mistakes. Fix the waste, fix the priorities, and fix the mismanagement before you even think about raising our taxes. The great people of Morgan Hill sure love to be hosed by the same people they put into office.
This article about the proposed bond and parcel tax confirms what many parents in Morgan Hill Unified School District have been feeling for years: a profound lack of trust in the leadership entrusted with our children’s education and our community’s tax dollars.
This lack of trust does not stem from opposition to public education. Quite the opposite. Our schools should be shining stars in Morgan Hill. We are fortunate to have some of the most talented, compassionate, and dedicated teachers and support staff anywhere in the region. They show up every day for our students, often in spite of systemic instability and inadequate support from district leadership. They are not the problem. They are the reason our schools continue to function at all.
The problem is governance.
Parents have watched as our district became a revolving door for administrators, with principal positions too often treated as stepping stones rather than long term commitments to our children and community. This instability erodes continuity, morale, and student outcomes.
Even more troubling is the district’s long and painful history of conflict with families of students in Special Education. Parents have repeatedly been forced into legal action simply to secure services and accommodations that are not optional, but legally guaranteed. These lawsuits represent not just financial costs, but deep failures of trust and duty toward our most vulnerable students.
There have also been deeply disturbing past failures in oversight and judgment that continue to haunt this community. The district faced a multimillion dollar judgment after a teacher with a known history as a sex offender was allowed to continue teaching, moved from site to site instead of being atrrsted. Parents remember. We do not forget failures that place children at risk.
We have also seen questionable financial decisions: the rubber-stamping of extraordinarily high administrative (superintendent) salaries while classrooms struggled with limited resources, and the costly acquisition and handling of the toxic Peet Avenue property, an investment that raised serious concerns about fiscal prudence and due diligence.
Taken together, these decisions paint a pattern. Not a single mistake, but a culture of insufficient oversight, inadequate accountability, and questionable stewardship of public funds.
Now, the same leadership is asking taxpayers to approve new bonds and parcel taxes. Before voters can responsibly consider providing additional funding, the district must demonstrate something it has yet to convincingly show: sound fiduciary judgment, transparency, and a clear commitment to responsible financial management.
Trust cannot be demanded. It must be earned.
Parents, teachers, and community members want to support our schools. We want safe facilities. We want thriving programs. We want stable leadership. And we are willing to invest in those goals.
But first, we need assurance that the money entrusted to the district will be managed with competence, integrity, and accountability.
Until the School Board demonstrates that it has learned from past failures and is capable of responsible stewardship, skepticism from parents is not only understandable, it is justified.
No Bond. Still paying on last measure that put 10’s of
Millions into “aging” schools. The real issue is declining student population, bloated district salaries/benefits/ expenses and failing education by MHUSD