Your Sept. 28 article about Measure L mentions brief criticisms and comparisons with the 2006 bond. Unfortunately, the accuracy of such statements is difficult for voters to verify. Voters trying to find past trustee board meeting information on Cuesta College’s website would discover, “For Agendas and/or Minutes from meetings prior to 2008, please contact the President’s Office.”
So, we have to ask Dr. Gil Stork for access to criticism of the prior bond measure?
This information was available for the 2012 election cycle, as Iused those archives to help understand the curiously contentious District 2 trustee race as well as catch up on trustee discussions about the ever-forthcoming bond. This is the same archive that would state that the 2006 measure polled at 72 percent approval, but dropped to a 44 percent election result. This year’s Measure L polling at 65 percent support is now a more interesting discussion.
Many, but not all, of the criticisms of the 2006 measure are still very present in today’s Measure L. But, Cuesta must not want us to revisit 2006 information. A few megabytes on their server can’t be a valid excuse. Please don’t wait 81/2 more years to get it right. Still a “no” vote.