A cautionary tale: Promises made, promises broken

As San Luis Obispo County voters weigh Measure G-26 — a proposed $205 million school bond on the November ballot — a pointed opinion piece by a former Paso Robles school trustee is reviving scrutiny of one of the county's most troubled public works projects: the Paso Robles Joint Unified School District's aquatic complex.

In an October 27, 2026, opinion column published by CalCoastNews, Berkley J. Baker — a former Paso Robles Joint Unified School District trustee — argues that the district's handling of the earlier Measure M bond, which financed the long-delayed pool project, should give voters serious pause before approving another round of borrowing.

The rebuttal that started the argument

The dispute centers on language in the county voter information guide. According to Baker, Measure G-26 supporters wrote in their rebuttal to the opposition argument that opponents "cannot name a single misspent dollar" and that concerns about unchecked bond spending are "simply untrue."

Baker's response: the record already exists, and it was compiled not by campaign operatives but by a civil grand jury.

In its November 17, 2020, report titled "Paso Robles School District: A Cautionary Tale," the San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury examined what it described as "failures in leadership and management that precipitated the recent crisis," writing that "nothing illustrates these failures better than the example of the Aquatic Complex Plan."

The report's findings were blunt. Finding 7, as quoted in the CalCoastNews column, stated that the bond oversight advisory council was "negligent in their charge with overseeing their execution of Measure M bond funds and has not supplied an audit for two years, as required by the measure." Finding 8 stated that the Board of Trustees "did not use due diligence and failed in their fiduciary obligations to properly complete the aquatic complex, lacking a reasonable design, construction and financial plan before purchases were approved."

What taxpayers were promised — and what they got

The gap between the original pitch and the finished product is at the heart of Baker's argument.

The original aquatic complex, as pitched to voters, called for a 50-meter pool and a 25-meter pool, with Measure M providing $5.7 million and donations covering the remainder. In February 2018, the superintendent stated the complex would cost $8.2 million and be completed by January 2019. Groundbreaking took place in April 2018, and in August 2018, Italian-made stainless steel components for both pools arrived and were placed in storage.

The eventual outcome, per Baker's column: one 38-meter pool, completed in March 2026, using $20.6 million in Measure M funds. That's roughly seven years later than promised, $14.9 million more in bond money than originally committed, and a single smaller pool instead of two.

Baker contends that with proper management, the 38-meter pool could have been built for $8.2 million within the original 2018–2019 window. And the unused components purchased for the second, 25-meter pool? They were sold at a loss exceeding $200,000, according to the column.

Why it matters countywide

The debate isn't merely a Paso Robles matter. Measure G-26, on the ballot this November, would authorize $205 million in borrowing for school facilities, and the campaign's closing days have become a referendum on whether local school districts can be trusted to steward large bond programs.

California school bonds typically require 55% voter approval under Proposition 39, and they come with mandated accountability features — citizen oversight committees, annual audits, and specific project lists. The Paso Robles grand jury findings illustrate what can happen when those safeguards break down in practice: Finding 7 alleged the required audits simply weren't produced for two years.

Bond spending also has a direct effect on local property tax bills. Measure M and similar measures are repaid through ad valorem property taxes levied on parcels within the district, meaning the cost overruns on the aquatic complex were ultimately absorbed by area taxpayers — the same taxpayers now being asked to support $205 million in new borrowing under G-26.

Commenters on the CalCoastNews piece reflected the skepticism. One, posting as mrivera, wrote that "the past school bond that we will be saddled with for years to come, was a fiscal disaster" and predicted the new measure would "follow the same pattern."

The other side, and what comes next

Supporters of Measure G-26 have not conceded the framing. Their voter guide rebuttal, as characterized by Baker, maintains that no dollars were misspent and that oversight concerns are unfounded. The completed aquatic complex, they would note, is now open and serving the community — a facility that finally opened its doors in March 2026 after years of community frustration.

Baker's closing challenge to the campaign is straightforward: "Before asking voters to approve another $205 million in borrowing, G-26 supporters should explain this record. Dismissing legitimate concerns does not answer them."

For San Luis Obispo County residents, the question on the ballot is both simple and complicated: whether the documented failures in one district's bond oversight are a reason to reject new borrowing countywide, or a one-off cautionary tale — the grand jury's own phrase — that stronger oversight can prevent from repeating.

Election Day is November 3, 2026, and the outcome will shape school facility funding across the county for years to come.

This article is based on an opinion column by Berkley J. Baker published by [CalCoastNews](https://calcoastnews.com/2026/10/a-cautionary-tale-promises-made-promises-broken/) and findings of the San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury's 2020 report on the Paso Robles School District. Readers can review the full grand jury report through the county's civil grand jury archives.