The foundation spent $67,361 in 2001 to buy a portable building to house the museum, but the portable was used for storage by the high school for the next three years.
When auditors visited the school last September some artifacts had been placed in the building, but school officials conceded they were of very limited educational value, and the building was not open to students or the public.
Auditors said bank records indicated that some of the grant was spent for "personal purposes," and the controller's office referred the case to law enforcement officials for possible prosecution.
The foundation's executive director told auditors that he had submitted adequate justifications for the grant expenditures.
I have had personal experience with both prop 12 and 40. They are an absolute nightmare for smaller counties and districts. The state won't pass through money to anything but a county or city or formal recreation district that has "site" control. I don't have a lot of cities and no recreation districts in my 3,000 sq. mile district. That means that they require the County to own the Park and the liability for any kid who falls.
I went through a dozen projects that were developed by local people and completely shot down over a course of a year by the State. One project to improve play equipmemnt at a park maintained by a local Community Services District would have required them to deed the land under the equipment to the County to obtain funds.
This could have brought much needed assistance for recreation to my poorest communities of 3-500 people. In the end, the cities got the benefit and the smaller communities got deep disappointment.