Before another Paso Robles school bond, taxpayers deserve answers

October 6, 2026

Dorian Baker

OPINION by DORIAN BAKER

As a retired classroom teacher and former Paso Robles school board trustee, I care deeply about our schools. I also believe that caring about schools means asking hard questions about how public money is spent.

Here is one that deserves an answer: Why has an architectural firm seeking a $429,800 district contract contributed $20,000 to the campaign for the bond that would finance construction?

On September 21, 19six Architects of San Luis Obispo contributed $20,000 to “Citizens for Strong Schools, Yes on Measure G-26.” Gary Gery, identified as an architect at Gary J Gery Architects Inc., contributed $5,000 that same day. Both contributions appear in NetFile’s public records for the campaign’s Form 497 filing.

The committee’s assistant treasurer is Brad Pawlowski, the district’s assistant Superintendent of business services and chief business officer. Its treasurer, Bryan Burch, lists a Sacramento mailing address.

On Oct. 13, the school board is scheduled to consider a $429,800 design contract with 19six for new tennis courts and parking at Paso Robles High School. The full project is estimated at $6.46 million, with construction dependent on passage of Measure G-26 in November.

That puts the firm’s contribution roughly three weeks before the board’s anticipated contract vote.

Why is a firm seeking this contract helping finance the campaign for the borrowing that would fund construction? Who requested its contribution? What safeguards ensure that campaign donations have no influence on the board’s decision?

These are established district vendors. A compilation of district accounts-payable records from July 2023 through June 2026 lists approximately $759,000 in payments to 19Six Architects and $557,000 to Gary J. Gery Architect—more than $1.3 million combined.

Past payments and campaign contributions do not establish wrongdoing. They do make it reasonable to ask how the district protects taxpayers when vendors with substantial district business help finance a campaign for additional construction spending.

Architects have every right to support schools. They also have a financial interest in construction spending. Both things can be true.

How much of this bond campaign is being financed by special interests that could benefit from the projects? And how will the board demonstrate that its decisions are independent of that support?

There is another question: Why is the district’s chief financial official serving as assistant treasurer of the campaign asking taxpayers to approve the borrowing?

Mr. Pawlowski’s campaign title does not establish that he received compensation, solicited either donation, or broke the law. But how does the district ensure that the financial information families receive is independent of the effort to win their votes?

Taxpayers should not have to wonder where the district’s financial advice ends and campaign advocacy begins.

19six also prepared the Facilities Master Plan approved by the board on Sept. 22. That plan identifies approximately $429 million in projects—far more than the $205 million bond now being presented to voters.

Which projects come first? Which will wait? What happens if costs rise? Will taxpayers eventually be asked for another bond?

Measure G-26 would authorize $205 million in borrowing. Repayment estimates cited by critics using district figures approach $378 million once interest is included. The district’s tax-rate statement extends the levy through fiscal year 2057–58.

That obligation would come on top of Measure M, the $95 million bond approved in 2016, which taxpayers are still repaying.

We should be discussing the full repayment obligation, the necessity of each project, and the district’s record of delivering what it promised. These are commitments that will remain on property-tax bills long after today’s campaign signs disappear.

As a teacher, I have another concern: our children’s academic needs.

The state-test figures cited for the district show that about 43% of students met the English standard and 29% met the mathematics standard. Among English learners, the figures were approximately 5% in each subject.

Those results should command our attention.

Safe, functional buildings matter. So do reading, mathematics, and the daily instruction that gives children a foundation for the rest of their lives. A construction program is not an academic improvement plan.

How do these construction priorities serve students’ most urgent needs? What alternatives were considered? How will the district limit disruption to instruction while projects are underway?

The campaign contributions also warrant clear answers about the contracting process and the separation between public duties and campaign activity.

Did any district official or trustee solicit or direct these donations? Were district email, staff time, or other public resources involved? How was 19six selected? Has the district obtained an independent review of any applicable campaign-finance restrictions?

These questions should be answered through records and a public explanation. Any evidence of a violation should be referred to the appropriate enforcement authorities.

Until those answers are provided, I believe the board should postpone the $429,800 contract decision. The campaign should return the architectural contributions as a matter of public trust.

Supporting our children requires responsible stewardship, honest priorities, and confidence that decisions serve students and taxpayers.

That confidence must be earned.

Vote no on G-26.