The Rancho Santiago Community College District (RSCCD) Board of Trustees recently made a decision that has sparked controversy among taxpayers and community members. On September 1, the board voted to renew the district’s employee health insurance contract with the Alliance of Schools for Cooperative Insurance Programs (ASCIP), despite the availability of a comparable plan at a significantly lower cost.
The decision comes after the district’s failed attempt to secure voter approval for a massive three-quarters-of-a-billion-dollar bond in 2024. Now, the board’s choice to opt for the more expensive insurance plan has raised eyebrows and prompted questions about the responsible use of taxpayer dollars.
Controversial Decision: ASCIP Plan Chosen Over Cheaper Alternative
Trustees David Crockett, John Hanna, Zeke Hernandez, Tina Arias Miller, and Daisy Tong voted in favor of renewing the contract with ASCIP. The decision is particularly contentious because another vendor offered a comparable plan at a cost approximately $1.7 million lower. This significant expenditure difference is even more striking when considering that the alternative plan offered employees substantially lower individual and family deductibles for both medical and pharmacy benefits.
A Troubling History with ASCIP
The decision to renew the contract with ASCIP is especially concerning given the organization’s history with the RSCCD. In 2024, it was reported that ASCIP had been holding millions of dollars belonging to the college district for years without disclosing this information to the board or the district’s auditors. Trustee Phil Yarbrough played a crucial role in demanding the return of approximately $8 million that had been held by ASCIP during Chancellor Martinez’s six-year tenure.
Given this history, the question arises: Why would the board approve a plan costing over a million dollars more with ASCIP than a nearly identical available alternative without a compelling financial justification? The differences between the board members’ comments before the vote were striking. Trustee Yarbrough pressed for specific details to determine whether spending the excess funds was justified, while Trustee Tong appeared unaware that she was voting to approve the final annual rates.
Chancellor Martinez Placed on Leave
Shortly after the September 1 meeting concluded, Chancellor Martinez was placed on leave pending an investigation. The reason for the investigation has not been publicly disclosed, adding another layer of complexity to the situation.
The Union’s Advocacy for ASCIP
While defending the additional expenditure, Faculty President Madeline Grant told employee group representatives on August 25, “The District’s budget is in really good shape.” However, a healthy 7 million is financially justified.
At the September 1 meeting, Grant stated to the Board that faculty preferred to remain with ASCIP. She cited comments from a faculty member who explained that employees would lose certain coverage under the less expensive plan. However, the District’s insurance broker indicated that this characterization was not entirely accurate. Grant also did not address the difference in deductibles between the two plans. The ASCIP plan had deductibles that were as much as sixty percent higher than those under the less expensive plan.
By emphasizing a concern that the District’s broker had clarified, while omitting ASCIP’s substantially higher deductibles, Grant failed to provide the Board with a thorough and balanced assessment of the two plans. Nevertheless, she told the Board that ASCIP was the superior option.
The Trustees’ Responsibility
Grant’s comments in favor of the more expensive ASCIP plan did not relieve the RSCCD trustees of their responsibility to independently evaluate both plans. Ultimately, it’s the trustees, not Grant, the faculty, or Chancellor Martinez, who are accountable to taxpayers for determining whether the additional funds for a comparable plan were justified.
That responsibility matters because taxpayers deserve trustees who question a cost, weigh the alternatives, and demand justification before approving additional spending of public funds. The recent decision by the RSCCD Board of Trustees has raised serious questions about their commitment to financial responsibility and transparency.
