Madera County Grand Jury
2005-2006
Findings & Recommendations
15 findings
F1:
Express an Interest in the Fire Department
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
– Educate the general public on the practice of altering and Licensing. This recommendation has been implemented. • Departmental instruction to the staff has always promoted the need to educate each individual that they come in contact with regarding the humane treatment of animals, licensing, altering their pets and more. These efforts have produced an improved awareness in our community regarding animal issues. • In conjunction with Friends of Madera Animal Shelter volunteers, we have provided speakers, humane education books, and educational materials to Thousands of students, several civic organizations, and other groups in our community. Education is our primary focus. These efforts have proven to be successful and well accepted in our community as the requests for these services surpass our ability to provide them. • We continuously promote the spaying and neutering of pets and are providing Assistance to customers with low income. Thespay/neuter program that is administered by F.M.A.S. covers most of the fees for spay/neuter services.
F2:
Nominated by their Counselor
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
- Insure that all Animal Shelter Staff are adequately trained. This recommendation has already been implemented • For new Animal Control Officers the training includes 2-4 weeks with a senior officer and/or with the Animal Control Officer Supervisor. Policies and procedures are reviewed with each employee. They are also required to complete PC 83\2 which includes the baton and firearms training and ` to arrest and write citations. They also must complete euthanasia certification. As budget permits, several professional courses are also offered throughout the year to help employees polish their skills and expand their knowledge. Biweekly staff meetings and quarterly safety meetings are also attended by all staff members. • Clerical staff and kennel staff participate in select seminars, biweekly staff meetings, and other educational opportunities. All staff members are coached by senior staff, officers, and management to promote service excellence and the humane treatment of animals. • Administrative officials have periodically visited the facility to insure that Madera County Animal Control Policies are being applied.
F3:
Reviewed by the Unit Classification Committee
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
- Expedite the completion of the Animal Shelter expansion. This recommendation has already been implemented. • Madera County Animal Control management,have met with engineering contractors, and others involved with the expansion. Questions and requests have received prompt responses from this department. • F.M.A.S., county administration, members of the Board of Supervisors, shelter staff and members of our community have all pushed on the departments, companies, or individuals who can expedite the expansion project. Community support and anticipation for this project runs high. • Staff has also been actively working towards providing for all supplies, personnel, and fixed assets necessary to operate the new expansion through budget requests, community campaigns, and requests for donations. • The project is to be started on or about May 1, 2006 and completed 123 days later which will be on or about September 25, 2006.
F4:
Reviewed by the Institutional Classification Committee
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
-Ensure that renewal notices are sent to pet owners annually. This recommendation has already been implemented. • Since 2000, the licensing revenue has continually improved with the exception of the year when the computers and software used to manage the information and provide renewal notices crashed which was in 2001. Licensing revenue was also down $4,623 this last year due to staffing shortages. • Software that was used in the past also substandard as it dropped information, did not provide for accurate renewal information, and had no tech support. The Friends of Madera Animal Shelter have purchased new software for the shelter at a cost of$1,900. The departments licensing information has been converted to the new software and monthly revenue notices have been provided to customers continuously since its implementation. • Volunteers have been utilized to organize aged licensing receipts in order to add the information that was lost with the computer crashed back into the new system. • In the budget request for fiscal years 2006-2007, management has Requested the hiring of door to door canvassers to improve licensing compliance. 2005-2006 Madera County Grand Jury P.O. Box 534 Madera, California 93639-0534 (559) 662-0946 THE 2005-2006 MADERA COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT ON THE MADERA COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER AND THE ROBERTA J. WILLS TRUST INTRODUCTION: The 2004 Madera County Grand Jury charged the 2005 Grand Jury to follow up on the expansion project of the Animal Shelter until such time that the expansion is completed. Upon the death of Ms. Wills in 1983, funds from her probated will were transferred to a named trustee. For personal reasons, the trustee entered into an agreement with the County of Madera for the distribution of the funds. Funds from Ms. Wills’ trust in the amount of $268,725.51 were transferred to the County of Madera on May 22, 1984. According to the past Will and Testament of Ms. Wills, all of the funds are to be used for the County of Madera’s Animal Shelter. Half of the money is to be used for making capital improvements at any existing animal shelter or toward acquisition and construction of a new facility. The other half of the trust’s funds is to be used for administrative purposes. Effectively, there was $134,362 in each account.
F5:
Approved by the Warden
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The office also handles: - Juvenile delinquency cases - Juvenile dependency cases - Family support cases - Conservatorship cases
F6:
Interviewed and Approved by the Fire Department Once assigned to the fire department, the inmate must meet critical performance standards before becoming a firefighter. • Inmate firefighters live at the fire department • Duty Hours are Monday through Friday, 0600 – 1500 • Provide emergency response on a 24/7 basis, on call basis on weekends • Understand and follow firefighter safety requirements • Mandatory physical fitness training • Operate all power tools • Operate breathing air compressor • Operate apparatus pumps • Perform vehicle checks • Operate the “Jaws of Life” • Earn CPR/AED Certification • Learn to Re-Service Fire Extinguishers Final Report/CCWF Fire Department From 1995 through 2004, inmate fire crews have made 2,300 emergency responses and performed over 7,000 hours of community service. CONCLUSIONS: The attitude of the inmate firefighters was superior. They were eager to assist and were very enthusiastic about their responsibilities and very proud of what they do. The firefighters are respected and admired by their peers outside the prison system by citizens who have benefited by their expertise in emergency situations. Upon questioning by the Grand Jury Members, the inmates were well versed and knowledgeable in all areas of firefighting. They also said they had benefited in this program in areas other than firefighting such as self- confidence, mental outlook and hopes for their futures.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
In 2004 the main office handled 5,986 cases while the M.A.D. handled 737 cases. The private contractor handled 276 cases (See attachment 1).
F7:
The firm performs the services for a flat fee paid by the county.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The firm performs the services for a flat fee paid by the county.
F8:
Once the case is assigned, the attorney contacts the client whether in or out of custody. They then determine whether or not an investigation is necessary. If so, it is done by the investigators on staff.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Once the case is assigned, the attorney contacts the client whether in or out of custody. They then determine whether or not an investigation is necessary. If so, it is done by the investigators on staff.
F9:
Each attorney interacts with the Madera County District Attorney’s office to determine the disposition of each case.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
Each attorney interacts with the Madera County District Attorney’s office to determine the disposition of each case.
F10:
The vast majority of cases are resolved by mutual agreement, i.e. plea- bargaining. When such as disposition is not available, the firm will proceed to trial on behalf of their client.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
The vast majority of cases are resolved by mutual agreement, i.e. plea- bargaining. When such as disposition is not available, the firm will proceed to trial on behalf of their client.
F11:
The attorneys represent the client from arraignment through sentencing.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
The attorneys represent the client from arraignment through sentencing.
F12:
Attorneys must assure that the client’s rights have not been violated and all provisions of the U.S. and California Constitutions have been followed.
Related Recommendations (2)
R12:
Attorneys must assure that the client’s rights have not been violated and all provisions of the U.S. and California Constitutions have been followed.
R12-14:
years of age 1,787.00 12-14 years of age 546.00
F13:
The firm maintains a panel of attorneys who are qualified to handle death penalty cases. CONCLUSIONS:
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
The firm maintains a panel of attorneys who are qualified to handle death penalty cases. CONCLUSIONS:
F30:
• The airport has a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as required for environmental protection. The airport is required to collect storm water and ground water at strategic locations and have these collections analyzed. • Ten year study (1983-1993) of locations of airport accidents in the United States. See attachments 1 and 2. CROP DUSTING OPERATION: • The operation maintains the following equipment: - 3 crop duster aircraft - 2 helicopters - 1 Cessna people aircraft • The primary aircraft has a 1000 Horsepower engine that uses 35 – 40 gallons of fuel per hour and holds 660 gallons of pesticide which can spray a 50’ wide path at a time. • 50% of the spraying is done by helicopter and the ideal time to spray is when the wind is blowing from 2 – 10 MPH. No wind at all is a bad time to spray. • It costs $12.00 an acre for customers to have their property sprayed. This is in addition to the customer paying for the chemicals to be applied. • Aircraft are filled with pesticide at the airport but helicopters land on a ramp on top of a truck and are filled in the field where they are spraying. /Final Report/Muni Airport • Pilots are licensed by the FAA. However, new helicopter pilots are hard to find because it costs $60,000 to obtain a license to fly them. • The concrete pad associated with the spill recovery is not a wash pad. The system is designed for accidental spills. Intentionally dumping a full load on the pad is not permitted. The chemicals can be pumped out of the aircraft back into the mix tank. If the aircraft is safe to fly, the load could be spayed on the customer’s field. • The County Agricultural Commissioner who reports results to the State and Federal Government inspects the facility at least once a year. CONCLUSIONS: • The airport is a separate enterprise that generates its own revenue for operations and maintenance. In addition it receives grants from the FAA for major projects such as strobe lights. • The airport is a well operated and managed facility.
F620:
The Road Commissioner informed the Grand Jury members that County Road 620 met the existing standards for County Roads and the Road Department would not spend any funds for improvements other than grading the existing roadway. The Grand Jury requested copies of the "Road Standards” for Madera County ei: width of roadway, width of road shoulders and composition of pavement. We were provided with very detailed engineering specifications, copied from some reference book, which did not answer the request for Madera County Road Standard in simple laymen’s terms. The Grand Jury toured County Road 620 and found conditions on the unpaved sections had not improved since the year 2004 complaint was investigated. Additionally, upon further examination, numerous sections of the roadway have a width clearance which is so restricted that two vehicles approaching each other cannot pass, and many curves with a radius so small that even a standard fire apparatus would find it extremely difficult or impossible to negotiate. The cement slab “bridge” on Carter Creek is only 14 feet wide, frequently below the water level of the creek and will not support vehicles other than passenger cars and light trucks. Large Semi trucks etc. cannot negotiate this “Stand County Road”. County Road 620 traverses the approximate centerline of the burn path made by the “Harlow Fire” which was one of the largest disasters that has ever happened in Madera County. When the fire swept across the county the population was very sparse, but now with the population boom and the proliferation of homes in this area, significant loss of life and property would most likely occur because the Road 620 could not handle the traffic to evacuate and the responding emergency vehicles simultaneously. Emergency vehicles responding to even a single dwelling fire or an emergency situation would have a difficult if not impossible task to reach the location and provide assistance. The unpaved section of Road 620 narrows from to 17 feet to 11 feet in twelve different areas. These restricted areas do not allow two vehicles to pass at the same time safely. If two vehicles were to be in an accident, this road has a maximum width of 11 feet for 138 yards, with a vertical hillside area of rocks on one side and a down slope of 30 to 80 feet on the other side with no guardrails. This condition does not allow for passage of more than one vehicle in either direction. This narrow section restricts the safe passage of fire trucks, propane trucks, concrete trucks and standard delivery trucks. The Grand Jury met and drove the complete section of Road 620 to highway 41 with the Department Director of Office of Emergency Service for Madera County. The Grand Jury noted that if Highway 41 were closed to through traffic at Road 222, all traffic would not have Road 620 as an escape corridor to Highway 49 as an alternate route. The CHP advised us that the traffic would have to be returned to Yosemite National Park and evacuated to and through Mariposa. This does not seem to be a viable option for the people of Madera County or visitors to Yosemite and other mountain recreation areas. In addition, as reported in the 2004 Grand Jury Final Report, another continuing problem exists where excessive water runs off the road from the intersections of Road 628 and 620. These runoffs have caused erosion, which resulted (and continue to result) in deep gullies in this area. If minor corrective actions had been taken prior to 2006, this would have reduced substantial destruction of the paved and unpaved areas where the U.S. Post Office mailboxes are positioned on Road 628. At the present time, there are no preventative measures for the safe diversion of the water runoff. If Madera County continues to build it’s tax base by issuing building permits, collect fees related fire, safety, schools and road use and allow subdivisions to be carved out of mountain properties, which garner more fees, then Madera County should insure that the lives and property of citizens moving into these areas can be protected. The balance of the 2004 Grand Jury Final Report stands as written. The road conditions for Road 620 have not improved. CONCLUSION: That the unsurfaced portion of County Road 620 be improved and brought up to County Standards. It is inconsistent that the County Building codes allow the construction of dwellings requiring strict standards of compliance for fire and safety, yet the County Road Department has not provided an access for responding emergency vehicles and personnel to reach the site.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R15-19:
years of age 1,865.00 15-19 years of age 597.00 The difference between these two amounts is allotted to different categories within CWS. To become a foster parent in California there are numerous requirements and standards. Some of these requirements are: safety in the home, a stringent background investigation, personal income, living conditions, etc. After meeting all the requirements they can then be licensed for foster care. CWS does assist the applicants with paperwork and advice. Sometimes there are no available foster families in Madera County that are able to receive foster children. In those instances CWS is forced to place them with an agency home. These agencies are much like employment agencies as they have their own list of foster parents from which to draw. The pay rate is higher for a foster parent who receives a child from an agency. They are never sure if they will be assigned foster children. There are agencies in each county; therefore, depending on where there are openings, Madera County foster child placement can range from Merced to Bakersfield. The agency rates for placement of each child can range from $2,966 to $6,371.00 per month. These rates versus the county rates place a burden on the taxpayers. Because of these rates and availability of Madera County foster parents, the county increase of monies spent for placement has risen 58% from 1998 to March 2004. The increase dollar amount is $1,446,017.00. This more than validates the need for foster families in Madera County. There are approximately 45 foster families in Madera County. This Grand Jury randomly chose three foster families to interview personally and contacted by phone. The Grand Jury found the homes of those interviewed to be very suitable and child friendly, as were the foster parents. They were grateful to be able to voice their concerns regarding CWS, their interaction with caseworkers and the CWS system as a whole. Some foster parents concerns are as follows: • Changing caseworkers with no notification • Removal of children with less than the seven day agreement • Non-payment of special needs money • No timely return of emergency phone calls from caseworkers • No clothing and/or belongings transferred with children at time of placement • Infants/toddlers placed with no diapers or formula • Delayed issuance of a $50.00 Wal-Mart card • Fear of reprisal • Bias toward certain families • Concern about accuracy and fairness of home visit reports • CWS non-compliance with the Agency Placement Agreement • Involvement of foster parents in future planning for the child • Lack of providing foster parents with the background and needs of the child necessary for effective care at the time of placement. • Educating the foster parent of the a child’s of abnormal behavior at time of placement, • Lack of identifying special needs when necessary All of the above are critical in the care of the foster child. Explanation of the above listed items is as follows: - Changing caseworkers with no notification The families reported that the foster child feels unwanted and this adds to the problem. Too many changes of caseworkers makes the children feel that no one really cares and they are being pushed off on one another. - Non-Payment of Special Needs Money Many of the foster children have been physically and/or sexually abused, are drug babies or have severe injuries that require medical attention. These children qualify for special needs money, which depending on the category, can range from $110.00 to $740.00 per month in addition to the set rate. Many of the families are of limited means and need this money for their visits to the doctor and for travel expenses. - No timely return of emergency phone calls from caseworkers and lack of providing foster parents with the background and needs of the child: This was one of the major concerns of the foster parents. Many times a child arrives in the middle of the night without an explanation of what has taken place. In cases like this or any other situation that may arise, a call placed to a caseworker needs a timely return to further aid the foster parent as to the child’s former environment and circumstances. - No clothing and/or belongings transferred at time of placement particularly infants/toddler placed with no formula or diapers: It was reported to the Grand Jury that clothing, formula, diapers and possessions of the child were not transferred at the time of placement. This Grand Jury has seen cupboards at CWS full of clothing in various sizes. Through interviews with CWS they maintain they have no knowledge of clothing not being provided as soon as possible or at time of placement. One foster parent reported that when one of the foster children was being placed in another home, she did an inventory of his clothes and gave them to the caseworker. She called the new foster parent the next day to see if everything was all right and found out that no clothing had arrived with the child. In the case of toddlers and infants, if they arrive at night when there is no ability to buy formula or diapers, it becomes a major problem. - Delayed issuing of a $50.00 Wal-Mart Card: Each time a child is placed, the foster family is to receive a $50.00 Wal-Mart card. This becomes especially important when there are no supplies delivered with the child. The card should be issued the day after placement. - Fear of reprisal and bias: This was of major concern to the foster families. At first they were very reluctant about discussing this but when the Grand Jury reassured them that their names would not be made public, they were able to relate some of their experiences. Many examples were given to the Grand Jury. One foster parent related that she was “blackballed” for a year and a half because she had complained to a caseworker’s superior. Since then she has not made “waves” because she is afraid of losing her foster child. The issue of bias was also a major concern. Examples were given of very minor infractions i.e. resting due to illness but having the foster child in full view. This was considered neglect and a child was removed from the home, plus the said foster parent did not receive any foster children after that. Evidently, this problem is not confined to Madera County. While doing research, the Grand Jury discovered that foster families in other states have the same problem and have legislated a “Foster Family Bill of Rights.” “No fear of reprisal” is one of the elements they have adopted. - Lack of involvement in future planning for the child: The foster parents realize that some of the children that are placed with them will be moved at some future time. This may be to reunite them with a sibling in another foster home, guardianship granted to another member of the child’s immediate family or reunification with the parents. They are concerned that since they know the child better than the caseworker, they would like to be able to participate, even if it is only information regarding the child’s personality They would also like to know where they are going and what conditions in which they would be living. Conversely, CWS maintains that all ties should be cut and there should be no interference with the child’s new placement. The Grand Jury agrees that both sides of this issue have very valid points and a compromise should be something to strive for. - Concern about accuracy and fairness of home visit reports: When the caseworker makes their required monthly visit to the foster home they record their account of the visit in a “narrative” and it is placed in the foster child’s file. The foster parents never see this narrative and have concerns as to the accuracy of information being placed in the file. This narrative is written up when the caseworker returns to the office or may even be written up at a later date. It is possible that there may be some misinformation recorded if the caseworker has made more than one visit that day or has attended to their other duties. The Grand Jury interviewed 19 CWS employees, picked at random, and as stated before, several individual interviews with the Director and Deputy Directors. The Grand Jury learned that the CWS administration is as follows: • Director • (2) Deputy Directors • 4 Program Managers • 7 supervisors • 19 – 26 staff (including clerical) There are different categories within this structure: • Eligibility Worker I, II, III • Social Worker I, II, IV • Employment Training Worker I, II, III • Administrative Analyst I, II All these positions have different duties such as: • Caseworker • Court representative • Screener • Emergency response • Family maintenance • Family reunification • Clerical duties, etc. It is the opinion of this Grand Jury that a social worker’s duties can be very stressful and demanding. It takes a special person to deal with foster children. The Grand Jury found while the staff at CWS may be doing their best, improvements need to be implemented. Upon interviewing both caseworkers and supervisors, they were read the Preamble to “The Code of Ethics” booklet. Yet when asked where it came from, only 3 people could identify it. There is an Agency Agreement (Form SOC156) that the foster parent and the CWS representative sign upon the arrival of a foster child. This is a contract of 14 items that CWS agrees to and 18 the foster parent agrees to. The Grand Jury asked the interviewees to name the items CWS agrees to in the Agency Agreement. The maximum anyone could name was an average of 5 The “Code of Ethics” and the “Agency Agreement” are guides of protocol, values and conditions for the staff. They encompass directives for foster families and CWS for the quality care of children. The Child Sexual Assault Response Team (CSART) is an important function of CWS. This team is comprised of two CWS interviewers with the experience and knowledge to properly conduct and evaluate a sensitive situation. They work with law enforcement, the District Attorney’s Office, the Victim Services Center and most importantly, the victim. They have specialized training in this type of interview, which is beneficial to the victim’s well-being and future placement. The Grand Jury also conducted interviews with two mediators from Family Court Services.. They testified that CWS is turning cases over to Family Court Services with incomplete investigations and closing cases as “unfounded”. Family Court Services maintains that if the investigations are not thorough, very often they are viewed as unfounded and therefore closed. The State and County pays CWS for every open and closed case even if no action takes place. As a consequence, many of the people that should have been helped by CWS, bring their cases to Family Court Services. Persons seeking guardianship of a minor are charged a $200 filing fee and a $600 fee for a Family Court Services investigation plus attorney fees and court costs. This places a hardship on the person filing for custody and by seeking the alternate route through Family Court Services they are not eligible for any of the programs that are available to foster families, not even the Voluntary Maintenance Plan. Family Court Services reports that their case load has risen dramatically in the last year because of this practice. The Grand Jury also interviewed several citizens who had called in complaints of child abuse, more than once, to the “hotline” at CWS. They were called back, but no one ever came to interview them or find out if the complaints were valid and no action was taken. The “hotline” person at CWS receives, evaluates and forwards child abuse calls to the proper person. This leaves the possibility that some calls may not be acted upon. CONCLUSIONS: The Grand Jury investigated CWS, but there were some areas that were unable to investigate. The privacy laws concerning minors are very strict so random files could not be made available for spot-checking. There is a dire need for CWS to recruit foster families in Madera County. The difference the taxpayers have to pay to clothe and house foster children in Madera County, versus agency placement, places an undue burden on County and State revenue. The Grand Jury requested information on special needs money for three children whose foster parents had not received the special needs money. The Grand Jury provided the names of the three children, their foster parents and the dates of foster care. The seven-day removal notification is vital to the families so they may emotionally prepare the children and themselves for the separation so it does not to become a traumatic event. There seems to be not enough teamwork between parents and caseworkers, which ill- serves the needs of the child. The practice of changing caseworkers, without orientation and review of the case they are assuming, is disrupting and damaging to the foster children as well as the foster parent. From Grand Jury’s interviews with the foster parents, as stated before, they are reluctant to question any practices or even disagree with CWS RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. A recruitment program should be constant and ongoing. 2. The paperwork flow for special needs money should be revised to expedite payments. 3. Supervisors review their caseworkers in all facets of their job duties. Upper management spot-check with foster families regarding their concerns. 4. CSART interviewers remain in their current positions and available for every CSART interview. 5. Foster families join the local foster family organization and draft a Foster Family Bill of Rights. 6. A study by the caseworker of a child’s history when assuming an open case. 7. A cross-file index should be instituted and kept current with the foster parent’s name and each child they have had in their home, whether it be from an agency or another county. 8. To insure only the foster parent receives the gift card the day after placement. A control should be decided on by CWS upper management and put in place. 9. A duplicate copy of every CSART taped interview be made and filed in a ` separate, secured location.. 10. The Grand Jury Recommends the 2006-2007 Grand Jury investigate and follow up on the above recommendations. RESPONSES: 1. Director, Madera County Department of Social Services 2. Madera County Chief Administrative Officer 3. Madera County Counsel 4. Madera County Board of Supervisors 5. Madera County Family Court 2005-2006 Madera County Grand Jury PO Box 534 Madera California 93639-0534 (559) 662-0946 THE 2005~1006 MADERA COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT ON THE ILLEGAL USE OF YOSEMITE UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT PERSONNEL AND DISTRICT EQUIPMENT BY THE SUPERINTENDENT WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES INTRODUCTION: This is a continuing investigation begun by the 2004 Grand Jury of the illegal use of school district personnel and the illegal use and sale of school district equipment by the Superintendent. In addition, the Grand Jury investigated the illegal actions of the Yosemite High School Board of Trustees regarding their role in the above. FINDINGS: Throughout our investigation the grand Jury found that the Superintendent used his position to illegally use school equipment and school personnel for his own personal gain. The Grand Jury met with many school district school employees whose sworn testimony was supported with the findings that we are presenting here. Coincidentally, during the course of our investigation the Yosemite High School Board of Trustees issued new policies in order to support the Superintendent’s illegal use of school personnel and the illegal use and sale of school district equipment. In doing so, it was evident that this school board was determined to protect the illegal activities of the Superintendent. EXHIBIT 1 – RESOLUTION # 558 REGARDING USE OF DISTRICT PERSONAL PROPERTY In order to cover this illegal activity, the Board of Trustees allowed the Superintendent to make a payment to the district after the district has passed the new policy. What preempted this was the board members were aware that the Grand Jury was investigating this matter. According to our findings, the Board of Trustees allowed the Superintendent an equipment rental amount determined by the Superintendent’s own estimation of what the rental amount should be, not on what a rental business would charge. In addition, the Grand Jury found that the total days of usage quoted by the Superintendent were less than the actual days of usage. Therefore, his payment to the district was far less that the actual amount due. EXHIBIT 2 – BUSINESS AND NON-INSTRUCTIONAL OPERATIONS: On November 23, 2004 the Grand Jury obtained a sworn affidavit from a neighbor of the Superintendent stating that he had observed the Yosemite High School tractor at the Superintendent’s residence on several occasions. It is evident that the superintendent and the members of the Board of Trustees used their positions to circumvent the policies of the district for their own benefit. In checking with the local equipment rental company, the Grand Jury found that the responsibility and cost for transporting equipment to the site is born by the individual renting the equipment. School district employees stated to the Grand Jury that they had picked up and delivered the school equipment to the Superintendent’s residence and also transported the equipment back to the school site. It also should be noted that school employees who were being paid with school district funds and not by the Superintendent from his personal funds accomplished all of the transporting of equipment during the normal school day. While testifying under oath, employees of the Yosemite High School District declared that they were given orders by the District Supervisor to deliver and return several pieces of equipment to the Superintendent’s residence on three or more occasions: this equipment is identified as a full size tractor with a loader and scraper, and a self propelled full-size trencher. The school employees were also responsible for the return of this equipment to the school site. The amount the Superintendent paid the district for equipment usage did not cover the salaries of the school employees’ time, nor the truck, gasoline, or trailer needed to transport the equipment to the Superintendent’s home site and to return the equipment to the school. MALFEASANCE OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES CIRCUMVENTED ESTABLISHED POLICIES CONCERNING THE SALE OF SURPLUS PROPERTY Through its investigation, the Grand Jury found that the school district did not follow its own policies regarding the sale of surplus property. The bidding process was not used, no notice of sale was posted and public had no opportunity to bid; it was open only to the members of the Trustees or insiders. EXHIBIT 3 – RESOLUTION #556 RESOLUTION RATIFYING DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS PERSONAL PROPERTY The district policy was not followed by the former President of the School Board. A member of the community filed a complaint with the Grand Jury stating that the Board President had acquired two pieces of school equipment illegally. Upon investigation, the Grand Jury discovered that the school district allowed the Board President to purchase a livestock tilt chute for $875 and a livestock platform scale for $25, totaling $900. It should be noted that this payment to the school district was made retroactively after the Grand Jury had begun its investigation. The school district did not provide the Grand Jury with any bidding form relating to this particular purchase nor evidence of community notification of this particular sale. It appeared that the Board of Trustees negotiated with the Board President directly and did not follow the established district policy. EXHIBIT 4 – PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT On November 11, 2004, photographs were taken by a concerned citizen. These photographs showed the above-described equipment on the Board President’s property prior to the adoption of the new board resolutions. EXHIBIT 5 –PHOTOGRAPHS During this same period of time the Superintendent acquired a small shed, owned by the school district, and school employees were ordered to load and transport it to his residence, using the school’s equipment. The Superintendent did not pay the district for the use of the equipment to transport the shed, nor did he pay for employee’s wages during the period of time it took them to load, transport, and unload the shed on the Superintendent’s property. This activity was accomplished during school time. Only after the Board of Trustees passed the retroactive resolution, did the Superintendent make any attempt to reimburse the school district for the use of equipment. This payment amount was determined by the Superintendent and was far below the market value for these services. No mention was made of any attempt to reimburse the district regarding school district employee’s salaries. As noted previously, the normal policy for purchasing school property must be followed under the terms of district policy, clearly, this was not done. If proper procedure had been followed, the bidders with the highest bid would have had the opportunity to purchase this equipment. On one occasion, the Superintendent and three employees loaded a trailer full of topsoil from the school’s Agriculture Department and delivered it to the Superintendent’s residence. The value of he topsoil was estimated at $100. There was no documentation that the Superintendent had paid for the topsoil or the use of the equipment, labor, and delivery costs. In addition, school district liability was compromised regarding the usage of equipment and employees during school hours. The Grand Jury has found from this investigation that many episodes of illegal activities occurred during this time period by the Superintendent and malfeasance committed by the Board of Trustees. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the Grand Jury in regard to the illegal activities of the Superintendent and the malfeasance of the Board’s actions were supported by sworn testimony of many school district employees and concerned citizens and that the evidence reported above is factual and supports this Grand Jury report. The Superintendent and Board of Trustees misappropriated district funds and use of personnel for their own personal gain at the expense of the taxpayer’s of the Yosemite School District. It is unconscionable that a person with such low ethical standard could rise to the position of Superintendent of a School District. The findings of this and previous Grand Juries, that have been verified and included in Grand Jury reports, contain examples that disregarded existing law, directives or policies an ethical person would not have engaged in these types of activities The example of high ethical standards should be taught both in word and action throughout the school district so that all students will know that being ethical is “the rule to live by”. It would behoove both the School District Administration and the Board of Trustees to develop a written list or guidance paper on what ethical standards will be accepted by the School District and the consequences if these standards are not followed regardless of the individual’s position in the District. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Board of Trustees should refrain from making retroactive policies or resolutions to accommodate illegal or acts contrary to district policy committed by District personnel. Such actions could be open the School District to liability and possible expensive litigation. Any school board resolution that permits such use of personnel or equipment should be avoided. Under no condition should district employees and equipment be used for non-school purposes. The Superintendent and Board President should reimburse the district an additional appropriate amount for their use of school property, equipment, materials and school employee labor. The Board and Superintendent should be diligent to avoid misappropriation of school district goods and services. The retroactive resolution #556 regarding the sale of school equipment should be modified to allow the public an opportunity to bid on and purchase all surplus school property thus giving the school district the highest possible return on the sale of equipment. (The current resolution allows the Trustees to sell school property to whomever they choose without allowing the public an opportunity to bid on the property.) That retroactive resolution #558 be modified to state that under no conditions should district employees and equipment be used for non-school purposes. Any school district employee or others who knowingly commit unlawful actions against the school district should be removed from employment with the school district. RESPONSES: Madera County Board of Supervisors Yosemite Union High School Board of Trustees Yosemite Union High School District Superintendent Madera County District Attorney Madera County Superintendent of Schools