Nevada County Grand Jury
2011-2012
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (9)
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The governing bodies and management of every tax-supported entity evaluate the management practices for their organizations to ensure that key practices are established and used more effectively.
R2:
Future Nevada County Grand Juries regularly and frequently investigate the management practices used by public agencies, including the effectiveness of those practices. Responses No responses are required. !
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The unauthorized payment of cash-in-lieu of health benefits beginning in 2006.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board should notify CalSTRS of the unauthorized income increases which were included in calculations of the Superintendent’s retirement compensation.
F2:
The unauthorized salary increase in 2008. F.I.2 The Superintendent’s income increases, described in F.I.1, were not approved by the Board. F.I.3 The Superintendent’s unauthorized income increases, described in F.I.1, should not have been included in calculations of his retirement compensation. F.I.4 The failure by the Board to reconcile the salaries approved by the Board with the salaries actually being paid resulted in increased retirement fund liabilities to the GVSD. F.I.5 The Board failed to require written job descriptions or to otherwise document the job duties and responsibilities of the AAI and AAII job positions. F.I.6 The lack of defined job duties and responsibilities prevents the individual’s supervisor from effectively evaluating job performance and eligibility for promotion. F.I.7 The promotion of and increase in salary for an individual into an undefined position demonstrates a lack of management and fiscal responsibility by the Board. F.I.8 The Board failed to exercise financial responsibility when it promoted an individual, with an accompanying salary increase, retroactive for one year, one week prior to the individual’s retirement. 2011-2012 Nevada County Grand Jury F.I.9 Promotions and salary increases given to individuals concurrent with their retirement gives the impression of “pension spiking,” potentially damaging the credibility of the Board. F.I.10 The Board’s failure to renew the Superintendent’s Contract when it expired in 2007showed a lack of engagement and responsibility by the Board.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Board should annually reconcile the salaries approved by the Board with salaries actually being paid by the GVSD.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R3:
The Board should ensure that all job positions have defined duties and responsibilities.
R4:
The Board should not award salary increases that could reasonably be perceived as “pension spiking.”
R5:
The Board should ensure that the superintendent’s contract is current and accurate.
R6:
The Board should develop a procedure to ensure that any change to the superintendent’s compensation is approved by the Board prior to implementation. Responses Grass Valley School District Board of Trustees: Due Date: September 4, 2012 2011-2012 Nevada County Grand Jury grass var(ey Schoor'District Eric Fredrickson Superi ntendent 10840 Gilmore Way, Grass Valley, CA 95945 (530) 273-4483 Fax (530) 273-0248 August 29, 2012 Honorable Judge Thomas r'\nderson Presiding Judge of the Grand Jury 20 1 Church Street Nevada City, CA 95959 Re: Grass Valley School District's Response to the June 4, 2012 Nevada County GI"and JUlY Report Dear Judge Anderson: Pursuant to California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the Board of Trustees for the Grass Valley School District ("Board" or "Trustees") hereby submits this formal response to the 2011 2012 Nevada County Grand Jury Report ("Report") regarding "Grass Valley School District Superintendent and Board of Trustees." OVERVIEW OF DISTRICT RESPONSE The Board of the Grass Valley School District ("Board ') shares the Grand Jury's commitment to managerial and tiscal responsibility. To that end, the Board has seriously considered the Grand Jury's findings and recommendations; has communicated with the District's administration and either has implemented or will implement responsive measures that address the Grand Jury's findi ngs and recommendations. The Trustees do, however, strongly disagree with the Grand Jury 's characterization of the Board as failing to exercise its financial responsibilities. The Board is vigilant in monitoring and maintaining the District's fiscal well-being; but, it is not the role of the Board to verify employee salaries. Determining the accuracy of salary payments made to the District's 241 employees is the type of activity inherent to the Djstrict's day-to-day operations and, as such, is necessarily delegated to the District s administrative staff. In addition, the Board wants to be very clear that it has always had, and continues to have, the utmost respect for and h-ust in the District's former Superintendent. The former Superintendent faithfully discharged his duties and for more than two decades, dedicated himself to the students of Grass Valley School District. The Board has never doubted the former Superintendent's honesty and is convinced that the issues outlined in the Grand Jury 's report regarding the former Superintendent'S salary resulted from an inadvertent lapse in the District's protocol for obtaining Board approval of changes in the terms of an employment agreement While we respectfully disagree with some of the Grand Jury's findings, we agree that improvements can be made and have implemented or will implement the vast majority of the Grand Jury's recommendations. \} . Scotten School Lyman Gilmore Middle School Grass Valley Charter School Child Development Office ~~1J (530) 273-6472 (530) 273-8479 (530) 273-8723 PreschooVBefore & After School \ ' tl \\ Programs (530) 273-9528 DISTRICT'S RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY'S FINDINGS Finding No. F.I.l: The Superintendent's income was improperly increased by: -The unauthorized payment of cash-in-lieu of health benefits beginning in 2006. -The unauthorized salary increase in 2008. Response to Finding No. F.I.l: The Board respectfully disagrees in part with Finding No. F.I.1. A. The Board agrees that the increase in the Superintendent's income, beginning in 2006 by way of the payment of cash-ill-lieu of health benefits, was not authorized to the extent that the Superintendent's contract did not specifically provide for such payment and the Governing Board did not take official action to approve it. However, the Board also notes that in its Report at F.A.l 0, the Grand JUly quotes from Section 4 of the former Superintendent's 2004-2007 contract which states that "The SUPERINTENDENT may, at the SUPERINTENDENT's discretion, elect to not purchase the above mentioned benefit package and apply the equivalent amount to a DISTRICT approved Tax Shelter Annuity program (TSA)." Because the contract gave the former Superintendent complete discretion regarding whether to take District provided fringe benefits or not, the Board was not required to formally approve the Superintendent's ultimate decision on that issue. In addition, although, the former Superintendent's contract was specific as to the dollar equivalent of the fringe benefit cost being deposited in a TSA, the Board does not believe that the former Superintendent's decision to take cash-in-Lieu was ever mofvated by an intention to enhance his retirement income, but rather, because he must have mistakenly misinterpreted the contract terms as permitting the cash-in-lieu payment. B. However, the Board disagrees with Finding No. F.1.1 in stating that the Superintendent's income was improperly increased by "the unauthorized salary increase in 2008." There were two increases to the Superintendent's salary in 2008. Contrary to Finding No. F.I.1, the first increase in the Superintendent's salary from $116,720.00 to $121,388.80 was specifically authorized by the Governing Board. The matter of this increase was properly included as Item LL on the consent agenda for the June 10, 2008 meeting; was approved by unanimous vote of the Board and was recorded in the Board's official minutes. C. The Board agrees that the second increase in the Superintendent's salary from $121,388.80 to $134,227.00 was not listed the June 10, 2008 agenda, nor is there a record of any action by the Board approving such increase in the Board meeting minutes for the June 10, 2008 meeting. 005937.00005/\ 04 58998v8 Although he has no specific recollection of signing the Contract Addendum that reflects this increase, the Board President at that time has always acknowledged the signature on that document as his own. In addition, one Board member has given the matter of the increase to $134,227.00 considerable thought in the months since appearing before the Grand Jury and has some recollection of a discussion between the former Superintendent and the Board regarding a multi-year increase to the Superintendent's salary. However, the Board understands that there is no documentation to support any recollection of this nature. From the Board's perspective, the failure to include the increase in the former Superintendent's income to $134,227.00 on the June 8, 2008 agenda for a formal vote was a mistake and as a result, there is no record of a vote by the Board approving the increase. Finding No. F.I.2: The Superintendent's income increases, described in the Report as F.I.l, were not approved by the Board. Response to Finding No. F.I.2: The Board respectfully disagrees in part with Finding No. F.I.2 and hereby incorporates its Response to Finding No. F.I.l by reference as if fully set forth herein. The Board agrees with this finding to the extent that neither the 2006 increase in the Superintendent's income by way of cash payment in lieu of health benefits, nor the June 2008 increase in the Superintendent's salary from $12] ,388.80 to $134,227.00, were included on any Board agenda or voted on by the Board. The Board is convinced that the failure to include these items on an agenda for a formal vote was the result of an unintentional lapse in the District's longstanding procedure for authorizing changes in the Superintendent's compensation. However, as stated above, the increase in the Superintendent's salary from $1 16,720.00 to $1 21,388.80 was included on the June 10,2008 Board agenda and was approved by a formal vote of the Board. Findin No. F.I.3: The Superintendent's unauthorized income increases, described in F.Ll, should not have been included in calculations of his retirement compensation. Response to Finding No. F.I.3: The Board respectfully disagrees in part with this finding based on the reasons stated above in response to Findings Nos. F.I.1 and F.l.2 and specifically, with respect to the Jlme 2008 increase in the Superintendent' s salary from $116,720.00 to $121 ,388.80, which was included on the June 10, 2008 Board agenda and was approved by a formal vote of the Board. It is the Board's understanding that for compensation to be included in calculating an individual's retirement benefit, it must be "creditable compensation" as defined by the laws adrninistered by the California State Teachers Retirement System ("CaISTRS"). Thus, while the 005937.00005/ 10458998v8 Board is responsible for establishing the Superintendent's compensation and authorizing any changes in the Superintendent's salary and benefits, CalSTRS is responsible for calculating retirement benefit compensation. CalSTRS has notified the District that it is reviewing the former Superintendent's retirement benefit entitlement and will be notifying the former Superintendent of its determination. Findin No. F.I.4: The failure by the Board to reconcile the salaries approved by the Board with the salaries actually being paid resulted in increased retirement fund liabilities to the GVSD. Res onse to Finding No. F.I.4: The Board respectfully disagrees with this finding. However, the Board does acknowledge its responsibility for establishing the Superintendent's salary and approving the salary schedules governing the compensation paid to the District's management, certificated and classified personnel. With respect to the 2006 increase in the Superintendent's income by way of cash payment in lieu of health benefi ts and the June 2008 increase in the Superintendent's salary from $121,388.80 to $134,227.00, the Board's responses to Finding No. F.l.1 and F.I.2 clearly establish that neither of these increases in the Superintendent's compensation were ever presented to the Board as part of an agenda or approved by a fOIDlal vote of the Board. The Board did not vote to approve the cash payment in lieu of health benefits or the salary increase to $134,277.00 and therefore, had no knowledge that the amounts being paid to the former Superintendent were anything other than the amounts the Board had specifically approved by formal action at duly noticed public meetings. As stated previously, the Board is responsible for overseeing the management of the District's major systems and the administration is responsible for the day to day operations of the District, including reconciling the amount of the salaries actually paid to employees with amounts approved by the Board. In June 201 2, the Board acted to establish a new Personnel Technician position in order to provide the administration with the assistance necessary to maintain accurate persolmel information for all its employees and to reconcile employee salaries on a regular basis. On August 6, 2012, the District hired a Personnel Technician who is responsible for the management of all personnel information in the District. While the addition of a Personnel Technjcian is an important step in the overall management of the District's personnel processes and procedures, the Board nevertheless cannot agree to Finding No. F.1.4 considering the lack of any information evidencing that the District's retirement fund liabilities increased as a result of the Board's alleged failure to reconcile the former Superintendent's salary. 00593700005fl 0458998v8 Findin No. F.I.S: The Board failed to require written job descriptions or to otherwise document the job duties and responsibilities of the AAI and AAII job positions. Res onse to Findin No. F.I.S: The Board respectfully disagrees in part with Finding No F.I.S. The Board must maintain a level of flexibility in responding to the District's staffing needs particularly when as a result of a gradual accretion of job duties, an existing position evolves into a separate and distinct position as occurred in connection with the Administrative Assistant J and Administrative Assistant II positions. In these circumstances, the duties of the new position are already being performed before those duties can be memorialized in a new lob description. The District is nonetheless still able to adequately assess the work performance of the employee who has experienced this type of change in job functions because the new duties represent an evolution in the employee's existing work load or .level of responsibility as opposed to an entirely new field of endeavor. Thus, while emp!oyees often begin performing duties of what will ultimately become a new position before the job description for that new position is presented to the Board for approval, the Board acknowledges the importance of ensuring that specific job descriptions exist in order that both management and labor understand what is required for each position in terms of the work to be pe formed and the training/experience necessary to perform that work. Accordingly the Board agrees that the District should have written job descriptions documenting the duties and responsi bilities required of the Administrative Assistant I and IT positions. In an effort to ensure that job descriptions exist or are ultimately created for every position in the District, the Board created a new Personnel Technician position and hired an individual to fill that p'osition on August 6, 2012. One of the primary duties required of the Personnel Technician is to "revise and maintain job descriptions for a dministrative, certificated and classified positions." No. F.I.6: The lack of defined job duties and responsibilities prevents the individual's supervisor from effectively evaluating job performance and eligibility for promotion. Response to Finding No. f.I.6: The Board respectfully disagrees in part with this finding for the reasons set forth in its response to Finding No. F.LS and on that basis, incorporates its response to Finding No. F.LS as if fully set forth at this point. Without waiving the reasons for its partial disagreement with Finding No. F.1.6, the Board again acknowledges the importance of having written job descriptions to enhance employee perfonnance and to facilitate supervisorial oversight. Consistent with this acknowledgment and as stated above, the Board has hired a Persormel Technician who will be responsible for creating and maintaining accurate, up-to-date job descriptions for aU positions in the District. 005937.00005/1 0458998v8 Finding No. F.I.7: The promotion of and increase in salary for an individual into an undefined position demonstrates a lack of management and fiscal responsibility by the Board. Response to Finding No. F.I.7: The Board respectfully disagrees with this fInding and for the sake of brevity, generally incorporates by reference its responses to Findings No. F.T.S and No. F.1.6 above. In addition, the Board disagrees with Finding F.I.7 on the basis that decisions regarding employee promotions, and resulting increases in salary, depend on the particular circumstances of each case, and as a result, these decisions must necessarily be made on a case by case basis. A blanket conclusion that the Board automatically demonstrated a lack of management and fiscal responsibility simply because it promoted an employee to a position prior to the development of a job description for that position, ignores the specific facts and circumstances relevant to that promotion decision. Notwithstanding the above, the Board shares the Grand Jury's commitment to managerial responsibility and fiscal oversight. The strength of the Board 's commitment can be measured by the fact that it created an entirely new Personnel Technician position for the purpose of reviewing all of the District's personnel practices, including those related to the creation of new positions and the promotion of existing employees. Finding No. F.I.8: The Board failed to exercise financial responsibility when it promoted an individual, with an accompanyIng salary increase, retroactive for one year, one week prior to the individual's retirement Response to Finding No. F.1.8: The Governing Board respectfully disagrees with this finding and for the sake of brevity, incorporates its responses to Finding Nos. F.r .S, F.I.6, and F.L7 above as if fully set forth herein. In deciding whether to promote an employee, the Governing Board is obligated to analyze specific facts and consider the particular circumstances relevant to an employee's job duties, work history and performance. The Grand Jury would have the Governing Board ignore this obligation and automatically reject the promotion at issue based first, as stated in Finding F.I.7, on the lack of a job description, and now, as stated in this fmding, on the timing of the employee's ensuing retirement. However, automatically rejecting the promotion on either of these two grounds without further inquiry into the nature and extent of the actual duties performed by the employee in question dilling the prior school year would have been arbitrary. In addition, an automatic rejection would have left the District vulnerable to a claim from. the employee for "out of class" pay and interest. 00593 7.00005/10458998v8 In addition, it is important to note Lhat school districts in California have a mandatory duty to negotiate with employee unions regarding salary, benefits and other terms and conditions of employment. Collective bargaining is a time consuming process and more often than not, it wi ll take months for the parties to reach final agreement. As a result, it is not W1conunon for school districts to be retroactively increasing employee salaries at the end of the school year. Because most school districts treat represented and unrepresented employee groups alike in terms of salary increases, management and confidential employees will also receive increases on a retroactive basis back to the beginning of the school year. But, regardless oftlle exigencies that resulL in the need for retroactive salary increases, the Board shares the Grand Jury's commitment to managerial responsibility and fiscal oversight and to that end, the Board will ensure that the Personnel Technician reviews the District's personnel practices and procedures to ensure that all promotional decisions are reasonable and can be supported by the specific facts relevant to each particular case. Promotions and salary increases given to individuals concurrent with their retirement gives the impression of "pension spiking," potentialiy damaging the credibility of the Board. Res onse to Findin No. F.I.9: The Board respectfully disagrees in part with this finding. For the sake of brevity, the Board incorporates its respor.ses to Finding Nos. F.I.S, F.I.f\, F.I.7 and F.l.8 as if fully set forth herein. Without waiving its objections to this finding as set forth in the above-listed responses, the Board acknowledges unless the factual basis supporting the decision to promote an employee who is about to retire is either well known or can legally be disclosed, such a promotion is susceptible to being characterized as "pension spiking and has the potential of damaging the Board's credibiLity. Accordingly, the Board intends to seriously consider the Grand Jury's observation as set forth in Finding F.I.9 in an effort to foreclose the possibility for public misapprehension in connection with employee promotions in the future. Findin No. F.I.l0: The Board's failure to renew the Superintendent's Contract when it expired in 2007 showed a lack of engagement and responsibility by the Board. Res onse to Findin No. F.I.l0: The Board respectfully disagrees with this finding on the basis.that the Board did, in fact, act to extend the former Superintendent'S contract prior to its exp'ration date of June 30, 2007. The Board's June 12, 2007 agenda included as Item PP the approval of a Contract Addendum increasing the former Superintendent's salary to $116,720.00. This Contract Addendum was approved by the Board in open session at the June 12, 2007 mee~ing and remained in effect through June 30, 2008. 0059] 7.00005/1 04 58998v8 Moreover, as stated above in the responses to Finding Nos. F.I.l and F.I.2, the agenda for the Board meeting of June 10, 2008 included as [tem LL approval of a Contract Addendum increasing the former Superintendent's salary from $116720.00. This Contract Addendum was approved by the Board in open session at the June 10, 2008 meeting and recorded in the Board's official minutes. Based on the foregoing, the Board did take action consistent with its contractual obligations to extend the term of the former Superintendent's contract. DISTRICT'S RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY'S RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation No.1: The Board should notify CalSTRS of the unauthorized income increases which were included in calculations of the Superintendent's retirement compensation. Res onse to Recommendation No.1: The Board will not implement this recommendation because it is not warranted. CalSTRS has already initiated communication with the District regarding the former Superintendent's retirement compensation, and therefore, no notification from the District to CalSTRS is necessary. Recommendation No.2: The Board should annually reconcile the salaries approved by the Board with salaries actually being paid by the GVSD. Res ponse to Recommendation No.2: While the Board agrees with this recommendation, the Board itself cannot implement it. As stated previously, the Board oversees the management of the District's major systems. The administration is charged with directing the District's day-to-day operations, includ ing such tasks as annually reconciling the salaries paid to individual employees with amounts approved by the Board. For this reason, the Board created a new Personnel Technician position and the employee serving in that position will implement Recommendation No.2 by establishing a procedure for reconciling employee salaries on an annual basis. Recommendation No.3: The Board should ensure that alljob positions have defined duties and responsibilities. Response to Recommendation No.3: Although the Board generally agrees that the District's jobs should have defined duties and responsibilities, the Board itself is unable to implement this recommendation as the Board manages the District's major systems, not its day-to-day operations. 005937000051 I0458 998"8 Moreover, as set forth in the response to Finding No. F.I.5, the Board must maintain a level of t1exibility in responding to the District's staffing needs particularly when as a result of a gradual accretion of job duties, an existing position evoJves into a separate and distinct position and the duties of that new position are already being performed before the administration can memorialize those duties in a new job description. Based on these reasons, the Board will not implement Recommendation No.3, but instead, has hired a Personnel Technician who, under the Superintendent's supervision, will analyze whether the District cmrently has any positions not covered by job descriptions and if so, will prepare the necessary job descriptions and establish the timeline for their implementation. Recommendation No.4: The Board should not award salary increases that could reasonably be perceived as "pension spiking. " Rcs onsc to Recommendation No.4: While the Board agrees that as a general rule, salary increases that can be perceived as "pension spiking" should be avoided, the District cannot implement this recommendation as written without abandoning its responsibility to decide matters of employee compensation and/or promotion on a case by case basis, consistent with all applicable facts and circumstances. Moreover, the Board must maintain ability to provide employees with salary increases when factually warranted regardless of any pension spiking perception. Recommendation No.5: The Board should ensme that the Superintendent's contract is current and accurate. Res onse to Recommendation No.5: The Board has implemented Recommendation No. 5 to the extent of ensuring that the existing Superintendent's contract is current. The term of the Superintendent's contract was recently extended by formal action of the Board taken in open session consistent with the agenda for June 12, 2012 meeting and that action was recorded in the official minutes for that meeting. As to the recommendation that the Board ensure the Superintendent's contract is "accurate," the Board will not implement this recommendation itself; but as set forth in response to Recommendation No. 2, will ensure that on an annual basis, the Personnel Technician reconciles the amount of salary actually paid to employees with the salaries as approved by this Board. Rc£ommendation No.6: The Board should develop a procedure to ensure that any change to the superintendent's compensation is approved by the Board prior to implementation. 005937.00005/ I0 458993v8 Response to Recommendation No.6: While we agree with this recommendation that any change in the Superintendent's compensation must be approved by the Board prior to implementation, there is no need for the Board to develop a procedure in this regard. Government Code section 53262(a), as well as the Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code section 54950 et seq., already require that superintendent contracts be approved by the school district's governing board in open session at a properly noticed public meeting and that the Board's action be memorialized in the Board's official minutes. CONCLUSION The Board of Tmstees of the Grass Valley School District appreciates the time and dedication of the Grand Jury members in providing the District with its report and recommendations. The Board will implement the Grand Jury 's recommendations to the extent and in the manner set forth above. In closing, the Board wishes to reemphasize its convIctIOn that during the former Superintendent's 21 years of dedicated service, he always acted with integrity and in the best interests of the Grass Valley School District. As the Grand Jury knows from its exhaustive review of the Board's agendas and minutes from 2004 to the present, the District has consistently met its Brown Act obligations with respect to employment contracts and that the two incidents outlined in the Report regarding the former Superintendent s salary were procedural failures in otherwise a strong record of compliance. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. Sincerely, f~~~ President, Governing Board 005937.00005/10458998v8
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Nevada County Board of Supervisors and the Nevada County Superior Court should develop and adopt a formal agreement which 2011-2012 Nevada County Grand Jury ! • defines the roles and responsibilities of the Nevada County Board of Supervisors and the Nevada County Superior Court with respect to the supervision of the Chief Probation Officer, • establishes an effective communication process between the Nevada County Board of Supervisors and the Nevada County Superior Court, related to the supervision of the Chief Probation Officer, • provides measurement of the job performance of the Chief Probation Officer against established job goals and objectives in annual performance reviews.
R2:
The Nevada County Probation Department should implement a comprehensive policy and procedures manual consistent with existing state and local laws and regulations. Responses Nevada County Board of Supervisors: Findings 1 through 8 and Recommendation 1 – Due Date: September 17, 2012 Nevada County Superior Court: Findings 1 through 7 and Recommendation 1 Nevada County Chief Probation Officer: Finding 9 and Recommendation 2– Due Date: August 17, 2012 2011-2012 Nevada County Grand Jury ! NEVADA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT OFFICE OF THE JURY COMMISSIONER 201 CHURCH STREET, SUITE 6 NEVADA CITY, CA 95959 ThoJllas M. Anderson /\udrcy 1\11. Golden Presiding Judge ofthe /)eplilv Jllrv ('ommissioner Grand .lUi)' (530) 265-1475 August 14, 2012 Keith Overbey Majdu A venue Nevada City, CA 95959 Dear Keith: This is the response to Nevada County Grand Jury Report, Chief probation Officer Reporting Structure Who's in Charge. I have asked the Deputy Jury Commissioner to forward this response on to you. Thanks to you and the other members of the Grand Jury. ~) Presiding Judge of the Civil Grand Jury Response to: Nevada County Grand .Jury Report Chief Probation Officer" Reporting Structure Who's in Charge Here RESPONSE OF TIlE NEVADA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT ("The Court") F. Ll As of March 28, 2012, Nevada County and the Court had no formal agreement regarding their respective roles and responsibilities concerning the evaluation and supervision of the CPO. (F.A.# 20) The Court agrees. No "formal" agreement is in place; however, see response to F.l.2 and Attachment A in fUI"ther response. f.I.2 As of March 28, 2012, there had been no communication between Nevada County and the Court to define their roles and responsibilities with respect to the supervision of the CPO. (F.A.# 10 - 20) The Court partiaJiy agrees. Prior to County CEO Haffey raising the issue in mid 2011, the County and Courts for many, many years operated under an informal agreement which required little discussion. Pursuant to this informal understanding, the Courts supervised the professional role of the CPO as it related to the CPO's duties to the Courts, and the County super-vised the administrative functions of the Probation Office. Some discussion that would ty pically occur tool.: place in connection with tbe hiring of a replacement CPO, as was the case with the hil"ing of CPO .John War'dell and CJ>O Doug Ca."ver. The nature of the discussion was a collaborative worl.:ing of two independent branches of government. In mid 2011, in response to then pending administrative issues concerning the CPO, Mr. Haffey suggested a fundamental structural change wher'ein either the County or the Courts would assume full responsibility for the hiring, tiring, evaluation and performance of the CPO. Since March 28, 2012, the Courts and County have engaged in additional conversation concerning the issue of roles and responsibilities. As a separate, additional response, Finding F.1.2
R24:
The Court neither agrees nor dis~.grees. The Court was not involved in the prior settlement. Recommendations R.1. The Nevada County Board of Supervisors and the Nevada County Superior Court should develop and adopt a formal agreement which • defines the roles and responsibilities of the Nevada County 130ard of Supervisors and the Nevada County Superior Court with respect to the supervision of the Chief Probation Otlicer, • establishes an effective communication process between the Nevada County Board of Supervisors and the Nevada County Superior Cmlrt, related to the supervision of the Chief Probation Officer, • provides measurement of the job performance of the Chief Probation Officer against established job goals and objectives in armual performance reviews. (F.l.H I - 8) The Court agrees. Negotiation of an MOU is in process. R.2. The Nevada County Probation Department should implement a comprehensive policy anel procedures manual consistent with existing state and local laws and regulations. (F.l.# 9) The Court agrees.
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
6. The Grand Jury is concerned about officer and public safety, as well as potential prisoner escape, when inmates are moved between transportation vehicles and the Court through an unsecured area. Disagree The Sheriff is committed to providing the highest level of safety and security to employees, the public and inmates and is committed to mitigating risk at every opportunity within the County's existing resources.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Upgrade the existing surveillance camera system to ensure monitoring of all appropriate inmate areas within the Sub-Station.
F2:
Employees and inmates may be exposed to dangerous situations because inmate workers are not always searched on return to the Sub-Station. Partially Agree ADMINISTRATION: 950 MAIDU AVENUE, NEVADA CITY, CA 95959 -(530) 265-1471 ANIMAL CONTROL, 14647 MCCOURTNEY ROAD, GRASS VALLEY, CA 95949 (530) 273-2179 CORRECTIONS: P.O. BOX 928, NEVADA CITY, CA 95959-0928 - (530) 265-1291 TRUCKEE: P.O. BOX 699, TRUCKEE, CA 96160 - (530) 582·7838 KEITH.ROYAL@CO.NEVADA.CA.US Letter of Response to Grand Jury Report on Nevada County Holding Facilities in Truckee July 5,2012 Sheriff's Office personnel randomly search inmate workers and their housing areas. Additionally, there are cameras that monitor areas common to inmate workers and general inmate population to ensure no contraband is being held or passed between the inmates.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Upgrade the existing surveillance camera system to ensure monitoring of the entire outside of the Sub-Station. 2011-2012 Nevada County Grand Jury
F3:
The use of wood in the construction of the SUb-Station evidence/property lockers may potentially lead to the contamination, degradation, loss and/or destruction of evidence. Disagree The Sheriff's Office is not aware of any successful challenges to the evidence chain of command in the Sub-Station. The facility is access controlled as to who is allowed within the facility. Additionally, the lockers are in full view and monitored by dispatch via CCTV. Dispatch is staffed with Sheriff's Office employees 24 hours a day and the likelihood of an evidence locker breach is extremely unlikely. However, should funding become available in the future, the Sheriff's Office would consider remodeling of the lockers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Always search inmate workers for contraband upon their return from outside of the Sub-Station.
F4:
The lack of secure storage and control may potentially lead to contamination, degradation, loss and/or destruction of evidence/property. Disagree The patrol sergeant assigned to the Truckee Sub-Station is responsible for the timely transfer of booked evidence from Truckee to the main evidence storage facility in Nevada City. The Truckee patrol sergeant is the only one who has access to the Truckee lockers once evidence is placed into them. The Sheriff's Office is not aware of any successful challenges to the evidence chain of command in the Sub-Station. The facility is access controlled as to who is allowed within the facility. Additionally, the lockers are in full view and monitored by dispatch via CCTV. Dispatch is staffed with Sheriff's Office employees 24 hours a day and the likelihood of an evidence locker breach is extremely unlikely. However, should funding become available in the future, the Sheriff's Office would consider remodeling of the lockers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Replace the existing wooden, non-keyed lockers with metal lockers with a keyed locking system.
F5:
The Grand Jury finds that officer safety and public safety are addressed as inmates are moved from vehicles and into the Sub-Station within a fenced area commonly known as a sally port. Agree As stated, inmates are brought from vehicles into the Sub-Station through the use of the vehicle sally port. Letter of Response to Grand Jury Report on Nevada County Holding Facilities in Truckee July 5,2012
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
In conjunction with the Nevada County Board of Supervisors, secure the open inmate loading/unloading area at the Court with a fenced enclosure, commonly known as a sally port.
F6:
In conjunction with the Nevada County Board of Supervisors, secure the open walkway area at the Joseph Center, used to transport inmates into the court, with a fenced enclosure. Letter of Response to Grand Jury Report on Nevada County Holding Facilities in Truckee July 5,2012 The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable in the current fiscal environment. The Sheriff's Office would like to thank the members of the 2011-2012 Grand Jury for their participation and effort in preparing their reports. We are committed to providing the highest level of safety and security to our employees, the public, and inmates. Keith Royal Sheriff-Coroner cc: CEO's Office Board of Supervisors
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
In conjunction with the Nevada County Board of Supervisors, secure the open walkway area used to transport inmates into the Court with a fenced enclosure. The Nevada County Board of Supervisors, in order to provide for the safety of the officers and the public, should:
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R7:
Provide funding to secure the open inmate loading/unloading area at the Joseph Center with a fenced enclosure, commonly known as a sally port.
R8:
Provide funding to secure the open walkway area at the Joseph Center, used to transport inmates into the Court, with a fenced enclosure. Responses Nevada County Sheriff: Findings 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 and Recommendations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 – Due Date: August 6, 2012 Nevada County Board of Supervisors: Findings 6 and 7 and Recommendations 7 and 8 – Due Date: September 5, 2012 2011-2012 Nevada County Grand Jury Nathan Beason.. lSi District COUNTY OF N EVADA Ed Scofield, 2"'1 District Terry Lamphier, 3rd District STATE OF C AUFOR IA Vice Chait· Wm. " Hank" Weston, 4"' District Chair Ted S. Owens, 5th District BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Donna Landi, Clerk of the Board July 18,2012 The Ilonorable Thomas Anderson Presiding Judge of the Nevada County Grand Jury Nevada County Courthouse 201 Church Street Nevada City, CA 95959 Re: Board of Supervisors' Responses to the 2011-12 Nevada County Civil Grand Jury Report, Nevada County Holding Facilities in Truckee Dear Judge Anderson: As required by California Penal Code Section 933, the Board of Supervisors hereby submits its responses to the 2011-2012 Nevada County Civil Grand Jury Report, dated June 7, 2012, entitled Nevada County Holding Facilities in Truckee. These responses to the Grand Jury's Findings and Recommendations were approved by the Board of Supervisors at their special meeting on July 17,2012. The Responses are based on either personal knowledge, examination of official County records, information received from the Sheriff, the County Executive Officer, or the Board of Sllpervisors and County staff members. The Board of Supervisors would like to thank the members of the 2011-2012 Grand Jury for their participation and effort in preparing their Reports, and their participalion in the Grand Jury process. Sincerely, ~~ Ted S. Owens hairman, Board of Supervisors cc: Keith Overhey. Foreman, lll'aod Jury Keith Royal , Sheriff Rick Haffey, County Executive Officer 950 Maidu Avenue. Suite 200. Nevada City CA 95959-8617 phone: 530.265. 1480 I f..1X: 530. 265.9836 1toll free: 888.n5. 1480 Iemail: bdotslI[?ervisors(?L;co.nevada.ca.lIs websi te: http://www.mvnevadacoullly.com/nc/bos PRINTED ON RECYLED PAPER NEVADA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSES TO 2011-2012 Nevada County Civil Grand Jury Report DATED July 6,2012 Responses to findings and recommendations are based on either personal k.nowledge, examination of official county records, review of the responses by the County Executive Officer, or testimony from the Board of Supervisors and county staff members. A. RESPONSES TO FINDINGS 6 and 7 Nevada County Superior Court, Truckee Branch (Court)
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
5 The Council did not meet its fiduciary duty when it failed to consider outsourcing police 37 38 services. The City strongly disagrees with this finding. The City Council took the initiative to look at all options to maintain city financial stability 40 including considering options for outsourcing police services. This option was not generated by 41 any Grand Jury Report, community outcry to outsource the police department, but by the City 42 Council taking its fiduciary duty seriously. There are many other factors to consider besides 43 saving money when evaluating such a significant restructuring of city services. The 44 consideration of outsourcing police services has resulted in the Nevada City Police Department 45 working closer with Grass Valley Police Department. The two cities have been actively 46 exploring opportunities for sharing resources that would reduce expenditures and enhance 47 services, 48 49 RECOMMENDATIONS 50
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
investigate outsourcing police services. Possible providers would include the Nevada County Sheriff’s Office and/or the Grass Valley Police Department.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
publicly review and consider any resulting proposals to determine whether there is an opportunity to provide equal or better police services at lower costs. Responses City Council of Nevada City: Due Date: August 29, 2012 City of Nevada City August 13,2012 The Honorable Thomas M. Anderson Presiding Judge of Church Street Nevada City, CA 95959 Re: Response of City Council of Nevada City to Grand Jury Report Nevada City Police Services Benefit in Outsourcing Dear Judge Anderson: On behalf of the City Council of Nevada City, I am transmitting to your attention our response to Findings and Recommendations in the 2011-12 Grand Jury report entitled Nevada City Police Services Benefit in Outsourcing. We appreciate the time and effort put forth by the Grand Jury to provide its recommendations for cost savings in our police department in these challenging economic times. However, outsourcing all police functions is a complex matter and, as reflected in the response, the city is exploring other opportunities for sharing police services and cost savings at this time. Yours truly, })ur~~AWJ5 Duane Strawser Mayor cc: Nevada County Civil Grand Jury / Jim Wickham, Police Chief David Brennan, City Manager Hal DeGraw, City Attorney City Hall • 317 Broad Street • Nevada City, California 95959 • (530) 265-2496 1 CITY OF NEVADA CITY RESPONSETO THE FINDINGS AND RECOM M ENDATIONS OF THE 2011-12 2 NEVADA COUNTY GRAND JURY RE PORT NEVADA CITY POLICE SE RVI CES - BENEFIT IN 3 OUTSOURCING 4 FINDINGS 5 F.l.l With no reserves in the General Fund, the City is in a weak financia l position. Th e City agrees with this finding. As with numerous cities nationwide, Nevada City has no unobligated general fund reserves and 8 is constantly reviewing sources of revenue, streamlining its operations w ithout reducing the 9 level of service. In recent years, the general fund has experienced improvements in financial 10 position. The City Council has approved placing a three-eighths cent sales tax on the November 11 ballot to help restore th e general fund to an appropriate reserve balance over a five year 12 period. F.1.2 The Grass Valley Police Department proposal indicated they could have maintained the 14 current or a higher level of police services and realized an annual cost savings in the amount of 15 $300,000. The City pa rtially agrees with this findi ng: 17 The Grass Valley proposal was a legitimate, cost effective, use of available resources. The 18 proposal eliminated supervisory and management positions within NCPD and consolidated 19 other activities. However, further an alysis of the proposal would be necessary to support the 20 statement that it would maintain the cu rrent level of service utilizing GVPD current supervisory 21 and management personnel. F.1.3 Assembly Bill 1028 may limit the ability of the City to continue to fill key positions with 23 CalPERS retirees. The City agrees with this finding. The City agrees that in the best interest of the Police Department, a full-time Police Chief would 26 better serve the community and department. The salient point is that filling the Police Chief 27 position on a part time basis is not a desirable organizational structure and the City is working 28 toward having the financial ability to hire a full time Police Chief. F. 1.4 Currently, th e City is attempting to balance the budget, in part, by instituting Friday 30 furloughs, hiring key part-time leaders an d failing to put aside funds in the City's General Fund 31 reserve. The City agrees w ith this finding. As with many small cities in the Nation, the City Council has taken immediate steps in ensure 34 the health, safety and welfare of its residents during the economic downturn. The City has 35 taken the opportunely to hire part-time managers, with a high level of experience and service 36 levels, to assist Council through these economic conditions. F.I.S The Council did not meet its fiduciary duty when it failed to consider outsourcing police 38 services. The City strongly disagrees with this finding. The City Council took the initiative to look at all options to maintain city financial stability 41 including considering options for outsourcing police services. This option was not generated by 42 any Grand Jury Report, community outcry to outsource the police department, but by the City 43 Council taking its fiduciary duty seriously. There are many other factors to consider besides 44 saving money when evaluating such a significant restructuring of city services. The 45 consideration of outsourcing police services has resulted in the Nevada City Police Department 46 working closer with Grass Valley Police Department. The two cities have been actively 47 exploring opportunities for sharing resources that would reduce expenditures and enhance 48 services, 49 RECOMMENDATIONS 50 R.l lnvestigate outsourcing police services. Possible providers would include the Nevada County 51 Sheriff's Office and/or Grass Valley Police Departm ent. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. The recommendation is not warranted for reasons that there is no perceived public support for 54 it and the fiscal issue is being addressed in other w ays on multiple fro nts. At the June 5, 2012, 55 City Council meeting the Police Chief had a public discussion on the Grand Jury report and 56 received public comments on the direction on whether the City Council wanted further 57 research on outsourcing police services. The Chief highlighted some of t he critical elements that 58 would need to be analyzed and the significant costs and staff tim e to address those iss ues. The 59 Council reiterated they would prefer the current direction the Departm ent was taking as they · 60 also recognized to reverse and directed staff to work with the City Manager to meet those 61 objectives. The Nevada City Police Department will continue to explore opportunities for 62 sharing police services which we believe will serve to improve our ability to provide community 63 policing. The Nevada City Police Chief is working closely with Grass Valley Police Department in 65 developing a Joint Operational Agreement (JOA) to cover dispatch, supervision, and share 66 investigative services, evidence and school resource officers. This type of arrangement 67 eventua lly leads to a higher level of service to the communities, elimination of duplicated 68 services and a cost savings for both communities. We believe the current efforts will achieve the same beneficial results without losing our local 70 police services operations which is highly desirable in Nevada City. R.2. Publicly review and consider any resulting proposals to determine whether there is an 72 opportunity to provide equal or better police services at lower costs. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. We don't foresee receiving any "resulting proposals" because we will not be soliciting any full 75 service outsourcing proposals. The City Council is mostly concerned with providing a high quality public safety program and 77 has directed staff to carry out that objective. The financial status of Nevada City continues to be 78 of paramount concern and we are moving forward on that ch allenge. As a small municipality we keep a focus on bala ncing the local services expected by our 80 residents and the costs to provide that level of service. 81
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
1 The school age population of western Nevada County is declining and will continue to decline for the foreseeable future. Agree
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Residents of western Nevada County review the Nevada County Grand Jury’s report in its entirety.
F2:
Revenues received by school districts in western Nevada County are declining and will continue to decline for the foreseeable future. Partially agree We agree that State revenues have been declining since 7008 , and districts that have been facing declining enrollment have experienced an additi0nal reduction in revenues. Although the futW'e outlook looks grim, even with the governor's tax initiative on the Bell Hill Academy Scotten School Lyman Gilmore Middle Schod! Grass Valley Charter School Child Development Office (530) 273-2281 (530) 273-6472 (530) 273-8479 (530) 273-8723 Preschool/Before & After School Programs (530) 273-9528 ballot for November, we can't antlcipate what the state budget will look like in the upcoming years. We also can't predict whether student enrollment will continue to decline, which has an impact on the amount of revenue a district receives. One of the biggest issues negatively effecting school districts at the present time is the impact on cash flow due to the state deferring payments to districts.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The boards of trustees for all local elementary school districts in western Nevada County consult with the other local elementary school districts to identify opportunities for consolidation with a view to petitioning the County Superintendent of Schools pursuant to Education Code Section 35700.
F3:
The utilization of school fa cility capacity in western Nevada County is low and will continue to decline. Partially Agree Although we agree that most districts in the county have been declining in enrollment and have more capacity, with the reconfiguration of the Grass Valley School District programs last year, the district has experienced an overall increase in district enrollment and the current facilities are being used efficiently.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The County Committee on School District Organization formulate plans for the consolidation of local elementary school districts in western Nevada County, pursuant to Education Code Section 35720.
F4:
Larger school districts can devote proportionately more of their budgets to classroom instruction. Partially Agree There are too many unique circumstances that impact a district that can influence the amount of funding that is dedicated to classroom instruction. If a large district that is experiencing declining enrollment is compared to a smaller district that is not experiencing declining enrollment or is experiencing increased enrollment, the smaller district would be able to dedicate more funding to classroom instruction. There are too many vruiables to consider to adequately respond to this finding any further.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The boards of trustees for all local elementary school districts in western Nevada County adopt and deliver to the County Committee on School District Organization, a resolution proposing consideration of consolidation of such district with one or more other districts in western Nevada County, pursuant to Education Code Section 35721(c).
F5:
Public elementary schools in western Nevada County need to increase their efficiency if the educational experience is to stabilize or improve. Partially Agree The Grass Valley School District has made a concerted effort to examine its operational practices and school configurations to improve efficiency and maximize its educational delivery and have made substantial changes in achieving that goal. Although efficiency is a desirable outcome, it is not a guarantee for educational success.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Nevada County Board of Supervisors adopt and deliver to the CCSDO a resolution proposing consideration of consolidation of local elementary school districts in western Nevada County, pursuant to Education Code Section 35721(c).
F6:
School district consolidation can increase Revenue Limit income, decrease costs and enhance educational programs. Partially Agree There are many factors and variables that determine whether consolidation would increase the Revenue Limit income, decrease costs and enhance educational programs. The consolidation of some school districts in our county could produce an increase in the Revenue Limit that would be worth considering, while other combinations would be minimal. (See the School Services of Califomia 2011 Study" Analysis of the Revenue 2 Impact on School District Consolidations in Nevada County"). Even if a consolidation of some districts could generate an increase in the Revenue Limit, there are other funding factors that could have a n gative unpact, such as a reduction in state and federal categorical funds that are determined by student populations e.g., students that qualify for free and reduced lunch. Whether costs could be decreased by consolidation, a more detailed analysis would have to be conducted. It stands to reason, that each school district's governing board has the fiduciary responsibility to examine whether consolidation is a viable consideration for their school community.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Boards of Trustees of the Grass Valley School District and the Union Hill School District begin, or continue, discussions regarding the consolidation of the two districts.
F7:
Due to geography and the number of inter-district transfers, UHSD is currently a de facto part of GVSD. Partially . • ree Geographically speaking, it makes total sense that the Union Hill School District should be part of the Grass Valley School District. The impact on families that live in the Grass Valley School District and must drive by Union I-lill School to reach their school of residence in the Grass Valley School District places an illogical demand on families, and puts the Grass Valley School District in a very tenuous situation with parenis who question this logic. It also prohibits the ability of the Grass Valley School District to create a neighborhood school environment in that area of the district. Geographically, if the Union Hill School District were part of the Grass Valley School District, it would provide the opportunity for the Grass Valley School District to establish a school closer to the families residing on the Hwy. 174 corridor. As far as the impact of inter-district transfers, approximately 70% of the students who attend the Union Hill School District are attending on an interdistrict agreement, witt> the majority of those students corrilng from the Grass Valley School District. Of the 70% of the students on inter-district transfers, between 200-300 of those students, or nearly60%, of the ,tudents on inter district contracts are from the Grass Valley School District. Although Union Hill School District's boundary lines are surrounded on each side by the Grass Valley School District, and geographically it makes sense for the Union Hill School District to be part of the Grass Valley School District, the Union Hill School District is its own distinct school district, with its own governing board, and there are many other factors that have to be considered besides the geographic location.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Boards of Trustees of the Ready Springs Union School District and the Pleasant Valley Elementary School District begin, or continue, discussions regarding the consolidation of the two districts. 2011-2012 Nevada County Grand Jury
F8:
Due to geography, the number of inter-district transfers and the projected increase in revenue, a consolidation of GVSD and UHSD is logical and desirable. Partially Agree Although we believe there would be many positive benefits to tbe consolidation of the Grass Valley School District and the Union Hill School District, further analysis needs to be conducted to detennine the actudl cost benefit and impact ~hat consolidation would have on the two districts. The Grass Valley School District encourages the Union Hill 3 ----- School District's governing board and its stakeholders to engage In examInmg the possible consolidation of the two districts.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The County Superintendent of Schools, the boards of trustees of all local elementary school districts in western Nevada County and the Board of Trustees of the Nevada Joint Union High School District actively pursue increased shared services in the following areas: • Maintenance, particularly a centralized, mobile service that can be rotated through each school site, including electrical, HVAC, plumbing and landscaping; • More centralization of curriculum experts; • More centralization of enrichment programs, including those in music and the arts; • Increased sharing and centralization of administrative services, including business and payroll services; • Student transportation.
F9:
Most of the administrative staff in the RSUSD and the PVESD are working two jobs, which is unsustainable and detracts from the educational programs. No Response Since the Grass Valley School District has no oversight over these two districts and does not know the sp cifics of each district's operations, we do not feel qualified to respond to this finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
All local elementary school districts in western Nevada County and the Nevada Joint Union High School District coordinate their school-year calendars for greater efficiency and publicly report their conclusions. Responses Nevada County Board of Supervisors: Recommendation 5 – Due Date: September 10, 2012 Nevada County Committee on School District Organization: Recommendation 3 – Due Date: Septmeber 10, 2012 Nevada County Superintendent of Schools: Recommendation 8 – Due Date: August 10, 2012 Chicago Park School District, Board of Trustees: Recommendations 2, 4, 8, 9 – Due Date: September 10, 2012 Clear Creek Elementary School District, Board of Trustees: Recommendations 2, 4, 8, 9 – Due Date: September 10, 2012 Grass Valley School District, Board of Trustees: Recommendations 2, 4, 6, 8, 9 – Due Date: September 10, 2012 Nevada City Elementary School District, Board of Trustees: Recommendations 2, 4, 8, 9 – Due Date: September 10, 2012 2011-2012 Nevada County Grand Jury Nevada Joint Union High School District, Board of Trustees: Recommendations 8, 9 – Due Date: September 10, 2012 Pleasant Ridge Union Elementary School District, Board of Trustees: Recommendations 2, 4, 8, 9 – Due Date: September 10, 2012 Pleasant Valley Elementary School District, Board of Trustees: Recommendations 2, 4, 7, 8, 9 – Due Date: September 10, 2012 Ready Springs Union Elementary School District, Board of Trustees: Recommendations 2, 4, 7, 8, 9 – Due Date: September 10, 2012 Twin Ridges Elementary School District, Board of Trustees: Recommendations 2, 4, 8, 9 – Due Date: September 10, 2012 Union Hill School District, Board of Trustees: Recommendations 2, 4, 6, 8, 9 – Due Date: September 10, 2012 2011-2012 Nevada County Grand Jury Chicago Park School District 15725 Mt. Olive Road , Grass Valley, CA 95945 (530) 346-2153 Fax (530) 346-8559 Dan Zeisler SuperintendenUPrincipal Augu st 17, 201 2 The Honorable Judge Tom Anderson Presiding Judge of the Grand Jury 201 Church Street Nevada City, CA 95959 Dear Judge Anderson, Please find attached, Chicago Park School District's Board of Trustees response to the June 5, 2012 Grand Jury Report on Schools Efficiency. Iy submitted, avis President, Chicago Park School Board Response to Grand Jury Recommendations Chicago Park School District 2. The boards of trustees for all local elementary school districts in western Nevada County consult with the other local elementary school districts to identify opportunities for consolidation with a view to petitioning the County Superintendent of Schools pursuant to Education Code Section 35700. The recommendation has been implemented. In 2010, two members of the CPSD School Board attended a meeting held at the Nevada Union High School cafeteria which included board member representatives from all western Nevada County schools to learn about and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of consolidation. Four current school board members attended an informational meeting on February 17,2011 conducted by School Services of California where an "Analysis of the Revenue Impact of School District Consolidations in Nevada County" study was shared. In the study (p. 11) it shows that if Grass Valley School and Union Hill School District were to consolidate, there would be an increase per ADA of 7.99% per student. However, if Chicago Park School consolidated with both of these Districts, the increase in ADA for all students would .09% less. In addition, there would be increased costs in providing transportation to our rural campus. Chicago Park currently does not provide transportation. If consolidation occurs and CPS is no longer serves K-8 students, those that live within a five minute bike ride of our campus, may be put on a bus for up to 45 minutes one-way to get to and from school. The CPSD Board of Trustees is knowledgeable of the benefits and disadvantages of consolidation and finds that the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages at this time. 4. The boards of trustees for all local elementary school districts in western Nevada County adopt and deliver to the County Committee on School District Organization, a resolution proposing consideration of consolidation of such district with one or more other districts in western Nevada County, pursuant to Education code Section 3S721(c). The recommendation will not be implemented at this time. The only district bordering CPSD is Grass Valley School District. The CPSD Board of Trustees is not interested in preparing a resolution proposing the consideration of consolidation with the Grass Valley School District at this time. 8. The County Superintendent of Schools, the boards of trustees of all local elementary school districts in western Nevada County and the Board of Trustees of the Nevada Joint Union High School District actively pursue increased shared services in the following areas: • Maintenance, particularly a centralized, mobile service that can be rotated through each school site, including electrical, HVAC, plumbing and landscaping - CPS currently employs one part-time person to conduct all grounds keeping and general maintenance duties on campus. His knowledge of our site (electric panels, water and gas shut offs, irrigation valves, etc.) make it imperative for safety purposes, that we have someone familiar with our site here as much as possible while students are in attendance. We would readily consider consolidating specialized services such as HVAC, plumbing and electrical jobs beyond the scope of what our one person can manage. • More centralization of curriculum experts - We are not really sure what you mean by this and request more information on what this configuration would look like. Our Superintendent does attend monthly Curriculum Leaders Council meetings which is a collaborative effort among all district superintendents and the County Schools Office to stay updated on cutting edge changes such as Common Core Standards. • More centralization of enrichment programs, including those in music and the arts - We already share a music teacher with another district and subscribe to our local art docent curriculum. After school and summer enrichment programs are open to students from any district when space is available. • Increased sharing and centralization of administrative services, including business and payroll services - CPSD has found that the most efficient way to handle our business needs is through a part-time individual who is housed on-site. • Student Transportation - CPSD does not provide transportation to or from school, therefore there is no need to explore shared service options. • Other - In addition, Chicago Park School also shares nursing services with Union Hill School. This recommendation has been partially implemented, and will continue to be whenever it benefits cost savings to the District. 9. All local elementary school districts in western Nevada County and the Nevada Joint Union High School District coordinate their school-year calendars for greater efficiency and publically report their conclusions. The recommendation has been implemented. For the past several years, CPSD has aligned their school-year calendar with the high school's in the following key areas: • First day of school • Fall Break • Winter Break • President Day Holidays • Spring Break CPSD will continue to align our calendar with the high school whenever possible. August 14, 2012 To the Honorable Thomas Anderson, Presiding Judge of the Grand Jury: We, the Board of Trustees of the Clear Creek Elementary School District, wish to express our appreciation for the efforts you have made examining the issue of school district consolidation in Nevada County. We agree that in times such as now, with the unprecedented pressures placed upon schools and their budgets, all angles should be explored in order to protect our students and their educational future. We also believe that great care must be taken so that in our endeavors, we don't apply a blanket solution that might turn out to be more harmful than beneficial. Therefore, in our exploration of the recommendations made by the Grand Jury, we have found some to be quite helpful, so much so that we have been in the process of implementing them for some time now. Others, we feel, while worth keeping in mind, might have the opposite effect and be detrimental to the students and district we have been elected to serve. Thank you for taking the time to consider our responses. GRAND JURY REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS: 2. The boards of trustees for all local elementary school districts in western Nevada County consult with the other local elementary school districts to identify opportunities for consolidation with a view to petitioning the County Superintendent of Schools pursuant to Education Code Section 35700 The recommendation has been implemented. Nevada County School District boards meet last year with the purpose of reviewing consolidation. It was found to not be beneficial, educationally or financially, by the Clear Creek School Board at that time. Consultation with other schools will continue in the future as circumstances dictate. 4. The boards of trustees for all local elementary school districts in western Nevada County adopt and deliver to the County Committee on School District Organization, a resolution proposing consideration of consolidation of such district with one or more other districts in western Nevada County, pursuant to Education Code Section 3S721(c). The recommendation will not be implemented at the present time. The Clear Creek School Board of Trustees feels this would not make sense for our district due to a number of factors. First, in contrast to most other districts in the county, we have seen a student increase of 68% since 2000. Second, we are one of the only districts in Nevada County to project a positive fund balance next school year even ifthe November education ballot fails. Third, 58% of our student population comes from other districts. We are a school district of choice for these students and their families. If we consolidated with our neighboring districts, it is highly unlikely these students would want to be part of a system they left. That would most likely result in them going to charter schools or home school situations. Either case is not going to help the traditional public schools in Nevada County. Fourth, the LAO report quoted in the Grand Jury Report states that a school district should not consider consolidation if it has a negative impact on the district (p. 7). Since our enrollment is up, our budget is sound, and we are a district of choice, combining with another district that does not meet that criteria, would only have a negative impact upon the students of our school district. If any or all of the above factors were to change, Clear Creek School would reconsider consolidation. 8. The County Superintendent of Schools, the board of trustees of all local elementary school districts in western Nevada County and the Board of Trustees of the Nevada Joint Union High School District actively pursue increased shared services in the following areas: • Maintenance, particularly a centralized, mobile service that can be rotated through each school site, including electrical, HVAC, plumbing and landscaping; • More centralization of curriculum experts; • More centralization of enrichment programs, including those in music and the arts; • Increased sharing and centralization of administration services, including business and payroll services; • Student transportation. This recommendation has been implemented. For the past 21 years, Clear Creek School has looked to shared services to reduce overhead costs as long as there is not a negative impact on the student body. For instance, in the 2011 2012 school year we shared a music teacher with Chicago Park School District, a nurse and business services with the Nevada County Superintendent of Schools office, and a speech/language pathologist and psychologist with Auburn Union Elementary School District in Placer County. We will continue to look at all opportunities for shared services where they make educational and financial sense. 9. All local elementary school districts in western Nevada County and the Nevada Joint Union High School District coordinate their school-year calendars for greater efficiency and publicly report their conclusions. This recommendation has been implemented. We always try to coordinate our calendar with the high school district and neighboring school districts. Roadblocks in the past have included the varying school days due to furlough days in other districts and the prolonged negotiations at the high school district regarding the school calendar. We have every intention to continue our efforts to coordinate the school calendar with all districts in the future. Thank you for providing Clear Creek School district another opportunity and perspective under which to examine potential consolidation. Respectfully, Clear Creek Elementary School District Board of Trustees grass 'Varrey Schoorrnistrict Eric Fredrickson Superintendent 10840 Gilmore Way, Grass Valley, CA 95945 (530) 273-4483 Fax (530) 273-0248 November J3, 2012 Honorable Judge Thomas Anderson Presiding Judge of the Grand Jury 201 Church Street Nevada City, CA 95959 Re: Re-submittal of Grass Valley Schnol District's Response to the June 5, 2012 Report of the Nevada COUll Grand Ju on the sub '~ct of Schools Effic~ncy. Dear Judge Anderson: As directed by Keith Overbey, Foreperson of the 2012-2013 Nevada County Grand Jury, the Board of the Grass Valley School District hereby re-submits this formal response to the Grand Jury's Report on Schools Efficiency. The Board's September 5, 2012 response has been revised, consistent with the requirements of Penal Code section 933.05(b), that the Board provide the timeframe for implementation for each Grand Jury recommendation or an explanation why a recommendation wi ll not b~ implemented. Findings: 1. The school age population of western Nevada County is declining and will continue to decline for tbe foreseeable future. Paniallv agree · It is true that the school age population has been declining since 1994, but there are signs that kindergarten enrollments are beginning to increase. In 1994 Grass Valley School District's enrollment was 2,416 students. This year our district's enrollment is 1,697. Although this is a significant drop in enrollment over the last 18 years, there are some signs of hope. This year's enrollment is lip by 20 students from last year and we currently have 15 more kindergarten students enrolled this year than we did at this time last year. The challenge with detennining the impact of declining enrollment of school age children in the county is the number of students attending other districts on inter-district transfers and students attending charter schools, private schools and home school programs. 2. Revenues received by school districts in western Nevada County are declining and will continue to decline for the foreseeable future. Partially agree We agree that State revenues have been declining since 7008 , and districts that have been facing declining enrollment have experienced an additi0nal reduction in revenues. Although the futW'e outlook looks grim, even with the governor's tax initiative on the Bell Hill Academy Scotten School Lyman Gilmore Middle Schod! Grass Valley Charter School Child Development Office (530) 273-2281 (530) 273-6472 (530) 273-8479 (530) 273-8723 Preschool/Before & After School Programs (530) 273-9528 ballot for November, we can't antlcipate what the state budget will look like in the upcoming years. We also can't predict whether student enrollment will continue to decline, which has an impact on the amount of revenue a district receives. One of the biggest issues negatively effecting school districts at the present time is the impact on cash flow due to the state deferring payments to districts. 3. The utilization of school fa cility capacity in western Nevada County is low and will continue to decline. Partially Agree Although we agree that most districts in the county have been declining in enrollment and have more capacity, with the reconfiguration of the Grass Valley School District programs last year, the district has experienced an overall increase in district enrollment and the current facilities are being used efficiently. 4. Larger school districts can devote proportionately more of their budgets to classroom instruction. Partially Agree There are too many unique circumstances that impact a district that can influence the amount of funding that is dedicated to classroom instruction. If a large district that is experiencing declining enrollment is compared to a smaller district that is not experiencing declining enrollment or is experiencing increased enrollment, the smaller district would be able to dedicate more funding to classroom instruction. There are too many vruiables to consider to adequately respond to this finding any further. 5. Public elementary schools in western Nevada County need to increase their efficiency if the educational experience is to stabilize or improve. Partially Agree The Grass Valley School District has made a concerted effort to examine its operational practices and school configurations to improve efficiency and maximize its educational delivery and have made substantial changes in achieving that goal. Although efficiency is a desirable outcome, it is not a guarantee for educational success. 6. School district consolidation can increase Revenue Limit income, decrease costs and enhance educational programs. Partially Agree There are many factors and variables that determine whether consolidation would increase the Revenue Limit income, decrease costs and enhance educational programs. The consolidation of some school districts in our county could produce an increase in the Revenue Limit that would be worth considering, while other combinations would be minimal. (See the School Services of Califomia 2011 Study" Analysis of the Revenue 2 Impact on School District Consolidations in Nevada County"). Even if a consolidation of some districts could generate an increase in the Revenue Limit, there are other funding factors that could have a n gative unpact, such as a reduction in state and federal categorical funds that are determined by student populations e.g., students that qualify for free and reduced lunch. Whether costs could be decreased by consolidation, a more detailed analysis would have to be conducted. It stands to reason, that each school district's governing board has the fiduciary responsibility to examine whether consolidation is a viable consideration for their school community. 7. Due to geography and the number of inter-district transfers, UHSD is currently a de facto part of GVSD. Partially . • ree Geographically speaking, it makes total sense that the Union Hill School District should be part of the Grass Valley School District. The impact on families that live in the Grass Valley School District and must drive by Union I-lill School to reach their school of residence in the Grass Valley School District places an illogical demand on families, and puts the Grass Valley School District in a very tenuous situation with parenis who question this logic. It also prohibits the ability of the Grass Valley School District to create a neighborhood school environment in that area of the district. Geographically, if the Union Hill School District were part of the Grass Valley School District, it would provide the opportunity for the Grass Valley School District to establish a school closer to the families residing on the Hwy. 174 corridor. As far as the impact of inter-district transfers, approximately 70% of the students who attend the Union Hill School District are attending on an interdistrict agreement, witt> the majority of those students corrilng from the Grass Valley School District. Of the 70% of the students on inter-district transfers, between 200-300 of those students, or nearly60%, of the ,tudents on inter district contracts are from the Grass Valley School District. Although Union Hill School District's boundary lines are surrounded on each side by the Grass Valley School District, and geographically it makes sense for the Union Hill School District to be part of the Grass Valley School District, the Union Hill School District is its own distinct school district, with its own governing board, and there are many other factors that have to be considered besides the geographic location. 8. Due to geography, the number of inter-district transfers and the projected increase in revenue, a consolidation of GVSD and UHSD is logical and desirable. Partially Agree Although we believe there would be many positive benefits to tbe consolidation of the Grass Valley School District and the Union Hill School District, further analysis needs to be conducted to detennine the actudl cost benefit and impact ~hat consolidation would have on the two districts. The Grass Valley School District encourages the Union Hill 3 ----- School District's governing board and its stakeholders to engage In examInmg the possible consolidation of the two districts. 9. Most of the administrative staff in the RSUSD and the PVESD are working two jobs, which is unsustainable and detracts from the educational programs. No Response Since the Grass Valley School District has no oversight over these two districts and does not know the sp cifics of each district's operations, we do not feel qualified to respond to this finding. 10. The efficiency of local western Nevada County school districts can be increased by sharing or centralizing more services. A ree Although there has been a concerted effort over the years to share and centralize services such as transportation, food services, staff development, and special education services, there is always room for increased efficiency. 11. There is a major opportunity to increase the coordination of school district calendars. Because each school district determines its own calendar, it would stand to reaS0n that by districts consolidating there would be less likelihood of conflicting calendars. Over the years, the Grass Valley School District has made the effort to align its calendar as closely with the Nevada Joint Union High School calendar as possible. Given the fact that the calendar mLlst be negotiated with various employee groups as well as the need for each district to align its calendar with its specific strategic plans, it is not always feasible to align calendars. 12. Standardization of school district calendars would result in cost savings and allow families to plan for school closures and vacations. Partially Agree With a standardized calendar there would be a cost saving for districts that share transpcrtation. Families that have children in both an elementary school district and the high school district would benefit from a standardized calendar. Families that have children attending only one disttict would not be impacted by a standardized calendar. A standardized calendar would improve the opportunity of schooi disiricts to coordinate professional development opportunities, which could lead to better learning opportunities for staff and could reduce of the cost of professional development. Recommendations: R 2. The boards of trustees for all local elemental], school districts in western Nevada County consult with tbe otber local elementary scbool districts to identify opportunities for consolidation with a view to petitioning the County Superintendent of Schools pursuant to Education Code Section 35700. This Recommendation has been partially implemented with respect to the Nevada City School District; however, implementation with regard to Union Hill School District and the other elementary districts is not currently reasonable. During the 2010/11 school year, the Nevada County Superintendent of Schools contracted with School Services of California to complete an "Analysis of the Revenue Impact on School District Consolidations in Nevada County". Following the completion of this report a joint meeting of the school boards in western Nevada County was held at the Nevada City Council Chambers to review the study and discuss the findings. The Grass Valley School District Governing Board directed the District's Superintendent to inquire with the other superintendents in the county to see if their boards were interested in having a conversation regarding consolidation. At several monthly superintendent meetings, the District's Si..Iperintendent expressed his desire to meet with the other elementary school governing boards and has on numerous occasions made it clear that the District was open to having a discussion with any other school districts' governing boards in western Nevada County. In response to th.ese overtures, Nevada City School District's superintendent expressed interest in discussing cons01idation. As a result, Grass VaUey School District is currently working with Nevada City to identify consolidation opportunities. However, because the issues related to consolidation are lIumerous and complex, Grass VaUey cannot assert with any reasonable certainty whether its discussions with Nevada City will result in an agreement to formally pursue consolidation, nor can Grass Valley provide a timeframe for implementmg consolidation should both districts agree t move forward. In addition, because the Grass Vall"y School District is governed by an elected board of trustees accountable to the voters of the District, continued discussion with Nevada City is crucial for the Board to determine whether pursuing consolidation is in best interests of its District's students and families. Aside from Nevada City, the other local elementary school districts in western Nevada County have not responded affirmatively to Grass Valley's gl)od faith attempt to discuss consolidation, and Union Hill's superintendent specifically informed Grass Valley's Superintendent that Union Hill had no interest pursuing consolidation. Thus, consistent with Penal Cade section 933.05(b)(4), implementation of Recommendation No.2 with respect to the Union Hill School Distnct and the other districts in Western Nevada COllnty is not reasonable, based upon the faci: that the recommendation requires the cooperation of each of these other districts. Other than Nevada City School District, none of the other school districts have expressed any interest in discllssing consolidation 5 with Grass Valley and Grass Valley has no authority to require these other districts to consider consoiidation.
F10:
The efficiency of local western Nevada County school districts can be increased by sharing or centralizing more services. A ree Although there has been a concerted effort over the years to share and centralize services such as transportation, food services, staff development, and special education services, there is always room for increased efficiency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
The efficiency of local western Nevada County school districts can be increased by sharing or centralizing more services. A ree Although there has been a concerted effort over the years to share and centralize services such as transportation, food services, staff development, and special education services, there is always room for increased efficiency.
F11:
There is a major opportunity to increase the coordination of school district calendars. Because each school district determines its own calendar, it would stand to reaS0n that by districts consolidating there would be less likelihood of conflicting calendars. Over the years, the Grass Valley School District has made the effort to align its calendar as closely with the Nevada Joint Union High School calendar as possible. Given the fact that the calendar mLlst be negotiated with various employee groups as well as the need for each district to align its calendar with its specific strategic plans, it is not always feasible to align calendars.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
There is a major opportunity to increase the coordination of school district calendars. Because each school district determines its own calendar, it would stand to reaS0n that by districts consolidating there would be less likelihood of conflicting calendars. Over the years, the Grass Valley School District has made the effort to align its calendar as closely with the Nevada Joint Union High School calendar as possible. Given the fact that the calendar mLlst be negotiated with various employee groups as well as the need for each district to align its calendar with its specific strategic plans, it is not always feasible to align calendars.
F12:
Standardization of school district calendars would result in cost savings and allow families to plan for school closures and vacations. Partially Agree With a standardized calendar there would be a cost saving for districts that share transpcrtation. Families that have children in both an elementary school district and the high school district would benefit from a standardized calendar. Families that have children attending only one disttict would not be impacted by a standardized calendar. A standardized calendar would improve the opportunity of schooi disiricts to coordinate professional development opportunities, which could lead to better learning opportunities for staff and could reduce of the cost of professional development. 4
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
Standardization of school district calendars would result in cost savings and allow families to plan for school closures and vacations. Partially Agree With a standardized calendar there would be a cost saving for districts that share transpcrtation. Families that have children in both an elementary school district and the high school district would benefit from a standardized calendar. Families that have children attending only one disttict would not be impacted by a standardized calendar. A standardized calendar would improve the opportunity of schooi disiricts to coordinate professional development opportunities, which could lead to better learning opportunities for staff and could reduce of the cost of professional development. Recommendations: R 2. The boards of trustees for all local elemental], school districts in western Nevada County consult with tbe otber local elementary scbool districts to identify opportunities for consolidation with a view to petitioning the County Superintendent of Schools pursuant to Education Code Section 35700. This Recommendation has been partially implemented with respect to the Nevada City School District; however, implementation with regard to Union Hill School District and the other elementary districts is not currently reasonable. During the 2010/11 school year, the Nevada County Superintendent of Schools contracted with School Services of California to complete an "Analysis of the Revenue Impact on School District Consolidations in Nevada County". Following the completion of this report a joint meeting of the school boards in western Nevada County was held at the Nevada City Council Chambers to review the study and discuss the findings. The Grass Valley School District Governing Board directed the District's Superintendent to inquire with the other superintendents in the county to see if their boards were interested in having a conversation regarding consolidation. At several monthly superintendent meetings, the District's Si..Iperintendent expressed his desire to meet with the other elementary school governing boards and has on numerous occasions made it clear that the District was open to having a discussion with any other school districts' governing boards in western Nevada County. In response to th.ese overtures, Nevada City School District's superintendent expressed interest in discussing cons01idation. As a result, Grass VaUey School District is currently working with Nevada City to identify consolidation opportunities. However, because the issues related to consolidation are lIumerous and complex, Grass VaUey cannot assert with any reasonable certainty whether its discussions with Nevada City will result in an agreement to formally pursue consolidation, nor can Grass Valley provide a timeframe for implementmg consolidation should both districts agree t move forward. In addition, because the Grass Vall"y School District is governed by an elected board of trustees accountable to the voters of the District, continued discussion with Nevada City is crucial for the Board to determine whether pursuing consolidation is in best interests of its District's students and families. Aside from Nevada City, the other local elementary school districts in western Nevada County have not responded affirmatively to Grass Valley's gl)od faith attempt to discuss consolidation, and Union Hill's superintendent specifically informed Grass Valley's Superintendent that Union Hill had no interest pursuing consolidation. Thus, consistent with Penal Cade section 933.05(b)(4), implementation of Recommendation No.2 with respect to the Union Hill School Distnct and the other districts in Western Nevada COllnty is not reasonable, based upon the faci: that the recommendation requires the cooperation of each of these other districts. Other than Nevada City School District, none of the other school districts have expressed any interest in discllssing consolidation 5 with Grass Valley and Grass Valley has no authority to require these other districts to consider consoiidation. R.4. The boards of trustees for all local elementary school districts in western Nevada County adopt and deliver to the County Committee on School District Organization, a resolution proposing consideration of consolidation of sueh district with one or more other districts in western Nevada County, pursuant to Education Code Section3572.1( c). This Recommendation cannot be implemented at this time The Grass Valley School District is in the process of discussing consolidation with the Nevada City School District, and, in conjunction with the Nevada City School District, has invited the other districts in western Nevada County to participate. As stated in the District's response to Recommendation No. 2, other than Nevada City, none of the other elementary districts have been willing to discuss consolidation. In adclitiol1, it is impOitant to note that while Grass Valley and Nevada City are working together to explore conso!idation, the issues are numerous and complex. As a result, Grass Valley cannot assert with any reasonable certainty whether its discussions with Nevada City will result in the presentation of a resolution for consolidation to the County Committee on School District Organization, nor can Grass Valley provide a timeframe for the adoption of a resoiU[ion for consolidation should Nevada City agree to move forward. Since the Grass Valley School District is governed by an elected board of trustees accountable to the voters of the Dis1rict, continued discussion with Nevada City is crucial for the Board to determine whether pursuing consolidation is in best interests of its District's students and families. Therefore, pursuant to Penal Code section 933.05(b)( 4), t.he District responds that Recommendation No. 4 will not be implemented, based upon the fact that the recommendation requires the cooperation of all the elementary schoo! districts in western Nevada County, and other than Nevada City, none of the districts have agreed to discuss consolidation, much less present a resolution for consolidation to the County Committee on School District 0 ·ganization . . R.6. The Boal·ds of Trustees of the Grass Valley School District and the Union Hill School Di trict begin, or continue, discussions regarding the consolidation of the hvo districts. The Grass Valley School District has made good faith efforts to implement this recommendation, but without the cooperation of Union Hill. implementation of this recommendation is not reasonable. As set forth in the District's responses 10 Recommendation Nos 2 and 4, Grass Valley School District has openly offered to meet with the other school districts in western Nevada County, aTJd has specifical!y invited the superintendent and governing board members of the Union Hill School District to discuss the benefits of consolidation. Grass Valley' s efforts in this regard began in early 201 1 after attending a meeting sponsored by 6 the Nevada County Superintendent of Schools and the Nevada County School Boards Association on the "Analysis of the Rev nue impact on School District Consolidation" report conducted by School Services of California, in 2011. As part of this oLltreach effort, the Union Hill School District's governing board and superintendent attended the August 28, 2012, consolidation discussion between the Grass Valley School District and the Nevada City Scbool District. Although the Union Hill School District goveming board chose to not officially palticipate in the discussion, they did attend the meeting. During this meeting the Grass Valley School District Governing Board continued to encourage the Union Hill School District to participate in the process. However, after the August 28, 201 2 meeting, Grass Valley School District's Superintendent received an email from Union Hil!'s superintendent stating that UnlOo Hill was oot interested in even discussing consolidation. Therefore, pursuant to Penal Code section 933 .05(b)( 4), the District is unable to implement Recommendation No. 6, because impiementation is not reasonable in the absence of any interest or cooperation on the part of the Union Hill School District. R.8. The County Supet'intendent of Schools, the boards of trustees of all local elementary school districts in westet"n Nevada County and the Board of Trustees of the Nevada Joint Union High School District actively pursue increased shal"cd services in the following areas: Maintenance, particularly a centralized, mobile service thaI can be rotated ttuough each school site, including electrical, BVAC, plumbing and landscaping; More centralization of curriculum experts; • More centralization of enrichment programs, including those in music ar.d the arts; Increased sharing and centralization of administrative services, including business and payroll services; Student transportation. This Recommendation has been partially implemented, and Grass VaHey is committed to continuing its discussions with all western Nevada County school districts on sharing services where feasible. The superintendents of each school district meet monthly for the Superintendents' Council meeting, hosted by the Nevada County Superintendent of Schools. During these meetings the superintendents frequelltly strategize with one another regarding ways to share services. Maintenance, particularly centralized, mobile services: This is an area that the Grass Valley School District is will ing to have ftllther discussion. However, it is a very complicated issue, as most of the employees that provide these services in the various districts are represented by the California School Employees Association (CSEA) and each district has its own specific coilective bargaining agreement that defines the terms and conditions of employment for the classified employees serving in maintenance and grounds classifications. Centralized curriculum experts: The Nevada County Superintendent of Schools employs an assistant superintendent, who serves in the capacity of a countywide curriculum expert. This position provides countywide support and planning for math training, assistance in Program Improvement (PI), and other professional development and curriculum support. As part of the current discussions being held between the Grass Valley School District and the Nevada City School District regarding consolidation, one of the positives of consolidating would be the possibility of creating a position to coordinate curriculum and professional development [or a combined district, thus enhancing the opportunities for students and staff. Centralized enrichment programs: The evada County Superintendent of Schools provides countywide support in music through partnerships with the Music in the Mountains education program, In Concert Sierra, and Center for the Arts. The County Superintendent of Schools office also coordinates a county·-wide art docent program which includes providing materials and training to volunteers who are deployed to give art lessons in elementary classrooms. As part of the current discussions being held between the Grass Valley School District and the Nevada City School District regarding consolidation, an additional benefit of consolidating would be the possibility of offering a richer elective program for students in both of these districts. Incl"cased sharing and centralization of administrative services: The Nevada County Superintendent of Schools is currently providing various forms of services for three school districts. Because of the unique nature of each school district's operation it is very challenging to share services. The most efficient method of centralizing administrative services is through consolidation or unIfication of districts. Transportation: For many decades, the Grass Valley School District, Nevada loint Union High chooi District, Pleasant Ridge School District, and the Nevada City School District have been pal1ies to a Joint Powers Agreement (JP A) for transportation and have contracted with Durham Transportation for home to school transportation services. In addition, Durham provides coordinated transportation service~ for western Nevada County special education students who are part of the Nevada County Special Education Program. These: cooperative efforts between the school districts in western Nevada County have resulted in cost savings for these districts. Food Services: For many decades, the Grass Valley School District has provided food services for the majority of the school .districts in western Nevada County. Currently, the Grass Valley School District's Central Kitchen is providing food services for nine districts in western Nevada County. The foregoing demonstrates that the scho{'ll districts of western Nevada County have made considerable eHorts to share services. However, while this recommendation has been partially implemented, and while Grass Valley School District has every intention to 8 continue to explore additional ways to share services, Recommendation No.8 cannot be fully implemenkd in that it requires the cooperation of all of the local school districts, each of which has its own unique needs and contractual obligations with exclusive bargaining representatives such as CSEA and/or pw-suant to the Transportation lPA . R.9. All local elementary school disb-kts in western Nevada County and the Nevada Joint Union High School District coordinate their school-year calendars for greater efficiency and publicly report their conclusions. This Recommendation has been partially implemented. As stated in response to Findings Nos. 11 andI 2, the Grass Valley School District has made an effort to coordinate its school year calendar with Nevada Joint Union High School District, but due to the requirements in collective bargaining agreements applicable to both certificated and classified employees in each district, as well as the specific indjvidual interests of each district, it is not always possible to totally align the calendars. The Grass Valley School District distributes copies of its approved calendar to all stakeholders and publishes the calendar on the District's website. Therefore, pursuant to Penal Code section 933 .05(b)( 4), the District responds that it is not reasonable t(l ful!y implement Recommendation No. 9 based upon the fact that it not only requires the cooperation of all the school districts in western Nevada County, but also agreement with the unions representing certificated and classified employees in each district. The Board of Trustees of the Grass Valley School District appreciates the time and dedication of the Grand Jury members in providing the District with its report and recommendations. The Board will implement the Grand Jury's recommendations to the extent and in the manner set forth above. . If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank: you. Sincerely, £~r V~~ Pre<;i.dent, Governing Board 9 Twin Ridges Elementary School District P.O. Box 529 (530) 265-9052 North San Juan, CA 95960 FAX (530) 265-3049 August 24, 2012 The Honorable Judge Tom Anderson Presiding Judge of the Grand Jury 201 Church Street Nevada City, CA 95959 Dear Judge Anderson, This letter serves as my response to the June 5, 2012 Grand Jury Report on Schools Efficiency. Recommendations:
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
All members of the Board should seek out and attend training regarding the roles and responsibilities of Board members in special districts.
R2:
The Board should develop written policy which clearly defines the roles and responsibilities of the GM, the TDPUD legal counsel and the Board in response to a complaint concerning a member of the Board.
R3:
The Board should amend the District Code to require the complainant be notified of the disposition of a complaint made concerning a member of the Board.
R4:
The Board should develop written policy that requires the GM to keep the Board informed of a complaint concerning a member of the Board.
R5:
The Board should improve communication among TDPUD management, TDPUD legal counsel and the Board. Responses Truckee Donner Public Utility District Board of Directors: Date : August 21, 2012
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The Board's decision to spend $455,000 to purchase the Building does not further the stated mission of NCRCD. Disagree • The ultimate goal for the NCRCD was to generate a return on the investment through rental revenues/ thus allowing continued programming to further our mission.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Nevada County Resource Conservation District should devote more effort and financial resources to increase public awareness of its services.
F2:
The Board's decision to purchase the Building in early 2011 was not well-planned, because: • prior commitments were not obtained from other potential tenants; • the space is not large enough to house multiple agencies and host public seminars Disagree • The NCRCD went through the process to secure potential tenants who wanted to know which building would be available before committing to a move. • The NCRCD believed the space was large enough for other agencies/ hosting public seminars was not the primary intent ofthe NCRCD in the purchase of a building.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Nevada County Resource Conservation District should spend its resources to accomplish its mission rather than allowing its financial reserves to accumulate to an unreasonable level. !
F3:
NCRCD allowed its reserves (real estate and cash) to grow to an excessive level, nearly four times its average annual budget. Disagree • The NCRCD had conserved their reserves and grant administration monies/ over many years/ for a possible/ future Agriculture and Natural Resources Building. This building had been part of the NCRCD Strategic Plan since 2005. Under Division 9 of the Public Resources Code/ districts have the "right to own and manage land, easements, and propertv. .. Division 9 allows districts to purchase office space as wel!..thev mav also purchase land and a building to house the district. //
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Nevada County Resource Conservation District Board of Directors should ensure that all of the Nevada County Resource Conservation District’s goals support its mission. Responses Nevada County Resource Conservation District Board of Directors: Findings 1,2,3,4 and 5 and Recommendations 1, 2, and 3 – Due Date: September 12, 2012 Nevada County Resource Conservation District 113 Presley Way, Suite Due, GNiSS Valle)', CA 95945 530.272.3417 f ax 530.-I77.H()55 IVlvw.llcr cd. org September 12, 2012 The Honorable Thomas Anderson Presiding Judge of the Grand Jury 201 Church Street i'~evada City, CA 95959 Re: Nevada County Resource Conservation District response to Grand Jury findings Findings: 1. The Board's decision to spend $455,000 to purchase the Building does not further the stated mission of NCRCD. Disagree • The ultimate goal for the NCRCD was to generate a return on the investment through rental revenues/ thus allowing continued programming to further our mission. 2. The Board's decision to purchase the Building in early 2011 was not well-planned, because: • prior commitments were not obtained from other potential tenants; • the space is not large enough to house multiple agencies and host public seminars Disagree • The NCRCD went through the process to secure potential tenants who wanted to know which building would be available before committing to a move. • The NCRCD believed the space was large enough for other agencies/ hosting public seminars was not the primary intent ofthe NCRCD in the purchase of a building. 3. NCRCD allowed its reserves (real estate and cash) to grow to an excessive level, nearly four times its average annual budget. Disagree • The NCRCD had conserved their reserves and grant administration monies/ over many years/ for a possible/ future Agriculture and Natural Resources Building. This building had been part of the NCRCD Strategic Plan since 2005. Under Division 9 of the Public Resources Code/ districts have the "right to own and manage land, easements, and propertv. .. Division 9 allows districts to purchase office space as wel!..thev mav also purchase land and a building to house the district. // 4. NCRCD expenditures on public outreach have been inadequate. Disagree • The NCRCD has implemented a large number ofpublic outreach events each yea0 using staf0 volunteers/ and directors to achieve that goal. Publications/ printing/ and outreach were done in house as much as possible. Ultimately/ the NCRCD worked toward any project in the most cost efficient manner available. 5. NCRCD expenditures on programs have been inadequate in recent years. Disagree • The NCRCD has consistently maintained very cost effective programming to further the mission and vision of the NCRCD. Many of our programs were funded by grants that were effiCiently managed by the NCRCD. Recommendations: 1. The Nevada County Resource Conservation District should devote more effort and financial resources to increase public awareness of its services. The recommendation is being implemented presently The NCRCD has begun an ad campaign in the Union newspaper, radio ads on KNCO, and implemented numerous seminars throughout the year, and expanded funding to cover these costs. 2. The Nevada County Resource Conservation District should spend its resources to accomplish its mission rather than allowing its financial reserves to accumulate to an unreasonable level. The recommendation is being implemented The NCRCD believes a responsible level of financial reserves is a minimum of I -year operating reserves and reserves for dedicated categories for specific projects. 3. The Nevada County Resource Conservation District Board of Directors should ensure that all of the Nevada County Resource Conservati on District's goals support its mission. The recommendation is being implemented The NCRCD operates under a S-year strategic plan that is developed by the NCRCD Board of Directors, NCRCD/NRCS staff, and is frequently assisted by an outside facilitator. ~ _ '\, If r 1 1.- ~ ....... ' ~ tt· 7. C"7 l -a.~/-t v / IV L- 1<. ( /) /3 t'7'& 1.- d r U J- ~L-.-I J NCRCD Board of Directors September 20 12 3
F4:
NCRCD expenditures on public outreach have been inadequate. Disagree • The NCRCD has implemented a large number ofpublic outreach events each yea0 using staf0 volunteers/ and directors to achieve that goal. Publications/ printing/ and outreach were done in house as much as possible. Ultimately/ the NCRCD worked toward any project in the most cost efficient manner available.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
NCRCD expenditures on public outreach have been inadequate. Disagree • The NCRCD has implemented a large number ofpublic outreach events each yea0 using staf0 volunteers/ and directors to achieve that goal. Publications/ printing/ and outreach were done in house as much as possible. Ultimately/ the NCRCD worked toward any project in the most cost efficient manner available.
F5:
NCRCD expenditures on programs have been inadequate in recent years. Disagree • The NCRCD has consistently maintained very cost effective programming to further the mission and vision of the NCRCD. Many of our programs were funded by grants that were effiCiently managed by the NCRCD. 2
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
NCRCD expenditures on programs have been inadequate in recent years. Disagree • The NCRCD has consistently maintained very cost effective programming to further the mission and vision of the NCRCD. Many of our programs were funded by grants that were effiCiently managed by the NCRCD. Recommendations:
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Jury commends those who have worked to implement Laura’s Law, especially the Nevada County Board of Supervisors, the Directors and staff of the Nevada County Behavioral Health Department and of Turning Point, Providence Center.
R2:
The Jury recommends that Nevada County continue to serve as a model for other California counties. Responses No responses are required. Attachment Calculation of Cost Savings Calculated savings are based on data collected by the Nevada County Behavioral Health Department from April 28, 2008, (the date the first individual entered into AOT) through December 31, 2010. • Calculation based on the first 2.64 years of implementation. • Of the 19 individuals that entered into AOT, data was collected on 17 individuals. Of the two omitted, one was active for 17 days and the other was active for 7 days. Cost of providing services to 17 participants for 2.64 Years: ($ 482,443) (A) (This is the actual amount paid by the Nevada County Behavioral Health Department to Turning Point.) Aggregate costs incurred by the each of the 17 participants during the year prior to the participants entering AOT: • Hospitalizations (514 days @ $675 per day) $ 346,950 • Incarcerations (521 days @ $150 per day) $ 78,150 Total cost prior to AOT: $ 425,100 Projected cost for 2.64 years that might have been incurred if the 17 individuals had not entered AOT: $ 1,122,264 (B) Actual Hospitalization and Incarceration Costs for 17 individuals during 2.64 years after entering AOT: • Hospitalizations (198 days @ $675 per day) ($ 133,650) • Incarcerations (17 days @ $150 per day) ($ 2,550) Total cost after AOT: ($ 136,200) (C) TOTAL COST SAVINGS ((A) + (B) + (C)): $ 503,621 !