Plumas County Grand Jury
2010-2011
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 (7)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
2. Out-of-County/Low Risk – minimal supervision, may report by mail or phone, some supervised by other jurisdictions.
F2:
State funding available for drug and alcohol programs in the County currently not being used.
F3:
Intensive Drug Supervision – at a minimum, defendants must have both drug testing and search and seizure as conditions of probation.
F4:
Drug Court – all defendants that have been placed in a Drug Court program. The Probation Department's responsibilities include: a. Home visits and/or searches. b. Creating pre-trial reports. c. Pre-sentencing reports. d. Drug testing. The department also works with at-risk juveniles and has created a Girls Circle program. It is currently developing a program for boys. The department has approximately 380 individuals on court-ordered probation at any given time. Drugs and/or alcohol abuse account for 80% to 85% of the people on probation. Federal and State funding reserves for Plumas County consist of $509,467 to fund drug and alcohol programs. At the time of this report, the County was not taking advantage of this funding. (On March 15, 2011, the Board of Supervisors initiated discussions on how to acquire these funds. They have until June 30, 2011 to decide.)
F5:
The pupil was active in school activities, held a good grade point average, and had a high SAT score for college acceptance. According to several letters from teachers, the pupil was well liked and a good student. There were no actions taken against the student by the Plumas County authorities. This was the student's This was a first-time violation by the student. senior year. The California Education Code 48911 recommendation for expulsion is as
F6:
follows: a. That other means of correction are not feasible or have repeatedly failed to bring about proper conduct. b. That due to the nature of the violation, the presence of the pupil causes a continuing danger to the physical safety of the pupil or others. Unfortunately, this was not an isolated incident of improper expulsions.
F7:
According to public school board records, other expulsions were addressed at closed school board sessions, and according to concerned community members, were not in the time frame set down by the PCUSD and the State of California.
F8:
Formed Crisis Response Teams.
F9:
At Quincy Elementary School, the school secretary and administrative designee (teacher in charge) have been trained to implement a lockdown using the lockdown bell signal whenever a report involving a gun is received on days when the principal is not on campus. The schedule of the office staff has also been rearranged so that there is always
F10:
someone at the switchboard during the lunch hour. Conclusion School officials have acted in a responsible manner to improve school safety. Specific Issue #4 – An atmosphere of intolerance exists at the District level. Purpose Statement Examples of intolerance were directly observed by Grand Jury members from interviews, local media, and testimony at public school board meetings. Findings 1) In the fall of 2010, students were exposed to a vehicle with hate language on school property. The vehicle is still, as of spring 2011, present near a local elementary school. It is now on the street but off school property. Even if the truck was present one time instead of many, once showed poor judgment by the school employee. During the December board meeting it was decided to place the issue on the January School Board meeting agenda, but it never was put on any school agenda. Little else was done except that a memo from the school employee was sent to District employees with a response from the Superintendent as well. The Superintendent's initial response was slow and inadequate. 2) Some of the teaching staff feel they are working in an environment of intimidation, harassment, and retribution if there is any questioning or dissent. 3) They also feel that concerns about students are not being addressed by the Administration. They report instances of intimidation of principals to be quiet when parents show up at meetings, and to discourage parents from attending meetings. There were also several reports from witnesses of the intimidation of teachers who speak out. These teachers received poor reviews when not warranted. They were evaluated two-three times a week. They were put into positions which made them uncomfortable. They were given assignments or demands that were excessive. No guidelines were set for what exactly is a "bad teacher". 3) Students' needs are not met equally. For example, students with behavioral problems were denied behavioral consultations because they were too expensive. As required by Article 7 of the Federal law, if a student's behavior affects the learning of other students as well as themselves to a marked degree and over a period of time, the student is required to be tested. Conclusion: The public perception of the school District Board and its policies is controversial and needs to be addressed.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
rather than provide "no-bid" contracts to large national companies.
R2:
County officials keep the public up-to-date on County stimulus projects with consistent and easily understood information about the status of stimulus projects as well as funding for projects from other income sources.
R3:
More accounting and project details be made available to the public. Continuation of the County Ad Hoc Stimulus Task Force to work cooperatively
R4:
with other agencies to find other sources of funding.
R5:
County Auditor should attend meetings appropriate to their position including County Board of Supervisors meetings. Continue to search for funding for Plumas District Hospital in order to comply
R6:
with State-mandated seismic-retrofit regulations. Plumas County Office of Education and Plumas Unified School District Report Opening Statement As members of the Plumas County Grand Jury, one of our duties is to investigate citizen complaints. One of the complaints was from a guardian whose ward had been suspended from his school. Investigation of this event opened several other areas of concern regarding Plumas County school policies. At the same time, there was much media attention on the school budget and how it was being managed. We found four areas of specific concerns. Specific Issue #1 PCOE/PUSD are maintaining a reserve of 45%. Why? Is this an appropriate amount? After conducting many interviews, reading many school financial documents and attending several board meetings, the Grand Jury understands that the 45% reserve is a reasonable goal in the current unstable economic climate, coupled with complicated financial issues. Factors Decreasing District Revenue
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
2. Out-of-County/Low Risk – minimal supervision, may report by mail or phone, some supervised by other jurisdictions.
F2:
State funding available for drug and alcohol programs in the County currently not being used.
F3:
Intensive Drug Supervision – at a minimum, defendants must have both drug testing and search and seizure as conditions of probation.
F4:
Drug Court – all defendants that have been placed in a Drug Court program. The Probation Department's responsibilities include: a. Home visits and/or searches. b. Creating pre-trial reports. c. Pre-sentencing reports. d. Drug testing. The department also works with at-risk juveniles and has created a Girls Circle program. It is currently developing a program for boys. The department has approximately 380 individuals on court-ordered probation at any given time. Drugs and/or alcohol abuse account for 80% to 85% of the people on probation. Federal and State funding reserves for Plumas County consist of $509,467 to fund drug and alcohol programs. At the time of this report, the County was not taking advantage of this funding. (On March 15, 2011, the Board of Supervisors initiated discussions on how to acquire these funds. They have until June 30, 2011 to decide.)
F5:
The pupil was active in school activities, held a good grade point average, and had a high SAT score for college acceptance. According to several letters from teachers, the pupil was well liked and a good student. There were no actions taken against the student by the Plumas County authorities. This was the student's This was a first-time violation by the student. senior year. The California Education Code 48911 recommendation for expulsion is as
F6:
follows: a. That other means of correction are not feasible or have repeatedly failed to bring about proper conduct. b. That due to the nature of the violation, the presence of the pupil causes a continuing danger to the physical safety of the pupil or others. Unfortunately, this was not an isolated incident of improper expulsions.
F7:
According to public school board records, other expulsions were addressed at closed school board sessions, and according to concerned community members, were not in the time frame set down by the PCUSD and the State of California.
F8:
Formed Crisis Response Teams.
F9:
At Quincy Elementary School, the school secretary and administrative designee (teacher in charge) have been trained to implement a lockdown using the lockdown bell signal whenever a report involving a gun is received on days when the principal is not on campus. The schedule of the office staff has also been rearranged so that there is always
F10:
someone at the switchboard during the lunch hour. Conclusion School officials have acted in a responsible manner to improve school safety. Specific Issue #4 – An atmosphere of intolerance exists at the District level. Purpose Statement Examples of intolerance were directly observed by Grand Jury members from interviews, local media, and testimony at public school board meetings. Findings 1) In the fall of 2010, students were exposed to a vehicle with hate language on school property. The vehicle is still, as of spring 2011, present near a local elementary school. It is now on the street but off school property. Even if the truck was present one time instead of many, once showed poor judgment by the school employee. During the December board meeting it was decided to place the issue on the January School Board meeting agenda, but it never was put on any school agenda. Little else was done except that a memo from the school employee was sent to District employees with a response from the Superintendent as well. The Superintendent's initial response was slow and inadequate. 2) Some of the teaching staff feel they are working in an environment of intimidation, harassment, and retribution if there is any questioning or dissent. 3) They also feel that concerns about students are not being addressed by the Administration. They report instances of intimidation of principals to be quiet when parents show up at meetings, and to discourage parents from attending meetings. There were also several reports from witnesses of the intimidation of teachers who speak out. These teachers received poor reviews when not warranted. They were evaluated two-three times a week. They were put into positions which made them uncomfortable. They were given assignments or demands that were excessive. No guidelines were set for what exactly is a "bad teacher". 3) Students' needs are not met equally. For example, students with behavioral problems were denied behavioral consultations because they were too expensive. As required by Article 7 of the Federal law, if a student's behavior affects the learning of other students as well as themselves to a marked degree and over a period of time, the student is required to be tested. Conclusion: The public perception of the school District Board and its policies is controversial and needs to be addressed.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
rather than provide "no-bid" contracts to large national companies.
R2:
County officials keep the public up-to-date on County stimulus projects with consistent and easily understood information about the status of stimulus projects as well as funding for projects from other income sources.
R3:
More accounting and project details be made available to the public. Continuation of the County Ad Hoc Stimulus Task Force to work cooperatively
R4:
with other agencies to find other sources of funding.
R5:
County Auditor should attend meetings appropriate to their position including County Board of Supervisors meetings. Continue to search for funding for Plumas District Hospital in order to comply
R6:
with State-mandated seismic-retrofit regulations. Plumas County Office of Education and Plumas Unified School District Report Opening Statement As members of the Plumas County Grand Jury, one of our duties is to investigate citizen complaints. One of the complaints was from a guardian whose ward had been suspended from his school. Investigation of this event opened several other areas of concern regarding Plumas County school policies. At the same time, there was much media attention on the school budget and how it was being managed. We found four areas of specific concerns. Specific Issue #1 PCOE/PUSD are maintaining a reserve of 45%. Why? Is this an appropriate amount? After conducting many interviews, reading many school financial documents and attending several board meetings, the Grand Jury understands that the 45% reserve is a reasonable goal in the current unstable economic climate, coupled with complicated financial issues. Factors Decreasing District Revenue
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
After review and discussion of the suspension and expulsion procedures as well as the California Education Code 48911, it appeared that school officials did not have a full understanding of the procedures or the purpose of the "Zero Tolerance" ruling.
F2:
The time frames made clear in the California Education Code 48911 were not in compliance.
F3:
The alleged events took place September 28, 2010, and it wasn't until two days later that an informal hearing was held by the principal and two Plumas County Sheriff deputies. A hearing is to be within one day of violation. The parent/guardian was not informed nor was she present until she was called by the school, and the student was released to her custody by the principal.
F4:
The student was suspended from school until a meeting of the School Board had made a decision. This meeting was not held until December 14, 2010.
F5:
The pupil was active in school activities, held a good grade point average, and had a high SAT score for college acceptance. According to several letters from teachers, the pupil was well liked and a good student. There were no actions taken against the student by the Plumas County authorities. This was the student's senior year. This was a first-time violation by the student. 13
F6:
The California Education Code 48911 recommendation for expulsion is as follows: a. That other means of correction are not feasible or have repeatedly failed to bring about proper conduct. b. That due to the nature of the violation, the presence of the pupil causes a continuing danger to the physical safety of the pupil or others.
F7:
Unfortunately, this was not an isolated incident of improper expulsions. According to public school board records, other expulsions were addressed at closed school board sessions, and according to concerned community members, were not in the time frame set down by the PCUSD and the State of California.
F8:
Formed Crisis Response Teams.
F9:
At Quincy Elementary School, the school secretary and administrative designee (teacher in charge) have been trained to implement a lockdown using the lockdown bell signal whenever a report involving a gun is received on days when the principal is not on campus. I 0. The schedule of the office staff has also been rearranged so that there is always someone at the switchboard during the lunch hour. Conclusion School officials have acted in a responsible manner to improve school safety. Specific Issue #4 - An atmosphere of intolerance exists at the District level. Purpose Statement Examples of intolerance were directly observed by Grand Jury members from interviews, local media, and testimony at public school board meetings. Findings 1) In the fall of 20 I 0, students were exposed to a vehicle with hate language on school property. The vehicle is still, as of spring 2011, present near a local elementary school. It is now on the street but off school property. Even if the truck was present one time instead of many, once showed poor judgment by the school employee. During the December board meeting it was decided to place the issue on the January School Board meeting agenda, but it never was put on any school agenda. Little else was done except that a memo from the school employee was sent to District employees with a response from the Superintendent as well. The Superintendent's initial response was slow and inadequate. 2) Some of the teaching staff feel they are working in an environment of intimidation, harassment, and retribution if there is any questioning or dissent. 15 3) They also feel that concerns about students are not being addressed by the Administration. They report instances of intimidation of principals to be quiet when parents show up at meetings, and to discourage parents from attending meetings. There were also several reports from witnesses of the intimidation of · teachers who speak out. These teachers received poor reviews when not warranted. They were evaluated two-three times a week. They were put into positions which made them uncomfortable. They were given assignments or demands that were excessive. No guidelines were set for what exactly is a "bad teacher". 3) Students' needs are not met equally. For example, students with behavioral problems were denied behavioral consultations because they were too expensive. As required by Article 7 of the Federal law, if a student's behavior affects the learning of other students as well as themselves to a marked degree and over a period of time, the student is required to be tested. Conclusion: The public perception of the school District Board and its policies is controversial and needs to be addressed.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Federal agencies open bids for local businesses and work with local agencies rather than provide "no-bid" contracts to large national companies.
R2:
County officials keep the public up-to-date on County stimulus projects with consistent and easily understood information about the status of stimulus projects as well as funding for projects from other income sources.
R3:
More accounting and project details be made available to the public.
R4:
Continuation of the County Ad Hoc Stimulus Task Force to work cooperatively with other agencies to find other sources of funding.
R5:
County Auditor should attend meetings appropriate to their position including County Board of Supervisors meetings.
R6:
Continue to search for funding for Plumas District Hospital in order to comply with State-mandated seismic-retrofit regulations. Plumas County Office of Education and Plumas Unified School District Report Opening Statement As members of the Plumas County Grand Jury, one of our duties is to investigate citizen complaints. One of the complaints was from a guardian whose ward had been suspended from his school. Investigation of this event opened several other areas of concern regarding Plumas County school policies. At the same time, there was much media attention on the school budget and how it was being managed. We found four areas of specific concerns. Specific Issue #1 PCOE/PUSD are maintaining a reserve of 45%. Why? Is this an appropriate amount? After conducting many interviews, reading many school financial documents and attending several board meetings, the Grand Jury understands that the 45% reserve is a reasonable goal in the current unstable economic climate, coupled with complicated financial issues.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Administrative - non-supervised except for fines, fees or restrictions.
F2:
Out-of-County/Low Risk- minimal supervision, may report by mail or phone, some supervised by other jurisdictions.
F3:
Intensive Drug Supervision - at a minimum, defendants must have both drug testing and search and seizure as conditions of probation.
F4:
Drug Court - all defendants that have been placed in a Drug Court program. The Probation Department's responsibilities include: a. Home visits and/or searches. b. Creating pre-trial reports. c. Pre-sentencing reports. d. Drug testing. The department also works with at-risk juveniles and has created a Girls Circle program. It is currently developing a program for boys. The department has approximately 380 individuals on court-ordered probation at any given time. Drugs and/or alcohol abuse account for 80% to 85% of the people on probation. Federal and State funding reserves for Plumas County consist of $509,467 to fund drug and alcohol programs. At the time of this report, the County was not taking 5 advantage of this funding. ( On March 15, 2011, the Board of Supervisors initiated discussions on how to acquire these funds. They have until June 30, 2011 to decide.)
F5:
The pupil was active in school activities, held a good grade point average, and had a high SAT score for college acceptance. According to several letters from teachers, the pupil was well liked and a good student. There were no actions taken against the student by the Plumas County authorities. This was the student's senior year. This was a first-time violation by the student. 13
F6:
The California Education Code 48911 recommendation for expulsion is as follows: a. That other means of correction are not feasible or have repeatedly failed to bring about proper conduct. b. That due to the nature of the violation, the presence of the pupil causes a continuing danger to the physical safety of the pupil or others.
F7:
Unfortunately, this was not an isolated incident of improper expulsions. According to public school board records, other expulsions were addressed at closed school board sessions, and according to concerned community members, were not in the time frame set down by the PCUSD and the State of California.
F8:
Formed Crisis Response Teams.
F9:
At Quincy Elementary School, the school secretary and administrative designee (teacher in charge) have been trained to implement a lockdown using the lockdown bell signal whenever a report involving a gun is received on days when the principal is not on campus. I 0. The schedule of the office staff has also been rearranged so that there is always someone at the switchboard during the lunch hour. Conclusion School officials have acted in a responsible manner to improve school safety. Specific Issue #4 - An atmosphere of intolerance exists at the District level. Purpose Statement Examples of intolerance were directly observed by Grand Jury members from interviews, local media, and testimony at public school board meetings. Findings 1) In the fall of 20 I 0, students were exposed to a vehicle with hate language on school property. The vehicle is still, as of spring 2011, present near a local elementary school. It is now on the street but off school property. Even if the truck was present one time instead of many, once showed poor judgment by the school employee. During the December board meeting it was decided to place the issue on the January School Board meeting agenda, but it never was put on any school agenda. Little else was done except that a memo from the school employee was sent to District employees with a response from the Superintendent as well. The Superintendent's initial response was slow and inadequate. 2) Some of the teaching staff feel they are working in an environment of intimidation, harassment, and retribution if there is any questioning or dissent. 15 3) They also feel that concerns about students are not being addressed by the Administration. They report instances of intimidation of principals to be quiet when parents show up at meetings, and to discourage parents from attending meetings. There were also several reports from witnesses of the intimidation of · teachers who speak out. These teachers received poor reviews when not warranted. They were evaluated two-three times a week. They were put into positions which made them uncomfortable. They were given assignments or demands that were excessive. No guidelines were set for what exactly is a "bad teacher". 3) Students' needs are not met equally. For example, students with behavioral problems were denied behavioral consultations because they were too expensive. As required by Article 7 of the Federal law, if a student's behavior affects the learning of other students as well as themselves to a marked degree and over a period of time, the student is required to be tested. Conclusion: The public perception of the school District Board and its policies is controversial and needs to be addressed.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Federal agencies open bids for local businesses and work with local agencies rather than provide "no-bid" contracts to large national companies.
R2:
County officials keep the public up-to-date on County stimulus projects with consistent and easily understood information about the status of stimulus projects as well as funding for projects from other income sources.
R3:
More accounting and project details be made available to the public.
R4:
Continuation of the County Ad Hoc Stimulus Task Force to work cooperatively with other agencies to find other sources of funding.
R5:
County Auditor should attend meetings appropriate to their position including County Board of Supervisors meetings.
R6:
Continue to search for funding for Plumas District Hospital in order to comply with State-mandated seismic-retrofit regulations. Plumas County Office of Education and Plumas Unified School District Report Opening Statement As members of the Plumas County Grand Jury, one of our duties is to investigate citizen complaints. One of the complaints was from a guardian whose ward had been suspended from his school. Investigation of this event opened several other areas of concern regarding Plumas County school policies. At the same time, there was much media attention on the school budget and how it was being managed. We found four areas of specific concerns. Specific Issue #1 PCOE/PUSD are maintaining a reserve of 45%. Why? Is this an appropriate amount? After conducting many interviews, reading many school financial documents and attending several board meetings, the Grand Jury understands that the 45% reserve is a reasonable goal in the current unstable economic climate, coupled with complicated financial issues.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Lack of communication and inaccurate information between agencies regarding stimulus funds.
F2:
State funding available for drug and alcohol programs in the County currently not being used.
F3:
Hospital funding has been restricted due to the recent loss of Measure A in the recent special election in November 20 I 0.
F4:
The Sheriff has attempted to obtain more staff, but his request was denied due to funding restrictions. During our investigation, the committee found the following projects that were funded by stimulus dollars: a. The US Forest Service Beckworth Airport Project received funding to expand runways and build firefighter barracks in the amount of 2.2 million dollars. b. The new Spanish Creek Bridge construction run by Caltrans for 28 million dollars. c. Private agencies working with County agencies such as Broadband communications for 13.8 million dollars. d. County agencies acquiring money for weatherization improvements for low-income housing. Throughout our investigation, obtaining stimulus funding required various regulated restrictions. For example, federal road repairs (in the Bucks Lake area) required improvements only to Federal highway routes and no soil was to be disturbed aligning these routes. 9
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Administrative - non-supervised except for fines, fees or restrictions.
F2:
Out-of-County/Low Risk- minimal supervision, may report by mail or phone, some supervised by other jurisdictions.
F3:
Intensive Drug Supervision - at a minimum, defendants must have both drug testing and search and seizure as conditions of probation.
F4:
Drug Court - all defendants that have been placed in a Drug Court program. The Probation Department's responsibilities include: a. Home visits and/or searches. b. Creating pre-trial reports. c. Pre-sentencing reports. d. Drug testing. The department also works with at-risk juveniles and has created a Girls Circle program. It is currently developing a program for boys. The department has approximately 380 individuals on court-ordered probation at any given time. Drugs and/or alcohol abuse account for 80% to 85% of the people on probation. Federal and State funding reserves for Plumas County consist of $509,467 to fund drug and alcohol programs. At the time of this report, the County was not taking 5
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
After review and discussion of the suspension and expulsion procedures as well as the California Education Code 48911, it appeared that school officials did not have a full understanding of the procedures or the purpose of the "Zero Tolerance" ruling.
F2:
The time frames made clear in the California Education Code 48911 were not in compliance.
F3:
The alleged events took place September 28, 2010, and it wasn't until two days later that an informal hearing was held by the principal and two Plumas County Sheriff deputies. A hearing is to be within one day of violation. The parent/guardian was not informed nor was she present until she was called by the school, and the student was released to her custody by the principal.
F4:
The student was suspended from school until a meeting of the School Board had made a decision. This meeting was not held until December 14, 2010.
F5:
The pupil was active in school activities, held a good grade point average, and had a high SAT score for college acceptance. According to several letters from teachers, the pupil was well liked and a good student. There were no actions taken against the student by the Plumas County authorities. This was the student's senior year. This was a first-time violation by the student. 13
F6:
The California Education Code 48911 recommendation for expulsion is as follows: a. That other means of correction are not feasible or have repeatedly failed to bring about proper conduct. b. That due to the nature of the violation, the presence of the pupil causes a continuing danger to the physical safety of the pupil or others.
F7:
Unfortunately, this was not an isolated incident of improper expulsions. According to public school board records, other expulsions were addressed at closed school board sessions, and according to concerned community members, were not in the time frame set down by the PCUSD and the State of California.
F8:
Formed Crisis Response Teams.
F9:
At Quincy Elementary School, the school secretary and administrative designee (teacher in charge) have been trained to implement a lockdown using the lockdown bell signal whenever a report involving a gun is received on days when the principal is not on campus. I 0. The schedule of the office staff has also been rearranged so that there is always someone at the switchboard during the lunch hour. Conclusion School officials have acted in a responsible manner to improve school safety. Specific Issue #4 - An atmosphere of intolerance exists at the District level. Purpose Statement Examples of intolerance were directly observed by Grand Jury members from interviews, local media, and testimony at public school board meetings. Findings 1) In the fall of 20 I 0, students were exposed to a vehicle with hate language on school property. The vehicle is still, as of spring 2011, present near a local elementary school. It is now on the street but off school property. Even if the truck was present one time instead of many, once showed poor judgment by the school employee. During the December board meeting it was decided to place the issue on the January School Board meeting agenda, but it never was put on any school agenda. Little else was done except that a memo from the school employee was sent to District employees with a response from the Superintendent as well. The Superintendent's initial response was slow and inadequate. 2) Some of the teaching staff feel they are working in an environment of intimidation, harassment, and retribution if there is any questioning or dissent. 15 3) They also feel that concerns about students are not being addressed by the Administration. They report instances of intimidation of principals to be quiet when parents show up at meetings, and to discourage parents from attending meetings. There were also several reports from witnesses of the intimidation of · teachers who speak out. These teachers received poor reviews when not warranted. They were evaluated two-three times a week. They were put into positions which made them uncomfortable. They were given assignments or demands that were excessive. No guidelines were set for what exactly is a "bad teacher". 3) Students' needs are not met equally. For example, students with behavioral problems were denied behavioral consultations because they were too expensive. As required by Article 7 of the Federal law, if a student's behavior affects the learning of other students as well as themselves to a marked degree and over a period of time, the student is required to be tested. Conclusion: The public perception of the school District Board and its policies is controversial and needs to be addressed.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Federal agencies open bids for local businesses and work with local agencies rather than provide "no-bid" contracts to large national companies.
R2:
County officials keep the public up-to-date on County stimulus projects with consistent and easily understood information about the status of stimulus projects as well as funding for projects from other income sources.
R3:
More accounting and project details be made available to the public.
R4:
Continuation of the County Ad Hoc Stimulus Task Force to work cooperatively with other agencies to find other sources of funding.
R5:
County Auditor should attend meetings appropriate to their position including County Board of Supervisors meetings.
R6:
Continue to search for funding for Plumas District Hospital in order to comply with State-mandated seismic-retrofit regulations. Plumas County Office of Education and Plumas Unified School District Report Opening Statement As members of the Plumas County Grand Jury, one of our duties is to investigate citizen complaints. One of the complaints was from a guardian whose ward had been suspended from his school. Investigation of this event opened several other areas of concern regarding Plumas County school policies. At the same time, there was much media attention on the school budget and how it was being managed. We found four areas of specific concerns. Specific Issue #1 PCOE/PUSD are maintaining a reserve of 45%. Why? Is this an appropriate amount? After conducting many interviews, reading many school financial documents and attending several board meetings, the Grand Jury understands that the 45% reserve is a reasonable goal in the current unstable economic climate, coupled with complicated financial issues.
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.