⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 16 findings
21-1
Page 1
Interference in the chancellors’ recommended appointments of management employees by Peralta trustees between 2018 and 2020 irreparably damaged the chancellor/board governance relationship.
21-2
Page 1
Individual board member interference in the formal hiring process of management employees between 2018 and 2020 by performing informal vetting and challenging the formal recruitment/vetting process and chancellor
21-3
Page 1
Holding closed session discussions to reevaluate the formal recruitment/vetting process and chancellor
21-4
Page 1
Peralta Board Policy 7110 which gives the Peralta Board of Trustees the power to approve the appointment of management employees was interpreted by the board between 2018 and 2020 in a manner that conflicts with Board Policy 2430 Delegation of Authority to the Chancellor and the portion of Board Policy 7110 that delegates the authority for human resources to the chancellor. Incivility
21-5
Page 1
Individual board members’ incivility and harsh treatment of other trustees and administrators between 2018 and 2020 damaged staff morale and compromised the authority of the chancellor and other administrators.
21-6
Page 1
The 2018-2020 Peralta Board of Trustees failed to recognize that disrespectful and demeaning comments directed at staff were interpreted as racially insensitive which consequently damaged district morale and board/administrator relationships.
21-7
Page 1
Board leadership between 2018-2020 consistently failed to intervene consistent with board policies in situations where board members and staff were treated in an uncivil and harsh manner by other board members and the public. Brown Act
21-8
Page 1
During the late-night hours of July 18, 2020, a majority of the Peralta Board of Trustees secretly met with academic leaders to discuss district business, excluding the public and three trustees who would have disagreed with the purpose of the meeting. The gathering violated the sanctity of participatory governance in California as described in the Brown Act.
21-9
Page 1
On the morning of July 19, 2020, a majority of the Peralta Academic Senate met secretly to discuss district business with other academic leaders and one Peralta trustee without proper notice and public access. The gathering violated the sanctity of participatory governance in California as described in the Brown Act.
21-10
Page 1
The Oakland Police Department failed to fill the victims of crime liaison officer in accordance with Cal. Gov. Code § 13962(c) and 2 CCR § 649.36 and by OPD’s own general orders, in a timely fashion, causing lost opportunity for the victims of violent crime to obtain needed support. The Oakland Police Department was aware of the directive and in April 2021 complied with the requirement.
21-11
Page 1
Failing to have a victims of crime liaison officer for years, the Oakland Police Department missed out on relevant and available training mandated by Cal. Gov. Code sec. [13962(d).]
21-12
Page 1
Racial disparities exist in the number of applications for crime victim compensation that are denied for lack of cooperation with law enforcement, lack of cooperation with the claims group, and involvement in events leading to crimes. Black applicants receive a disproportionate number of denials for these reasons compared to applicants in other racial/ethnic categories.
21-13
Page 1
The claims group relies on information from law enforcement as the basis of their determinations that an applicant or victim has failed to cooperate or was involved in events leading to crimes.
21-14
Page 1
Determinations about cooperativeness and involvement include subjective judgments on the part of police and other law enforcement personnel that could lead to a denial of victim compensation funds, and consequently are relatively more likely to be influenced by overt or implicit bias, among other factors.
21-15
Page 1
The Oakland Police Department’s website is maintained in an opaque fashion with no provision for globally searching for any particular policy or procedure.
21-16
Page 1
Local ballot questions, as currently written, were not always fully transparent, complete, and impartial, impeding voters from making informed decisions.
Recommendations 17
-
21-1Page 1The Peralta Board of Trustees must participate in an annual training that examines the relationship between the board and chancellor and governance best practices.
-
21-2Page 1The Peralta Board of Trustees must amend the portion of Board Policy 7110, which gives the board of trustees the power to approve appointment of management employees to ensure it does not conflict with Board Policy 2430, Delegation of Authority of Chancellor, and the portion of Board Policy 7110 that delegates the authority for human resources to the chancellor.
-
21-3Page 1The Peralta Board of Trustees must adopt a staff and executive staff hiring policy consistent with ACCJC best practices and recommendations.
-
21-4Page 1Peralta board leadership must commit to intervene, consistent with board policy, in situations where trustees or public speakers are verbally attacking staff or other trustees.
-
21-5Page 1The Peralta Board of Trustees must participate in training combatting racial insensitivity and implicit bias (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging/DEIB).
-
21-6Page 1The Peralta Board of Trustees and Peralta Academic Senate must participate in additional training regarding the Brown Act, illegal meetings, and closed session ethics.
-
21-7Page 1The Peralta Board of Trustees must post proof or acknowledgement of all completed board training on the board web page.
-
21-8Page 1Individual members of the Peralta Board of Trustees must participate in an annual 360 evaluation, including a behavioral component. This evaluation must include staff input and the results must be discussed during a public meeting.
-
21-9Page 1The Peralta Board of Trustees must discuss the
-
21-10Page 1The Oakland Police Department must fulfill the expectations of the victims of crime liaison officer role immediately, while providing the contact information to the Victim-Witness Assistance Division and related public sector partner organizations who focus on victim advocacy and victim compensation programs.
-
21-11Page 1The Oakland Police Department must enhance awareness and training of officers and other personnel in victim support, particularly in areas of the city with the highest rates of violent crime.
-
21-12Page 1The Oakland Police Department must work with the Victim-Witness Assistance Division to investigate the causes of racially disparate outcomes in compensation award decisions, specifically the policies, procedures, methods and language used by law enforcement to communicate with the claims group and victim compensation decisions.
-
21-13Page 1The Oakland Police Department must require all personnel involved in sharing information with the Victim-Witness Assistance Division to undergo periodic training, with the goal of increasing awareness of the California Victim Compensation Board programs, increasing awareness of the duty of law enforcement to inform victims of the compensation assistance available to them, and minimizing the incidence of racially disparate outcomes in victim compensation award decisions.
-
21-14Page 1The Oakland Police Department must ensure that the victim of crime liaison officer receives and disseminates available training materials provided in accordance with Cal. Gov. Code sec. 13962(d).
-
21-15Page 1The Oakland Police Department must review and ensure compliance with legal requirements, policies and methodologies used to document the issuance of the Marsy’s Law/resource card.
-
21-16Page 1The Oakland Police Department and the City of Oakland, to the extent applicable, must post its policies and procedures on the City of Oakland’s website in such a manner that it is globally searchable and user friendly. REQUEST FOR RESPONSES Pursuant to California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the grand jury requests each entity or individual named below to respond to the enumerated
-
21-17Page 1The Alameda County Board of Supervisors should create an independent advisory committee or commission to conduct a review and issue non-binding ratings, based on uniform standards and guidelines, of ballot questions of measures proposed by all local jurisdictions within the county. The committee members must be committed to the ideals of accuracy and impartiality reflected in state law. The committee should be implemented in time for the 2024 elections. For an example of how the committee might work, please see Appendix B. REQUEST FOR RESPONSES Pursuant to California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the grand jury requests each entity or individual named below to respond to the enumerated
Conclusions 6
-
CL1 Page 34Effective educational institutions that foster learning and achievement most often excel by delivering programs and services laser-focused on students. Per the ACCJC, ethical and effective leadership throughout an organization is an essential component that helps lead to such success. Over the better part of the last decade, Peralta’s Board of Trustees have lost sight of this with board members’ infighting and some treating executive leadership as the enemy while battling for control amongst themselves. While state educational authorities warned the institution was in threat of financial insolvency and its colleges were dangerously close to losing accreditation, the Peralta Board of Trustees failed to use a team approach to solve the problems it faced. In 2019, the board brought in a new chancellor who began to address many of the state’s financial concerns, yet individual trustees’ insistence on controlling the traditional roles delegated to the chancellor contributed to her resignation in less than nine months. The chancellor’s letter of resignation highlighted unhealthy board governance that had lasted for years. Controlling administrative hires, encouraging a culture of infighting, and disrespectful exchanges at meetings were common occurrences and confirmed by the grand jury. Black administrators felt as though the attacks were racially motivated. Claims of backroom dealing and secret meetings displayed abandonment of good governance and sound ethical standards. Renewed calls by state educational authorities to address governance required action. The grand jury acknowledges and commends the Peralta Board of Trustees for adopting a board Statement of Cooperation that was the culmination of a longer process of self-evaluation in 2020. It is also commendable that the board brought in FCMAT and consultants to develop 34
-
CL2 Page 35plans to address many of FCMAT’s recommendations for change. The board also moved quickly to fill the chancellor’s position after a series of resignations, yet there is significant concern by many that some key reforms may be abandoned. Problems related to long-term declining enrollment and fiscal instability demand leadership, vision, and collaboration between trustees and administrators. As one statewide educational expert warned, the Peralta board will continue to get in trouble, make small efforts to improve, then go back to their old ways. Within months of the adoption of the statement of cooperation, another chancellor, who was serving in an interim capacity, resigned and the grand jury found that some of the key ongoing board governance concerns have not been resolved. Cohesion, civility, trust, and mutual respect are critical elements of an effective governing board. Tension, poor communication, lack of unified goals, and divisive individual behavior at Peralta have resulted in the board's inability to fulfill its mandate effectively. Interference in the traditional roles of the chancellor, secret meetings, and backroom dealing destroy staff morale and the board’s relationship with the administrative team. Without reform or change in board behavior, Peralta’s students, so in need of this essential institution, will continue to suffer.
-
CL3 Page 49The legitimacy of any system of justice relies on broad public support. The “quality” or “effectiveness” of the justice system is traditionally understood in terms of crimes and punishments. The focus is on apprehending perpetrators and holding them accountable for the consequences of their wrongful acts. These are legitimate concerns of course, but the 49
-
CL4 Page 50traditional perspective tends to overlook the victims of crimes—understood not only as persons injured or damaged by criminal conduct, but also as key participants in the establishment and maintenance of justice in our communities. As with the justice system generally, assessments of police policy and conduct—including assessments of overt or systemic racial bias and inequity in law enforcement—must remember the victims. Further research is needed into the reasons for the disparate rates of cooperativeness and involvement denials for victim compensation. Greater emphasis by OPD and city officials on the programs mentioned in this report may lead not only to improved compliance with state mandates and progressive policing practices, but may also improve traditional measures of law enforcement performance, such as arrest and closure rates. Attention to these issues as part of a broader effort to address racial equity in law enforcement would likely improve community support for the police and would be an important step in improving fairness and equality in the criminal justice system.
-
CL5 Page 69For the reasons described above, the ballot questions we reviewed generally fell short of what voters have a right to expect. Although such outcomes are predictable based on the drafting processes used by government entities, and indeed have come to be expected by many voters used to reading ballot questions written in a style that has become commonplace, the grand jury believes such outcomes are not acceptable and should be resisted by all those with a role in observing the legal requirements for accuracy and impartiality. In our interviews, we found officials who are responsible for preparing questions to be sincere in their desire to meet the standards for accuracy and impartiality, even while their overarching goal in drafting the questions was to promote voter approval. All things considered, we understand how questions end up reading the way they do. As we have found, the root of the problem is inherent in the process by which questions are prepared, in combination with the standards applied in the event they are challenged. Given the dynamics of these processes, and the challenges faced by local governments who must appeal to voters to approve many of their plans and programs, it is difficult to imagine the problematic nature of ballot questions changing without some legislative or institutional initiative to spur improvement. 69
-
CL6 Page 70In recognition of these practical realities, the grand jury proposes that the Alameda County Board of Supervisors create an advisory commission composed of impartial and representative citizen volunteers committed to the ideals of accuracy and impartiality, who would review and rate ballot questions according to applicable legal standards as well as general principles of transparency and objectivity. Jurisdictions could submit questions for review on a voluntary basis, in parallel to the development of the questions. The commission would be empowered to develop a 0 to 10 rating or a simple “fair/unfair” or “pass/fail” rating, and would rate all questions in each election, after their adoption, regardless of whether a jurisdiction had submitted the question to the panel for review. In this way jurisdictions would have an incentive to have their questions reviewed prior to adoption, so as to obtain a favorable rating. The advisory panel would also assist jurisdictions in developing better questions, by serving as a neutral appraiser of questions for which there could be divergent views within a particular agency. By reviewing and rating questions based on uniform standards, the proposed panel would also promote greater uniformity in question language, facilitating voters’ understanding. The grand jury believes such a panel and process would improve the overall quality of ballot questions and enhance the legitimacy of elections in which ballot measures are approved or rejected. Alameda County could become the state’s leader for fairness and transparency in government.
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Peralta Community College District
School District