Yolo cOuNT Y GRANd JuRYP

Based upon published promotional criteria, the pro- Union, in order to restore a balanced relation- motion process utilized by the Fire Chief does not ship between DFD administration and the Local result in appointment of the most qualified candi- Union and its Board. date.

Closed Session meeting agendas did not contain erty or purchasing or leasing other property. required informa tion, in violation of the Brown

Action was taken during closed session meetings leasing—indicated a flawed deci sion-making pro- of the District’s Board of Trustees in violation of cess, based on faulty assumptions and without the Brown Act. verific ation of actual costs. It did not take into ac-

The District did not report in a public session on count the market, State deficits, cost of Certificates the plan to purchase the Blue Shield building until of Participation, space needs, and the cost of finan- at least 12 months after planning and negotiations cing furniture and equipment for 30 years. had begun. The purchase of the Blue Shield build-

The Board failed to comply with the open meeting ceedings. Yet the Trustees entered into a final and requirements of the Brown Act during its consider- binding purchase agreement which stated that the ation and discussion of questions relating to reloca- purchase was made under actual threat of condem- tion of the District’s central administrative offices nation by the District. and acquisition of the Blue Shield property. Con-

Only negotiation of price and terms of payment of the members of the Board to the Blue Shield ac- are permitted to be discussed in closed Board quisition, the District distorted the environmental meetings relating to a real property pur chase. The status of their existing central administrative offic- Brown Act requires all other issues concerning real es by sensation alizing environmental health risks proper ty transactions be taken up in open, public associated with ground water con tamination and meetings. The Board failed to adequately inform air quality at that location. These actions appear and educate the District’s constituency about the to be calculated public relations efforts and do not nature of Certificates of Participation financing appear to be warranted by any special health risk compared to tradi tional bond financing and the associated with working in or visiting the District’s reasons for the Boards determination to use Cer- existing central administrative offices. The District tificates of Participation financing to acquire new has had no record of employee health complaints central adm inistrative offices. at the Cottonwood Premises since 2001.

Timely open and public discussion of the Board’s program for new central administra- Consultants and purchasing tive office facilities may have minimized or F13. The District’s real property consultant was paid pre vented the controversy which greeted the at rates up to $150 per hour for work that should Board’s eventual public disclosure of the Blue have been done by the District’s commission real Shield property acquisition and financing trans- estate broker, costing District tax payers unneces- actions. sary real estate consultant fees. 15 2007/2008 Yolo CountY Grand JurY Final report

The DFD allows influence by the Union to the det- Grand Jury. The complaints centered on the performance riment of department assets and interests. of CSD personnel and the Board of Directors. Based on numerous interviews and review of vo-

One main reason given to justify the purchase of Act. the Blue Shield build ing—owning is better than

In closed session the Board of Trustees affirma- ing was discussed in public sessions only three tively rejected the notion of legal action to acquire times. the Blue Shield property by eminent domain pro-

The other reason given for the purchase of the Blue sideration and disc ussion of these matters could Shield building—that the Cottonwood Premises have been the subject of open and public meetings are unsafe—is misleading in light of evidence of the Board. Even if these matters were appropri- provided by the monitoring and remediation of the ate for closed confidential meetings, the determi- Cottonwood Center carried out over many years nations made, direction given, and/or concurrence and the assessment of expert Yolo County and State reached among a majority of the Trustees of the of California agencies of the current environmental Board during these closed meetings constituted ac- status of the Cottonwood Center. tion which should have been promptly announced

In the face of increasingly critical public sentiment in public session. and the continued resistance of a strong minority

The District’s real property consultant was paid

There is a conflict of interest created in hiring a Premise owner, leaving the Board with incomplete real property consultant and a real estate broker information upon which to make their decision to from the same real estate services firm, a conflict lease or purchase the Blue Shield property or to which may result in direct monetary benefit to the remain at the Cottonwood premises. consultant and/or the broker. F22. The Superintendent demonstrated over-reliance

There is no District policy in place regarding pur- upon the District’s real estate consultant, at the ex- chase order addenda for sums in excess of the pense of her own knowledge. maximum amount of the original purchase order F23. Decision makers, with a few note-worthy excep- approved by the Board of Trustees. tions, did not appear to be informed in areas criti- cal to their role in the decision making process in due diligence and decision-Making process connection with relocation of District administra-

The authorized financing of the Blue Shield prop- tive offi ces or acquisition of the Blue Shield prop- erty amortizes the full cost of purchasing, upgrad- erty. ing and equipping the Blue Shield property over 30 F24. The District’s legal counsel worked to frustrate years notwithstanding that the future space needs and limit the Grand Jury’s requests to the District assessment study only estimated the District’s cen- for information concerning the subject matter of tral office space needs for the next eight years. this report and interviews of District officers.

The Board authorized purchase price for the Blue F25. The Board of Trustees based the cost of alterna- Shield property of $5.67 million, plus planned tives to the purchase of the Blue Shield property tenant improvements and upgrades of $1,600,000 upon faulty assumptions and without veri fi ca tion and $565,000 for furnishings and equipment. After of actual or most likely costs, resulting in a seri- adding financing transactional expenses and inter- ously flawed decision making process. est costs associated with the Certificates of Parti- F26. The determination that owning the Blue Shield ci pation financing plan, the District’s fi nancial property was better than leasing the Cottonwood advisor estimates total Blue Shield property cost Premises, to the extent it is based upon comparable amounts to more than $21 million. This amount annual cost, was misinformed because the actual does not include $233,568 in other consulting and lease cost available to the District was approxi- attorneys’ fees already incurred through April 9, mately 60% of the first year COP expense. 2008, nor does it include any fees to be incurred F27. If the uninformed assumption that annual rental after April 9th. would be approxim ately $450,000 a year - or even

Material changes in financial and credit markets $414,000 a year - was correct, the annual cost since the Board’s execution of the Blue Shield of owning the Blue Shield property would very purchase contract have made long term mortgage material ly exceed the Cottonwood Premises lease borrowing, especially financing plans using mort- payments because the COP payments are intended gage payment guarantees, more difficult and more to escalate by 3% per year on a compounded ba- expensive. Yet the District still plans to proceed sis. with purchase of the Blue Shield property on July F28. The District undertook detailed negotiations and 1, 2008. According to an email written by the entered a letter of mutual intent fixing upon pur- Superintendent, the District plans “…to lease the chase of the Blue Shield property before the Dis- building and then purchase it when the cloud of trict’s own study of future administrative office the investigation has been lifted.” space needs was presented to the Board of Trust-

The District’s plan for payment of furniture and ees. The price and terms of payment were agreed equipment required in the Blue Shield property upon before any valuation study of the Blue Shield in addition to extensive tenant imp rovem ents and property was commenced. upgrades is based upon a 30 year payment plan F29. The Board failed to conduct timely due diligence notwiths tandi ng that the useful life of such furni- in that they con sidered alternative central office ture and equipment is typic ally many years fewer. locations after they had already decided upon and

The Board failed to perform and failed to require engaged in extensive negotiation for the purchase senior staff to perform adequate due diligence in of the Blue Shield property. its consideration of alternative central office sites.

The District withheld from the Board the actual, reCoMMendationS negotiable lease renewal offer of the Cottonwood 08-01 The District should engage a policy and practice 16 2007/2008 Yolo CountY Grand JurY Final report of openness and cooperation toward the public consultant and a specified District officer or the with regard to major financial deci sions. The Board, identify the District officer or officers au- Board of Trustees should engage in deliberation thorized to direct the work of the consultant and and decision making in public sessions in full establish the maximum amount of compensation compliance with the re quire ments of the Brown payable to the consultant with out further specific Act. Board authorization. 08-02 The Board should strengthen public confidence 08-10 The Board of Trustees should establish a policy in its competence and authority by conducting regarding Board authorization and payment of its business and discussions in public session addenda to purchase orders which aggregate to and utilize closed confidential session meetings more than the $15,000 maximum expenditure only where expressly authorized by the Brown authori ty delegated by the Board to the Superin- Act. tendent. 08-03 The Board and District administrators should 08-11 The Board of Trustees and School District should share the public spirit of service to the commu- avoid even the slightest conflict of interest be- nity by organizing and conducting business in a tween or among vendors. way that increases public interest in District af- 08-12 The Board and District administrators should fairs, encourages public atten dance and informs exercise due dili gence techniques and research, the public in open, shared deliberations and dis- documenting its analyses under pinning important cussion. financial decisions and actions such as purchase 08-04 The Board should take seriously its obligation or lease of capital assets. They should carefully to educate itself and its senior administrative consider alternatives, finan cial arrangements, and staff about the open meeting requirements of the economy when considering purchase of real the Brown Act and institute an annual continu- property. They should also ensure understanding ing mandatory educational program about the of important financial and contractual arrange- Brown Act for Board members and senior staff. ments presented by Dis trict ad min istrators and 08-05 Pursuant to Govt C 54957.2, the Board should consultants. designate an officer or employee of the District to 08-13 The District Superintendent should read and attend each closed session meeting of the Board have first-hand knowl edge of all reports germane to keep a record of topics discussed, directions to her position. given, decisions made, and actions taken by the 08-14 The 2007/2008 Yolo County Grand Jury Board in closed session. recommends the 2008/2009 Yolo County Grand 08-06 The Yolo County District Attorney should con- Jury continue investigation of the Woodland sider commencem ent of an action pursuant to Joint Unified School District including, but not Govt C 54960 to compel the District to comply limited to, compliance with the Brown Act. with public meeting laws. 08-07 The District should approach the expendi- ture of its monetary res ources with a commit- reQueStS For reSponSeS ment to frugality, careful research, and open Pursuant to Penal Code section 933.05, the Yolo communication and disclosure of the Board’s County Grand Jury requests responses as follows: decision making proc esses. From the following individuals: 08-08 The Board should minimize use of long term • Superintendent, Woodland Joint Unified School consultants and, when possible, utilize qualified District (Findings F2 through F29; Recommenda- District personnel to their full advan tage, both to tions 08-01, 08-03, and 08-07 through 08-13) reduce expenses and to increase accountability • Yolo County District Attorney (Recommendation of individuals acting on behalf of the District. 08-06) 08-09 The District should establish policy requiring From the following governing bodies: that all District con sultants act on behalf of • Woodland Joint Unified School District Board of the District only pursuant to a written con tract Trustees (Findings F2 through F29; Recommenda- which details the services to be provided to the tions 08-01 through 08-05 and 08-07 through 08- District, the reporting relationship between the 12) 17 2007/2008 Yolo CountY Grand JurY Final report appendiCeS (Woodland Joint Unified School District) attaCHMent a: Brown act Summary of relevant provisions — Closed Meetings of Board of trustees 1. Meetings of the Board of Trustees are subject to the the property in question, the name of the negotia- Ralph M. Brown Act, sometimes referred to as Cali- tor attending, the name of the negotiating parties, fornia’s “open meeting” law. The intent of the Act is and whether negotiation will concern price, terms that the public’s business be conducted in public and of payment or both. that members of governing boards of local agencies b. To confer with Legal Counsel – Existing Litiga- vote and be accountable to constituents for their of- tion. This exception may apply when the District ficial actions. is a party to formally initiated litigation. This ex- 2. The Act requires all meetings of the Board be open ception requires the closed session agenda specify and public and that all persons be permitted to attend either the name of the pending litigation case or, any meeting of the Board unless a specific exception in lieu of the case name, specify whether disclo- is provided in the Act. An agenda for regular meet- sure of the case name would jeopardize service of ings of the Board must be published at least 72 hours process or existing settlement negotiations. prior to the meeting. The agenda must contain a brief c. To confer with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Liti- description of each item of business to be transacted gation. This exc eption involves exposure to litiga- or discussed at the meeting, including items to be dis- tion or initiation of litigation. In either situation cussed in closed session. Members of the public must the number of cases must be specified. Based on be given an opportunity to address the Board at each circumstances of each case, the closed session general and special meeting of the Board, including agenda item for conferring with legal counsel as matters indicated on the agenda to be discussed dur- to anticipated litigation may require additional de- ing closed sessions. Except in certain specified emer- tails on the closed session agenda. gency situations, the Act prohibits the Board from 4. The Act expressly repeals the attorney-client com- taking action or discussing any matter not appearing munication privilege as to local legislative bodies on the posted agenda. Once a closed session has been and provides for very limited attorney client com- completed, the Board must reconvene in public ses- munication confidentiality for purposes of conduct- sion where, with few exceptions, it must report the ing closed-session meetings. The Act is the exclusive actions taken in closed session. expression of the Board’s attorney-client communi- 3. The Board may act on and discuss only certain speci- cation privilege which may justify a closed session fied matters in closed sessions. When describing meeting with its counsel. If the Board expects to en- closed session agenda items, the Board must comply gage in communication with its counsel other than with descriptive requirements of the Act. A closed in an open and public session, the agenda must state session agenda item description does not authorize the specific subdivision of Section 54956.9 of the Act any business be done in closed session except the that authorizes the closed session. specific limited matters authorized by the Act. Three 5. The Act requires closed session actions taken by the examples of exceptions from the public meeting Board concluding real estate negotiations or directing mandate are relevant to this report. the Board’s counsel regarding legal action be public- a. To confer with Real Property Negotiator. When ly reported and the vote or abstention of every Board invoking this exception the Act requires the closed member present disclosed. session agenda must specify the street address to 18 2007/2008 Yolo CountY Grand JurY Final report attaCHMent B: Financial Commitments for Blue Shield Building purchase5 The total purchase price and related expenses to be financed by the Certificates of Participation were: Purchase Price $5,670,000 Design Architect 151,445 Insurance 5,625 Property Taxes 20,250 Tenant Improvements 1,600,000 Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment 565,000 Other soft costs 10,000 Closing costs 15,000 Contingency 193,280 Other (e.g. moving costs) 250,000 Subtotal $8,480,600 Owner financing @8.5% 117,938 Total Property Cost $8,811,000 (sic) Additional transactional financing expenses (i.e., exclusive of interest) were anticipated to amount to $1,351,144, nearly two-thirds of this amount was to establish a debt service reserve in accordance with the Certificates of Participation financing. These transactional financing expenses consisted of: Cost of issuance of the COPs $125,000 Payment guaranty premiums 212,677 Debt service reserve 886,154 Underwriting discount 127,313 Funds remaining 22,856 Total Transaction Financing Costs $1,374,000 Grand Total of Funds Needed from Certificates of Participation: Total Property Cost $8,811,000 Total Transaction Financing Cost 1,374,000 Proceeds Needed From Sale of COPs $10,185,000 The District’s financial advisor calculated total interest cost of the COPs financing over 30 years at a weighted average interest rate o f 4.71%6 would require total repayment of principal and interest in excess of $21,250,000. In addition, the following expenses were incurred by the District con cerning the Blue Shield acquisition transaction: Legal fees (July 25, 2007 – March 14, 2008) $90,129 Real Estate Consulting fees (October 31 – April 9, 2008) 143,439 Total Consulting fees to April 9, 2008 $233,568 (not including Brereton Architects for $151,455, listed above) 6 Actual interest rate would vary according to the maturity date of certificates. Longer term maturity certificates typically bear higher interest rates than short term maturity certificates. The District’s financial advisor assumed interest rates would range from 3.44% up to 4.85% during the thirty year term of the borrowing. Since the time the District’s financial advisor estimated the interest cost for this COP financing, a major mortgage banking crisis developed 5 These figures are taken directly from materials presented to the in which many mortgage insurers and bond sureties ceased or Board of Trustees in closed session prior to its December 13, dramatically curtailed operations. This has adversely affected both 2007, public meeting by Premier Commercial, Inc., the District’s the availability and the cost of long term borrowing by both private real estate consultant, and by Government Financial Services, Inc., and by public borrowers. For the time being interest rates remain the Districts financial advisor. The $8,811,000 figure for “Total relatively low even while lenders have generally restricted new Property Cost” appears in the source documents; the correct total long term debt investment. These general economic developments of the amounts shown as included in “Total Property Cost” is may operate to make the District’s plan to issue COPs to buy or $8,598,538. build a major new capital facility unaffordable. 19 2007/2008 Yolo CountY Grand JurY Final report attaCHMent C: Certificates of Participation Certificates of Participation, often referred to as the seller constituting principle and interest; for a gov- “COPs,” are a standard form of financing agreement ernmental purchaser, interest usually is tax-exempt. This whereby a buyer acquires the immediate title and use term is sometimes used interchangeably with the term of an asset and the seller retains a security interest in tax-exempt lease; however, in California, there is an the asset and the buyer agrees to pay the seller a series important distinction between the two (e.g., a lease is of payments equal to the cost of the asset plus interest. constitutionally legal and a conditional sale is not un- Therefore, the transfer of title is conditionally subject to less it is secured by a special fund.) The District must future payments. This is distinguished from an install- obtain a supermajority approval of voters to issue bonds. ment sale where the seller retains title until all install- Certificates of Participation may be issued without voter ment payments are made. In both forms of sale, for approval. (“Guidelines for Cer tificates of Participation,” federal tax purposes, the Internal Revenue Code treats California Debt Advisory Commission, 1993.) the asset as owned by the purchaser with payments to 20 2007/2008 Yolo CountY Grand JurY Final report daViS Fire departMent Chief plans to retire in the next one to two years. The first formal complaint was received in 2007. The eXeCutiVe SuMMarY 2006/2007 Grand Jury initiated an investigation but that An investigation of the Davis Fire Department (DFD) Grand Jury’s term expired before its investigation was was conducted as a result of citizen complaints to the completed. The 2007/2008 Grand Jury conducted its Grand Jury. Initial inquiry was based on reports of mis- own separate investigation. use of a DFD facility by off-duty personnel and a dif- ficult work environment influenced by a close alliance approaCH between the Fire Chief and Davis Professional Firefight- The Grand Jury interviewed past and present DFD ers Local 3494 (Union) and its Board of Directors. employees (including the Fire Chief), DPD employees, The major complaints investigated by the Grand the City Manager, and concerned citizens. The Grand Jury were: (a) inconsistent promotion practices; (b) a Jury also reviewed time and attendance, as well as pay- hostile work environment caused by a close relation- roll records for the 2007 calendar year; examined perti- ship between DFD management and the Union and its nent documents in harassment lawsuits filed by employ- Board of Directors and unequal support of educational ees; and reviewed correspondence, including e-mails, endeavors; (c) drug and alcohol use and the misuse of among DFD, DPD, and the City Manager concerning DFD sleeping facilities by off-duty firefighters; (d) the implementation of a new joint 911 call center. strained relationship between DFD and the Davis Police In preparing this report, the Grand Jury has taken spe- Department (DPD) and (e) the appearance of improper cial care to maintain the confidentiality of many details political activity. of the evidence provided by DFD employees and former The Grand Jury, after an extensive investigation, DFD employees in order to prevent discovery of their found misuse of a DFD facility; inappropriate relation- identity and to protect them from possible retaliation. ships between the Union’s Board of Directors and DFD management; and inconsistencies in promotional oppor- diSCuSSion tunities. The Grand Jury recommends: (a) the next Fire Chief a . promotion practices be someone from outside DFD with no ties to the Union; Promotional criteria are not clear to all DFD fire- (b) revise the current promotion testing process to include fighters. DFD firefighters generally perceive that being weighting of scores for each test section and posting of active in Union leadership will lead to promotion, better this information in public areas of the firehouses and in jobs, and better project or training assignments. Involve- promotion announcements; (c) require all personnel read ment in special projects and education opportunities was and sign-off on policies relating to discipline and alcohol noted as a necessary condition to promotion. However, and drug use and (d) enforcement of all alcohol and drug approval and/or selection for these opportunities is in- use policies. consistent. Weights are assigned to various promotion test seg- BaCKGround ments. The Grand Jury discovered these weights are ig- The mission of DFD is to “Protect Lives, Property nored by the Fire Chief when making the final selection. and the Environment.” In fulfilling this mission, DFD An example is the recent promotion of the Union Presi- performs a number of services in addition to fighting dent to the rank of Captain. The Union President ranked fires. Included in these services are pre-hospital emer- ninth out of ten on the promotion list.1 gency medical care, hazardous material mitigation, fire Firefighters who consistently scored high in promo- code interpretation and enforcement, safety inspections, tion testing but were never advanced, stopped testing for and fire investigations. The DFD 2006/2007 budget was promotion. $9,447,674. B . Hostile Work environment DFD includes three fire stations in Davis: Station During the incumbency of the current Fire Chief, 31 (located in downtown Davis), built in 1965; Station there have been three lawsuits concerning harassment 32, built in 1985; and Station 33, built in 1964. Each and a hostile work environment. One case was dropped is staffed with one company captain and at least three due to procedural deficiency. Two of these cases were firefighters on 24-hour shifts. Firefighters transfer among the three stations. Each DFD firefighter is required to be a certified Emergency Medical Technician I. The Union has had the same president since its founding 22 years The Grand Jury has learned that the incumbent Fire ago. 21 2007/2008 Yolo CountY Grand JurY Final report settled out of court; one case for $280,000 and the other work environments because of the communal nature of reportedly for between $300,000 and $400,000. the firehouse. A number of DFD firefighters are fearful of retalia- At least one firefighter has not had a performance tion if they speak out against the Fire Chief or the Union. evaluation in six years. The City of Davis Employee DFD firefighters, both past and present, indicated that Policy Handbook ( , sec. 5.4) indicates that “Each those who questioned or challenged the Union in any employee will be evaluated at least once a year.” way would be openly shunned by union members. Re- C . Misuse of dFd Facility taliation could occur even for inquiring about access to It was discovered that some DFD firefighters come Union bylaws and financial reports. In some cases the to the Station 31 firehouse (located downtown) to sleep Fire Chief would no longer speak to some personnel while off-duty. It appears that the off-duty DFD firefight- except for matters of duty. One DFD firefighter was so ers, after drinking in downtown Davis, sometimes “sleep fearful of retaliation that upon being summoned to tes- it off” at the firehouse rather than drive home, a prac- tify before the Grand Jury, this individual parked blocks tice actively supported by the Fire Chief. While it may away and walked to the Grand Jury’s office so that no be preferable for them to be sleeping in the firehouse one would identify the car in the Grand Jury parking lot rather than driving on the road, the city prohibits “be- and report it to DFD or Union management. ing under the influence during work hours, at the work A DFD program still in use was established, ex- site, or in uniform.” (Section 3.4B of the City of Davis panded and run for a number of years by one DFD fire- Administrative Policy and Section 7.4 J of the City of fighter. Despite its success, this program was reassigned Davis Personnel Rules and Regulations). Off-duty DFD to a DFD firefighter who was a member of the Union’s firefighters seen intoxicated downtown and known to be Board, allegedly because the first firefighter did not have sleeping at the firehouse afterward reflect poorly on the sufficient experience to run the program. However, the DFD and the City. newly assigned firefighter had no related experience or training in this area. The reassignment enhanced the d . relationship between the dpd and the dFd Union Board member’s promotion opportunities. There have been numerous instances of altercations The Fire Chief maintains a close long term friendship involving DFD firefighters which required police re- with the President of the Union. The Fire Chief’s hus- sponse. One of these incidents was acknowledged by band, a retired DFD firefighter, is a former Vice President the Fire Chief. Some police officers are hesitant to deal of the Union and continues to maintain his association with incidents involving off-duty DFD firefighters be- with the Local Union. Another member of the Board cause police officers are often dependent on firefighters for the Union is a trusted family friend who sometimes for assistance in emergency situations. provides child care for the Chief. Added together, these Another indication of tensions between the DPD and relationships present an appearance of cronyism and un- DFD was the lack of cooperation between the depart- due Union influence in the administration of the DFD. ments relating to setting up the new joint 911 Call Cen- A 33-year veteran DFD firefighter who did not join ter. Tension contributes to DPD uncertainty in dealing the Union was denied any recognition of his service or with firefighters who become rowdy or are involved in a retirement party. Another firefighter, a former member public altercations. The expectation by the DFD of spe- of the Union who later decided to rejoin, was informed cial treatment by the DPD is of concern. reactivation as a member of the Union was not possible unless dues for the period of non–membership were E. The Appearance of Undue Union Influence paid. Membership is not mandatory. All DFD firefight- Only approximately 80% of DFD firefighters live ers are now Union members, which may be the result of within the City of Davis. Remarkably, City records re- observing how non-union members have been treated. veal nearly all active DFD firefighters (approximately A firefighter asked to review his personnel file. On 40 persons) contributed the maximum $100 amount to examination, he found three letters of commendation several City Council candidates prior to the March 2004 had been removed and a disciplinary letter, of which he City Council election. Soon after that election, DFD’s was unaware, had been added. Another firefighter who new 2005 Union contract was negotiated and approved inquired about Union finances in a meeting was accused by the City. DFD firefighters wearing elements of their of being a “union buster” and was ostracized afterward. on-duty DFD firefighter uniform, including the DFD Often other firefighters had been directed by the Fire logo, distributed political materials and walked Davis Chief not to communicate or eat with a particular mem- voting precincts in support of individual City Council ber. This isolation has greater consequences than in other candidates. Political activity by Union members in itself 22 2007/2008 Yolo CountY Grand JurY Final report is not improper. However, it appears that at least some of candidates. Post promotion select ion criteria in this local political activism stems from undue influence a public area of the firehouse as well as in the upon DFD firefighters by DFD management resulting in announcement of the promotional opportunity. pressured political contributions to local candidates on 08-16 Develop and publicize criteria for selection to the part of some DFD firefighters. No other city employ- special committees, projects and education op- ees filed under the City ordinance requiring disclosure of portunities for DFD firefighters. City Council campaign contributions. 08-17 Publicly post copies of the revised City of Davis A similar unusual pattern of DFD firefighter politi- Drug and Alcohol Administrative Policy, 3.4B in cal contributions to local candidates has occurred with the City of Davis Personnel Rules and Regula- respect to the 2008 City Council election. City Council tions handbook. Further, require all current and campaign contribution filings do not reveal any other new DFD personnel to read and sign-off that City of Davis employees contributed to any political they have read these documents. candidate running for local office. The Union contract 08-18 All City and DFD policies related to drug and with DFD is again soon due for renegotiation. alcohol use should be enforced. 08-19 The successor Fire Chief should come from FindinGS outside DFD with no personal ties to the DFD

The Superintendent demonstrated over-reliance

Decision makers, with a few note-worthy exceptions, did not appear to be informed in areas critical to their role in the decision making process in

The District’s legal counsel worked to frustrate

The Board of Trustees based the cost of alternatives to the purchase of the Blue Shield property

The determination that owning the Blue Shield

If the uninformed assumption that annual rental

The District undertook detailed negotiations and

The Board failed to conduct timely due diligence