2004-2005 Final Report

Recommendations 25

• R1

  Page 12
  Specifics such as fees per unit of service need to be included in all contracts along with a means to regularly monitor compliance and expenditures. 11
• R1a

  Page 35
  The Grand Jury recommends that the Cast Boards create a leadership position
• R1b

  Page 35
  The Grand Jury recommends that a Deputy District Attorney with experience in and a commitment to CAST fill the leadership position.
• R1c

  Page 44
  The Grand Jury recommends the DA request additional clerical support staff positions from the Board of Supervisors.
• R1d

  Page 44
  The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors authorize the DA to hire additional clerical support staff. 43
• R2

  Page 13
  County Counsel should ensure that each county contract include provisions for a specific county department to be accountable in a measurable way and include a provision for a specific department to have oversight responsibility for the contract.
• R2a

  Page 18
  The Grand Jury recommends that recreation and parks repay all water and sewer funds owed.
• R2b

  Page 18
  The Grand Jury recommends MCSD discontinue the practice of “temporary” transfers of funds from water and sewer to recreation and parks.
• R2c

  Page 18
  The Grand Jury recommends that MCSD establish and maintain prudent reserves for water and sewer system replacement, updates, improvements, and repairs.
• R3

  Page 13
  The County must assure that county departments adequately track contract expirations, so that a competitive bid process or at least negotiations can be initiated in time to insure cost-effective services without a break. Grand Jury Report #2005-CD-01 An Investigation into the First Time Home Buyer and Housing Rehabilitation Programs in the City of Rio Dell Executive Summary The Grand Jury finds that the First Time Home Buyer and Housing Rehabilitation Programs are not being adequately monitored by the City of Rio Dell. In July 2002, the city entered into a contract with state and federal agencies to establish a revolving loan fund of $500,000 to be loaned to low-income families to purchase a first home. The funds were also available for home rehabilitation loans. The loans are to be repaid to make the funds available for others. Although the contract states specific responsibilities for all parties, the City failed to meet the contractual responsibilities. The City contracted with Redwood Community Action Agency to administer the funds and manage the projects for a fee. The City Council authorized three First Time Home Buyer loans, one a combination of both the First Time Home Buyer and Housing Rehabilitation programs. Problems with this combination project became apparent very soon. Alarming structural and safety issues were ignored in favor of superficial cosmetic repairs. An investigation by the Grand Jury revealed that the program was not being monitored. For example, termite and structural reports were not being appropriately analyzed and corrective action was not taken. Serious health and safety issues were not addressed. Construction was done without an approved set of plans or a permit. The contract specifically requires both. While it is understandable that the small city finds it necessary to contract for the services of a project manager, it is essential for the city to maintain supervision of this third party. The Grand Jury recommends that the City of Rio Dell meet its oversight responsibilities as well as establish and implement procedures which will assure that health and safety issues take precedence in all home purchases and rehabilitation projects using public funds. Who Shall Respond: Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and Recommendations of Grand Jury Report #2005-CD-01 shall be provided as follows: (cid:127) Rio Dell City Council shall respond to Findings and Recommendations 1, 2, 3, and 4 (cid:127) Rio Dell City Manager shall respond to Findings and Recommendations 1, 2, 3, and 4 Report In response to a citizen complaint, the 2004-2005 Grand Jury conducted an investigation into the First Time Home Buyer/Rehabilitation Programs specifically in Rio Dell. The problems the Grand Jury found in Rio Dell could occur in First Time Home Buyer/Rehabilitation Programs similarly administered 12 throughout Humboldt County. The City of Rio Dell signed a contract with the state Department of Housing and Community Development and the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. This agreement was in force from July 15, 2002, until March 31, 2005. The City Manager recently announced the city’s application for a new contract with these agencies. The contract provided for a revolving loan fund in the amount of $500,000. The funds were to be loaned to low-income families to permit them to purchase and rehabilitate homes for themselves. The program could benefit both the families and communities involved. Rio Dell is small, and most city employees serve in a number of capacities. The city hired Redwood Community Action Agency (RCAA), an outside non-profit agency, to administer the program. From then on, the City of Rio Dell allowed work to be done without plans or building permits, did not require timely inspections, failed to monitor progress of the project, and dispersed funds with virtually no oversight, approving without adequate review whatever the RCAA project manager proposed. Unfortunately, as a representative of RCAA later admitted, RCAA did not have sufficient experience to perform the tasks required. RCAA assigned a long-time employee, a Housing Programs Manager, as project manager. This individual had managed the two previous First Time Home Buyer projects, as well as several previous Housing Rehabilitation projects done in Rio Dell. A representative of RCAA later pointed out that their Housing Programs Manager had never supervised a project combining both programs. Everyone involved underestimated the complexity of this combined project. The project manager approved the house for the combined program and helped facilitate the purchase, indicating that the problems of the building would be corrected under the Housing Rehabilitation program. The buyer occupied the home as planned during the rehabilitation. A termite inspection was done on July 22, 2003. The project manager did two work write-ups. The first, done on July 24, 2003, was for the buyer. The project manager sent the second to the Office of Historic Preservation, a division of Department of Parks and Recreation, state of California, on September 29, 2003, for approval of the rehabilitation of the historic dwelling. The write-ups do not mention the extensive termite and dry-rot repair recommended by the termite report. The City of Rio Dell ignored this important inspection, which directly relates to health and safety issues. Cosmetic issues were the focus of both write-ups. Both include work on siding, paint, windows, doors, wiring, floor coverings, and replacing the water heater, as well as restoring a functioning bathroom and kitchen. In the Historic Preservation write-up, installation of a heating system was included for the first time. Other than the 2003 termite inspection, no structural inspection was ordered until August of 2004. The structural inspection revealed that many of the problems in the house were long-standing: overstressed beams, a failing post and pier foundation within the perimeter foundation, dry rot, and recurring water damage. The house had actually been moved once in its seventy-year history. Had an adequate investigation been done prior to the beginning of the project, the house would never have been accepted for the program. According to a report dated September 21, 2004, from the state CDBG (Community Development Block Grants) Program of the Community Development Section of the Department of Housing and Community Development of the State of California, “…if RCAA staff had done all their due diligence at the beginning of the project, then it could not have been approved by the city loan committee.” Increasingly aware of health and safety issues which were not being addressed, the home buyers agitated for further action. At their insistence, an inspection and investigation was done by two inspectors from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on September 16 and 17, 2004. As required by HUD’s investigation, the City of Rio Dell was directed to advance up to $50,000 as a grant to the home buyers above the amount loaned. These funds were designated to clear the problems in the lead-based paint report, clear the problems in the termite report, replace existing floor coverings, repair the roof, install vents, install a sump pump with surface drain line, finish or repair the waste vent, and install a forced air heating system. The grant also included the cost of an independent project manager, all permits required by Humboldt County rather than Rio Dell, and relocation costs for the home-buying family to vacate the house for thirty days during major repair work. This situation would not have arisen had the City of Rio Dell required and analyzed adequate inspections prior to approving the loan. While this action resolved problems for the home buyer, these funds were taken from the revolving loan fund as a grant. These funds will not be paid back; therefore, the funds will not be available for others in the community. The funds available through these state and federally-funded programs can make a tremendous difference to low-income families in Humboldt County. They need to be administered judiciously. The Grand Jury investigation determined that the City of Rio Dell did not exercise due diligence in the oversight of the First Time Home Buyers and Housing Rehabilitation programs. Such oversight is required by the contract: “Obligations of Grantee (the City) With Respect to Certain Third Party Relationships The Grantee (the City) shall remain fully obligated under the provisions of this agreement notwithstanding its designation of any third party or parties for the undertaking of all or any part of the program with respect to which assistance is being provided under this agreement to the Grantee."
• R3a

  Page 45
  The Grand Jury recommends the DA’s office, in cooperation with the Victim Witness Office, develop a written policy stating who shall promptly respond to inquiries. Prompt response is especially important to victims of crime.
• R3b

  Page 45
  The Grand Jury recommends the DA’s office immediately develop a small, quick- reference office manual which includes how to handle correspondence and telephone calls so they will be dealt with in a timely manner. This would be especially useful for new hires.
• R3c

  Page 45
  The Grand Jury recommends the DA personally provide a good example by responding to inquiries quickly.
• R4

  Page 15
  The Grand Jury recommends that the City Council, the City Manager, and appropriate staff periodically review these projects and maintain proper records as required by the contract. If it is necessary to hire an outside agency to administer project, a representative of that agency should report regularly to the City Council and the City Manager. Oversight of these projects must be a priority. Grand Jury Report #2005-CD-02 Manila Community Services District 14 Executive Summary Manila Community Services District (MCSD) provides and manages both water and sewer services, and public recreation and parks. Water and sewer operations are self-supporting through the charge of user fees to customers. Recreation and parks operations are primarily funded by government grants, charitable donations, and fund-raising events. Recreation and parks do not charge significant user fees. Water and sewer funds are “loaned” to cover recreation and parks shortfalls; these “loans” are rarely repaid. Since water and sewer operations are vital to health and safety, greater priority needs to be given to system replacement, updates, improvements and repairs. While recreation and parks enhance culture and quality of life, costs and finances for such aesthetic civilities must not be allowed to overwhelm water and sewer operations. The Grand Jury recommends that MCSD discontinue using the water and sewer fund to subsidize recreation and parks. The Grand Jury further recommends that MCSD establish and maintain prudent reserves and comply with audit recommendations. Who Shall Respond: Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and Recommendations of Grand Jury Report #2005-CD-02 shall be provided as follows: (cid:127) The Board of Directors of the Manila Community Services District shall respond to Findings 1 through 6 and Recommendations 1, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3, 4, 5, and 6 (cid:127) The General Manager of the Manila Community Services District shall respond to Findings 1 through 6 and Recommendations 1, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3, 4, 5, and 6 Report The Grand Jury conducted an investigation of the Manila Community Services District (MCSD) in response to citizen complaints. The MCSD was established in 1965. Among the purposes for which MCSD was organized were water and sewage services and public recreation and parks. As the MCSD is now organized, the water and sewer functions are funded by user fees, and are self- supporting. These fees are designated as "Enterprise Funds." The recreation portions of the MCSD are supported by grants, charitable fund-raisers, and rent for the community center building. These are designated as “Non-enterprise Funds.” The recreation operations provide numerous programs that meet a vast array of diverse needs within the community. The level of community spirit, commitment and volunteerism in Manila is outstanding. Members of the MCSD Board exhibit this spirit. Unfortunately, spirit alone is not enough. Board members need to have familiarity with practices common to non-profit public Boards: adherence to their own policy and procedural manual, willingness to incorporate auditor’s recommendations, and ability to maintain records adequate for auditing purposes. The turnover rate of Board members is substantially higher than expected; often, elected Board Members resign and must be replaced with new appointments. The recreation branch of MCSD frequently experiences budget shortfalls. These shortfalls are sometimes covered by shifting Enterprise Funds into the Non-enterprise portion of the budget. This means that money paid by water and sewer customers is transferred to pay for parks and recreation programs. These budget adjustments are supposed to be temporary. The shortfalls are most often caused by problems with grant applications and award schedules resulting in delays in payment and lower levels of funding than budgeted. One problem with “lending” money to the grant-supported recreation programs is that the terms of such grants preclude their use for debt reduction. When money does come in, it cannot be used to repay the Enterprise Funds. As a result, the only source of repayment of the water and sewer money is from public fund-raising events. In the past, a substantial percentage of the fund-raising income was from a concession booth at Reggae on 15 the River. MCSD has lost its Reggae on the River concession, a loss of about $20,000 per year. As yet no substitute for this income has been found. Over a period of years, the Non-enterprise programs have not returned the “borrowed” Enterprise Funds. This pattern of non-repayment has accumulated a debt of about $50,000 by recreation to water and sewer. A permanent transfer of Enterprise Funds to Non-enterprise Funds is not allowed under California Government Code 61000 et seq. MCSD may not authorize a gift of water and sewer money to the parks and recreation programs. The community center and park buildings incur utility expenses, including water and sewer fees. In July 2004, the MCSD Board forgave $5882 in 2003-2004 water and sewer charges to the community center and park funds. More recently, in a creative effort to reduce operating costs of the community center, the Board has considered reimbursing the community center and park funds for past water and sewer charges. The Grand Jury questions the retroactive reimbursement of several years of water and sewer charges to the community center and park funds. The Grand Jury finds that funds needed for maintenance and improvement of water and sewer systems are being depleted by these fund transfers. Also, there are no formal loan documents outlining conditions of loans and repayment, as mandated in MCSD’s policy manual Section 6000-Financial. The Grand Jury finds that such transfers are not prudent. Recovery of these funds is difficult because the sources of income for parks and recreation are uncertain, unpredictable, and restricted. The fund transfers have made it extremely difficult for MCSD to establish and maintain a prudent reserve. Population growth and aging infrastructure dictate the need to be prepared for improvements and increased maintenance of both water and sewer systems. The continued neglect of this issue could lead to dire consequences including astronomical rate increases. The 2004 annual financial audit notes that MCSD “…has not complied with the requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding user charges for the grant funded wastewater treatment facility. The EPA requires that sewer rates include sufficient income to fund the cost of system replacement. Approval of remaining rate increases recommended by the rate study performed previously [1998] will help build reserves for sewer system replacement and insure the District’s compliance with EPA requirements.” MCSD responds inadequately to audit recommendations. Several annual audits have recommended implementation of the 1998 sewer rate analysis, but have not been acted on. Action is long overdue. Other accounting irregularities repeatedly noted in annual audits – such as improper purchasing practices by recreation personnel, inadequately documented receipts, and insufficient checks and balances - also remain uncorrected. In addition to giving scant attention to audit recommendations, MCSD has neglected to monitor mid-fiscal year shortfalls. Frequent and aggressive budget analyses should be performed periodically throughout each year. Problems should be addressed as they arise. When recreation and park costs exceed income, their budget should be adjusted accordingly, rather than covering the shortfall from water and sewer funds.
• R5

  Page 18
  The Grand Jury recommends that MCSD adopt a plan to reduce and eventually eliminate the debt owed by recreation and park funds to the water and sewer fund.
• R5a

  Page 25
  The Grand Jury recommends that the Big Lagoon Charter School Network pay all its employees directly, deducting appropriate federal and state taxes and CalPERS, and paying premiums for state unemployment compensation and state workers’ compensation insurance.
• R5b

  Page 25
  The Grand Jury recommends that the Big Lagoon Charter School Network check with the Federal and State Internal Revenue Services and the Federal and State Departments of Labor to verify the legal definitions of “employee,” “independent contractor,” and “volunteer” to determine who shall have taxes and retirement deductions made, and for whom premiums should be paid for unemployment and workers’ compensation insurance.
• R5c

  Page 25
  The Grand Jury recommends that the Big Lagoon Charter School Network consult with CalPERS to determine the legitimacy of using a pass-through account to pay a person who is already retired and receiving retirement system benefits.
• R6

  Page 18
  The Grand Jury recommends that members of the Board of Directors take special training for board members of non-profit organizations. Training is available free or at minimal cost from both Humboldt Area Foundation and College of the Redwoods. Grand Jury Report #2005-HS-01 Visit to Humboldt County’s Family Connection Center Executive Summary: The Grand Jury interviewed employees and toured the Child Welfare Family Connections Center, a facility providing supervised visits for parents whose children are placed in temporary custody. The frequency and type of visits are determined by court order with transportation furnished by Child Welfare, if needed. Times of visits are arranged to meet children’s and parents’ schedules taking into consideration school and work. The facility is child-friendly, colorful, brightly-lit and welcoming. Books, activities, toys, craft supplies, games and comfortable furniture help provide a healthy atmosphere for the visits. Transportation of parents and children to the facility is sometimes inconvenient when car seats and cars are in two different locations. Who Shall Respond: Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, responses to GRAND JURY REPORT #2005-HS-01 shall be provided as follows: (cid:127) No responses are required for this report Report Following receipt of a citizen’s complaint, the Grand Jury interviewed employees and toured the Child Welfare Family Connections Center, a facility providing supervised visits for parents whose children are placed in temporary custody. The frequency and type of visits are determined by court order with transportation furnished by Child Welfare, if needed. Times of visits are arranged to meet children’s and 17 parents’ schedules taking into consideration school and work. The facility is child-friendly, colorful, brightly-lit and welcoming. Books, activities, toys, craft supplies, games and comfortable furniture help provide a healthy atmosphere for the visits. Transportation of parents and children to the facility is sometimes inconvenient when car seats and cars are in two different locations. The Department of Health and Human Services, through its Social Services Division and Child Welfare Services, is to be commended for establishing a safe, welcoming environment that encourages and nurtures the child-parent relationship. By removing or lessening barriers to regular child-parent visitation, the Family Connection Center assists families in the sometimes difficult task of reunification. Grand Jury Reports # 2005-HS-02 through 09 A REVIEW OF THE CHARTER SCHOOLS OF HUMBOLDT COUNTY Executive Summary of Grand Jury Reports #2005-HS-02 through 09 Charter Schools -- Public Education’s Alternative The Grand Jury’s investigation into charter schools in Humboldt County was initiated by citizen complaints, state and national media attention on charter school effectiveness, and a general lack of public knowledge about charter schools.1 The Grand Jury cannot emphasize strongly enough that charter schools are public schools, open to all applicants. Charter schools are supported by tax money and are subject to most of the laws and regulations that govern all public schools in California, especially those laws dealing with credentials, testing, non-discrimination, and finance. Charter schools are alternative public schools providing parents and students greater flexibility in reaching educational goals than might be found in regular public schools. Humboldt County has seven charter districts or networks comprised of nineteen charter school sites. Oversight authority rests in the chartering agencies and the Humboldt County Office of Education (HCOE). The Grand Jury interviewed representatives from all seven networks, as well as HCOE, and found that charter schools in Humboldt County are fulfilling their mission to provide varied and diverse education. With few exceptions, Humboldt County’s charter schools and charter networks comply with the state Education Code. The Grand Jury found three charter school networks needing oversight improvement in at least one of the following areas: teacher credentials, admission policies, financial management, state testing, and/or required record-keeping. One charter school network, Big Lagoon Charter School Network, raised questions in the minds of the Grand Jurors in the areas of teacher credentialing, admission practices, irregular financial arrangements, and record-keeping. The Mattole Valley Charter School Network and Pacific View Charter School need to improve participation in state testing. In spite of the irregularities noted, charter school students appear to be receiving both interesting as well as challenging educational opportunities. Charter schools, like all other publicly funded institutions, must follow state and federal laws. Skirting the law, regardless of the outcome for students, is not acceptable. The ends do not justify the means. Grand Juror Allan Edwards voluntarily recused himself from participation in the investigation of the Big Lagoon Charter School Network because of a perceived conflict of interest. The Grand Jury recommends that: (cid:127) The Humboldt County Office of Education establish a clear and consistent method of conducting annual oversight checks of all of the county’s charter schools. (cid:127) The sponsoring agencies of charter schools and the Humboldt County Office of Education exercise vigilant oversight regarding the credentials held by teachers assigned to be the primary teachers of core high school courses (English, Math, History, Science). (cid:127) The Northcoast Preparatory Academy of the Big Lagoon Charter School Network make its application and admission policies transparent. (cid:127) The Big Lagoon Charter School Network develop stricter guidelines for the maintenance of student records. (cid:127) The Big Lagoon Charter School Network pay all its employees directly, deducting appropriate taxes and retirement benefits, and pay premiums for state unemployment compensation and state workers’ compensation. (cid:127) The Big Lagoon Charter School Network check with the Federal and State Internal Revenue Services and the Federal and State Departments of Labor to verify the legal definition of “employee” and “independent contractor.” (cid:127) The Big Lagoon Charter School Network consult with authorities to determine the legitimacy of using a pass-through account to pay anyone who is already retired and receiving retirement system benefits. (cid:127) The Equinox Center for Education of the Big Lagoon Charter School Network confirm the legitimacy and legality of transforming a private school to a public school. (cid:127) The Mattole Valley Charter School and the Pacific View Charter School encourage participation with state-recommended testing in order to achieve the 95 percent rate desired to track school accountability. Introduction The 2004 – 2005 Grand Jury of Humboldt County conducted an investigation of the county’s charter school networks in response to the following: (cid:127) Citizen complaints. (cid:127) No review ever of charter schools in the county. (cid:127) State and national concerns regarding charter schools as reflected in national and local media. (cid:127) Lack of public knowledge concerning the operation and legal requirements of charter schools. The focus of the Grand Jury’s investigation of Humboldt County’s charter school networks was four-fold: (cid:127) Admission practices. (cid:127) Compliance with record keeping and attendance regulations. (cid:127) Teacher qualification and certification. (cid:127) Financial compliance with state funding practices and laws. In September 2004, the Grand Jury received citizen complaints about charter schools. One complaint alleged discriminatory admission practices and another alleged violations of the California Education Code, which governs the maintenance of pupil assessments and records. The first complaint involved a student’s parents, who chose not to enroll their child in a particular charter school because they were given the impression students had to “pass” an interview process before being enrolled. The student in question had special learning needs. The second complaint involved students returning to a traditional school from a charter school. The complaint focused on the students’ cumulative records, including their Individual Educational Plans (IEP). One set of records was not filled out and the second was missing altogether, both of which are violations of California Education Code. Both of these students also had learning disabilities. The Grand Jury conducted a series of interviews with school and county administrators, teachers, students, and representatives from all of the charter school networks in Humboldt County. Representatives from the Humboldt Arts Council were also interviewed. Both the California Department of Education and the federal No Child Left Behind Act state that school districts as well as schools must make adequate yearly progress (AYP) in several areas, based primarily on student performance and participation. The percent of students in each subgroup taking the tests must meet or exceed 95 percent. Parents have the right to exempt their children from state tests. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) 2003-2004 Perfect Score is 1000 - State goal is 800 Big Lagoon Charter Network 831 (over state goal) Freshwater Charter Middle School 746 Jacoby Creek Elementary School 884 (over state goal) Mattole Valley 634 Pacific View Charter School No scores available – not enough tested Six Rivers Charter School No scores available – first year open Trillium Charter School 743 Humboldt County (total average) 726 California (state total average) 692 History and Background of California Charter Schools In 1992, California became second state in the nation to allow public charter schools with Senate Bill 1448. The intent of the legislation was to “provide opportunities for teachers, parents, pupils, and community members to establish and maintain schools that operate independently from the existing school district structure.” Charter schools provide educational experiences that can be tailored to meet the learning preferences of our growing, diverse population while still addressing the California State Educational Standards. It must be emphasized that charter schools are not private schools, but rather, public schools that offer diversity in programs and school day structure for all applicants. In July 1998, California Assembly Bill 544 (AB544) strengthened both the independence and accountability of charter schools. AB 544 also changed the petitioning requirements for a charter by specifying that charter schoolteachers of core academic subjects (English, Math, Social Science, Lab Science) must hold certification “equivalent to what other public school teachers are required to hold.” Financial misconduct by a few charter schools in the state has triggered passage of more restrictive legislation calling for increased oversight of charter schools by county offices of education and charter school sponsors in Assembly Bill 1994. In 2003, the legislature also increased the accountability of charter schools, requiring increased visitation and inspection of sites by county superintendents and sponsoring agency administrators to assure compliance with state law and the state educational code. The state further requires that charter schools show and report a certain level of academic performance to have their charters renewed. For existing charters, this provision takes effect after they have operated for four years. However, beginning in 2005, all new charter schools must comply with state-established academic performance requirements. The intent of the legislation is to assure the state’s citizens that charter schools are safe, well equipped, and as highly qualified as the regular public schools. It is also the intent of the legislation to protect the purpose for which charter schools were created, namely to provide parents and students greater choice and flexibility in the kind of education they desire. GRAND JURY REPORT # 2005-HS-02 A Review of the Humboldt County Office of Education’s Charter School Oversight WHO SHALL RESPOND: Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and Recommendations of GRAND JURY REPORT # 2005-HS-02 shall be provided as follows: (cid:127) Humboldt County Office of Education shall respond to Findings and Recommendations 1 and 2 After interviewing principals, superintendents, program directors, students, teachers, and parents, and after making seven site visits to local charter schools, the Grand Jury is confident that Humboldt County’s charter schools are sincere and diligent about providing quality education. There are seven charter school districts or networks in Humboldt County, representing 19 charter school sites, each with individual characteristics. These charter schools are “alternative” public schools, funded by public money, with enrollment in each of the networks financing the individual schools. Because charter schools are funded by public money, they are subject to most of the same regulations as regular public schools, specifically regarding non-discriminatory admission policies, state academic standards, teacher credentialing, fiscal management, reporting, and record keeping. State Superintendent of Education Jack O’Connell, in a letter dated April 14, 2005, told all superintendents in California, “…charter schools must be held to the same high standards of accountability as all other public schools.” The Grand Jury found that both the sponsoring agencies and county offices of education have the legal responsibility to oversee charter schools, assuring the public that state laws and guidelines such as Education Code 47604 (c) are followed. While the Humboldt County Office of Education enthusiastically supports the diversity and innovation that charter schools bring to the students of our county, it exercises minimal direct oversight. The focus of Humboldt County’s Office of Education’s oversight is to assure that the charter schools are solvent. Beyond that, the Grand Jury found little evidence of vigilant oversight of teacher credentials, appropriate use of funding, background checks, non-discriminatory enrollment procedures, or state- and federal-mandated record-keeping as Title I and Special Education laws require. The Grand Jury found far more qualities in Humboldt County’s charter schools that merit praise than it found areas in need of improvement. With few exceptions, the county’s charter schools comply with the Education Code and are both fiscally stable as well as fiscally responsible with the public’s tax money.
• R7

  Page 26
  The Grand Jury recommends that either the sponsoring agency (Big Lagoon Union Elementary District) or the Humboldt County Office of Education exercise vigilant oversight regarding the credentials held by teachers assigned to be the primary teachers of the core high school courses of English, Math, History, and Science. GRAND JURY REPORT # 2005-HS-05 A Review of Practices and Policies of Freshwater Charter Middle School Who Shall Respond: Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and Recommendations of GRAND JURY REPORT # 2005-HS-05 shall be provided as follows: (cid:127) Freshwater Charter Middle School shall respond to Finding 1 and Recommendation 1. Freshwater Charter Middle School has served 7th and 8th graders from the Freshwater District for four years under the umbrella of the Freshwater Elementary School District. Its enrollment procedure is open and transparent, accepting all applicants in a standard priority order: those in the Freshwater School District, those who attended the 5th and 6th grades at Freshwater; and any other student. The admission application states clearly that there will be no admissions tests, tuition, “nor any discrimination against any applicant on the basis of ethnicity, national origin, gender, disability, or socio-economic status.” Instruction and assistance are available for students with special learning needs. The educational program serves students who desire and would benefit from the nurturing environment of a small school with high expectations for its students. The school is housed at Freshwater Elementary School, and has modern facilities. Financial management of state funds follows standard practices, and the financial transactions are handled through the Freshwater District’s business office. No third-party pass-through accounts are used. Financial oversight of public funds from its sponsoring agent is consistent with standard education code practices. All teachers at Freshwater Charter Middle School are fully credentialed. Counseling and special education resources are available on site. The school’s calendar is consistent with the Eureka City Schools District calendar (180 days), exceeding by 20 percent the number of days and minutes required of charter school students. Participation in statewide testing is strongly encouraged and participation rate meets the state’s recommended 95 percent.
• R8

  Page 45
  The Grand Jury recommends the DA refrain from firing Deputy DAs – except for cause - unless comparable replacement prosecutors are identified and are willing to work in Humboldt County.
• R9

  Page 54
  The Grand Jury recommends that a cross-file of shared cases be instituted so that APS and IHSS caseworkers have access to information and status of an individual’s case within the other division. DHHS RESPONSE TO R9: A formal written policy on cross-filing in each case file will be drafted and staff trained by March 31, 2005. (cid:127) The 2004-2005 Grand Jury received this update from DHHS: Workers and supervisors continue to confer and team cases in common. Written policies are in place and staff were trained and the policy was implemented in May 2005. REPORT 2004-HS-02 HUMBOLDT COUNTY’S FOSTER CARE PROGRAM NEEDS HELP NOW
• R9a

  Page 45
  The Grand Jury recommends that the DA develop and implement a system to provide job security for Deputy DAs protecting them from arbitrary firing. This should be done
• R9b

  Page 45
  The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors be directly involved in working with the DA to develop and implement a system which provides job security for Deputy DAs. 44
• R10

  Page 46
  The Grand Jury recommends that the DA require that when a serious felony case is plea-bargained, the Prosecutor shall request the Court to order that the reasons for the plea bargain be reflected in the court minutes of the case. This will make the information readily available to the public and the media. Grand Jury Report #2005-LJ-03 Volunteer Patrols: A Boon to Law Enforcement Executive Summary The various volunteer police patrol organizations in Humboldt County provide valuable assistance to law enforcement. Each year the volunteers log many thousands of miles and provide many thousands of hours of volunteer time, saving the taxpayers many thousands of dollars. The Grand Jury urges interested citizens to contact the Sheriff’s department or their local police department to volunteer. Who Shall Respond: Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and Recommendations of the GRAND JURY REPORT #2005-LJ-04 shall be provided as follows: (cid:127) No responses are required for this report Report The Law and Justice Committee of the Grand Jury reviewed three of the citizens’ volunteer police programs, known in each community under a different name: SCOP (Sheriff’s Citizens on Patrol), EVP (Eureka Volunteer Patrol), and CVPP (Community Volunteer Patrol Program of Arcata). While these programs differ in name, they are in fact very similar; they all exist to assist law enforcement agencies with routine but very valuable and time-consuming tasks. Other communities also have excellent volunteer patrols. The men and women of these volunteer organizations become the “eyes and ears” of the various agencies they serve. With slight variations within individual departments, the volunteers act under these general guidelines: (cid:127) They must be at least 18 year of age and possess a valid California Driver’s License. (cid:127) They must pass a training course and a criminal background check. (cid:127) They must wear a uniform when on duty. (cid:127) They must attend meetings and ongoing training sessions. (cid:127) They must be willing to serve at least eight hours a month. (cid:127) They are not permitted to carry weapons or make arrests. (cid:127) They must report suspicious activities immediately – usually by radio. Typical Duties / Tasks and Responsibilities 1. Patrol streets and county roads in assigned areas. 2. Conduct night security checks/surveillance as assigned. 3. Conduct vacation security residence checks. 4. Conduct home and business security inspections. 5. Conduct safety checks on commercial properties and report any hazards. 6. Patrol around school grounds. 7. Patrol at designated park and forest locations. 8. Assist with traffic control at public events. 9. Report to law enforcement any hazardous or unusual conditions, such as missing street signs, 45 inoperable streetlights, graffiti, or abandoned vehicles. 10. Assist crime prevention unit in establishing neighborhood watch programs. 11. Engrave valuables for anyone who requests the service. 12. Update law enforcement emergency-related information on businesses within the community. 13. Assist in fingerprinting. 14. Assist victims of natural disasters. 15. Provide crime scene security. The Grand Jury finds that the various citizen patrol organizations provide a valuable service to their communities at very little cost. The Grand Jury recommends that all qualified Humboldt County citizens who are interested in serving as volunteers contact the Sheriff’s department or their local police department. They will be welcomed with open arms. Grand Jury Report #2005-PW-01 Code Enforcement Executive Summary The County of Humboldt would reap substantial benefits through the creation of a staff position for a Code Enforcement Officer. In the past, an extra-help employee for code enforcement actions brought in revenue to the county in excess of the cost of a full-time employee with benefits. Establishment of a Code Enforcement Unit within the county Department of Community Development Services, Economic Development Division, will generate much- needed revenue as well as discourage violations of building and planning code provisions. Note: since the Grand Jury did this investigation, but before publication of the report, the Board of Supervisors authorized and the Economic Development Division hired a full-time employee with benefits to do this work. The Grand Jury commends the Board of Supervisors for authorizing and the Economic Development Division for filling the position in Code Enforcement. WHO SHALL RESPOND: Pursuant to Penal Code Sections 933 & 933.05, responses to the Findings and Recommendations of Grand Jury Report #2005-PW-01 shall be as follows: (cid:127) No response is necessary. REPORT The Public Works Committee of the 2004-2005 Grand Jury interviewed employees of the county’s Department of Community Development Services, Economic Development Division. In the past, building, planning, and other code violations were often backlogged and not investigated. This resulted in an overall lack of enforcement of county regulations and loss of revenue the county could have collected in building/planning fees and fines. When violations were reported to the Department, a letter would be sent to the alleged offender but little or no follow-up occurred. Approximately three years ago, the Economic Development Division hired an extra-help employee to follow up on code enforcement issues. This individual has vigorously pursued code violations and has recovered revenues that more than pay for the position. The former backlog of cases has dwindled markedly. The Department is now levying fees and fines that bring much- needed income to the county’s General Fund. In April 2005, the Board of Supervisors approved the position of Code Enforcement Officer, a full-time county position with benefits. In May, the Division filled the position. The Grand Jury commends the Board of Supervisors for approving an exception to the hiring freeze and authorizing the Department of Community Development Services, Economic Development Division, to develop a code enforcement function. The Grand Jury further commends the Division for hiring an employee to bring dedication, enthusiasm, and creativity to code enforcement activities and thus pay for the position. Grand Jury Report #2005-PW-02 Community Development Executive Summary Development of affordable housing is a much-needed component of the county’s General Plan and efforts to provide such housing are already underway. However, the county needs to consider the wishes of the community and its input into both the type and location of affordable housing projects. Many citizens believe that the county did not consider the community’s wishes and input with regards to the Redwood Village project in Redway. The Grand Jury recommends that the county maintain careful supervision over such projects to ensure that future tenants have safe, well-built, and properly maintained housing. Who Shall Respond: Pursuant to Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and Recommendations of Grand Jury Report #2005-PW-02 shall be as follows: (cid:127) Humboldt County Department of Community Development Services shall respond to Findings and Recommendations 1 and 2. Report For the past three years, the county has pursued grant funding in the area of affordable housing, an identified component of the county's General Plan. One such project is the Redwood Village complex, to be built in Redway. A county official testified that all necessary legal steps were taken to notify the community of the proposed affodable housing project. At least three community hearings were held and notices mailed as required. There was, however, strong community opposition to the Redwood Village project once the project for construction was awarded. The Grand Jury received several citizen complaints regarding the project and conducted a preliminary investigation into the allegations. The community was not opposed to affordable housing, but was concerned that the specific site chosen for the complex was unsuitable. Some of the concerns are: (cid:127) The Redwood Village project calls for 20 units on 1.23 acres, an extreme housing density for the site. Apartments will include 1, 2, 3, and 4-bedroom units. (cid:127) Plans call for some Redwod Village buildings to reach three stories. However, the Redway Volunteer Fire Department does not have a fire truck or equipment that can reach a third story. The community has neither the resources to upgrade their equipment nor a building to house it. (cid:127) The existing road is too narrow for emergency equipment and cannot be widened. (cid:127) Inadequate parking, no safe play areas for children, inadequate access, and health and safety factors. Although all necessary legal actions were taken by the Economic Development Division of the Community Development Services Department for the Redwood Village project, a substantial 47 number of members of the local community strongly felt their input was disregarded and that approval of the project was driven by the grant specifications. A county official stated additional steps will be taken in the future to inform and involve communities in local development. In this particular case, it appears that the county obtained an affordable housing grant after a lengthy application process but took little time to prepare a project that was acceptable to the community. The county appeared to disregard the community’s criticism and alternative suggestions.