Yolo cOuNT Y GRANd JuRYP

Recommendations 15

• R1

  Page 19
  The City and RDA need to be sure their oversight and expenditure of taxpayer dollar responsibilities are taken into account when affordable housing projects meet challenging implementation and sustainability problems.
• R2

  Page 19
  The City and RDA should do a more thorough job of analyzing the risks and benefits of any novel project 19 2010–2011 Yolo CountY Grand JurY Final report Winters Joint Unified School egregious behaviors that should be stopped immediately are disrespectful comments and gestures made by the District Board to community members during Board meeting Board of trustees and public comment periods. The Grand Jury commends the 2010–2011 Board on the steps it has taken to improve administration deportment meeting professionalism. The Grand Jury found multiple errors in administering SUMMARY the State’s annual Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) testing in April 2011. The 2010–2011 Yolo County Grand Jury initiated an investigation into the Winters Joint Unified School District REASON FOR INvESTIGATION (WJUSD) in response to citizen complaints regarding 2009–2010 Board of Trustees’ actions at meetings and treatment of community members, particularly in response The Grand Jury received complaints alleging to the nonrenewal of a designated employee’s contract violations by the WJUSD Board of Trustees and District at the high school. These allegations concern violations administration concerning Board governance and open of the Board’s Policies and Bylaws and the State’s open meeting laws. The Board’s decision not to renew a meeting Brown Act. While the Grand Jury’s powers to designated employee’s contract in March 2010 proved investigate school districts are limited under the law, it to be highly divisive and generated numerous requests may investigate procedural and operational issues but is for investigation by the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury’s not permitted to investigate substantive concerns. investigation expanded to encompass both the 2009–2010 and 2010–2011 school years and identified several other The Grand Jury found a clear conflict of interest in areas of concern. The alleged problems and violations the award of a consulting contract to a WJUSD designated include: employee’s paramour, not disclosed at the time the award was made. A related violation occurred when the designated • Conflict of interest in awarding consultant contract employee participated in the selection of the consultant; • Ralph M. Brown Act (open meeting) violations the designated employee should have been recused from • WJUSD Board of Trustees policy issues and the selection. The Grand Jury found contracting practices violations which appeared to have conflicts or disqualifying interests. • STAR administration problems The Grand Jury recommends the Trustees take several actions regarding the no-bid contract inappropriately California Penal Code Section 925 provides: “The awarded by a WJUSD designated employee to that grand jury shall investigate and report on the operations, person’s paramour. The District was particularly resistive accounts, and records of the officers, departments, or to Grand Jury inquiries and made simple inquiries more functions of the county including those operations, procedurally difficult than necessary. accounts, and records of any special legislative district or other district in the county created pursuant of state law The Grand Jury found that the nonrenewal of another for which the officers of the county are serving in their ex WJUSD designated employee’s contract may have been officio capacity as officers of the districts.” influenced by the conflict. The Grand Jury found that the WJUSD Trustees violated the Brown Act by failing to California Penal Code Section 933.5 further provides: place its decision about the nonrenewal properly on the “A grand jury may at any time examine the books and agenda for open roll call. The Grand Jury found multiple records of any special-purpose assessing or taxing district examples in which the WJUSD Trustees violated open located wholly or partly in the county or the local agency meeting laws and its own Policies and Bylaws. formation commission in the county, and, in addition to any other investigatory powers granted by this chapter, The Grand Jury found that the District does not have may investigate and report upon the method or system an adequate method for handling citizen complaints and of performing the duties of such district or commission.” ensuring provision of adequate and respectful responses. Since assessed property within a school district is subject The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Trustees to a special tax for maintenance of schools in the area, take immediate steps to abide by its own Policies and school districts are included in this section. Bylaws and the State’s open meeting act. Particularly 20 2010–2011 Yolo CountY Grand JurY Final report ACTIONS TAKEN Jury discovered that a $20,000 maximum no-bid contract is extant (April 2010 through June 2011). The contract was The Grand Jury interviewed WJUSD Board members, awarded to a consultant who has an amorous relationship District administrators and staff as well as community with a WJUSD designated employee who had direct hiring members. The Grand Jury reviewed WJUSD Board authority. This relationship was not disclosed to the Board of Trustee Bylaws, District Policies, Board meeting prior to the award of the contract. The relationship was documents, the Brown Act, WJUSD documents and later nebulously described as a “personal relationship” internal communications. after the contract was awarded. The designated employee was then questioned by some on the Board about the appropriateness of the award. The employee informed the WHat tHe Grand JurY deterMined Board that District’s lawyers had previously advised the employee that the relationship did not create conflicts in The City of Winters is located in the western portion of the award process. Seeking legal advice may not qualify Yolo County and was founded in 1875 and incorporated in as disclosure of a financial interest. 1878. The current population is approximately 5,500 with an additional 3,000 residing in the surrounding rural areas. The failure to fully and fairly disclose the existence The school district serves approximately 1,630 students of a financial or strong personal relationship between attending the following schools: Waggoner Elemen tary, the parties to the contract is a violation of State law Shirley Rominger and Winters Middle Schools, Winters and District Bylaws. A further violation occurred when High School and Wolfskill Continuation High School. the designated employee participated in the selection of the consultant. These violations could allow the District CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN AwARDING to nullify the contract and consider discipline for the CONSULTING CONTRACT designated employee. Rules Concerning Conflict of Interest Further Conduct of Consultant “The Board of Trustees desires to maintain the highest The consultant was hired to review class block ethical standards and help ensure that decisions are made scheduling, purportedly based on the consultant’s in the best interest of the District and the public... A Board experience with the subject and as a mathematics member or designated employee makes a governmental consultant in similar schools. The Grand Jury received decision when acting under the authority of his/her office evidence showing this consultant’s opinion may have or position votes on a matter, appoints a person, obligates been a factor in some Trustees voting not to renew or commits the District to any course of action, or enters another designated employee’s contract. The consultant into any type of contractual agreement on behalf of the opined based on observations made for one day or less District… Board members and designated employees at the worksite under the auspices of studying class block shall disclose any conflict of interest and as necessary shall scheduling. The designated employee was not informed refrain from participating in the decision.” (WJUSD Board that the consultant was engaged in a personnel evaluation Bylaws 9270) “Every agency shall adopt and promulgate when the consultant was at the worksite. The Grand Jury a Conflict of Interest Code pursuant to the provisions of learned that some Trustees would have evaluated the this article. A Conflict of Interest Code shall have the force consultant’s opinion in a different light and may not have of law and any violation of a Conflict of Interest Code made the nonrenewal decision had they known of the by a designated employee shall be deemed a violation of conflict of interest. this chapter… Disqualification shall be required by the Conflict of Interest Code when the designated employee Later, members of the community discovered a public has a financial interest.” (California Government Code link on the consultant’s Facebook page that they found 87300 et seq) very disturbing and brought their concern to the Board. The reference (from Wikipedia) concerned a slave-turned- District’s Designated Employee Conflict of Interest in butler in the 1800s. The name of the butler was the same Award of Consultant Contract as the designated employee whose contract had not been renewed. Subsequently, the Facebook page was removed The Grand Jury reviewed all consultant contracts from the public domain. awarded January 2009 through March 2011. The Grand 21 2010–2011 Yolo CountY Grand JurY Final report District responsiveness to the Grand Jury WJUSD met in closed session in March 2010 to consider the nonrenewal of a designated employee’s The District was particularly resistive to Grand Jury employ ment contract. “As a condition to holding a closed inquiries and made simple inquiries more procedurally session on specific complaints or charges brought against difficult than necessary. Mindful of the statutory charge of an employee by another person or employee, the employee “watchdog organization,” the Grand Jury will continue to shall be given written notice of his or her right to have the seek access to the District or their representatives with an complaints or charges heard in an open session rather than expectation of respect for the process and confidentiality a closed session, which notice shall be delivered to the of the proceedings. employee personally or by mail at least 24 hours before the time for holding the session. If notice is not given, any RALPH M. BROwN ACT disciplinary or other action taken by the legislative body (OPEN MEETING) vIOLATIONS against the employee based on the specific complaints or charges in the closed session shall be null and void.” The purpose of the Brown Act is to allow the public to (California Government Code Sections 54950 et seq, attend, observe, monitor, and participate in the decision- Ralph M. Brown Act) making process at the local level of government. “The public commissions, boards and councils and the other The Grand Jury determined that the designated public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of employee may have been entitled to notification regarding the people’s business. It is the intent of the law that their the Trustees’ decision not to renew the employment actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be contract. No such notice was provided the employee. conducted openly.” (California Government Code 54952) The Brown Act bars public agencies from conducting Roll Call vote nonpublic serial meetings, from taking action on items not placed on the agenda, and from limiting public comment. The Grand Jury learned that a closed session Board vote was held March 4, 2010, regarding the nonrenewal Requests Regarding Compliance with the of a designated employee’s contract. On advice of Public Records Act District counsel, the Board did not report the roll call vote during the open session. The Board later determined The District provided redacted e-mails to community it had violated both the Brown Act law and its Bylaws members regarding the failure to renew a designated (Government Code 54957.1, Board Bylaws 9321.1). The employee’s contract in response to a public records Board decided to utilize the “correct or cure” procedure request. The Grand Jury received a request to review that includes placing the item on an upcoming agenda and all e-mails between Board of Trustees and a District announcing the roll call vote at the next open meeting, designated employee to determine if the redactions were scheduled for March 18. valid. The “correct or cure” procedure was not placed on The Grand Jury reviewed subpoenaed copies of the March 18 agenda. Conflicting evidence was provided redacted and unredacted e-mails between the Board and to the Grand Jury regarding whether the roll call vote District Administration. There was insufficient evi dence to was announced at the March 18 meeting. The Grand opine whether a violation of the public records act occurred. Jury was unable to obtain any contemporaneous written, However, it is unclear whether all relevant e-mails and audio or video recording evidence verifying that the attachments were provided. Due to time constraints, the “cor rect or cure” roll call was announced at the March Grand Jury could not thoroughly investigate the matter. 18 meeting. However, on May 6, 2010, minutes of the March 18 meeting were amended to state that the roll call Nonrenewal of Another Designated Employee’s Contract announcement had properly been made on March 18. A request was made that the Grand Jury investigate Serial Meetings the nonrenewal of a designated employee’s contract. California law bars a Grand Jury from inspecting personnel “A majority of the members of a legislative body shall records of school district employees or substantive not…use a series of communications of any kind, directly decisions by school districts such as the actual selection or through intermediaries, to discuss, deliberate, or take of school personnel. However, the Grand Jury is action on any item of business that is within the subject empowered to investigate what procedure was followed. matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. A majority of 22 2010–2011 Yolo CountY Grand JurY Final report members may not develop a concurrence as to action elected to the Board without any other qualifications. on business through serial meetings, intermediaries, Members serve a four year term, which is staggered so communication or other means of subterfuge.” that as practicable one half of the members are elected in (Government Code 54950 et seq, Ralph M. Brown Act) each even numbered year. The Board President is elected Business decisions agreed upon between two or more from among its members to provide leadership on behalf Board members outside of a public meeting also constitute of the Board and the educational community it serves. a violation of WJUSD Board Bylaws Section 9012(a) regarding serial meetings via electronic communications. Meeting Misconduct School personnel decisions are made in closed session The Board of Trustees is elected by the community and are not governed by the Brown Act. However, if the to provide leadership and citizen oversight of the District. deliberations are conducted via e-mail, they are no longer “The Board shall ensure that the District is responsive to in closed session, lose the protection of confidentiality, the values, beliefs, and priorities of the community… Each and become subject to the Brown Act. member is expected to act with dignity and understand the implications of demeanor and behavior. The Board The Grand Jury obtained copies of e-mails that showed expects its members to act with dignity and govern in a Board members were engaging in nonpublic discussions dignified and professional manner, treating everyone with regarding whether to renew a designated employee’s civility and respect.” (Board Bylaws Section 9000 et seq) contract. They also engaged in nonpublic discussions regard ing the Board’s response to the public outcry about The Grand Jury determined that 2009–2010 Board the nonrenewal. Other prohibited subject areas were also mem bers displayed less than professional conduct during discussed. The e-mails indicate that District staff, privy both public and closed session meetings. The Grand Jury to the communications, knew the Brown Act was being determined through substantial evidence that, on multiple violated. occasions, Board members engaged in eye-rolling, snickering, and negative body language. One Board Public Comments at Board Meetings member made an explicit sexual hand gesture mimicking male masturbation, and on another occasion a Board Members of the public are encouraged to attend member gave an obscene hand gesture, while community Board meetings and address any item on the agenda. So mem bers were attempting to address the Board. Board as not to inhibit public participation, persons attending members raised their voices, “shouted down” people “shall not be required to sign in, complete a questionnaire, giving public comment and other Board members, and or otherwise provide their name or other information publicly tore up a document provided to them by a as a condition of attending a meeting.” (Board Bylaw, community member. Some community members and Section 9323(b), April 16, 2009) The Brown Act permits fellow Trustees felt harassed and intimidated by Board anonymous public comment, allowing for the Board to behavior. Harassment is specifically prohibited by request individuals to identify themselves by name only WJUSD regulation. and not in any other way. The Grand Jury determined that that 2010–2011 The Grand Jury reviewed a sampling of Board agendas Board of Trustees has made strides to improve its conduct from the last two school years. Throughout the two years, since last year. This year’s Board has sought to improve agendas require members of the public to complete a how the Board operates, including more structure, better Request to Speak form, noting their name and address, management and increased civility. and submit it before the first speaker is called for public comment. Requiring speakers to provide more than their Board Training Gaps names is a violation of the Brown Act and Board Bylaws. The Grand Jury determined the Board is not required wJUSD BOARD OF TRUSTEES POLICy ISSUES to attend or sponsor for itself any training with regard to AND vIOLATIONS governance, open meetings, Robert’s Rules of Order, or similar subject matter commonly used to conduct public The Board consists of seven members. Any person meetings. The District is not required to and does not 18 years or older who is a citizen of the state, a resident maintain any written record of training attended by Board of the school district, a registered voter and not legally of Trustees members. disqualified from holding civil office is eligible to be 23 2010–2011 Yolo CountY Grand JurY Final report Trustees did not attend training during the 2009–2010 STANDARDIzED TESTING AND REPORTING academic year. Some Board members attended governance RESULTS (STAR) 2011 ADMINISTRATION training in fall 2010 and additional training is planned for PROBLEMS spring 2011, organized by District staff. Board members are expected to participate in professional development History of STAR and encouraged to attend workshops and conferences relevant to their individual needs or the needs of the The STAR (Standardized Testing and Reporting) Board. Individual current Board members recognized program began in 1998. In this annually administered the need for Board training to help them understand their program, most students in grades 2 through 11 take the responsibilities and develop “boardsmanship” skills. State’s academic content standards test plus a nationally normed standardized test. Each school must report Citizen Complaint Process individual students’ scores to their parents, and group results are released in mid-August. Schools are required to The Grand Jury reviewed the WJUSD Policy Manual report these results to the State. Failure to properly report that specifies the process for the public to submit written these results can affect funding and accreditation for the complaints to the District (Section 1312). The public may school. complain about matters concerning both academic matters and the administration of the District. Rules regarding which students must take or can be excused from the tests are quite specific. Parents may The WJUSD Board of Trustees Bylaws establish request in writing to the principal that a student not be Board conduct and set the standards of governance. The tested. The Individual Education Programs (IEPs) of Bylaws state “To maximize Board effectiveness, and some special education students specify they should not public con fi dence in District governance, Board members be tested. Other special education students are tested are expected to govern responsibly and hold themselves in alternate ways, e.g., in Braille or with extra time, if to highest standard of ethical conduct.” (Board Bylaws included in their IEP. English learners, no matter what 9905(b)) their proficiency, must take the STAR tests unless excused by their parents or their IEP. There is a lack of clarity and consistency in the Bylaws regarding the process for submitting, receiving, and wJUSD STAR Testing Issues responding to complaints from community members and school personnel to the Board. When concerns are The Grand Jury learned that there was a 10-day brought to the Board through letters and e-mails, there is window in mid-April 2011 in which STAR testing was no clear policy whether such communications constitute to be administered and completed. Numerous problems complaints and are therefore left to judgment. At times, were identified regarding the planning, training and complainants believe they have submitted complaints but implementation of the 2011 STAR testing at the Winters may not receive written responses. The District is unclear High School. The Grand Jury determined that: about whether a response should be generated and, if so, by whom. • There was an absence of adequate training and preparation provided to staff There is a lack of follow up and accountability to • There were no high school administrators present to ensure issues are resolved. The Board does not seem to provide oversight on the day of testing embrace its role as overseer of the District. Some Board • There were not enough copies of tests ordered and members and District staff dismiss any issues and concerns some students could not be tested expressed by certain community members, viewing • Staff had advised administration of their concerns them as complainers, characterizing these individuals’ prior to the testing date ex pres sions of desires to meet to discuss problems as “disingenuous.” Even written communications among It is unclear to the Grand Jury why these issues were Board members and District staff during the period of unresolved prior to the start of testing. January 2010 through May 2010 revealed unprofessional and disrespectful comments. April 13, 2011, was the first scheduled day of testing. On April 14, 2011, the District Administration finally began to address the continuing issues by scheduling additional training for the teachers, securing additional 24 2010–2011 Yolo CountY Grand JurY Final report test copies and rescheduling tests. As of early May 2011, promoted confusion and distrust within segments the Grand Jury was unable to determine if the issues of the community and Winters High School staff were resolved. These problems have led to frustration, towards the Board and District Administration that confusion and distrust by segments of High School still exists. personnel, parents and the Winters community towards District administrators and the Board. F9. The Board does not consistently follow its own Policies and Bylaws related to conduct, decorum, civility and respect at public meetings.
• R3

  Page 26
  All Board members and District administrators services cost recovery fee (Ordinance No. 1506) in 2009 should participate in annual mandatory training on that disproportionally impacts its taxpayers and visitors Brown Act, Board Governance and Board Bylaws. based on the type of insurance they carry. The City has Trustee participation records should be maintained only received about 20% of the recovery fee revenues it within the District Office. anticipated when the program was started. The recovery fee is poor public policy. The Grand Jury recommends the
• R4

  Page 26
  The Board should immediately discontinue discontinuation or repeal of the ordinance. harassing conduct such as sexual and/or obscene gestures, uncivil and rude conduct between Board REASON FOR REvIEW members and the public.
• R5

  Page 26
  The Board should immediately begin to follow its California Penal Code Section 925(a) states “The own Bylaws, Policies and procedures, as well as the grand jury may at any time examine the books and records Brown Act, including stopping meetings by serial of any incorporated city or joint powers agency located in e-mail communications and allowing speakers to the county. In addition to any other investigatory powers disclose only their names at Board meetings. granted by this chapter, the grand jury may investigate departments, functions, and the method or system of
• R6

  Page 26
  The Board should develop a plan for responding to performing the duties of any such city or joint powers citizen complaints and monitoring the process to agency and make such recommendations as it may deem ensure adequate follow-through and resolution. proper and fit.”
• R7

  Page 26
  The District and its representatives should familiarize The 2009–2010 Grand Jury reviewed the revenue themselves with California Penal Code related to recovery programs for emergency services provided by the Grand Jury roles and responsibilities in order to Woodland Fire Department (WFD). The City of Woodland minimize confusion and resistance to future Grand (City) disagreed with many of that Grand Jury’s concerns Jury investigations. about the program. (The City’s response is contained in the
• R8

  Page 26
  The Board should place this report on an agenda for determined that additional investigation was warranted. an upcoming public meeting so the community has the opportunity to listen to and comment on WJUSD ACTIONS TAKEN responses by September 30, 2011. The Grand Jury interviewed WFD officers, Yolo REQUEST FOR RESPONSES County officials, and representatives of Fire Recovery USA (FRUSA), the contracted fee recovery firm. The Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933(c) Grand Jury reviewed Woodland City Council meeting and 933.05, the Grand Jury requests a response as follows: records from all of 2010, City Ordinance No. 1506 and FRUSA contracts, run studies (incident reports) and claim From the following governing body: payment records. The Grand Jury reviewed WFD claims filed with FRUSA and related internal records covering • The Winters Joint Unified School District, July 2009 through February 2011.
• R9

  Page 33
  Complete the ECSD webpage, as described in F9 records of any special-purpose assessing or taxing district above, no later than January, 2012. located wholly or partly in the county or the local agency formation commission in the county, and, in addition to any other investigatory powers granted by this chapter,
• R10-01

  Page 54
  “Improve traffic enforcement and warning signage along SR 16 and casino feeder roads.” The recommendations regarding State Route 16 can be implemented by the State of California, but cannot be implemented by the County of Yolo. State Route 16 is under the jurisdiction of the State of California, not the County of Yolo. The State authority for traffic enforcement is the California Highway Patrol. The State authority for signage is Caltrans. The County of Yolo does continue to have input in the analysis of State Route 16 needs through ongoing discussions with Caltrans and Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation. The recommendations regarding feeder roads will be implemented. The effects of casino traffic on County roads are a matter of ongoing review and analysis. Placement of signage is largely governed by state and federal guidelines and considered on a case-by-case basis by the Yolo County Department of Planning and Public Works. Traffic enforcement on County roads is performed by the Yolo County Sheriff’s Department as conditions require and resources allow. The County of Yolo will 54
• R10-02

  Page 55
  “Continue to work with Caltrans and the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation to hasten plans for SR 16 relief between I-505 and Brooks, or identify alternate route(s) to alleviate traffic.” This recommendation is currently in the process of being implemented. The County meets regularly with the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation (Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation) and Caltrans to discuss traffic-related impacts.
• R10-03

  Page 55
  “Work with the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation to establish an employee program to subsidize public transportation passes to help reduce the number of cars going to the casino.” This recommendation has been implemented. The Cache Creek Casino Resort has partnered with the Yolo County Transportation District to provide subsidized bus passes to employees of the Resort and continues to refine the routes and schedules as dictated by need and conditions.
• R10-04

  Page 55
  “Pursue greater contribution from the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation to eliminate the existing funding gap created by criminal activity attributed to the casino.” The State compact prevents this recommendation from being implemented as suggested. The Compact requires the Yocha deHe Wintun Nation to negotiate with the County to mitigate off-reservation impacts of casino expansion projects. Currently the State compact does not provide a legal mechanism to renegotiate off-reservation impacts once an intergovernmental agreement is in place. In future negotiations the County of Yolo will advocate for funding to mitigate casino impacts on the criminal justice system.
• R10-05

  Page 55
  “Before more ACTM funds are granted, develop allocation guidelines that will ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability. Consult with financial and legal professionals within county government to assist in developing the guidelines.” This recommendation has been implemented. We have ACTM evaluation guidelines which are used to make recommendations and ensure transparency and accountability. The Board of Supervisors retains final discretion on allocation of mitigation funds per the prior agreement.
• R10-06

  Page 55
  “The first priorities when mitigation funds become available again should be residents between I-505 and I-5 plus the City of Woodland, along with Valley communities that have not yet received attention.” This recommendation can be implemented to the extent it is consistent with the State compact Yolo County Response to 2009/2010 Grand Jury Final Report 55