2012-2013 Final Report

Conclusions 43

• CL1 Page 47
  Respect and adhere to the American ideals of government, the rule of law, the principles of public administration and high ethical conduct in the performance of public duties.
• CL2 Page 47
  Represent and work for the common good of the City and not for any private interest.
• CL3 Page 47
  Refrain from accepting gifts or favors or promises of future benefits which might compromise or tend to impair independence of judgment or action.
• CL4 Page 47
  Provide fair and equal treatment for all persons and matters coming before the Council.
• CL5 Page 47
  Learn and study the background and purposes of important items of business before voting.
• CL6 Page 47
  Faithfully perform all duties of office.
• CL7 Page 47
  Refrain from disclosing any information received confidentially concerning the business of the City, or received during any closed session of the Council held pursuant to state law.
• CL8 Page 47
  Decline any employment incompatible with public duty.
• CL9 Page 47
  Refrain from abusive conduct, personal charges or verbal attacks upon the character, motives, ethics or morals of other members of the Council, staff or public, or other personal comments not germane to the issues before the Council.
• CL10 Page 47
  Listen courteously and attentively to all public discussions at Council meetings and avoid interrupting other speakers, including other Council members, except as may be permitted by established Rules of Order.
• CL11 Page 47
  Faithfully attend all sessions of the Council unless unable to do so because of disability or some other compelling reason.
• CL12 Page 47
  Maintain the highest standard of public conduct by refusing to condone breaches of public trust or improper attempts to influence legislation, and by being willing to censure any member who willfully violates the rules of conduct contained in this Code of Ethics. EXHIBIT B 47
• CL13 Page 55
  The Grand Jury is encouraged by the fact that 12 of the 14 cities within Alameda County have adopted anti-nepotism policies. Some city policies could be made stronger to include specific instructions to document the outcome of questions relating to the hiring of near-relatives. Government should hire employees based on ability and not because of personal relationships. The goal of establishing an effective anti-nepotism policy must be to promote the highest standards of ethical behavior in government. Transparency is key to public trust. Public officials are public servants and image is an important part of maintaining public confidence. As Alameda County’s ethics training presentation summarized: “Values such as trustworthiness, respect, fairness and responsibility promote public trust and avoid the appearance of impropriety.” 55
• CL14 Page 56
  SUMMARY OF NEPOTISM POLICIES IN ALAMEDA COUNTY Agency Policy Status on Nepotism? County of Alameda No. The policy referred to in item #27 on County HR Operational Plan has not yet been implemented. City of Alameda No. City is reviewing and codifying a policy under development. City of Albany Yes. Personnel Rules and regulations 6.1 City of Berkeley Yes. Administrative Regulation 2.12 – “Employment of Near Relatives” City of Dublin Yes. Personnel Rule 2.4 City of Emeryville Yes. Personnel Rules and Regulations section 2.05 – “Employment of Relatives” City of Fremont No City of Hayward Yes. City Charter section 8.07 City of Livermore Yes. Personnel Rules and regulations 5.05 – “Employment of Relatives” City of Newark Yes. Personnel Rules and Regulations section 5 – “Conflict of Interest due to personal relationship” City of Oakland Yes. City Charter Article V, Section 907; Ordinance, Title 2, Chapter 2 – “Prohibition on Nepotism”; Title 9, Chapter 2.38 City of Piedmont Yes. City Personnel Rules, Section VI(A)(4) City of Pleasanton Yes. HR Policy City of San Leandro Yes. City Charter section 705 – “Nepotism.” Administrative Code, Title 10, Chapter 7 (revised 2.6.2012) – “Employment of Relatives.” PD directive (1988) – “Anti- Nepotism” City of Union City Yes. Administration Policy, Memorandum #64 – “Employment of Relatives” EXHIBIT A 56
• CL15 Page 61
  The Grand Jury finds that notification of the Hayward Measure G Tax exemptions was done in an appropriate manner considering the time constraints involved. The Grand Jury recommends that outreach, education, and notification regarding this exemption must be on-going. The Grand Jury suggests expansion of notifications to include senior centers, churches, media/public service announcements, and through various other senior services such as Meals on Wheels. The Grand Jury realizes that many seniors struggle financially on a daily basis but we believe that citizens must take responsibility to become aware of issues that directly affect them. 61
• CL16 Page 62
  FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS None RESPONSES REQUIRED None 62
• CL17 Page 63
  CITY OF HAYWARD EMERGENCY SERVICES FACILITIES TAX INTRODUCTION In 199o the city of Hayward adopted an Emergency Services Facilities (ESF) tax to provide funding for seismic retrofitting of essential city facilities. The tax was adopted following the Loma Prieta earthquake in order to seismically retrofit government buildings against future quakes. The Grand Jury received a complaint questioning how this ESF tax was being collected and utilized. The Grand Jury ultimately determined that the ESF tax is correctly administered and the tax dollars collected are being used appropriately to pay the costs of retrofitting and rebuilding designated government structures in the city of Hayward.
• CL18 Page 66
  The Grand Jury has determined that the ESF tax was and continues to be correctly administered and the tax dollars collected were appropriately used to pay the costs of retrofitting and rebuilding emergency service facilities in the city of Hayward. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS None RESPONSES REQUIRED None 66
• CL19 Page 67
  LOCAL EMERGENCY NOTIFICATION SYSTEMS INTRODUCTION In April 2013 two bombs went off near the finish line of the Boston Marathon, killing several people and injuring over 250 others. In 2012 a more localized concern arose when a fire occurred at the Chevron refinery in Richmond, California, spreading a toxic cloud, potentially affecting residents throughout the region. These brought to mind Alameda County’s own disasters, such as the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake and the 1991 Oakland Hills fire. Accordingly, the Grand Jury examined the current state of warning systems in Alameda County and how prepared the county is to warn its citizens in the event of emergencies. While many cities and the unincorporated areas within Alameda County have individualized emergency warning systems, the Grand Jury learned that Alameda County lacks one countywide emergency warning system. A single countywide system would enable all cities and municipalities within Alameda County to participate collectively in the federal Integrated Public Alert Warning System (IPAWS). IPAWS is a federal protocol that allows for emergency managers to utilize a common format among multiple alert systems. Participating in IPAWS allows local agencies to use the Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) program, which has the ability to provide notification to cell phones located within a precise targeted area. For example, if an emergency occurs at a large public gathering, all cell phones within the area, regardless of billing address, would receive an emergency warning notification message. The Grand Jury believes the implementation of one unified emergency warning system consistent with IPAWS would serve the citizens of Alameda County by being able to deliver consistent and simultaneous messages to residents. The Grand Jury concludes that a single countywide system could be established and maintained at a reasonable cost. 67
• CL20 Page 68
  INVESTIGATION During the Grand Jury’s investigation, we interviewed emergency services officials from Alameda County and neighboring counties. We also interviewed representatives from a local fire department, the Alameda County Office of Emergency Services, Alameda County Department of Environmental Health, Alameda County Board of Supervisors, and county executives. We also reviewed news articles and numerous documents from various cities outlining their emergency warning notification systems. Additionally, we reviewed federal documents and publications relating to the IPAWS system and city and county publications relating to emergency communications, including the Alameda County Emergency Operation Plan. We also reviewed the publication, Public Alert and Warning Notification Services by County by the California Public Utilities Commission (Summer 2008). Emergency Warning Systems in Alameda County Jurisdictions within Alameda County currently use various means of communication to disseminate warnings to citizens, including landline phones (Reverse 9-1-1), cell phones, sirens, press releases, text messages, email, radio, television, and social media. The cities of Alameda, San Leandro and Fremont use the community alert system from CodeRED. CodeRED is a private vendor that provides a high-speed notification system, which allows city officials to warn residents of emergencies. One service that CodeRED offers is a type of reverse 9-1-1 system that notifies residents and businesses by using their landline phone numbers without requiring them to sign up. Also, individuals can sign up through their city’s website to receive notifications by email, text message, cell or work numbers. The city of Alameda pays approximately $22,500 per year, and the city of Fremont pays approximately $44,500 per year for this service. 68
• CL21 Page 69
  The University of California, Berkeley, uses the Alert Warning System (AWS). AWS uses sirens to warn individuals. Upon hearing a siren, citizens are alerted to shelter in place (remain indoors and shut doors and windows). Citizens can check the status of the emergency by calling a hotline number, logging onto the campus emergency web page, or by listening to the campus radio station to find out details. Individuals can also sign up to receive emergency notifications by phone or email. The city of Oakland uses a siren system that alerts citizens that there is an emergency in the area as well as a voluntary email and text notification system (Nixle). Nixle allows police departments to communicate with the public via text message, email and Internet posts regarding public safety alerts. Nixle requires self-registration and is free to subscribers. Oakland has no reverse 9-1-1 automatic notification system. The cities of Livermore and Pleasanton have jointly purchased a Communicator Automated Notification System (CANS) to provide emergency notifications. CANS is a limited automated notification reverse 9-1-1 system. The system enables the cities to broadcast messages to residents and businesses through landlines by group or geographical location. The Grand Jury learned that the system costs $15,000 for three years. The Pleasanton, Livermore, Hayward and Fremont police departments also use Nixle. The city of Berkeley Emergency Notification System (BENS) allows the city to call residents at home in order to provide emergency information. BENS is a reverse 9-1-1 system. The system has the ability to target a geographical area for notification. Like many other private vendors, BENS is managed by a company located outside of California, so that in the event of a natural disaster, their operations facilities would not be disabled. BENS costs the city of Berkeley approximately $21,000 per year. 69
• CL22 Page 70
  Automatic BENS notifications are currently limited to residents and businesses with AT&T landlines. Cell phone users or others with non-AT&T service must sign up to participate in the BENS system. Email notification is also available. The city of Berkeley also uses the 1610AM radio station to announce emergencies over the radio. At the time of the Grand Jury’s investigation, the city of Berkeley was attempting to expand its ability to notify residents through other communication carriers. In 2012, the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office (ACSO) partnered with a private vendor, AlertID, which allows public safety information on emergencies and crimes to be distributed through text messaging and email. Citizens must enroll in this on-line notification service for free at www.AlertID.com. There is no cost to the Sheriff’s Office. Participants are notified of severe weather, criminal activity, and other information. One of the responsibilities of the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health (ACEH) is to notify businesses of food recalls. As the number of these recalls grew to nearly 50 per year, the department wanted a quick way to disseminate recall and other emergency information to businesses as well as to ACEH staff. They contracted with Everbridge, a private vendor that provides pre- recorded phone notifications. Everbridge is paid approximately $5,000 per year after an initial set-up fee of $7,500. ACEH has had success in reaching its employees during the first year of use, but attempts at reaching businesses have been less effective. There is a need to regularly update the contact numbers for the businesses and improve the notification messages. Most of the expenses to run this system are offset by revenue from local businesses, such as small fees on waste collections. This system shows the ability of an agency to control costs in selecting a notification vendor, do it with minimal bureaucracy, and adapt it to their needs. On the other hand, this plan is currently limited to food businesses and employees of the agency and is not set up for mass notification. 70
• CL23 Page 71
  The Grand Jury learned that none of these emergency warning systems is foolproof. Many jurisdictions limit their use of these systems due to inefficiencies such as problems with duplicate calls, inconsistent messaging with other jurisdictions, and outdated phone numbers of residents. While some systems can target specific areas for notification, they are often limited to the use of landlines. Some systems can call or text cell phones but only if the cell phone owners have signed up for the service. The Grand Jury believes that only a very small percentage of county residents have signed up for these services. Contra Costa County Contra Costa County has one countywide warning system that alerts citizens to imminent threats to their lives and safety. The system provides the ability to notify residents via landline telephone, cell phone, email, Twitter and Facebook. The system costs $1.5 million annually and is funded through fees imposed on businesses that deal with hazardous materials, of which $450,000 of this amount is used to maintain and operate the county’s 42 sirens and repeaters. Because Contra Costa County has a large number of oil refineries, the amount collected through these fees is substantial. The Grand Jury acknowledges that Contra Costa County’s needs are different due to the number of refinery incidents and the frequent use of their notification system. The Grand Jury learned that Contra Costa County’s landline component has problems such as delayed notification similar to those in other jurisdictions. We heard of one incident where the goal to notify residents within 30 minutes unfortunately took two to three hours. Integrated Public Alert Warning System (IPAWS) IPAWS was developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as a protocol/common format for public alert systems. IPAWS outlines the way in which counties participate in the national warning system that allows the 71
• CL24 Page 72
  President or other authorized officials to communicate with the public in times of emergency via television, radio, landline, cell phone, and other communication pathways. An important benefit of having a unified countywide emergency alert and notification system is that it would allow for the use of Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA), a new federal program, to notify cell phone users in a targeted area without requiring them to subscribe in advance. The WEA system was used successfully by Santa Clara County in conjunction with its AlertSCC system during a recent child abduction incident. Local cell towers were used to send alerts to any phone with WEA capability in the targeted area. That means local residents and out of town visitors in the affected area were also notified. Likewise, a resident who was out of the area was not notified. Before this program, cell phone users had to subscribe to receive emergency alert and notification messages. Monterey and Tulare counties have adopted the IPAWS system. Monterey County received just under $1 million from the Federal Homeland Security Grant Program. Alameda County’s Unique Considerations Alameda County is unique not only in its coastal location, but also for its broad array of county, state and national agencies and businesses that are considered to be high risk by Homeland Security. Alameda County would benefit from a notification system that can assist the public with warnings and up-to-date information should the need arise. An emergency notification system is needed that could also interface with the surrounding counties and the Homeland Security Warning and Alert Systems. 72
• CL25 Page 73
  The Oakland International Airport serves both domestic and international airline flights and processed over 10 million passengers for arrivals or departures in 2012. Major security concerns center around terrorist activities, aircraft emergencies and accidents as well as land disaster possibilities. The Port of Oakland, which is now the fifth busiest container port in the United States, has the same major areas of concern as the airport except they deal with cargo ships. Both the airport and the seaport need to have an adequate warning system in place not only for their immediate employees and surrounding physical areas but also for notifying the public and working with Homeland Security if a serious threat occurs. Sandia Laboratories, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories and UC Berkeley Laboratories, due to their nuclear research and capabilities, are at a high risk for accidents or terrorist plots. Although security may be high in these labs, there also should be a system in place to notify the public, the county, and Homeland Security should any acute need arise. Northern California frequently experiences earthquakes along various fault lines, many of which run through Alameda County. The ability to provide emergency notifications is critical. Inconsistent Messaging Without a countywide coordinated community emergency warning system, there is the potential for inconsistent messages being disseminated by neighboring jurisdictions, compounding public confusion during times of emergency. One example occurred during a refinery explosion in Contra Costa County. Citizens in areas near the refinery were alerted to potential danger through the countywide emergency notification system. Other county residents, in Moraga and Lafayette, were not notified because officials believed they were outside the potential danger 73
• CL26 Page 74
  zone. At the same time, the city of Oakland sent out a mass email to everyone signed up for its emergency alert notifications that a toxic cloud from the refinery explosion was headed towards Oakland. While this example involved emergency warnings from two different counties, it did show how inconsistent messaging could create unnecessary confusion. If Alameda County were to participate in IPAWS, there would be one messaging system for all cities and unincorporated areas, better serving the citizens of the county. Barriers to Countywide Emergency Notification System Regional cooperation in creating and operating multi-jurisdictional programs can be complicated by a number of different issues. Funding, control over management, inconsistent needs and poor timing often stand in the way of moving forward. Upfront and on-going operational funding is a barrier for nearly all new programs. If state or federal grant funding is available to start projects, someone must take the lead in applying for those funds. The Grand Jury learned that there is a $300,000 one-time federal grant available to help fund a countywide notification system but the grant comes with significant strings attached. Many smaller counties have stepped forward and applied for similar grants with the understanding that grant requirements for training and protocol were quite complicated. Within our county, no agency has taken the lead to apply for the grant due to an 11-month compliance timeline and lack of commitment to fund the system long-term. In order to move forward with grant funding, local leaders need to be committed to funding the system annually. The Grand Jury learned that one vendor estimated that a countywide system, meeting the federal requirements to participate in IPAWS, would cost approximately $257,000 a year. 74
• CL27 Page 75
  Alameda County has over 1.5 million residents living in 14 cities and six unincorporated communities. If a joint powers authority (JPA) were created to raise funds and operate a countywide system, each of the JPA members must ensure that costs of the system are fair and equitable to all involved. A JPA is created when two or more public agencies formally agree to work together for specific purposes, usually over a larger geographic area than is represented by the individual agencies. Agreement must be made regarding how each jurisdiction would contribute to on-going operations, whether it be by population served or by the number of messages individual jurisdictions send out. The good news is that many cities in the county have already invested in their own systems for many different purposes. The Grand Jury learned that six cities within the county spend a total of approximately $120,000 annually for their emergency warning systems. If those cities were willing to replace their systems with a countywide system, and the remaining eight cities and the county representing the unincorporated areas also contributed, the funding issue would become less of a barrier. Over the past decade, approximately forty public agencies joined forces, using federal and local funds to build one interoperable emergency radio system for first responders in both Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. One key city, Oakland, did not participate in the new radio system. Two years ago, a Grand Jury reported on the multiple reasons for Oakland’s decision. At that time, after the Oakland Hills fire, Oakland had just invested in a new police and fire radio system. Joining the two-county system would have required Oakland to abandon parts of its new system. Oakland has been reluctant to scrap the investments already made to that system and to start over by joining one regional system. Just as Oakland has invested in its own police and fire radio system, some cities within the county have also invested in their own emergency notification systems. 75
• CL28 Page 76
  The Grand Jury learned that several cities currently have multi-year contracts with different emergency notification vendors, which have staggered expiration dates. This may cause some cities to want to delay investing general fund dollars in order to participate in one countywide system until their contracts expire. Questions have also arisen as to who would operate the countywide emergency notification system and who would sit on the governing board. In addition, many of the cities currently operating notification systems use them for different reasons and with different regularity.
• CL29 Page 76
  The Grand Jury believes that a countywide emergency notification system utilizing federal IPAWS protocols would best serve the citizens of Alameda County. It would allow the region to participate in the innovative WEA emergency alert program. The patchwork of systems currently being used within the county invites inconsistent messaging during emergencies. Pooling financial resources would allow a countywide system to be operated with minimal investments by each local jurisdiction. The Grand Jury believes that the Alameda County Office of Emergency Services is in the best position to take the leadership role to seek federal grants through FEMA to create an appropriate system. Investing in one countywide emergency notification system could save lives and be implemented with an annual estimated cost of less than 25 cents per resident. The Grand Jury believes this would be a worthwhile use of taxpayer funds. 76
• CL30 Page 95
  Transparent decision-making is a foundation of our democracy. Having meaningful written policies to guide staff during complicated and high-stakes real estate transactions ensures that checks and balances are in place to protect the public. Openly discussing application of these policies, in transactions such as the purchase of 2000 San Pablo, should aid in the perception that investments of taxpayer money are made in the best interest of the citizens of Alameda County and not in back rooms. Spending taxpayer money wisely, following industry best practices, and relying on those with expertise to efficiently execute business transactions are of the utmost importance when conducting county business. The Grand Jury believes that there were systemic failures in the negotiations for the construction, lease, and purchase of 2000 San Pablo Avenue. 95
• CL31 Page 106
  Based on the successes of Alameda County’s pioneering school and community- based clinics, the Grand Jury believes that initiating fire station health clinics is a creative approach to providing access to health care for all ages. Fire station clinics would be well suited to serving the basic health care needs of the general population in a nontraditional and practical location. Fire station clinics are proposed to be located in communities where health care is insufficient and would be conveniently open on weekday evenings. A further advantage is the public’s universal trust and view of fire stations as a source of help. Regarding this proposal from a cost perspective, health care costs continue to rise at rates well above the inflation rate, and are projected to continue on that path with the Affordable Care Act increasing the demand for health care services. Fire station health clinics are expected to deliver health care at a lower cost by reducing the demand for emergency department care. The Grand Jury concludes that for economic and humanitarian reasons, the Board of Supervisors and the City of Hayward should proceed with a pilot program to establish an on-site fire station health clinic in Hayward. 106
• CL32 Page 115
  The Grand Jury concludes that BART and AC Transit worked cooperatively with their limited resources during the Transbay Tube closure, and the Grand Jury investigation revealed that both agencies did the best they could under the circumstances. However, the Grand Jury found that improvements could be made in communicating updates on the status of emergencies to the public. In the future, notifications to the public will be disseminated from a single source to avoid confusion. That source will be www.511.org or 5-1-1 by phone. The Grand Jury suggests that BART, AC Transit, and other transit agencies continue to work closely with the MTC to coordinate responses and to create a public relations campaign to educate commuters about alternate solutions during times of transit emergencies. In the event of another Transbay Tube closure, regardless of what mutual aid is available, it is impossible to seamlessly transport 40,000 displaced peak hour commuters across the bay. Both commuters and transit agencies need to take actions to address the impact of short-term emergencies on the transportation system. It is advisable for employers and workers to have alternate emergency plans in place to avoid gridlock; for example, allowing for flex hours, telecommuting, and planning alternate routes to work. In this crowded urban area, interruption in one of the major commuter arteries – in this case, the BART Transbay Tube – will necessarily impact travelers. Other transit agencies and advance planning can only ease, but not replace, the lost commuter service. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS None RESPONSES REQUIRED None 115
• CL33 Page 116
  [This page intentionally left blank] 116
• CL34 Page 117
  OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT CHALLENGES INTRODUCTION For many years, the Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) has been faced with seemingly insurmountable hurdles preventing it from making significant gains in student achievement. High teacher turnover within OUSD affects continuity and stability for students. There now appears to be a real unified effort by district leadership to build better schools. The district has developed a five-year Community School Strategic Site Plan, a multi-pronged effort to help address some of the challenges OUSD is facing. This plan is highlighted on the OUSD website and on thrivingstudents.org. Many of the district’s proposals have been implemented, while others have been met with criticism and come into conflict with existing labor agreements. One of the goals of the plan is to amend the district’s current teacher assignment policy. The Grand Jury decided to examine the OUSD’s initiatives surrounding staffing reform, teacher assignment procedures, and teacher evaluations. BACKGROUND AND INVESTIGATION During our investigation, the Grand Jury met with current and former school administrators, teachers, union officials, human resource employees, principals, a member of the school board, and education experts. We also reviewed school board meeting minutes and videos, and attended school board meetings. Additionally, we examined numerous OUSD documents relating to teacher transfer policies and evaluation procedures, along with similar data from other school districts throughout the country. The Oakland Unified School District operates 84 schools and serves 37,000 students with an annual budget of $520 million for fiscal year 2012-2013, down from $610 million the previous year. Student enrollment has steadily declined by 117
• CL35 Page 118
  nearly 19,000 over the past decade, which impacts state funding that is based on average daily attendance. The district believes that annual budget deficits will continue unless new funding sources appear or the district reduces the number of schools they operate. Financial problems have compounded as a result of the movement towards smaller schools over the past decade, which was intended to give high-risk students extra attention and a sense of community. The academic outcomes of the smaller schools have been mixed at best. With smaller schools, the district must employ significantly more teachers. While smaller class sizes may sound enticing, they come at a huge price. The district operates at a higher staffing level than other school districts within Alameda County, and as a result, OUSD teachers are paid dramatically less than teachers in surrounding districts. Data from 2012 shows that OUSD had 19 pupils per teacher while the county average was 22.7 pupils per teacher (Source: Ed-data). The Grand Jury learned that if OUSD adjusted its ratio to be consistent with county averages, they would save approximately $16 million per year in salaries and associated costs. During the 2011-2012 school year, the average teacher salary within the Oakland Unified School District was approximately $54,000. The average public school teacher salary throughout the county was over $68,000 (Source: Ed-data). It is not difficult to understand why OUSD has very poor retention among its teachers. Approximately 13% of Oakland’s teachers leave the district each year, which is about twice the state average, and 70% leave within the first five years. OUSD Teacher Assignment Initiatives Complicating OUSD’s administrative efforts to improve schools are the current policies controlling how open teaching positions are filled. On-going cuts, school closures, and declining enrollment have left the district with a large number of unassigned teachers, referred to as OUSD’s consolidated teacher pool. Current labor rules require that any classroom opening within the district must be offered first to the most senior, subject-qualified teacher from the consolidated teacher 118
• CL36 Page 119
  pool. Because seniority takes precedence, the receiving site principal must accept the placement of that particular teacher. The current staffing rules disregard quality or fit. School administrators have the responsibility to make improvements but often lack the authority to choose staff or ensure that newly assigned teachers agree with the school’s plans and goals. Current regulations create a situation where the most senior teachers often choose to move to open positions in favored schools (i.e., desirable neighborhoods, more manageable teaching challenges, less truancy, and fewer disciplinary issues). This leaves the less desirable schools with the loss of experienced teachers and little consistency or continuity resulting in morale issues for staff, students, and parents. OUSD Administrative Initiatives In June 2010, OUSD’s superintendent invited the community to work with the school district to create a five-year strategic plan with the goal of providing high quality schools for every neighborhood in the district. As a result, OUSD proposed two innovative teacher assignment programs: the Mutual Matching program and the Teacher on Special Assignment (TSA) program. Mutual Matching Mutual Matching was intended to change the way teacher vacancies were filled. The proposal was modeled after a program underway in the state of Colorado. If an OUSD teacher wished to transfer to another school with an opening, the proposal required interviews between the receiving school and the teacher. A teacher transfer to a new school site would be achieved through a mutual match or consent of both the teacher and the receiving school site. The Oakland Education Association (OEA), the labor organization representing OUSD teachers, rejected this proposal as it went against their core belief that seniority 119
• CL37 Page 120
  should prevail in teacher placement. Due to conflict with the labor agreement, Mutual Matching was never implemented. The administration then proposed an alternative compromise to Mutual Matching that was not in conflict with current labor policies. The solution they offered was called Advisory Matching. While the principal would have the opportunity to provide input regarding suitability of an eligible teacher, the transfer would ultimately be determined by the teacher with the most seniority. Teachers on Special Assignment Advisory Matching did not provide OUSD administrators with sufficient control over teacher placements. As a result, the district utilized “Teachers on Special Assignment” (TSA), an existing OEA contract provision for teacher selection. OUSD identified three high-needs schools - Castlemont, Fremont, and McClymonds. All teaching assignments at these high schools for the 2012-2013 school year were designated as TSA positions. Any teacher who wanted to teach, or continue teaching, at one of these schools was required to submit a TSA application. These positions were filled through a process other than by seniority, as allowed by the labor contract. Teachers at these schools work additional time with additional pay, which gives them more time to spend with their students and in planning with their colleagues. TSA positions are assigned for one school year at a time. Mutual Matching, Advisory Matching and Teacher on Special Assignment illustrate the district’s attempt to reduce teacher turnover. The administration faced significant opposition to these proposals from the labor organization representing teachers. Conflict like this was consistent with the on-going problems the district has historically encountered in negotiating with OEA. 120
• CL38 Page 121
  Labor Relations OUSD has operated without a labor agreement since 2008 when their previous labor agreement expired. Relationships between OEA and the district have been strained for many years. The inability of both sides to reach agreement led the district to impose a contract on teachers in 2010. The Grand Jury believes a lack of a negotiated contract is unacceptable. Fortunately, discussions have finally begun toward reaching a new agreement and both sides show signs of cooperation. Teacher Evaluations Failure to update labor agreements have led to consequences that go well beyond teacher pay and transfer policies. OUSD has an established system of employee evaluations that are described in depth within its labor agreement with teachers. The Grand Jury learned that stakeholders from all sides are dissatisfied with this current evaluation process that has not been comprehensively updated in many years. All would agree that this process, which is described in the 60-page “Oakland Unified School District Evaluation Handbook,” is extremely cumbersome and ineffective. The handbook states, in part, the following: “Tenured employees shall be evaluated at least every two years. A random method of selection shall be used to determine the evaluatees [sic] for odd and even years. Probationary employees shall be evaluated annually except for first year employees who shall be evaluated twice a year. Each year, the human resources division shall distribute to the sites a list of employees at the site who must be scheduled for evaluation that year. However, this does not preclude informal evaluation/observation of tenured employees throughout the year. In fact, constructive feedback is encouraged for all employees throughout the year to improve the quality of the educational program.” 121
• CL39 Page 122
  Completing evaluations is an integral component of the principal’s job. Budget constraints and staffing reductions have affected some principals’ abilities to complete evaluations. As a result, principals are not held accountable when evaluations are not completed. The Grand Jury learned that there is a perception that evaluations are primarily used when laying the groundwork for dismissing poor performing teachers. Furthermore, the Grand Jury learned that OUSD currently does not have a centralized database to collect and manage teacher evaluations and other personnel information. To help with teachers’ professional development, there is a need to track evaluations and report by site the status of each teacher’s performance. The Grand Jury believes that the goal of a teacher evaluation system is to help teachers identify strengths and weaknesses, highlight areas for improvement, and allow the district to track performance and maintain accurate records. The Grand Jury heard testimony from a former OUSD principal that if any part of the evaluation process was left out or not completed in a timely manner, the union could file a grievance based on the procedure not having been followed. The focus seemed to emphasize process rather than the evaluation itself. This problem of ineffective teacher evaluations is not unique to OUSD. The Grand Jury learned that school districts nationwide are introducing new ways to evaluate teachers emphasizing the importance of professional reviews including multiple measures of performance. OUSD currently has a task force composed of teacher representatives, parents, and students charged with improving teacher effectiveness, performance, and evaluations. It is a work in progress with the goal to produce an effective evaluation system and a framework to negotiate with OEA. 122
• CL40 Page 123
  The Grand Jury found that the Oakland Unified School District has many problems including high teacher turnover, low teacher pay, teacher assignment issues, an ineffective and cumbersome teacher evaluation system, contractual issues, and a history of a strained relationship with the Oakland Education Association. These issues coupled with the district’s financial difficulties are challenges that district leaders have begun to address. While there appears to be true progress in rebuilding the relationship between the Oakland Unified School District administrators and the Oakland Education Association, they have yet to sign a new contract. Because of a lack of agreement, there can be no immediate improvement in the teacher evaluation process or resolution to the controversies surrounding teacher transfer policies. 123
• CL41 Page 136
  The Grand Jury focused its inquiry on the administrative operations of ACERA. Although the Grand Jury acknowledges that ACERA has a history of successful investment strategies and returns for its members, we confirmed several areas that need improvement in terms of administrative oversight and efficiencies. The Grand Jury believes that a lack of institutional transparency in the past prevented ACERA’s board from recognizing the true depth of disturbing internal problems that existed. The Grand Jury commends the new CEO for implementing significant reforms intended to improve effectiveness of operations. While this disciplined approach has led to better administrative practices, spending $50.3 million a year to operate the organization warrants on-going scrutiny, especially since other similarly sized county pensions systems in California spend considerably less. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS None RESPONSES REQUIRED None 136
• CL42 Page 137
  REVIEW OF THE RESPONSES TO THE 2011-2012 GRAND JURY REPORT On June 25, 2012, the 2011-2012 Grand Jury publicly released its final report. The report was comprised of nine separate investigations, culminating in 31 recommendations. By law, the responsible local agencies were required to respond to any findings and to each recommendation. Responses were due to the Presiding Judge within 90 days from the publication date of the report, pursuant to section 933(c) of the California Penal Code. Each responding agency then had up to six months to begin to implement any recommendations with which they agreed. The recommendations, and the agencies’ responses to them, are posted along with the full report on the Grand Jury’s website at www.acgov.org/grandjury. The Grand Jury thanks all agencies for their timely and thorough responses to the 2011-2012 report. Although some recommendations were not agreed with, most agencies did concur with the Grand Jury. While government agencies must balance their fiscal responsibilities to the taxpayer with pressing concerns for the welfare of its citizens, it is incumbent upon these agencies to continually strive to use the public’s money in the wisest, most prudent, and most responsible ways possible. As of the writing of this report, several county agencies were nearing the six- month deadline for implementing recommendations made by the Grand Jury. We strongly encourage future grand juries to continue to monitor responses and to follow up as necessary, up to and including additional investigations where needed. 137
• CL43 Page 138
  Rene C. Davidson Courthouse, 1225 Fallon Street, Oakland, California Photograph courtesy of Seth Gaines, Germantown, Maryland [Used with permission.] 138

Agency Responses 1

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.