Score: 0
(1/8/1)
Humboldt County Grand Jury
• 2023-2024
Eureka City Schools – Board of Trustees Deal or No Deal Released June 12, 2024
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 6 findings
F1
The Humboldt County Civil Grand Jury finds that:
Public notice of the pending real-estate decision prior to the December 14, 2023, Eureka City Schools Trustee meeting did not describe the transaction as a proposed property exchange under California Education Code section 17536 and did not specify both properties involved. Therefore, the public did not have an opportunity to be informed and to question the details of the pending decision. (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5)
Related Recommendations (2)
R3
The Eureka City Schools Trustees adopt and implement procedures to assure compliance with the spirit and intent, as well as the literal and technical requirements, of the Brown Act with respect to public notice and participation to avoid the deficiencies noted in this report. This recommendation is to be done by March 31, 2025. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6)
R5
The Eureka City Schools Trustees and staff engage in comprehensive Brown Act training conducted by independent experts not connected with Eureka City Schools or California School Boards Association. This recommendation is to be done by December 31, 2025. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6) RESPONSES Pursuant to California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, each entity or individual named below must respond to the enumerated Findings and Recommendations within specific statutory guidelines. Responses to Findings shall be either: • The respondent agrees with the finding, or: • The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. Responses to Recommendations shall be one of the following: • The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action, or • The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation, or • The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency where applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of the publication of the Grand Jury report, or • The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. REQUIRED RESPONSES – WITHIN 90 DAYS Board of Trustees, Eureka City Schools (All findings, all recommendations) Responses are to be sent to: The Honorable Judge Kelly L. Neel Humboldt County Superior Court 825 5th Street, Eureka, CA 95501 5th Street, Eureka, CA 95501 Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury.
F2
The Humboldt County Civil Grand Jury finds that:
Public notice of the pending real-estate decision prior to the December 14, 2023, Eureka City Schools Trustee meeting did not identify the person or persons with whom the designated Eureka City Schools negotiator may negotiate – specifically, the name (identity) of the principal members and financial backers of AMG Communities – Jacobs, LLC. Therefore, the public did not have an opportunity to be informed and to question the details of the pending decision. (R1,
Related Recommendations (2)
R3
The Eureka City Schools Trustees adopt and implement procedures to assure compliance with the spirit and intent, as well as the literal and technical requirements, of the Brown Act with respect to public notice and participation to avoid the deficiencies noted in this report. This recommendation is to be done by March 31, 2025. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6)
R5
The Eureka City Schools Trustees and staff engage in comprehensive Brown Act training conducted by independent experts not connected with Eureka City Schools or California School Boards Association. This recommendation is to be done by December 31, 2025. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6) RESPONSES Pursuant to California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, each entity or individual named below must respond to the enumerated Findings and Recommendations within specific statutory guidelines. Responses to Findings shall be either: • The respondent agrees with the finding, or: • The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. Responses to Recommendations shall be one of the following: • The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action, or • The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation, or • The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency where applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of the publication of the Grand Jury report, or • The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. REQUIRED RESPONSES – WITHIN 90 DAYS Board of Trustees, Eureka City Schools (All findings, all recommendations) Responses are to be sent to: The Honorable Judge Kelly L. Neel Humboldt County Superior Court 825 5th Street, Eureka, CA 95501 5th Street, Eureka, CA 95501 Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury.
F3
The Humboldt County Civil Grand Jury finds that:
Public notice of the pending real-estate decision prior to the December 14, 2023, Eureka City Schools Trustee meeting did not include the proposed text of Resolution 23-24-023 and Agreement. Therefore, the public did not have an opportunity to be informed and to question the details of the pending decision. (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5)
Related Recommendations (2)
R3
The Eureka City Schools Trustees adopt and implement procedures to assure compliance with the spirit and intent, as well as the literal and technical requirements, of the Brown Act with respect to public notice and participation to avoid the deficiencies noted in this report. This recommendation is to be done by March 31, 2025. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6)
R5
The Eureka City Schools Trustees and staff engage in comprehensive Brown Act training conducted by independent experts not connected with Eureka City Schools or California School Boards Association. This recommendation is to be done by December 31, 2025. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6) RESPONSES Pursuant to California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, each entity or individual named below must respond to the enumerated Findings and Recommendations within specific statutory guidelines. Responses to Findings shall be either: • The respondent agrees with the finding, or: • The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. Responses to Recommendations shall be one of the following: • The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action, or • The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation, or • The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency where applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of the publication of the Grand Jury report, or • The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. REQUIRED RESPONSES – WITHIN 90 DAYS Board of Trustees, Eureka City Schools (All findings, all recommendations) Responses are to be sent to: The Honorable Judge Kelly L. Neel Humboldt County Superior Court 825 5th Street, Eureka, CA 95501 5th Street, Eureka, CA 95501 Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury.
F4
The Humboldt County Civil Grand Jury finds that:
Eureka City Schools Trustees did not fully vet AMG Communities-Jacobs, LLC to establish the bona-fide identity of its members and its financial integrity and discuss this information in open session. Therefore, the public did not have an opportunity to be informed and to question the details of the pending decision and its potential relationship to other local public policy issues. (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5)
Related Recommendations (2)
R3
The Eureka City Schools Trustees adopt and implement procedures to assure compliance with the spirit and intent, as well as the literal and technical requirements, of the Brown Act with respect to public notice and participation to avoid the deficiencies noted in this report. This recommendation is to be done by March 31, 2025. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6)
R5
The Eureka City Schools Trustees and staff engage in comprehensive Brown Act training conducted by independent experts not connected with Eureka City Schools or California School Boards Association. This recommendation is to be done by December 31, 2025. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6) RESPONSES Pursuant to California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, each entity or individual named below must respond to the enumerated Findings and Recommendations within specific statutory guidelines. Responses to Findings shall be either: • The respondent agrees with the finding, or: • The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. Responses to Recommendations shall be one of the following: • The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action, or • The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation, or • The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency where applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of the publication of the Grand Jury report, or • The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. REQUIRED RESPONSES – WITHIN 90 DAYS Board of Trustees, Eureka City Schools (All findings, all recommendations) Responses are to be sent to: The Honorable Judge Kelly L. Neel Humboldt County Superior Court 825 5th Street, Eureka, CA 95501 5th Street, Eureka, CA 95501 Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury.
F5
The Humboldt County Civil Grand Jury finds that:
Resolution 23-24-023 and Agreement was introduced and voted on within 2½ hours on December 14, 2023. The Eureka City Schools Trustees acted hastily without sufficient prudence and due diligence. This deprived the public of information and adequate explanation and communication regarding terms and conditions or sufficient opportunity to consider, respond or question the transaction. (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5)
Related Recommendations (2)
R3
The Eureka City Schools Trustees adopt and implement procedures to assure compliance with the spirit and intent, as well as the literal and technical requirements, of the Brown Act with respect to public notice and participation to avoid the deficiencies noted in this report. This recommendation is to be done by March 31, 2025. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6)
R5
The Eureka City Schools Trustees and staff engage in comprehensive Brown Act training conducted by independent experts not connected with Eureka City Schools or California School Boards Association. This recommendation is to be done by December 31, 2025. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6) RESPONSES Pursuant to California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, each entity or individual named below must respond to the enumerated Findings and Recommendations within specific statutory guidelines. Responses to Findings shall be either: • The respondent agrees with the finding, or: • The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. Responses to Recommendations shall be one of the following: • The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action, or • The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation, or • The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency where applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of the publication of the Grand Jury report, or • The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. REQUIRED RESPONSES – WITHIN 90 DAYS Board of Trustees, Eureka City Schools (All findings, all recommendations) Responses are to be sent to: The Honorable Judge Kelly L. Neel Humboldt County Superior Court 825 5th Street, Eureka, CA 95501 5th Street, Eureka, CA 95501 Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury.
F6
The Humboldt County Civil Grand Jury finds that:
The Eureka City Schools Trustees conducted unrecorded, secret, undocumented, and undisclosed negotiations. This deprived the public of adequate explanation and communication regarding terms and conditions, or sufficient opportunity to consider, respond or question the transaction during open sessions, and prevented the Humboldt County Civil Grand Jury from determining whether Eureka City Schools Trustees complied with the California Government Code during closed sessions. (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5)
Related Recommendations (5)
R1
Pursuant to California Government Code section 54957.2 the Eureka City Schools Trustees designate a clerk or other officer or employee to attend each closed session and keep and enter in a confidential minute book a record of topics discussed and decisions made at the meeting. This recommendation is to be done by December 31, 2024. (F6)
R2
Although the time for immediate cure and correct action has expired, the Eureka City Schools Trustees make details of the Jacobs property negotiations and ongoing status of the transaction known to the public by October 1, 2024. (F6)
R3
The Eureka City Schools Trustees adopt and implement procedures to assure compliance with the spirit and intent, as well as the literal and technical requirements, of the Brown Act with respect to public notice and participation to avoid the deficiencies noted in this report. This recommendation is to be done by March 31, 2025. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6)
R4
The Eureka City Schools Trustees create audio and video recordings of all open sessions of Eureka City Schools Trustee meetings. This recommendation is to be done by December 31, 2025. (F6)
R5
The Eureka City Schools Trustees and staff engage in comprehensive Brown Act training conducted by independent experts not connected with Eureka City Schools or California School Boards Association. This recommendation is to be done by December 31, 2025. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6) RESPONSES Pursuant to California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, each entity or individual named below must respond to the enumerated Findings and Recommendations within specific statutory guidelines. Responses to Findings shall be either: • The respondent agrees with the finding, or: • The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. Responses to Recommendations shall be one of the following: • The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action, or • The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation, or • The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency where applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of the publication of the Grand Jury report, or • The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. REQUIRED RESPONSES – WITHIN 90 DAYS Board of Trustees, Eureka City Schools (All findings, all recommendations) Responses are to be sent to: The Honorable Judge Kelly L. Neel Humboldt County Superior Court 825 5th Street, Eureka, CA 95501 5th Street, Eureka, CA 95501 Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury.
Conclusions 1
-
CL1 Page 12The Eureka City Schools Trustees may have technically complied with the provisions of the Brown Act. But ECS Trustees skirted the Brown Act’s intent to allow publicly open participation in governmental decision-making. Secretive, last-minute, quick judgment, in an intentionally compressed time-period, without public knowledge, behind closed doors, is exactly the kind of decision-making the Brown Act intended to avoid. There was no effective opportunity for the public to know about, consider, and participate in an important decision regarding selling a valuable public asset, even if the result of the decision is perceived to be in the near-term best interests of students. The Brown Act protects the public’s rights of free speech and petition. However, the right of free speech is meaningless if you don’t know what you are talking about. Without adequate notice and information about the Resolution and Agreement, AMG, and the property being exchanged, the public did not have an adequate opportunity to participate, and fully and fairly exercise their rights of speech and petition with respect to the Jacobs property transaction. It seems that the ECS Trustees have been knowingly or unknowingly roped into the ongoing local housing versus parking controversy. The cost to ECS if the AMG deal falls apart is $100 that was pledged in escrow, and potentially a lost deal with DGS/CHP. The intangible cost is diminished public trust and confidence in decision-making by their elected officials. This experience can be considered a business case study and object lesson to elected boards in California of how not to go about the process of selling surplus real estate, and serve as a reminder of the adage, “if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.”
Agency Responses 1
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.