Districtresponsetothe F_

R1

1 Boards of Trustees should carefully review the benefits listed in Finding and: • Eliminate health benefits for Board Members • Minimize travel and conference costs • Eliminate pension contributions District Response HEALTHBENEFITSFORBOARD MEMBERS: The Berryessa Union School District will not be implementing this recommendation. BUSDhas recently reviewed and revised its board policy and administrative regulations related to extending health benefits to board members. The Board determined that benefits for members was appropriate compensation, consistent with statewide practice, and the level of responsibility that board members have for providing a quality educational program for the over 8,000 students who attend the district's schools. In fact, only two of the five board members have chosen to taken benefits at a cost of $8,902. It should also be noted that Board members are eligible for coverage that is less than any employee group. While they are offered the same policies that employees, specifically certificated employees, board members are only given benefits for themselves, not spouses or dependents. Employees are eligible for spouse and dependent coverage as well. Given the District's almost $63 million budget that amount represents only 0.014% of that budget. MINIMIZE TRAVELAND CONFERENCECOSTS: The Board of Trustees does not believe that this is an issue for the district. They further believe that it is as important for them to develop their governance skills and understanding of educational and fiscal issues as it isfor our employees to increase their skills. As professional development is an important goal and priority for our district employees, it is appropriate that board members participate in these types of activities as well. In fact, the total amount spent by board members for conferences and travel in 2008 2009 totaled only $4,170. That translates to 0.0066% of the district budget. Because of the Board's sensitivity to our current fiscal condition, that amount will be less in 2009·2010 than in 2008-2009. 1 6 of ELIMINATE PENSIONCONTRIBUTIONS:The District does not contribute to any pension plan for any board member.

R2

Boards of Trustees should carefully review and renegotiate the Superintendent/Chancellor benefits listed in Finding 2 for possible reduction and/or elimination. District Response The Board of Trustees and Superintendent will consider the opinions of the Grand Jury in future negotiations. Currently, the fact of the matter isthat the Superintendent neither has the great majority of the benefits listed bythe Grand Jury in his current contract nor has asked that they be included in his contract. Those that have been included in the Superintendent's contract meet the requirements the Board has for the Superintendent. The Board and Superintendent have, and will continue to negotiate contracts that are of mutual benefit.

R3

TheBoard of Trustees should ensure that Superintendent/Chancellor salaries and increases take into account the number of schools, teachers, and students they oversee, and are tied to the district's student's progress and quantifiable metrics. District Response The District agrees that the criteria mentioned bythe Grand Jury should be considered, along with many other variables, including the needs of the district, district revenues, etc. when negotiating salary with a superintendent. The District disagrees that they should be the only criteria. The District also disagrees with the Grand Jury's recommendation that size of district should determine salaries for any employee. If district's did that, small school districts would not be able to compete for the highest quality employees be they classified, teachers, or superintendent and that would negatively impact the quality of education students in those districts receive.

R4

Boards of Trustees should conduct a preliminary search within the local area prior to hiring search firms. District Response The District does not agree with the recommendation as a mandate, but believes it is a strategy a Boards of Trustees may wish to consider. The obligation the Board isto find the best educator/leader they can find, not the best internal or local candidate for the position. If it is determined that a wide area search isappropriate, the ability of a search firm to bring the highest quality candidates to the Board for consideration is appropriate and cost effective. Each Board should consider the options that make the most sense for their district rather than being tied to an opinion indicating that only local candidates should be recruited first because it saves money. The savings of not using a search consultant when one is indicated is penny wise, dollar foolish when the leadership of multi-million dollar educational organizations that serve thousands of children and families is at stake.

R6

A consolidation of districts should be considered to reduce the numbers and costs of Superintendent/Chancellors, Boards of Trustees, administrative staff and overhead. District Response The District does not support this overly generalized statement. Factual data on costs, staffing, actual savings through consolidation, and educational research relating to optimal school district size are not presented for consideration or support of the opinion labeled a recommendation. Without that information, the District cannot support the conclusions of the Grand Jury. ConclusionsmA District Response It is obvious that the Grand Jury spent considerable time looking at a variety of issues related to school districts, boards of trustees and superintendents. The District found the issues worthy of honest discussion, but found the findings and recommendations lacking substantiation and rigor. The substitution of opinions for fact based findings and recommendations were disconcerting and inappropriate.