San Joaquin County Grand Jury
• 2000-2001
Case #0300 Lindbergh Educational Center Reason for Investigation
⚠️ 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 5 findings
F1
After reviewing the policy and procedures of the Regional Occupational Program, the Grand Jury finds there is no written policy in regards to the vehicle repairs. There is a practice that any vehicle can be repaired, if the students do not have their own vehicle. The owner of the vehicle being repaired purchases all parts.
F2
After interviewing the Superintendent of Manteca Unified School District and the Automotive Instructor, the Grand Jury finds that the Superintendent feels it to be reasonable for the Principal to evaluate the Automotive Instructor.
F3
After reviewing the admission records of students enrolled, interviewing the Superintendent and Asst. Superintendent of Manteca Unified School District, the Grand Jury finds no evidence of misuse of the School to Career Grant or the SAPID Grant.
F4
After receiving the written policy on the use of district vehicles and conducting interviews with the Superintendent and the Asst. Superintendent of Manteca Unified School District, the Grand Jury finds Manteca Unified School District has a written policy that provides for mileage reimbursement and use of a district vehicle for district travel. The district has a practice that provides a district vehicle to administrators and permits personal use of their vehicles.
F5
After comparing the Manteca Unified School District's vehicle policy and practice to Tracy, Stockton, Lincoln and Lodi Unified School Districts, the Grand Jury finds: a. Tracy Unified School District has no written policy. The district has vehicles available to administrators on occasion. When a vehicle is needed, one can be assigned for the day. The director of maintenance is the only position that is assigned a vehicle, to insure a quick response anytime of the day or night. The district does not permit personal use of their vehicles. b. Stockton Unified School District has no written policy. The district has vehicles available to administrators on occasion. When a vehicle is needed, one can be assigned for the day. The SUSD Chief of Police and Asst. Chief of Police are the only two positions that are assigned vehicles, to insure a quick response anytime of the day or night. The district does not permit personal use of their vehicles. c. Lincoln Unified School District has a written policy, and no district vehicles. d. Lodi Unified School District has a written policy that the district follows. When a vehicle is needed, one can be assigned for the day. The district does not permit personal use of their vehicles. Manteca is the only district that has a policy that differs from the practice. No other district reviewed allows personal use of their vehicles, or supplies vehicles to the administrators. CONCLUSION The Grand Jury concludes that the vehicles repaired for the Principal by the Automotive Repair class is the acceptable practice of the District. However this can leave the appearance of partiality when the person whose vehicle is being repaired is responsible for the evaluations of the Instructor. The Grand Jury concludes there was no misuse of the School to Career or SAPID Grant in question. The Grand Jury concludes that the personal use of district vehicles is consistent with the acceptable practice at Manteca Unified School District.
Recommendations 1
-
R1The Superintendent of Manteca Unified School District shall report to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin Superior Court, in writing and of the publication of this report. That Statute requires that as to each finding in the report, the response indicate one of the following: a. The respondent agrees with the finding. b. The respondent disagrees with the finding with an explanation of reasons therefore. Section �933.05 also requires as to each recommendation, the response indicate one of the following: a. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary of action taken. b. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be, with a time frame for implementation. c. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation of the scope of the analysis and a time frame not to exceed 6 months. d. The recommendation will not be implemented, with an explanation therefore.
Conclusions 1
-
CL1The Grand Jury concludes that the vehicles repaired for the Principal by the Automotive Repair class is the acceptable practice of the District. However this can leave the appearance of partiality when the person whose vehicle is being repaired is responsible for the evaluations of the Instructor. The Grand Jury concludes there was no misuse of the School to Career or SAPID Grant in question. The Grand Jury concludes that the personal use of district vehicles is consistent with the acceptable practice at Manteca Unified School District.