📋

Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

Butte County Grand Jury • 2004-2005

Butte County Veterans Memorial Halls

Published: July 08, 2005 12 pages

View PDF View Full Original

⚠️ 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 10 findings

The halls are used infrequently and they generate revenues that equal about ten percent of what they require in expenditures for "Band-Aid style" upkeep; they only bring in about $25,000 per year in revenue when the basic upkeep budget is just over $200,000. The remainder of those expenditures comes from the county general fund.

There is no coordinated and cohesive management and marketing structure in place to control the maintenance and use of the VMH. No single department head is in complete charge of the halls.

We were unable to find anyone who is willing to take the responsibility or expend the necessary energy to fight for change in policy or disruption of the status quo as it relates to these halls.

No commission or committee has been formed nor any individual appointed to focus on the issues.

Several of the memorial halls are physically deteriorating to the point of being uninhabitable due to lack of upgrades, maintenance, and long range planning. Without consulting contractors or engineers, it is apparent to even the layperson that the cost for upgrades will certainly cost several million dollars. 23 2004-2005 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY

All halls are out of compliance with federal ADA laws and do not meet their minimum requirements even though there are a tremendous number of living disabled veterans. Given the aforementioned, liability exposures remain for the county since there have been minimal upgrades undertaken.

Given the current uses of the halls and level of revenues generated by their use, it would be difficult to justify allocating the necessary county tax dollars to make the necessary repairs and changes.

All of the VMH are far larger than the needs of the veterans groups using them.

No plans are in place to make the halls more self-sufficient or to make them less of a drain on the general fund.

F10

We found no individual who could demonstrate any knowledge of possible grants from state or federal sources, which may be available to help the county address, the issues facing these halls.

Recommendations 14

R1

Appoint a single qualified county employee to oversee, be responsible for, and to interface with supervisors, commissions and state government for all aspects of the Butte County VMH.
R2

Use stakeholders to come up with a five and ten year master plan for the use, maintenance, upgrade, or sale of the current halls.
R3

Solicit veterans and county residents' assistance in finding long term solutions to issues surrounding these halls through formation of a council/commission whose findings and recommendations would be binding on the county.
R4

Seek federal and/or state aid in obtaining funds to either upgrade the existing structures, or to fund a move into smaller halls.
R5

If the sale of the existing halls with the plan to replace them is possible: a. Form a dedicated veteran's council/commission to determine the veteran's facilities needs. 24 2004-2005 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY b. Use the proceeds of any sale to lease or buy smaller facilities, which would meet the criteria of having adequate parking and compliance with the ADA. c. Seek both state and federal grants to augment project funding. d. Place the veterans' council under the responsible department head to provide hands-on monitoring of the physical use and security of the halls. e. Require the veterans groups using the halls to become more involved in the planning and daily welfare of the halls as the veterans groups are the prime users and beneficiaries of having veterans' halls f. Encourage veterans groups to reserve the hall less often during peak demand seasons or days of the week thereby making it possible to rent them more frequently, so costs for their upkeep may be defrayed to a degree. Response Required (Penal Code § 933 & 933.05) Butte County Board of Supervisors Office of the County Administrative Officer Veterans Service Officer 25 2004-2005 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY High Price of Public Education in Butte County Reason For Visit/Investigation During the course of its term, the Grand Jury received several complaints about public schools in Butte County charging fees to attend classes. Background In keeping with the free school guarantee of the California Constitution, the State Board of Education has adopted California Code of Regulations, Title 5 § 350 ("Regulation 350"). Regulation 350 states: "A pupil enrolled in a school shall not be required to pay any fee, deposit, or other charge not specifically authorized by law." The leading case interpreting the Constitution's free school guarantee is Hartzell v. Connell (1984) 35 Cal.3d 899 ("Hartzell"), where taxpayers challenged fees imposed by a school district for participating in extracurricular music, drama, and sports activities. The court concluded that the guarantee includes "all activities which constitute an integral fundamental part of the elementary and secondary education or which amount to necessary elements of any school's activity." The court found that "extracurricular activities constitute an integral component of public education" and, consequently, the district's collection of the fees were prohibited since "[a] school which conditions a student's participation in educational activities upon the payment of a fee clearly is not a free school." Investigation On October 22, 2004, the Grand Jury sent questionnaires to 53 schools in Butte County asking what fees are charged for enrollment in classes and for which classes. Additionally, in October the Grand Jury reviewed the websites of the Butte County schools (where available) and documented those schools that charged fees for their curriculum. Responses from 48 Butte County schools were received ; the final response was received on January 6, 2005. From the responses, 19 schools indicated they charged some type of fee, while 34 schools charged no fee. Since the majority of schools charging fees were located within the Chico Unified School District (CUSD), the Grand Jury decided to focus the investigation on CUSD. On December 17, 2004, the Grand Jury interviewed two principals, the Assistant Superintendent - Educational Services and the Director of Elementary Education of CUSD. In the months of January, February, March, and April of 2005, a total of eighteen individual interviews were conducted of teachers, counselors, principals, vice principals, police officers, comptrollers, superintendent, assistant 26 2004-2005 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY superintendent, coaches, and activities directors. All interviews were conducted under oath. Additionally, the Grand Jury used legal counsel to research State of California Codes, Regulations, Attorney General Opinions, and California court decisions related to public schools and their legal ability to fund their programs through the imposition of a fee based curriculum. All of the decisions and regulations provided by counsel showed that unless the legislature specifically approved a fee to be charged it was not a legal fee. Exhibit A contains a chart of fees specifically authorized by the legislature. Findings
R6

Code 39837) Rental or lease of personal property such as caps and gowns used by
R7

seniors in graduation ceremonies. (Education Code 38119) Deposit for band instruments, music, uniforms and other regalia, which
R8

school band members take on excursions to foreign countries. (Education Code 38120) Fees for community service classes. (Education Code 51815)
R9

Actual costs of duplication for copies of public records, student records or
R10

other materials. (Government Code 6257, Education Code 49063) Parking on school grounds. (Vehicle Code 21113)
R11

Food sold at school subject to restrictions specified in law. (Education
R12

Code 38080-38085, 49490-49493, 49500-49505, 49530-49536, 49550- 49560; Code of Regulations, Title 5, Section 15500-15501, 15510, 15550- 15565) Fines or reimbursements for lost or damaged district property. (Education
R13

Code 19910-19911, 48904) 28 2004-2005 BUTTE COUNTY GRAND JURY REQUIRED PHYSICAL EDUCATION UNIFORMS CHICO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Reason For Visit/Investigation The Grand Jury received several citizen complaints regarding junior and senior high schools in the Chico Unified School District (CUSD) charging for required physical education (PE) uniforms. The complainant asked why some parents had to pay while others were eligible for fee waivers and why students were being graded down for failure to wear the required uniform.
R97-02

that discusses school fees. Under the unallowable fees section, the Advisory specifically states, "standardized gym suits for physical education classes when such standardized clothing affect the student's grade" were prohibited. Findings 1. Requiring and then charging for physical education uniforms is not consistent with the California Constitutional guarantee of a free school system in California, Regulation 350, Education Code sections 38118 and 60070. This view is consistent with the list of items for which the Attorney General concluded schools could not charge fees ("...gym suits and shoes for physical education classes ... "39 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 136 at p. 138 30