📋
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.

Mendocino County Grand Jury • 2000-2001

Mendocino-Lake Community Board of Trustees

Published: October 25, 2001 18 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings and Recommendations 8 findings

F1 Page 125
Schools have different formats for recording and reporting certification.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
Page 117
Response (Mendocino Unified School District): Board members have attended Brown Act workshops over the years and will continue to do so. Such a workshop is scheduled to be held on the Mendocino Coast in the fall of 2001. B. All members of the board adhere to the Board Bylaws. (Findings 1, 2, 3, 4) Response (Mendocino Unified School District): Board members do adhere to Board Bylaws and will continue to do so. Comment The Grand Jury recognizes and supports the Board for the initial steps they have taken to work more closely with the local community. 2000-2001 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 115 Response Required Mendocino Unified School District Board of Trustees 2000-2001 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 116 Mendocino-Lake Community College Board of Trustees The Mendocino-Lake Community College Board of Trustees (Board) governs Mendocino College (College), balancing the needs of the community, the advice of the College President/Superintendent (President), and the mandates of the State. Areas of concern include the Board’s lack of understanding of its responsibilities to direct rather than follow the President, incomplete information the Board receives, an inadequate grievance process, a lack of public and constituent participation in the Board process, and Brown Act violations. With a new President, the Board has the opportunity to consider new approaches to communication with its constituents and staff. Method of Investigation The Grand Jury interviewed all seven members of the Board individually and as a Board, the College President, Academic Vice-President, Financial Vice-President, Deans, Faculty Senate President, and faculty members. The Grand Jury reviewed the College Board Policies and Administrative Regulations, Handbooks for each of the bargaining units, Mendocino College 2000 (MC2000), the California Community College League Board of Trustees Handbook, the California Education Codes relating to Board responsibilities, and the Brown Act, California Government Code §54950 et seq. The Grand Jury reviewed grievance procedures from Contra Costa and Foothill-DeAnza Community Colleges. The Grand Jury also reviewed files of claims against the College from 1990 to March 2001 and Board agendas for the corresponding time periods. The Grand Jury reviewed Board Agendas, Minutes, and Reports from August 1999 to April 2001. Representatives of the Grand Jury attended Board meetings between September 2000 and May 2001, and toured the Ukiah campus.
F2 Page 125
Two previous Grand Juries have recommended a Countywide standardized form.
No recommendations for this finding
F3 Page 125
The recommendation for a standardized form has not been implemented.
No recommendations for this finding
F4 Page 128
A memo dated August 31, 2000 to the Superintendent from the Board acting Chair, relieved the Superintendent of certain responsibilities without stating cause. These duties were reinstated verbally by the acting Chair on September 7, 2000 and in writing on September 15, 2000. The Grand Jury cannot find any reference in Board minutes prior to the issuance of the memo by the acting Board Chairman authorizing the memo. The acting Chair’s actions are direct violations of Board Bylaw 9200. 2000-2001 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 114 Response (Mendocino Unified School District): We disagree with this finding. 1) Copies of the memos referred are not attached and therefore, one cannot be certain which memos are referenced and 2) the meaning of the finding is not clear. We assume that the memo referred in the first sentence was a suggestion from a facilitator which was made in an attempt to resolve a dispute between the Board and the former Superintendent. The former Superintendent did not agree to the proposal and therefore, no action was taken of the proposal. According the Government Code 54957.(a) (3) (B) “If final approval rests with another party to the agreement, there was no agreement by all parties, the agreement itself was not finalized and thus was discarded. As the relief of duties never occurred, there was nothing for the Board president to reinstate. Subsequent to the meeting, the Board chairperson in casual conversation did explain to the Superintendent that nothing had changed. The Superintendent asked for such a statement in writing and the board chairperson gave it to him. As there had been no action taken by the Board there was not a violation of Board policy.
No recommendations for this finding
F5 Page 129
Since the Grand Jury investigation began, the Board has conducted three public forums. These forums were intended to better acquaint the local community with Board operations, policies, and procedures, and to gain community comment and understanding. Response (Mendocino Unified School District): We agree with the finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F6 Page 134
Board policies do not clearly delineate how the President reports to the Board. Response (Mendocino-Lake Community College Board of Trustees): We agree that the Board policies do not clearly delineate how the President reports to the Board, however a revised position description, adopted by the Board in April 2001, details in 16 separate areas the president’s responsibilities. The first statement in the position description: “The Superintendent/President reports to, and is under direction of, the Board of Trustees whose official decision-making authority is limited to a majority vote of a seven member Board.”
No recommendations for this finding
F7 Page 134
To govern effectively, the Board must have a clear mission statement and policies that direct the President. In turn, the President must continuously inform the Board about the status of implementing the mission of the College. The Board has not actively set up this kind of exchange between the President and the Board. Response (Mendocino-Lake Community College Board of Trustees): We disagree with part of the finding. The Board and the President actively and regularly review the progress of the college in fulfilling its mission. That there is always room for improvement is, of course, something toward which both the Board and the President as well as the rest of the college constituencies are striving.
No recommendations for this finding
F8 Page 134
Review of the President’s Reports from August 1999 to April 2001 shows that the reports do not address issues of substance for the Board. The reports for the most part read like a social calendar, reporting on College events and 2000-2001 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 120
No recommendations for this finding