Score: -4 (3/0/7)

Santa Clara County Grand Jury • 2019-2020

Sunlight on Consultancy Transparency in the San José Unified School District: Lessons to Be Learned

Published: December 17, 2020 29 pages

View Original PDF

⚠️ 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 4 findings

The District repeatedly misrepresented the lobbying activity that the housing entitlement consultant Schoennauer would perform on its behalf. These misrepresentations undermined the integrity of the public contracting process and sowed mistrust in the District’s community relations.

Related Recommendations (1)

The Board should provide clear direction on transparency, truthfulness, and accuracy in contracting and communications with the public. This direction should be incorporated in the Board's self-evaluation process and the expectations for the superintendent’s performance to ensure accountability for the actions of District staff. The evaluation of necessary changes should be finalized and delivered in an improvement plan by July 2021.

The descriptions of the services provided under consultancy contracts awarded to Schoennauer and Ball/Frost failed to specify lobbying, and therefore the public and Board were not fully informed as to their purposes.

Related Recommendations (2)

R2a

The District should revise its contracting procedures to require that any lobbying service agreements clearly and explicitly describe the lobbying activities for the Board's and public's knowledge. This revision should be completed by July 2021.

R2b

The District should revise its agendizing procedures to require that the Board and public receive timely and understandable notice of any action on lobbying service agreements. These procedures should be implemented by July 2021.

The Board has no legislative advocacy plan so state lobbying efforts are directed solely by District staff without appropriate Board oversight or public awareness.

Related Recommendations (1)

If the Board elects not to have a legislative advocacy plan, the District should specifically agendize each lobbying effort in a way that is transparent to the Board and the public so the District’s position on legislative matters is transparent. The District should develop a plan to ensure transparency about its lobbying activities

The District has no discernable method to analyze its hundreds of contracts to determine which contractors are consultants subject to financial disclosure laws. Therefore, the Board and the public may not have the information necessary to assess potential conflicts of interest.

Related Recommendations (2)

R4a

The District should have a method in place to review current and future contracts for determination of whether the contractor qualifies as a consultant under the FPPC. This method should be in place by July 2021.

R4b

24 REQUIRED RESPONSES ......................................................................................................... APPENDIX .................................................................................................................................. GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS Board Board of Education for the San José Unified School District CSBA California School Boards Association is the nonprofit education association representing the elected officials who govern public school districts and county offices of education. District San José Unified School District Entitlement Process The process through which a real estate developer or landowner seeks the right to develop (or redevelop) property with government approvals for zoning, density, design, use, and occupancy permits. Upon securing all necessary entitlements from the applicable government(s), the real estate developer is thus entitled to build what was proposed and approved. FPPC California Fair Political Practices Commission

Agency Responses 1

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.

San José Unified School District Board of Trustees

March 15, 2021 • 7 pages • 10 responses • Score: -4 (+3, 0, -7) View Details ▾

PDF

10 responses to findings and recommendations

Response: Disagree Score: -1

The District disagrees wholly with this finding. 1. When District staff made comments at the March 2019 Board meeting regarding Mr. Schoennauer's duties, Mr. Schoennauer was not lobbying on behalf of the District. There was no advocacy for a Project site yet; there was nothing to lobby for. There was no need to try to persuade the City to do anything; not yet. Mr. Schoennauer had meetings with the City to assist the District, but that was after the City provided information to the District regarding (1) where the City indicated where it would support (and not support) a District employee-housi...

Response: Will Not Implement

Score: -1

The District will not implement this recommendation. 1. The District's Board approves or ratifies all contracts and those are all agendized with a description of the services to be performed and links to the contracts themselves. That is already transparent, truthful and accurate and fully open to the public. No change is needed. 2. Any Board self-evaluation or evaluation of the Superintendent will be performed pursuant to the Board's existing policies, informed not by the Grand Jury's SJUSD Responses to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report - March 2021 2 baseless findings, but instead ...

Response: Disagree Score: -1

The District disagrees wholly with this finding. As stated above, Mr. Schoennauer was not yet lobbying on behalf of the District. At a time that Mr. Schoennauer might have started lobbying for the District, the District could have amended his contract moving forward. The Grand Jury Report itself states that the District's current contract with Ball/Frost "spells out more precisely the political and legislative services that the District is receiving" before the Report goes on to complain that it was a ratification of that contract. (Report, pg. 12) Note: It is disingenuous for the Grand Jury t...

R2a

Response: Will Implement

Score: +1

The District will implement this recommendation. To clarify and while not required by any existing law, the District will endeavor to use the word "lobby" in the scope of services descriptions of any future contracts with consultants whose activities include lobbying efforts. SJUSD Responses to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report - March 2021 3 Grand Jury

R2b

Response: Will Not Implement

Score: -1

The District will not implement this recommendation. To clarify, this

The Board has no legislative advocacy plan so state lobbying efforts are directed solely by District staff without appropriate Board oversight or public awareness.

Response: Disagree Score: -1

The District disagrees wholly with this finding. The Grand Jury states an untrue conclusory opinion that, without a legislative advocacy plan, the District's Board must not be overseeing lobbying efforts. That statement is untrue and a failure of logic. 1. The District does not engage in the amount of advocacy or lobbying insinuated by the Grand Jury, or as much as Los Angeles USD, Oakland USD, Palo Alto USD or San Francisco USD, which the Report references. (Report, pg. 15-16.) If the District becomes more involved in Sacramento politics, the District may choose to spend the time, money and e...

Response: Will Not Implement

Score: -1

The District will not implement this recommendation. To clarify, this

Response: Disagree Score: -1

The District disagrees wholly with this finding. The District's Business Department reviews contracts for potential conflicts of interest. In addition, virtually all contracts issued by the District's Business Department have a requirement for consultants to disclose any potential conflicts of interest. Grand Jury

R4a

Response: Will Implement

Score: +1

The District will implement this recommendation. To clarify, the District already reviews its independent contractors, consultants and vendors for potential conflicts of interest. The District will redouble its efforts to ensure that it performs this review for all consultant contracts and that all of its forms of contract moving forward include a requirement for consultants to disclose any potential conflicts of interest. Grand Jury

R4b

Response: Will Implement

Score: +1

The District will implement this recommendation. To clarify, the District will require some consultants to complete a Form 700 if the District determines, in consultation with the District's legal counsel, that a consultant may have the potential to exert considerable influence over a contracting decision, may influence the development of a contract including during negotiations, or whose actions demand the public trust. Conclusion The Board reiterates the following points for the Presiding Judge's consideration as she determines if the empaneled Grand Jury that prepared the Report was behavin...