San Joaquin County Grand Jury
• 2016-2017
Stockton Unified School District Rubber Stamped School Buses Still Idle Lack of Board of Trustees Oversight*
⚠️ 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 5 findings
F1
1 The Board approved the purchase of 31 new school buses without proper analysis.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
1 By September 30, 2015, the Board should adopt a policy requiring that as part of any proposal for the purchase or sale of District assets exceeding $30,000, District staff will provide a full accounting and justification as required by the California Education Code and financial reports best practices to ensure fiduciary duty is adhered to. 2.0 Special Education Transportation Services FCMAT gathered data in mid-June 2014 for its transportation review. In its October 2014 report the following was stated: ... District documentation identifying the number of special education students varies from 3,750 to 4,000 students. An audit of both the district's and Storer's transportation routing indicates that the district is transporting approximately 1,143 students who have Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) identifying transportation as a related service. However, data from the district's special education program suggests that approximately 1,037 students are identified as requiring transportation as a related service. This is a difference of approximately 106 students. Based on the district's current student enrollment of approximately 36,382, the district is identifying approximately 11% of its students as needing special education services. This is slightly higher than the state average. However, the district is identifying approximately 1,143, or approximately roughly 30% of these special education students as requiring transportation, which is more than double the rate in other districts most recently reviewed by FCMAT. A high rate of identification of special education students as requiring transportation as a related service suggests a liberal approach to identification by the district's IEP team. The high rate of identification results in the use of additional transportation resources. The district needs to aggressively review its internal identification process by fully implementing both the decision tree (transportation guiding questions for the IEP team) and the special education transportation guidelines shared with FCMAT during its fieldwork. Staff indicated that implementing transportation guidelines and guiding questions for the IEP assessment team was being finalized and would be introduced in the coming school year. ...It would benefit the district to critically examine both the percentage of special education students being identified as requiring transportation service, and the costs for the added service.
F2
1 The District has transported more special education students than requested by the special education program.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
1 By December 31, 2015, the Board should direct District staff to complete implementation of the transportation guidelines and guiding questions for IEP team assessments including additional training specific to transportation department support. In addition the Board should require quarterly staff reports about progress on implementation of the transportation guidelines.
F1.1
The Board approved the purchase of 31 new school buses without proper analysis.
No recommendations for this finding
F1.2
The Board approved the sale of 31 new school buses based on a factually inaccurate staff report without proper analysis.
No recommendations for this finding
F2.1
The District has transported more special education students than requested by the special education program.
No recommendations for this finding
Conclusions 1
-
CL1The Board needs to improve its oversight approval of large purchases and large disposals of assets. In addition the special student transportation changes need to be implemented promptly to reduce costs. No single staff work product is more central to good decision making than agenda reports. These reports help the Board define projects, understand complex problems, consider alternative solutions, and determine courses of action. Agenda reports present recommendations involving millions of dollars in public assets, and also assure that administrative processes are managed in a fair and open manner. In addition, the reports are used by the public to understand and participate in the decision-making process of the community. Radio, television, and newspaper reporters use the reports to research and explain issues to their respective audiences. Well-written agenda reports, therefore, serve many important purposes. Without clear, complete, and accurate agenda reports, the opportunity for informed public participation in the decision-making process is diminished and the Board's ability to make good public decisions is made more difficult. Questions remain unanswered: Why did the District "need" to purchase the buses? Was it staffs' intention to replace current buses or establish their own fleet in lieu of contracting with Storer Transportation? Why were the buses never put into service? Is it realistic to believe the District will not incur a loss when the buses are eventually sold? The Board decisions to approve the purchase and sale of the (never used) 31 buses based on ill-conceived and incomplete staff analysis illustrates the importance of Board financial oversight. The 31 buses still remain idle. Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Sections 911, 924.1 (a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Sections 924.2 and 929). Response Requirements California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to all findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court within 90 days of receipt of the report. The Stockton Unified School District Governing Board of Trustee shall respond to each Finding and Recommendation contained in this report. Mail or hand deliver a hard copy of the response to: Honorable Lesley Holland, Presiding Judge San Joaquin County Superior Court P.O. Box 201022 Stockton, CA 95201 Also, please email the response to Ms. Trisa Martinez, Staff Secretary to the Grand Jury at grandjury@sjcourts.org
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.