Response to Report

Each of the alleged incidents or patterns of behavior was seriously considered and evaluated. Investigations of this type are difficult because much of what is reported are feelings and personal perceptions. However, given our available expertise, resources and time constraints, the weight of the evidence substantiates and validates what follows. While there may have been attempts to manipulate the Grand Jury, we are confident that our investigation fleshed out those instances. There appears to be cause for real concern over the conduct of business in this district. Response to Finding 1: As explained in detail in subsequent responses, the District disagrees that the weight of the evidence substantiates the Grand Jury’s findings. In many cases, it does not appear that the Grand Jury closely inspected all of the available evidence, some of which is attached as exhibits to this response. For instance, the Grand Jury asserts that in one case a parent required the assistance of an attorney in order to have a student statement against a teacher withdrawn. This is not true. The District never received notice from a parent that an attorney was retained under these circumstances, nor was any District administrator contacted by an attomey for the parent. Additionally, Ralph Vandro, principal of the High School, requested an opportunity to respond to allegations made about him and he provided the names of at least thirteen parents or concemed members of the community who could correct misstatements or false impressions C:\Documents and Seings\pragen\Local Settings\Temporary Imermet FilesOLK14\Districts Reaponse to 200405 Butte County Grand Jury ReportPrepared O80805.doc DRAFT - AUGUST 9, 2005 (1:01PM) -4. created against the administration. It does not appear that the Grand Jury contacted any of those persons. The Grand Jury did conduct a subsequent phone interview with Mr. Vandro, but before doing so, one of the jury members informed him that it was already “crystal clear” that he and I were responsible for the problems at the high school. The District disagrees that the Grand Jury was able to “flesh out” employees’ attempts to manipulate it during the course of the investigation. One example of how the District believes the Grand Jury was misled was its assertion that more than a year after the completion of the investigation involving compromising photos of female students, Mr. Vandro circulated the compromising photographs of students for recreational and prurient purposes. The fact is that Mr. Vandro only asked a limited number of staff members to view the photographs during the 2003 investigation and did not at any point in 2004 circulate the photographs. Several officers from the Gridley-Biggs Police Department (“GBPD”) investigated the incident and approved of the manner in which the principal conducted the investigation. The Grand Jury did not detail the extensive investigation conducted by the GBPD nor the fact that the District Attorney declined to pursue the matter. This information is critical to give the public an accurate understanding of the situation, yet the Grand Jury failed to include it in the Report.

BUSD administration failed to respond to the Grand Jury’s 2003 report as required by law in a timely manner; and as specifically requested on a number of occasions by County Counsel and Presiding Judge of the Butte County Superior Court. This failure reveals attitudes and competence levels that help substantiate employee complaints. Response to Finding 2: There were, in fact, two responses to the Grand Jury Report of 2003-2004 sent to the Foreperson, Deputy Court Executive Officer, and others on January 3, 2005. (Exhibits 1&6). The District regrets that both responses were untimely. The District disagrees with this finding to the extent that the Grand Jury used its former untimely response to the 2003-2004 report as a basis for substantiating the employee complaints which are the subject of the current Report. The District’s disagreement is heightened given that the 2003-2004 report was overwhelmingly positive and one of the recommendations was that the District “offer all support possible to the principal and superintendent in their continued efforts to raise the quality of education at this school.” A copy of the 2003-2004 Grand Jury report is available on the Butte County website at http://clerk-recorder. buttecounty.net/grandjury/grand jury.html. C:ADocumemts and Settingsipragan\Local Settings\Temporary Imernet Files}OLK | 4\Districts Response to 200405 Butte County Grand Jury ReportPrepared 080805.doc DRAFT - AUGUST 9, 2005 (1:01PM) 5.

Much of the turmoil in the High School is a result of the principal's use of intimidation and fear to achieve his desired results. He persistently attempts to force employees to adhere to policies that are not in writing and makes biased evaluations based upon those policies. Response to Finding 3: The District is unclear on what the Grand Jury means by the term the principal’s “desired results,” but disagrees that the morale issues in the High School are the result of fear and intimidation by the principal. While it is true that he expects all employees to be accountable for their conduct via discipline and evaluations, the administration bases its decisions on written statements (including complaints), eyewitness accounts and thorough investigation. Performance evaluations are based on negotiated and statutory guidelines. Similarly, when requiring teachers to perform adjunct duties, the principal adheres to the Master Agreement between the District and the Biggs Unified Teacher’s Association which sets forth the type of duties that teachers may be required to perform. That apreement requires that: “In making such assigned or voluntary duty assignments, the Board agrees to seek volunteers, when feasible, to attempt to insure that such duties are shared equitably among the bargaining unit, and to provide as much advance scheduling and notice as possible.” When the principal asks for teacher volunteers, or must assign adjunct duties, he is adhering to the procedures specified in the contract, not “singling out” teachers as asserted in the Report “. Finding No. 4: The principal mismanages employee needs, student discipline, and citizen complaints. His authority has created an environment that leaves the district vulnerable to legal action. Teacher volunteer efforts play an important part in campus life because they convey support and interest in student development. Obtaining teacher volunteers has been difficult lately. In fact, the Student Body President wrote an open letter to the faculty urging more participation by teachers at school events. (Exhibit 9). C:\Documents and Settings\pragan\Local Settings\Temporary Imemet Files\OLK14\Districts Response to 200405 Butte County Grand Jury ReportPrepared 080805.doc DRAFT - AUGUST 9, 2005 (1:01PM) -6- Response to Finding 4: The District disagrees that the principal mismanaged employee needs, student discipline, and citizen complaints. On the contrary, Mr. Vandro has been charged with the task of changing the environment from the highly confrontational one perpetuated by a few dissident teachers to one where collaboration is the norm. To do so, he consistently holds all employees to the same high standards of performance and conduct in their dealings with him, their colleagues, and students. There are times when investigations of misconduct result in employee discipline or other unpopular personnel decisions. As a result, he has been the target of unwarranted complaints, hyperbole, and innuendo by some employees. In cases where employee discipline was imposed, statements from student and parent witnesses and subsequent investigation overwhelmingly support the necessity of the action taken. Without a waiver of confidentiality from the employees involved, state law prohibits the District from disclosing the identities and specifics of employee discipline matters. Some investigations of employee misconduct have been initiated by parent complaints and there has not been one case in which a complaint has gone unaddressed. One such parental complaint of employee misconduct referenced in the Report was the case in which a student had been allowed to play a video clip in the classroom of a beheading of an American citizen in Baghdad. As part of the District’s investigation, students involved were interviewed and asked to write statements of what had occurred in the classroom. Eleven students wrote statements, one of which was later retracted. One student wrote: “In all my life I never thought I would hear screaming like that. It was so scary. The sound of his yelling pierced my ears. To this day I can not (sic) get the sound of his screaming out of my head. I then got scared, plugged my ears and went back to my seat. ... Tears started falling on my desk as the screams got louder. No matter how hard I held my ears I could still hear the screaming.” Contrary to the Report, the teacher who allowed the video clip to be shown in class was not on a “hit list” of teachers targeted for retribution. No such list exists. The teacher disagreed with the outcome of the investigation and subsequent actions the District took. That individual is one of the group of disgruntled employees whose response to discipline is generally to accuse the administration of retaliation and harassment in the form of threats, unfair reprimands, and biased performance evaluations. Although they have no basis in fact, allegations of this sort impose a high cost to both the District, and ultimately the community, in the form of legal fees and low morale. Like employee discipline, student discipline is managed swiftly but with faimess. One example of the principal’s efficiency in addressing student discipline is the incident cited in the Report. Two compromising photographs of students were taken and circulated via email. School staff brought the photographs to the principal’s attention on January 22, 2003 and by January 31* he had conducted an investigation and disciplined the students involved. The parents of the C:\Documents end Settings\pragan\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK | 4\Districts Response to 200405 Butte County Grand Jury ReportPrepared OB0805.doc DRAFT - AUGUST 9, 2005 (1:01PM) -7- students approved of how the investigation was handled and the discipline imposed. The Girdley- Biggs Police Department determined that the principal’s investigation was appropriate. The District disagrees that it is Mr. Vandro’s conduct that has made the District vulnerable to legal action. Every public agency is subject to civil litigation, and the District is no exception. However, since 1996, the District has prevailed in all but two actions.” Information about District litigation is available on: http://www.buttecourt.ca.gov/online_index/default.htm. Finding No 5: On April 29, 2005, the CCTC recommended a public reproval. Response to Finding No, 5: The District acknowledges that a committee of the CCTC recommended a public reproval of the Principal. However this is merely a recommendation, and no formal action will be taken by CCTC until the conclusion of a hearing on the matter. See Response to Finding No. 6. Finding No 6: Not only did the principal exhibit photographs displaying partially nude female students, he also displayed a sexually explicit photograph of a completely nude female adult. Numerous witnesses testified to this conduct. District’s Response to Finding No. 6: The District disagrees with the spirit of this finding because it implies that Mr. Vandro’s actions were improper. They were not. The District believes that it is necessary for the Grand Jury to know the context in which Mr. Vandro allowed others to view the photographs. As noted in the Response to Finding No. 5, in January 2003 High Schoo! staff members alerted the principal that two photographs (one of two topless female students and another of a nude adult female identified in the email as a teacher at the high school) were circulating via student e-mails. During the investigation the principal showed the photographs to a very limited number of staff for the specific purpose of determining where the photographs were taken and how they were disseminated. The staff members were chosen because they had knowledge that could aid the investigation. Within 10 days, the principal had completed the investigation and disciplined the students involved. By that time he had also determined that the nude adult female in photo was not a Biggs employee. In one of these cases the District prevailed in part, and lost in part. Approximately 17 months later, in June 2004, some of the teachers who were shown the photographs in January 2003 complained, for the first time, that it was improper of the principal to have shown them the photographs. The District does not know the precise reason that these employees waited 17 months before complaining, but it notes that the complaints arose soon after a round of unpopular layoffs and a labor arbitration.” Notwithstanding the timing of their allegations, upon receiving the employees’ complaints, the Superintendent conducted his own investigation of the matter, as did the Gridley/Biggs Police Department (GBPD). Both determined that the principal’s actions had been appropriate. Then Police Chief Jack Storne notified the District that the GBPD’s investigation concluded that the principal showed the photographs to a small number of Biggs High School faculty members for the limited purpose of investigating the misconduct by the students responsible. The District Attorney was informed of the allegations but declined to pursue the matter. Subsequently, the employees forwarded their complaints to the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC). A committee of the CCTC found that there was probable cause to recommend a public reproval of the principal. This is not a formal action by the CCTC, but rather, a recommendation from a committee of the CCTC. The principal has requested a hearing to challenge this recommendation. It should be noted that the principal has not had an opportunity to fully respond to the allegations by the complaining employees. At the conclusion of the hearing, the CCTC will either dismiss the allegations or adopt the recommendation against the principal.° Finding No. 7: Employee morale at the High School and Middle School is very low as revealed by interviews, poor teacher retention, legal actions, and a separate job satisfaction survey. District records show a turnover rate far above acceptable levels. Ironically, for all its efforts to force out old expensive teaching staff, non-reelection of new teachers is unusually high. Another lesser cause of the morale problem was revealed in that there is a systematic failure to include teachers in the decision making process. Response to Finding No 7: The District agrees that morale is low and refers the Grand Jury to its Response to Finding No. 1 for the historical perspective of the reasons for longstanding low morale. The District “In fact, the GBPD officers who investigated the matter openly speculated whether the teachers’ complaints about being shown the photographs were motivated by the fact that they all were involved in disputes with the administration. *The hearing officer can either dismiss the allegations, confirm the recommendation, or impose a greater sanction against the employee. -9- disagrees with the remainder of Finding No. 7 and believes that the Grand Jury’s conclusions about the reason for low employee morale are likely based on interviews with only those few employees who have alleged harassment and retaliation by District administration for legitimate personnel actions. In regard to District turnover rates “far above acceptable levels”, it is unclear what criteria or standard the Grand Jury considers in measuring an “acceptable level” of staff turnover. It is the District’s practice to attempt to retain all teachers who meet state standards and do not warrant extreme disciplinary actions. However, economic realities often necessitate taking difficult personnel actions in the form of layoffs. The Grand Jury’s assertion that the District targets older, more experienced teachers is false. Of the 20 certificated employees who received layoff notices in the past two school years, none of those employees were among the most senior certificated employees. The District cannot ascertain what evidence the Grand Jury has relied on in finding that the District has attempted to force out older, more experienced staff. Similarly, the Grand Jury’s assertion that “long-term faculty have been departing because of unresolved problems...” is confusing because there have been neither layoffs, terminations, nor early retirement of senior certificated staff at the Middle or High School in either of the past two school years. The District also disagrees with the finding that there is a “systematic” failure on the part of the District to include teachers in the decision-making process. Most of the rules and guidelines for certificated working conditions are mutually agreed upon in collective bargaining. The District has not denied teachers the opportunity to participate in decision-making as appropriate. Finding No. 8: As mandated reporters, the administrators did not file complaints with the local Child Protective Services as required by the Welfare and Institutions Code on one and perhaps a second occasion. One instance is described above and one surfaced as the Grand Jury looked into the personnel record of a teacher. It was unclear whether the principal had fabricated a reprimand of that teacher or failed to report. District’s Response to Finding No. The District disagrees wholly with Finding No. 8. The Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (Penal Code §11164 et seq.) requires that specified persons, including school employees, who, in the person’s professional capacity or within the scope of the person’s employment, have knowledge of or observe a child whom the person knows or reasonably suspects has been the victim of child abuse or neglect report the incident to a child protective agency. (Penal Code §11166(a)). The photographs were taken of students by students as part of a prank. The parents were informed and discipline administered. There was no reason to suspect that the students in the photograph were the victims of child abuse or neglect. Throughout this entire unfortunate episode, the District consulted with legal counsel in order to ensure that its actions complied with applicable laws. It does not appear that the Grand Jury conducted a full investigation into the facts regarding the photographs of the two students. However, the GBPD did conduct a full investigation and along with the District Attomey determined that the District acted appropriately. Thus, there is no evidence to conclude that any District administrator violated mandatory reporting laws. The Grand Jury cites “perhaps” a second incident where District administrators failed to comply with mandated reporter laws. Without additional details the District is unable to respond with certainty to this claim.® Finding No. 9: Indifference, ineptitude, or apathy on the part of the superintendent and trustees of the school board have led to the current condition of education in Biggs. Their lack of leadership perpetuates a very dysfunctional system. We conclude that they have a mistaken belief that the High School principal is moving in the right direction. District’s Response to Finding No. The District disagrees wholly with Finding No. 9. The Report notes that there have been at least thirteen high school principals in the last fifteen years at the District. In fact, over the last twenty-two years there have been fifteen principals at the High School. It does not appear that the Grand Jury interviewed any of the prior administrators. Had it done so, it would have learned that the working conditions at the High School for administrators have proved challenging for years, in part due to the tactics of a small group of teachers. Given the challenging atmosphere on campus, in the years preceding Mr. Vandro’s appointment, the District began placing greater emphasis on candidates with firm and resolute leadership skills. The District has found such a person in its current high school principal. Predictably, and consistent with recent history, a few teachers have fiercely resisted the structure $ The District believes that this allegation pertains to an investigation in 2003 involving a teacher's use of unnecessary physical force against a student. The teacher, who now supports the allegations against the District, asserted that if he was going to be subjected to potential discipline, District administrators should also be disciplined for failing to report the incident as child abuse. In that case the incident involved contact which resulted in no serious injury. The District took immediate steps to discipline the teacher and ensure the safety of the student, but under those circumstances the level of force or intent did not justify reporting the incident as child abuse. -l1- and accountability that he brings to the High School. The Superintendent and Board of Trustees support his endeavors to hold employees accountable for their conduct and play a key role in implementing the serious educational and policy reforms necessary to improve student achievement. In regard to the Grand Jury’s assertion that the Superintendent and Board of Trustees are misplacing their trust in the current principal, they disagree. Mr. Vandro was named Secondary Principal of the Year by the Butte County Administrators Association for 2004-2005. The District disagrees that the school system is dysfunctional. On the contrary, the Superintendent and Board of Trustees have played an active role in improving scholastic achievement while successfully managing this District in the face of difficuit economic circumstances. API scores have been rising, WASC issued a favorable recommendation in its 2004-2005 report on the Biggs Middle and High Schools, and employees are being held accountable for their actions to a greater degree now more than at any other time in the past several years. Finding No 10: As witnesses, BUSD Trustees failed to cooperate with our investigation through evasion, claimed ignorance, or through outright refusal to attend scheduled interviews without a subpoena. They hid behind what appeared to be a coached claim that they were unable to cooperate based on confidentiality. It was evident that they were either trying to protect someone, had serious deficiencies to hide, or were truly uninformed about critical district matters. Response to Finding No. 10: The District disagrees wholly with Finding No. 10. The District administration and Board of Trustees have cooperated with the Grand Jury as fully as possible without breaching employee confidentiality. The Board of Trustees, through the Superintendent, requested that the Grand Jury subpoena all of their members to appear, in an effort te provide as much information to the Grand Jury as possible. Notwithstanding that request, the Grand Jury only subpoened two trustees, one of whom’s term had already expired by the time of her interview. Nor did the Grand Jury subpoena the only active trustee who was serving on the Board at the time of the photograph incident. The Grand Jury did not call relevant witnesses identified to them by the District providing contact information. The District believes that the Grand Jury’s failure to obtain all the available information is the reason for many of the factual inaccuracies in the Report. As for being “coached,” the District’s legal counsel has on several occasions instructed board members on confidentiality laws and the penalties for illegal disclosure. The Trustees chose to follow the advice of counsel and it stands to reason their explanations of confidentiality to the Grand Jury would sound similar. -12- Finding No. 11: Some personnel legal actions over recent years have resulted in additional damage to the reputation of the District. Moreover, there was at least one legal action which was lost by the District and for which it has yet to make restitution to the injured party. It is apparent that this District continues to allow management to behave outside the norms of acceptable employment practices and to push legal boundaries. It has apparently not learned lessons from its prior mistakes. Response to Finding No. 11: The District wholly disagrees with Finding No. 11. The Grand Jury’s inference that personnel legal actions involving the District have damaged its reputation belies the fact that litigation of personnel actions, especially layoffs and dismissals for cause, is a routine occurrence in most school districts. Inevitably, the system often facilitates tension between employees and management. The fact that the District is usually the prevailing party leads to frustration by employees. As referenced in the response to Finding No. 4, since 1996 the District has prevailed in all but two lawsuits to which it was a party. In both cases, the District paid the prevailing party, though in one action it did deduct from an employees award an unpaid expense from a business trip. The District disagrees with the Grand Jury’s implication that two unsuccessful verdicts in ten years reflects a pattern of management behaving “outside the norms of acceptable employment practices”. Finding No. 12: Testimony reveals that, based on excessive targeting of older, more costly teachers, interference with union activities, displays of sexually explicit photographs, and frequent poorly justified disciplinary actions taken against “Hit List” teachers, recent conduct by the administration has opened the District to additional legal claims. Response to Finding No. 12: The District disagrees with Finding No. 12. The District conducts all its personnel actions and negotiations consistent with applicable law, board policies, and the collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”). The District does not target veteran teachers. The District is of the opinion that teachers who view themselves as being on a “Hit List” are the ones who are currently the subject of discipline and/or who deservingly received unsatisfactory performance evaluations. ~[3- Finding No. 13: Current teachers demonstrate daily courage by showing up to serve the needs of their students and are doing an adequate job despite the hostile environment, This jury believes that teachers are the core of the educational process and that teachers who have long term experience are a valuable commodity that ought not be abused or squandered. Response to Finding No. 13: The District agrees that teachers are the core of the educational process and that veteran teachers are a valuable commodity and ought not be abused or squandered. The District rejects the inference that it has “abused or squandered” teachers. It does, however, hold all teachers accountable for their performance and conduct. Thus, the District has and wili continue to investigate complaints of teacher behavior and discipline teachers as warranted. The District acknowledges that a small group of faculty have created a work environment that is often divisive and fraught with tension. For those teachers who genuinely put forth their best efforts, it does take a certain measure of courage to endure this fractious environment created by a few who seek to use divisiveness as a means to preserve the status quo. Finding No. 14: The trustees of the school board apparently do not have a mechanism to effectively monitor grievances and complaints against the District. Response to Finding No. 14: The District disagrees with this finding. It is not clear to the District whether the Grand Jury failed to examine the current certificated bargaining agreement and board policies or simply deemed them to be irrelevant, but the District does maintain a the mechanism to effectively monitor grievances and complaints against the District. Article VII of the CBA between the District and the BUTA provides the mechanism for processing employee grievances. Per the agreement, this includes an employee’s night to bring his or her’s dispute to the Board of Trustees if it cannot be resolved at a lower level. The District strictly adheres to the procedure. Additionally, several board policies exist that provide the public with a mechanism to present criticisms or complaints regarding school policies, programs, or personnel. (Exhibit 7) -14- Finding No. 15:. The principal of the elementary school and her administration were not found to participate in or follow or be affected by the high/middle administration. Response to Finding No. 15: The District agrees with Finding No. 15. Finding No. 16: Based on the results created by this administration, is reasonable (sic) to conclude that they have exactly the educational environment they intended. Response to Finding No. 16: The District disagrees with this finding and objects to its sarcastic tone as it is both counterproductive and inappropriate. The District continues to seek a collaborative and productive environment for both students and employees, and will continue to make the necessary educational and policy reforms to improve student achievement. The District also maintains that it will neither ignore instances of employee misconduct nor avoid making personnel decisions that are in the best interest of the school and the community simply to avoid controversy. The District responds to the specific recommendations contained within the Report, as follows:

5. The voters were able to vote in a reasonable amount of time. 6. The election appeared to be run in an efficient and professional manner. The Registrar of Voters believes electronic voting will soon become a secure and reliable method of conducting an election and adopting this system will certainly save time and money. The clerk and her staff should be commended on the professional conduct of the 2004 general elections. Response: The respondent agrees with this finding. The Fair Political Practice Commission, Butte County, and You Grand Jury Findings: 1. Most public filings of documentation required by the FPPC and Butte County ordinance are routine and may never be reviewed by the public. These filings can be an invaluable asset to the public when there are allegations of misconduct. Response: The respondent agrees with this finding. . The current system of collecting Form 700’s does not adhere to a logical system of organization that allows required information to flow to the Clerk-Recorder’s office to maintain legal compliance with FPPC requirements or California code. Response: The respondent partially disagrees with this finding. Some inconsistencies did exist due to the lack of notification from Human Resources regarding any new hires or terminations in positions designated in the Butte County Conflict of Interests Code. Several months ago, a notification method was developed by the staff of Human Resources and the County Clerk-Recorder which is efficient and ensures that the County Clerk-Recorder’s office is in compliance with the Political Reform Act. . The county's personnel office has not been involved in coordinating filing compliance with the clerk's affice for a long period of time; the Grand Jury does not believe it is possible for compliance to be achieved without that involvement. Response: The respondent agrees with this finding. The Human Resources Department has implemented procedures to notice the payroll representative of each Re: Grand Jury Report August 29, 2005 county department and the County Clerk-Recorder on a bi-weekly basis of any activity (new hires, promotions, terminations, etc.) within the positions designated in the Butte County Conflict of Interests Code. 4. The current system of collecting Form 700’s at the Clerk-Recorder’s office is currently inefficient and ineffective due to the lack of coordination referred to above. Response: The respondent disagrees partially with this finding. At the time of the Grand Jury investigation, the process of filing these statements was inefficient and ineffective. Subsequent coordination with the Department of Human Resources, as stated above, is allowing the Clerk-Recorder to maintain compliance with regulations. Grand Jury Recommendations: 1. The Board of Supervisors should work with County Counsel and county filing officers/officials to ensure a logical system of maintaining Form 700 filing compliance; as an example, we believe that a review of all positions that have designations for those requirements that are Board appointments should result in assigning responsibilities as Filing Official/Officer to the Clerk of the Board. Response: The respondent feels the recommendation has not been implemented. The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors should serve as filing officer for all positions appointed by the Board of Supervisors thereby ensuring that the designated filers are notified of their responsibilities timely. At this time, notification of Board of Supervisors appointments is not consistently transmitted to the Clerk-Recorder. 2. County Counsel should spearhead an effort to coordinate with the Superior Court an effort to move the Form 700 filing requirement to the responsibility of the Court Executive Officer for the Grand Jury. We acknowledge that the Grand Jury system is in a strange limbo due to the separation of the courts from the county, where the Grand Jury is funded by the county, but acts, by California Penal Code “as an arm of the court” (now a state entity), so if this effort cannot be coordinated, County Counsel should work with the Grand Jury foreman to develop training materials to be included in the Grand Jury procedures manual and introduced by County Counsel to the Grand Jury foreman at the beginning fe each Grand Jury term to ensure reporting to the Clerk-Recorder’s Office. Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented. Presently, the Jury Commissioner’s office notifies the Clerk-Recorder’s office of any activity (new appointments or resignations) concerning the Grand Jurors. The County Clerk- Recorder supplies forms and instructions to the Jury Commissioner’s office for Re: Grand Jury Report August 29, 2005 distribution to the Grand Jurors. The Jury Commissioner’s office accepts the statements from the Grand Jurors and forwards them to the Clerk-Recorder’s office for filing. The Clerk-Recorder’s office then pursues any follow up measures that are necessary (i.e., late or non-filing). 3. The Board of Supervisors should work with County Counsel and the director of human resources to ensure that job descriptions that have Form 700 filing requirements are appropriately noted with the type of filing and that those job descriptions are reviewed and updated upon every completion of the required biennial review. The required form should be included in every new employee packet carrying this requirement, and personnel staff should be aware of instructions to give new hires on how to get help should they need it as well as the required filing deadlines. Response: The respondent is unable to comment on this recommendation, although does believe the recommendation has been implemented by the appropriate departments. 4. The Clerk-Recorder'’s office should institute an annual training that is required for appropriate personnel staff and available to all designated filers. In departments that have significant numbers of required filers, we recommend that the department head attend or designate a staff member (such as a payroll clerk or administrative assistant) to attend the training to assist compliance within that department by helping distribute forms, collecting and forwarding forms, and by giving people information on who to call for assistance on completing the forms. Response: The recommendation has been implemented. The Clerk-Recorder has conducted a training session with the department payroll representatives. Each department was supplied with an instruction manual detailing their function in the process of filing the Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700). Training sessions with payroll representatives will be scheduled on an annual basis to maintain compliance. 5. The director of human resources should identify and request needed technology or automation tools to provide the Clerk-Recorder’s office timely reports of new hires, employee attrition, and an annual report of currently staffed designated positions to be available to the Clerk-Recorder not later than January 30 of each year. The Grand Jury does not presume to know the right tool for personnel needs, but we are aware that the Kronos HR module should support automatically generated e-mails for this purpose as an example of the type of automation we are recommending. Should current technology not be sufficient and funding not available for a new solution, a system of flagging personnel files or verifying this legal requirement upon each Re: Grand Jury Report August 29, 2005 employee entry and exit for the purpose of notification should be implemented. Then lists must be provided within the first month of each calendar year. Response: The recommendation has been implemented. The Human Resources Department is forwarding a report to the Clerk-Recorder on a biweekly basis. The Clerk-Recorder will follow up with Human Resources to ensure that the annual report of currently staffed designated positions is provided by January 31* of each year. Sincerely, Candace J. Grubbs County Clerk-Recorder/Registrar of Voters CIG:jm cc: Board of Supervisors Paul McIntosh, Chief Administrative Officer /aITvUD PERRY L, RENIFF SHERIFF-CORONER OEE ————— July 42, 2005 The Honorable Barbara Roberts Presiding Judge Butte County Superior Court One Court Street Oroville CA 95965 Re: Response to the 2004-2005Grand Jury Findings Dear Judge Roberts: | agree with the findings of the Grand Jury's report on the Butte County Jail, at least that porfion of which relates to the facilities and/or jurisdiction of the Butte County Sheriffs Office. The inadequacy of the women’s section of the Jail has been a long standing concem to this Office, the Grand Jury notwithstanding, We have made every upgrade within our maans to improve this facility and it appears that the Grand Jury recognizes this. As you are well aware, many of the systemic problems in the referenced facility find their genesis in the overcrowding that permeates our corrections environment That emphasizes the importance of such programs as SWAP, ESP and Pre-frial Release. We look forward to your continued support in augmenting these areas of need. The Grand Jury is also cognizant of the “professional and efficient manner” in which the jail is operated and maintained. We appreciate this recognition. Lastly, if funding is ever available to construct a new facility we will certainly welcome that opportunity. In the foreseeable future however, we will continue to operate all of our custody facilites in as safe, orderly and professional a manner as possible. cc: Board of Supervisors Bil! Connelly Jane Doian Mary Anne Houx Curt Josiassen Kim Yamaguchi Paul McIntosh, Chief Administrative Officer 33 County Center Drive * Oroville, CA 95965 © (530) 538-6759 « Fax (530) 538-6759 Mary Anne Houx, Butte County Board of Supervisors: District 3 Individual response: Development and Land Use in Butte County: Planning Privation in the Land of Natural Wealth and Beauty ie MARY ANNE HOUX SUPERVISOR, THIRD DISTRICT 196 MEMORIAL WAY « CHICO, CALIFORNIA 95926 te pees “ TELEPHONE: (530) 891-2800 “sean asaunt® . FAX; (530) 891-2877 September 12, 2005 The Honorable Barbara Roberts, Presiding Judge Butte County Superior Court One Court Street Oroville, California 95965 Re: Response from the Board of Supervisors to the 2004-2005 Grand Jury Report Dear Judge Roberts: First of all thank you to you for your guidance of the Grand Jury this past year. They did a very thorough examination of the problems associated with the Butte County Department of Development Services. The department is essentially dysfunctional. The former Director of Development Services was extremely incompetent, but had the approval of the 4" and 5" District Supervisors who believed if the department head was weak they could push forward their ideas of development wherever one wanted it. There is a huge difference in helping a constituent with a project and demanding that normal rules get broken. It has long been a practice of mine, if asked by a constituent to help with a project, to invite the applicant and his engineer to come meet with the planner, the county engineer, Agricultural Commissioner and any other departments which might have a say as to what is legal and what is desirable. This can save time, money and energy and allow the application to move smoothly through the process, . At a meeting of the Board of Supervisors I supported a ballot measure as suggested by the Grand Jury. I still support such a ballot measure but believe we should wait until the regularly scheduled primary in June 2006. The Honorable Barbara Roberts, Presiding Judge Butte County Superior Court September 12, 2005 It is amazing to me how much of a white wash the response is from the Board of Supervisors. I do not agree with it. There has been harassment and coercion. Developments have been approved that should not have been approved. There are state laws governing development and the rules have been changed to suit special interests. Again, thank you and the Grand Jury for all their efforts. Sincerely, ~ Jay (iit olf ‘a Mary Anne Houx maoh/ City of Chico Planning Department Kim Seidler, Planning Department- City of Chico Scott Gruendl, Mayor- City of Chico T-cAt-OD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING 411 Main Street - 2nd Floor (530) 879-6800 CITY oF CHICO P.O. Box 3420 Fax (530) 895-4726 ING |872 Chico, CA 95927 http:/Awaw.ci.chico.ca.us July 25, 2005 The Honorable Barbara Roberts Presiding Judge, Butte County Grand Jury Superior Court, County of Butte One Court Street Oroville, CA 95965 Re: Response to 2004-2005 Grand Jury Final Report Dear Judge Roberts: Pursuant to Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, this letter will respond to findings and a