Final Report - Case No. 08-07 Stockton Unified School District

The Superintendent has authority to hire administrative, non-instructional consultants for up to $50,000 without Board approval.

SUSD management contracted with sports figures to speak at a one-day All Sports Clinic. Five individuals were paid consulting fees of $5000 plus mileage and another 28 individuals were paid between $1000 and $2000. $5000 is more than most high school coaches make in a season.

SUSD management hired a large number of consultants for administrative, non- instructional positions. Many of their duties were already being performed by district employees. The following examples were found: • A consultant was hired to train SUSD staff on how to legally use restricted State and Federal funds. SUSD had an employee in charge of the same funds. • Two consultants were hired to work 2-3 days per week to evaluate high school principals, directors and administrators. • Consultants were hired to write the GEAR UP grant. SUSD already had two grant writers. • Two consultants were hired to inventory the vocational/career tech program. The Program Director traditionally completed this task. • The Chief Financial Officer was initially hired as a consultant and later became a salaried SUSD employee. When the position was converted from consultant to salaried employee, the position was advertised competitively, applications taken, interviews conducted and a selection made according to SUSD procedure. • The District-wide Athletic Director position was created and filled without advertising, applications or interviews. SUSD policy grants authority to the Superintendent to create and fill positions under certain circumstances.

Restricted (categorical) funds are designed with specific requirements to enhance the regular educational program. They are intended to supplement, not supplant, the regular educational program. Restricted funds cannot be used to support services that would otherwise be provided through general unrestricted funds. Positions or expenditures previously funded by unrestricted funds cannot be shifted to restricted funds. There are numerous instances where SUSD has misused restricted funds: • Targeted Instructional Improvement Grant (TIIG) restricted funds were used to pay salaries of 8 Visual and Performing Arts (VAPA) teachers previously paid from general funds. • School Safety and Violence Prevention Act (AB1113) funds were used to pay approximately $90,000 in costs associated with the All Sports Clinic. It appears the use of the funds for this purpose was a clear violation of readily available State guidelines. • Job descriptions for more than 15 vice-principals are being changed for the 2008- 2009 school year so they can be paid from restricted funds. • English Language Learner (ELL) Title III restricted funds were used to purchase Algebraic Thinking, a comprehensive math intervention program (including materials and training) for use by all intensive math students grade 5-8, including non-ELL students, at several schools.

SUSD management did not prepare a thorough, detailed accounting for the Celebrity Waiter’s Luncheon held in March 2007 and the All Sports Clinic held in April 2007. The Grand Jury discovered that there were at least three incomplete versions.

SUSD management made numerous questionable purchases using District funds. The Grand Jury finds the District-Wide Athletic Director: • On more than one occasion, requested payments from SUSD for alcoholic beverages at Alioto’s restaurant in San Francisco and attempted to conceal one purchase by claiming it was “food to go.” Once SUSD staff discovered this, the Superintendent reimbursed the District from his personal funds • Requested payment from SUSD for the use of a limousine • Failed to follow SUSD purchase policy on multiple occasions.

Athletic Department staff approached a vendor with the district and pressured that vendor for a cash donation for the Celebrity Luncheon.

SUSD management initially refused to provide information to the Grand Jury. While information was ultimately obtained through subpoena, it did little to reassure honesty, integrity and accountability of SUSD management.

The extreme level of bickering and animosity among SUSD Trustees and management is not conducive to resolving issues and reduces public confidence.