Lompoc Unified School District Problems on the Board

Conclusions 8

• CL1
  A Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education member twice voted on pay increases that benefited his spouse.
• CL2
  The Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education does not have adequate control of how expenditures of the General Fund are being allocated and tracked.
• CL3
  A Lompoc Unified School District employee traveled to a conference with her spouse, a Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education member, and she failed to reimburse expenses as required by “Travel Expenses” AR 3350.
• CL4
  The Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education has allowed a hostile work environment to exist.
• CL5
  The Lompoc Unified School District does not adequately account for the presence of its staff and management during work hours.
• CL6
  The Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education does not include its members in the “Employment of Relatives” Policy BP 4112.8/4312.8 (See Appendix D).
• CL7
  Members of the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education are not required to receive ethics training.
• CL8
  The 2015–2016 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury’s investigation of the Lompoc Unified School District (LUSD) and its Board of Education (Board) found that, by permitting both the appearance of a conflict of interest and an ongoing hostile work environment to exist, the Board has failed in its self-proclaimed mission “to provide leadership and citizen oversight of the district.” Additionally, the Board has not provided adequate oversight of its financial responsibilities. The 2015 - 2016 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury found other issues which require action. The Lompoc Unified School District needs to enforce policies to process employee complaints without fear of retaliation. District attendance policies need to be enforced to provide accountability for staff absences during the workday. The Board should require ethics training for its members. Finally, internal controls need to be established to provide adequate monitoring and enforcement of Board policies and the budgetary process. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Finding 1 A Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education member twice voted on pay increases that benefited his spouse. Recommendation 1a That the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education require that the spouse’s pay increases be reimbursed to the Lompoc Unified School District. Recommendation 1b That the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education members recuse themselves from discussing and voting on issues that give rise to the perception of a conflict of interest. Finding 2 The Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education does not have adequate control of how expenditures of the General Fund are being allocated and tracked. Recommendation 2 That the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education obtain an independent, specific audit of 5 http://www.localethics.fppc.ca.gov/login.aspx 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 7 the General Fund expenditures to clarify the use of public funds. Finding 3 A Lompoc Unified School District employee traveled to a conference with her spouse, a Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education member, and she failed to reimburse expenses as required by “Travel Expenses” AR 3350. Recommendation 3a That the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education enforce the Lompoc Unified School District travel policy as required by “Travel Expenses” AR 3350. Recommendation 3b That the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education prepare appropriate forms or put in place a tracking system so that the business office has a method to collect pre-paid travel expenses from employees. Finding 4 The Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education has allowed a hostile work environment to exist. Recommendation 4a That the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education add a policy prohibiting all District employees, Board members, and officials from engaging in abusive conduct as defined in Government Code section 12950.1, subdivisions (b) and (g)(2) [“conduct of an employer or employee in the workplace, with malice, that a reasonable person would find hostile, offensive, and unrelated to an employer’s legitimate business interests. Abusive conduct may include … verbal or physical conduct that a reasonable person would find threatening, intimidating, or humiliating, or the gratuitous sabotage or undermining of a person’s work performance.”] Recommendation 4b That, after the Lompoc Unified School District adopts the policy described above, the District post, distribute, and provide training on that policy throughout the organization, and enforce it. Finding 5 The Lompoc Unified School District does not adequately account for the presence of its staff and management during work hours. Recommendation 5 That the Lompoc Unified School District enforce an attendance policy for staff and management to ensure they are present and accounted for during work hours. Finding 6 The Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education does not include its members in the “Employment of Relatives” Policy BP 4112.8/4312.8 (See Appendix D). Recommendation 6 That the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education revise its Policy, BP 4112.8/4312.8, to 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 8 include members of the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education. Finding 7 Members of the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education are not required to receive ethics training. Recommendation 7 That the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education adopt a policy to require ethics training for Board members on par with AB1234 “Local Ethics Training” requirements. REQUEST FOR RESPONSE Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933 and 933.05, the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury requests each entity or individual named below to respond to the enumerated findings and recommendations within the specified statutory time limit: Santa Barbara County District Attorney – Information Copy – No Response Required Superintendent Santa Barbara County Education Office – 90 days Finding 2 Recommendation 2 Santa Barbara County Board of Education– 90 days Finding 2 Recommendation 2 Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education – 90 days Findings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 Recommendation 1a, 1b, 2, 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b, 5, 6, and 7 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 9 APPENDIX A Government Code 1090 GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 1090-1099 1090. (a) Members of the Legislature, state, county, district, judicial district, and city officers or employees shall not be financially interested in any contract made by them in their official capacity, or by any body or board of which they are members. Nor shall state, county, district, judicial district, and city officers or employees be purchasers at any sale or vendors at any purchase made by them in their official capacity. (b) An individual shall not aid or abet a Member of the Legislature or a state, county, district, judicial district, or city officer or employee in violating subdivision (a). (c) As used in this article, "district" means any agency of the state formed pursuant to general law or special act, for the local performance of governmental or proprietary functions within limited boundaries. 1091.5. (a) An officer or employee shall not be deemed to be interested in a contract if his or her interest is any of the following: (6) That of a spouse of an officer or employee of a public agency in his or her spouse's employment or officeholding if his or her spouse's employment or officeholding has existed for at least one year prior to his or her election or appointment. 1097 (a) Every officer or person prohibited by the laws of this state from making or being interested in contracts, or from becoming a vendor or purchaser at sales, or from purchasing scrip or other evidences of indebtedness, including any member of the governing board of a school district, who willfully violates any of the provisions of those laws, is punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in the state prison, and is forever disqualified from holding any office in this state. (b) An individual who willfully aids or abets an officer or person in violating a prohibition by the laws of this state from making or being interested in contracts, or from becoming a vendor or purchaser at sales, or from purchasing scrip, or other evidences of indebtedness, including any member of the governing board of a school district, is punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in the state prison, and is forever disqualified from holding any office in this state. (AMENDED BY STATS. 2014, CH. 483, SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2015.) 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 10 APPENDIX B Lompoc School District Travel Policy 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 11 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 12 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 13 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 14 APPENDIX C Travel Expenses 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 15 APPENDIX D BP4112.8/4312.8 Employment of Relatives 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 16

Observations 4

• OB1
  During the Jury’s investigation of the LUSD, the following deficiencies were identified:  Conflicts of Interest  Financial Irregularities  Inadequate and Unenforced Internal Financial Controls  Hostile Work Environment  Other Unethical Behavior  Lack of Ethics Training Conflict of Interest Government Code § 1090 generally prohibits school board members (and other public officials) from having a financial interest in any contract their board makes. Under GC § 1091.5, a school board member whose spouse is employed by the school district has a prohibited financial interest in any board contract that impacts the spouse’s financial interest, unless the spouse was employed by the district for at least one year before the member joined the board. GC § 1097 provides that an official who willfully violates, or aids or abets in a violation of GC § 1090 is punishable by a fine or imprisonment, “and is forever disqualified from holding any office in this state.” (See Appendix A.) Mr. Bill Christen was elected to the Board in December 2012, five months after his spouse was hired as Director of the Special Education Department (SED) in July 2012. Mr. Christen twice voted to increase the salaries of management and confidential employees who were members of ALSA, including his spouse. On January 28, 2014, Mr. Christen moved to approve a one-time four percent off-schedule salary increase, and on May 12, 2015, Mr. Christen voted with the Board to unanimously approve a 4.25 percent compensation adjustment to begin immediately and another 4.25 percent salary increase scheduled to begin on June 1, 2015. In all of these instances, Mr. Christen’s spouse benefited from the salary increases. Through his attorney, Mr. Christen has denied breaking any conflict of interest laws, and has pointed out that those laws are “complex,” with “many exceptions.” The Jury does not express or imply any opinion on whether Mr. Christen violated those laws. As the California Supreme Court put it, the Jury’s role here is “to act as the public’s ‘watchdog’ by investigating and reporting on the affairs of local government.” It is the role of the Santa Barbara County District Attorney (DA) to determine whether any criminal conduct occurred, and the Jury defers that determination to the DA. Whatever that determination may be, however, the Jury believes that even the appearance of a conflict of interest seriously harms the public’s confidence in the Board of Education. The Board can reduce the risk of similar harm in the future by implementing the Jury’s recommendations below. Financial Irregularities and Lack of Internal Financial Controls After interviewing staff from the business office and reviewing financial records, the Jury was unable to determine exactly how expenditures of the LUSD’s General Fund are being allocated and tracked. Past LUSD independent financial audits have noted a lack of adequate controls and use of public funds.2 A 2 2010-2011 Independent Financial Audit, Glenn Burdette Public Accounting Agency and 2014-2015 Independent Audit, Vavrinek, Trine, Day and Co. LLP 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 4 more specific audit of the General Fund expenditures by the Board would serve to clarify the use of public funds. Some witnesses expressed concern that, since Mr. Christen became a member of the Board, the department where his wife is the director—the Special Education Department (SED) received favoritism. The Jury’s investigation found that allocations from the LUSD general fund to the SED (designated as “Contributions” in Table 2) increased over 85 percent in the first year after Bill Christen was elected. The Contributions revenue represent the LUSD General Fund and the Expenses represent the Total Expenditures for the SED. Table 2. LUSD Special Education Income and Expendituresa a From: “Fiscal Staff\Comparative Analysis\Routine Restricted Maintenance Comparative Report, three years” The Jury also found that the SED Director submitted invoices for payment of over $283,000 for books without any preapproval of the expenditures by the Board. This bypassing of budgetary controls was also indicated in two of the “Observations” of an external Audit ending June 30, 20153 which are summarized below, 1 “Segregation of Duty - System Access-
• OB2
  In our review of system accessibility in purchasing and accounts payable systems, we noted that various personnel have access to functions not necessary for their assigned responsibilities. Specifically, we noted that at least one accounts payable clerk has access to AS400, the purchasing module, which allows the clerk to create new vendors.” 2 “Disbursements 3 2014-2015 Independent Audit, Vavrinek, Trine, Day and Co. LLP 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 5
• OB3
  Four of 15 disbursements tested were not pre-approved by the ASB. The invoice date on these disbursements was prior to the purchase request approval date indicating that the order was placed prior to approval.” The Jury also found a lack of oversight in LUSD’s payment of travel expenses. For example, District Policy AR 3350 states, “…if an employee stays with a spouse the reimbursement is linked to one-half of the double room rate.” (See Appendix B.) Yet the District pre-paid the full double room rate when the SED director traveled to New Orleans for an SED conference accompanied by her husband, a Board member, for a Board-approved conference. (See Appendix C.) The LUSD should have paid for only half of the hotel bill. No internal controls exist by which the LUSD can collect these pre-paid expenses from their employees. Travel funding comes from the General Fund and must be approved by the Board. In addition, the Jury found that employees continue to be away from work without approval or appropriate “time away” forms being submitted. The issue was noted in an independent audit dated June 30, 20154 and continues to be an ongoing problem. “Payroll - Vacation Requests- Observation: During our testing of vacation request procedures, we noted vacation request forms are not utilized consistently for requests of vacation. Without these forms, there is no evidence of prior approval of vacation requests by the employee's immediate supervisor.” The Jury recommends that the LUSD Board ensure that existing vacation and attendance policies are enforced. Hostile Work Environment Former and current employees interviewed by the Jury reported a hostile and confrontational work environment. Several key employees gave this as their primary reason for resigning. Among the contributing factors often cited by LUSD employees were the increasingly contentious working relationship between the Superintendent and Mr. Christen, and between the SED director and her colleagues. LUSD employees stated they did not have recourse to prevent these problems, for “fear of retaliation.” LUSD has a “Nondiscrimination in Employment” policy, but it expressly prohibits only “unlawful” conduct. That legalistic limitation undercuts the policy’s usefulness in preventing and remedying workplace conduct that may be harmfully abusive, but not clearly unlawful. LUSD could easily plug this potential loophole by clarifying that the policy prohibits individuals at every level of the organization from engaging in abusive conduct as defined in Government Code section 12950.1, subdivisions (b) and (g)(2): “conduct of an employer or employee in the workplace, with malice, that a reasonable person would find hostile, offensive, and unrelated to an employer’s legitimate business interests. Abusive conduct may include … verbal or physical conduct that a reasonable person would find threatening, intimidating, or humiliating, or the gratuitous sabotage or undermining of a person’s work performance.” 4 Ibid 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 6 Lack of Ethics Training The Jury learned that the Board has not required ethics training for itself or the certified staff employees. An ethics training course is available online, at no cost, from the California Fair Political Practices Commission5. This training course covers subjects such as conflict of interest, and greater awareness of those subjects might have avoided or limited the unethical conduct described in this Report. Although this training is not specifically required by AB 1234, the Jury recommends that the Board adopt a policy that requires such training.
• OB4
  During our testing of vacation request procedures, we noted vacation request forms are not utilized consistently for requests of vacation. Without these forms, there is no evidence of prior approval of vacation requests by the employee's immediate supervisor.” The Jury recommends that the LUSD Board ensure that existing vacation and attendance policies are enforced. Hostile Work Environment Former and current employees interviewed by the Jury reported a hostile and confrontational work environment. Several key employees gave this as their primary reason for resigning. Among the contributing factors often cited by LUSD employees were the increasingly contentious working relationship between the Superintendent and Mr. Christen, and between the SED director and her colleagues. LUSD employees stated they did not have recourse to prevent these problems, for “fear of retaliation.” LUSD has a “Nondiscrimination in Employment” policy, but it expressly prohibits only “unlawful” conduct. That legalistic limitation undercuts the policy’s usefulness in preventing and remedying workplace conduct that may be harmfully abusive, but not clearly unlawful. LUSD could easily plug this potential loophole by clarifying that the policy prohibits individuals at every level of the organization from engaging in abusive conduct as defined in Government Code section 12950.1, subdivisions (b) and (g)(2): “conduct of an employer or employee in the workplace, with malice, that a reasonable person would find hostile, offensive, and unrelated to an employer’s legitimate business interests. Abusive conduct may include … verbal or physical conduct that a reasonable person would find threatening, intimidating, or humiliating, or the gratuitous sabotage or undermining of a person’s work performance.” 4 Ibid 2015-16 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 6 Lack of Ethics Training The Jury learned that the Board has not required ethics training for itself or the certified staff employees. An ethics training course is available online, at no cost, from the California Fair Political Practices Commission5. This training course covers subjects such as conflict of interest, and greater awareness of those subjects might have avoided or limited the unethical conduct described in this Report. Although this training is not specifically required by AB 1234, the Jury recommends that the Board adopt a policy that requires such training.

Agency Responses 2

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

No Responses Found 1

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.