Editorial Committee Louisa Amis Jean Biordi

The lack of mandatory CIT training for those hired prior to 2013 prevents a buy-in philosophy and fully trained department, and an inconsistent understanding and unified response in policing of the mentally ill.

There is no dedicated CIT refresher course for San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department personnel.

There is no updated training for new laws and resources after jail and prior to patrol assignment for deputies.

The CIT Deputy and CIT Lieutenant are not assigned to the same division which impedes effectiveness, communication, authority, and unification of SBCSD CIT personnel.

One CIT Station Coordinator per station is not sufficient.

No CIT trained roster for sheriff personnel is maintained and accessible.

CIT forms are full of extraneous DBH questions which make the forms cumbersome to complete for patrol deputies on calls. The result is incomplete CIT forms or CIT forms not submitted at all.

Routing of CIT Forms is not meeting the required 48-hour turnaround to DBH. Delays cause a lack of mental health services and follow-up case management services.

One Test personnel assigned to patrol stations is not sufficient. Ability to assist patrol deputies in the field is restricted/limited due to case management paperwork.

More DBH vehicles are needed for TEST personnel to perform duties. San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 77 SMH

Tracking mental illness calls for service recidivism needs to be formalized.

Lack of services and beds for the mentally ill in the high desert results in excessive use of time and resources. RECOMMENDATIONS R21-1: Sheriff’s Department to CIT train all deputies hired prior to 2013 who have not received the 40-hour CIT training. To be implemented by June 2022. R21-2: SBCSD and DBH institute a full 8-hour CIT focused refresher course every 3 – 5 years. To be implemented by June 2022. R21-3: SBCSD and DBH develop virtual mental health/resource updates for deputies leaving the jail and entering patrol assignment. To be implemented by June 2022. R21-4: SBCSD to unify all CIT personnel under the same division for the continuity of CIT chain-of-command. To be implemented by June 2022. R21-5: SBCSD to assign a minimum of two CIT Station Coordinators per patrol station. To be implemented immediately. R21-6: SBCSD to develop an accessible and continually updated CIT trained sheriff personnel roster. To be implemented by June 2022. R21-7: SBCSD and DBH to revise and simplify the CIT form to be more deputy user-friendly to facilitate completion by law enforcement in the field. To be implemented by June 2022. R21-8: SBCSD and DBH to make the CIT form a duplicate tear-off form with the tear-off portion given to TEST staff at patrol station for immediate follow- up. This alerts and allows immediate notification to station TEST personnel 78 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report SMH of clients without interrupting original CIT form processing to DBH. In the case of electronic transmission (email), provide a copy to TEST station person immediately. To be implemented immediately. R21-9: DBH to assign two or more TEST personnel per station. To be implemented by October 2022. R21-10: DBH to provide more vehicles for TEST personnel (preferably one per TEST person) at each patrol station. To be implemented by October 2022. R21-11: SBCSD and DBH to develop a formal and accessible system to track recidivism of the mentally ill. To be implemented by June 2022. R21-12: DBH to develop a collaboration among stakeholders for high desert accessible mentally ill hospital and/or procurement of land for a facility. To be implemented by October 2022. San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 79 SMH EXHIBITS: E-1: Current CIT form (sample) 80 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report SMH E-2: Cover sheet and Survey San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 81 SMH 82 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report SMH San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 83 This Page Left Intentionally Blank 84 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report SMH PREDATORY BEHAVIORS AND IGNORANCE WITHIN REDLANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT: HAS THE SCHOOL DISTRICT LEARNED ITS LESSON? SUMMARY All educators have a responsibility to ensure the academic success and well- being of their students.1 However, years of scandals, allegations, and criminal cases filed against Redlands Unified School District (RUSD/District) over sexual misconduct by staff and teachers involved with students, has caused adherence to this responsibility to be called into question. As a result of numerous criminal and civil cases filed against RUSD, the District has been under scrutiny for not intervening appropriately to allegations of staff sexual misconduct involving students. This failure has resulted in millions of dollars paid out in settlements, which continues to this day and as recently as the writing of this report. The 2021 Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) unfolded many concerns which plagued the District in the past that enabled these sex abusers to conduct their crimes amid other staff and students without fear of retribution. Although this investigation had its primary focus on high schools, the Grand Jury has viewed this equally applicable to all schools within RUSD. Many of the concerns placed a spotlight on the lack of training for staff, students, and parents; the inability to recognize grooming behaviors; the crossing of staff and student boundaries; failure of staff to comply with mandated reporter statutes; and the lack of accountability and poor investigative practices on behalf of RUSD. Hence, the District could no longer deny the need for reform, starting from top-down. Commission on Teacher Credentialing, Ensuring Educator Excellence, California Professional Standards for Education Leaders (2014), from https://www.ctc.ca.gov/docs/default-source/educator-prep/standards/cpsel-booklet- 2014.pdf. San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 85 SMH To ensure reformation occurred, the District’s practices and policies were reviewed in the areas of prevention, reporting, and accountability. The Grand Jury scrutinized the District with California’s legislation, school policies and procedures, training materials, and security measures, to ensure consistency, safety, and transparency for all involved. Interviews were conducted of various stakeholders to include, but not limited to, law enforcement, school administration, school staff, witnesses, and victims, as well as on-site campus observations. This investigative report consists of facts, detailed findings, and recommendations that are designed to improve the professional practices of RUSD in the areas of prevention, reporting, and accountability of sexual misconduct. Glossary Actions Create Trust (ACT Now) Initiative – “See Something? Hear Something? Sense Something? Say Something. Together, we can keep our children safe.”2 RUSD’s Call to Action Initiative. The purpose of the initiative is to enhance student safety and raise RUSD employee awareness. Boundary – Acceptable professional behavior by employees while interacting with students. California Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (CANRA) – California law requires certain professionals, known as Mandated Reporters, to report known or suspected instances of child abuse or neglect to law enforcement. Grooming – Building a relationship, trust and emotional connection with a child or young person so a predator can manipulate, exploit, and abuse them. Redlands USD, Home Page, from See Something, Say Something / Call to Action, redlandsusd.net (last visited Sept. 1, 2021). San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report SMH Inappropriate Teacher-Student Relationship – The crossing of certain boundaries by teachers, administrators, coaches, and their students. Violation of these boundaries can result in an emotional, physical, or sexual relationship. Keenan Online Training – Overview of laws regarding mandated reporting of child abuse, including child abuse and neglect detection, mandated reporter obligations and procedures according to CANRA, and information on the consequences for failure to report. Mandated Reporter – All persons, required by law, to report all known or suspected cases of child abuse or neglect. California Penal Code § 11165.7 provides a list of persons whose profession qualifies them as “mandated reporters.” Predatory Behaviors – Any conduct evidencing egregious, habitual, or continuing attempt to misuse power, authority, position, or situation to abuse or exploit others, as well as deliberate attempts to entrap or entice to commit sexual misconduct. Reasonable Suspicion – When it is objectively reasonable for a person to entertain a suspicion, based upon facts, that could cause a reasonable person in a like position, to suspect child abuse or neglect. It does not require certainty that child abuse or neglect has occurred.3 Redlands Police Department (RPD) – Local law enforcement agency which provides public safety services to the community of Redlands, which resides in the County of San Bernardino. Cal. Pen Code § 11166, Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (2019), from http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawcode=pen&division=&title=1.&part=4.&chapter=2. &article=2.511166Law section (ca.gov). San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 87 SMH Redlands Unified School District (RUSD) – School District which serves the City of Redlands, and the surrounding communities of the eastern half of Highland, Loma Linda, and Mentone in San Bernardino County. San Bernardino Children and Family Services (CFS) – Social Service agency dedicated to the protection of abused, neglected, and dependent children. Receives and reviews allegations of child abuse and neglect made within San Bernardino County. School Policy – Rules and regulations established often by the school board, to guide acceptable behavior and ensure that the school environment is safe for students, teachers, and school staff. School Resource Officer (SRO) – Sworn Law Enforcement Officers responsible for safety and crime prevention in schools. We Tip Anonymous Tips (We Tip) – Anonymous crime-reporting hotline for citizens. Information may be received online or telephonically. BACKGROUND The Problem In February of 2021, the Grand Jury read an article entitled, “Another Alleged Victim of Former Redlands High School Teacher Laura Whitehurst Sues District.”4 As a result, the Grand Jury researched incidents of sexual abuse that occurred between RUSD staff and students between 2006 and 2017. The Grand Jury delved into California’s legislation, as well as the culture, practices, and written policies of RUSD, to determine the circumstances that allowed this type of behavior to exist. As the investigation unfolded, the 4 Joe Nelson, Another Alleged Victim of Former California Teacher Laura Whitehurst Sues District, East Bay Times, Feb. 3, 2021, from https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2021/02/03. San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report SMH Grand Jury found various factors that provided opportunities for these disturbing behaviors. These factors included a lack of clear understanding of mandated reporting, failure of training in recognizing grooming behaviors, ignoring “red flag” conduct by staff, inadequate student interviews by school personnel, and a culture of failed administration and staff accountability. Parental rights were another area of concern. The Grand Jury found that parents were not notified before student interviews and/or interrogations that were conducted by School District personnel. The District faced many accusations of turning a “blind-eye” to reported incidences of sexual improprieties and faced allegations of destroying evidence to protect the image of their close-knit District. As mounting sexual abuse allegations and cases were filed in criminal court, and an increase in cash settlements in civil cases occurred, RUSD administrators could no longer deny the District’s deficiencies. In 2017, the District began to make notable changes from the top-down to address these deficiencies, by implementing the following: • Detailed training in mandated reporting, “reasonable suspicion,” and when and how to report. • Publicized ACT Now initiative (Actions Create Trust). • Training of recognizing “grooming” and “red flag” behaviors and predatory behaviors on the part of the abusers. • Reliability on trained professionals to conduct interviews and/or investigations. • Security measures to ensure students’ safety while on campus. • Culture shift to accountability and a zero tolerance of inappropriate staff/student relationships. The Grand Jury sought to examine and conduct a thorough investigation of these implemented practices, to ensure the prior deficiencies were effectively addressed. The methodology listed below was utilized to gain a better understanding of where the RUSD culture was then, and if the San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 89 SMH implemented practices have had a positive impact on the culture of the District now. METHODOLOGY The Grand Jury researched California Education and Penal Codes related to the requirements of mandated reporting of child abuse laws. The Grand Jury also interviewed Redlands Police Department personnel, Redlands Unified School District employees, third party contract investigators, parents, and former student-victims. To further the investigation, the Grand Jury reviewed Redlands’ Police Department investigative reports; current RUSD School Board Policies; the District Administrative Regulations; the District’s ACT Now Initiative; Keenan Training for mandated reporters and other school district documents pertaining to complaint procedures and “red flag” behaviors. This Grand Jury issued a press release to the public requesting information about past or present inappropriate contact and/or behaviors between student and staff. The responses received were used for this report. To obtain a full perspective of the subject matter, the Grand Jury conducted an observation of various schools and participated in the Keenan Training online. DISCUSSION The Law Teachers and school administrators within the State of California have been commissioned under the Child Abuse and Child Neglect Act to report 90 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report SMH “reasonable suspicion” or actual knowledge of child abuse and neglect.5 According to this statute, teachers are Mandated Reporters and are obligated to notify law enforcement or a designated county welfare department. According to San Bernardino County policy, “certain professionals are Mandated Reporters and are to fulfill their obligation by notifying the Department of Children and Family Services of suspected child abuse and neglect.”7 District Board Policies and Administrative Regulations The District has created Board Policies (BP) for staff to follow, to ensure compliance to the rules and regulations, as maintained in the BP’s Professional Standards. The District requires their employees to always demonstrate professionalism. The written rules provide all staff, students, volunteers, and community members with knowledge, to increase their understanding of their role in protecting children from inappropriate conduct from an adult.8 The professional standards explain the appearance of impropriety, boundary violations, and improper interactions with students that erodes professional adult and student relationships.9 The District has also devised a Uniform Complaint Procedure for students, under the Administrative Regulations (AR) 5145.7, that enables investigations and to resolve complaints on behalf of the student.10 After reviewing this AR, the Grand Jury has learned that there is a loophole in the District’s written rules and regulations concerning sexual abuse and sexual 5 Cal. Pen Code § 11165.9 (2006), from http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawcode=pen&division=&title=1.&part=4.&chapter=2.&article=2.5. Ibid 7 San Bernardino County Children and Family Services, Report Child Abuse or Neglect, from http://hs.sbcounty.gov/cfs/aboutus/pages/How_to_report_child_abuse.aspx (last visited Sept. 1, 2021). Redlands USD, BP 4019.1 Personnel, Professional Adult/Student Boundaries (2018), from http://www.gamutonline.net/displaypolicy/1124197/4. Ibid 10 Redlands USD, AR 1312.3 Community Relations, Uniform Complaint Procedures (2017), from http://www.gamutonline.net/displaypolicy/475089/1 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 91 SMH harassment. The policy states, “…[a]ny student who believes they have been subjected to sexual harassment by… an employee… is strongly encouraged to report the incident to at least one school official, and the school official is instructed to report to the principal or district’s compliance officer.”11 The same language of this policy is also found in (BP) 5145.7. The problem is that the District has not made a distinction between sexual abuse by an employee who is an adult, and sexual harassment of a peer; therefore, creating a loophole to route criminal sexual abuse allegations as a civil matter of sexual harassment. According to CANRA, educators are Mandated Reporters and must notify immediately of reasonable suspicion, or as soon as practically possible, by phone, and submit a written report within 36 hours of receiving the information,12 to the Children and Family Services Department of San Bernardino County.13 In short, Mandated Reporters do not have leeway, nor discretion, when it comes to making notifications. Therefore, it is imperative for RUSD staff to adhere to the law and CFS and the Redlands Police Department to investigate the allegations. RUSD Training The Grand Jury investigated the training (or lack thereof) provided to administrators, staff, school volunteers, parents, and students of Redlands Unified School District. After a careful study of the California Penal Code as it relates to mandated reporting training of school personnel, the Grand Jury concluded that RUSD follows the letter of the law in the reporting of suspected abuse of children. Personnel are responsible for going online and taking the Keenan Training, which provides the basics of mandated reporting 11 Redlands USD, AR 5145.7 Students, Sexual Harassment (2017), from http://www.gamutonline.net/displaypolicy/1091411/5. Cal. Pen Code § 11166, Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (2019), from http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawcode=pen&division=&title=1.&part=4.&chapter=2.&article=2.5 11166Law section (ca.gov). San Bernardino County Children and Family Services, Report Child Abuse or Neglect, from http://hs.sbcounty.gov/cfs/aboutus/pages/How_to_report_child_abuse.aspx (last visited Sept. 1, 2021). San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report SMH and signs of abuse. The Grand Jury also found that RUSD principals provide training at their individual schools at the beginning of each school year. Sign- in sheets are used to prove attendance. In addition, the District has in the past, invited speaker Diane Cranley, an expert on “grooming” and predatory behavior towards children, to speak to the staff of RUSD. (Cranley is the author of 8 Ways to Create Their Fate: Protecting the Sexual Innocence of Children in Youth-Serving Organizations.) Ms. Cranley has spoken once to the entire District at an assembly and had helped the administration update and implement school policies. However, even with these training measures in place, the Grand Jury found many areas of concern. There is inconsistent implementation of the training, according to interviews conducted with several witnesses from the District. Some administrators and teachers, and many parents and students did not understand the meaning of mandated reporting, grooming behaviors, predatory behaviors of adults toward children, and boundary violations. Some administrators and some teachers misunderstood the mandated reporting law as it relates to whom and in what form the reporting must occur. For example, the Grand Jury found that some teachers are relying on the “WE TIP” anonymous hotline to report suspected abuse. This practice is not in accordance with the statute governing Mandated Reporters, as required in California Penal Code § 11165.7.14 Some staff report to administrators, and some never turn in a written report to Children and Family Services. Therefore, even though the RUSD personnel participate in the Keenan online training, they are not learning some of the essential lessons. Furthermore, the Grand Jury investigation found that the Redlands Unified School District has no training for students, parents, school volunteers, and other adults who work with children in the District in the areas of 1) identifying predatory and grooming behaviors, 2) boundary violations, 3) mandated 14 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaysection.xhtml?lawcode=pen&sectionnum=11165.7 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 93 SMH reporting, and 4) reporting process (how and to whom to report). This leads to confusion for students and their guardians. The district handbook does touch on the subject, but the handbook is complex in size, not user-friendly (size 8 font, single-spaced, 137 pages double-sided), and full of legalese that many people have trouble wading through. Several administrators and teachers interviewed by the Grand Jury agreed that training is essential for these groups. Multiple witnesses felt that student assemblies on these subjects would be beneficial for students, volunteers, teachers, and parents alike. Administrators agreed that RUSD could benefit from the assemblies. Teachers and other personnel in the District have also been trained to ensure that all hall passes are issued by office staff only, thus protecting students from adults who would call them to their classrooms for inappropriate reasons (sexual misconduct). However, some administrators and teachers are not following through with this rule. More effective training is needed in this area. Administrators at each school (principals and assistant principals), have limited understanding of the essential need to increase supervision at their site. They have been trained to do “quadrant monitoring,” where they walk and observe every area of the school daily. However, the implementation lacks consistency. Witnesses interviewed stated that the monitoring takes place at the beginning of the school year but falls off considerably as the school year progresses. There is also no evidence of the monitoring in the form of a common check-off list or clipboard in the front office. Redlands Unified School District is to be commended for increasing training in adult to student sexual abuse from 2017 to the present. Keenan's online training is implemented and documented well. Each principal teaches mandated reporting laws to their staff at the beginning of the school year. A special assembly featuring an expert speaker on grooming and abuse has once been presented to the District as a whole. The ACT Now Initiative, “See something? Hear something? Sense something? Say something,” was rolled out in 2018. The purpose of the initiative was to enhance student 94 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report SMH safety. It will need to be reintroduced to the District and the community, as the pandemic interrupted instruction. Despite these efforts, however, training needs significant improvement. Training is needed for students and parents alike, to identify and report misconduct and sexual abuse. Administration and staff need a clearer understanding of how and to whom to report. The most important aspect that needs improvement is better communication from the top-down in how to implement and ensure the instructed training given is practiced. The Grand Jury recommends that more “hands-on” and role-playing of different scenarios would be a more effective way to train the educators, students, and parents. The training should be given in “small bites,” on many occasions during the school year; people learn and retain information better with periodic and scheduled reminders. Video options may need to be explored. Also, the California Department of Social Services - School Personnel Child Abuse Mandated Reporter Training (mandatedreporterca.com) is highly encouraged. The Redlands Police Department may also be a good source as a training option, especially for parents. In review, it is noted that much has improved in training for the Redlands Unified School District from approximately 2017 to the present. The Grand Jury is confident that the District, partnering with the community, can work towards making the training more effective in the future so that our most important resource, our children, can be protected. Preventive Measures: Camera Monitoring and “Third Wheel” Rule RUSD needs improvement in preventive measures. One area is supervision, including increased and operable camera monitoring and consistent daily “quadrant monitoring” throughout the school year. The Grand Jury found that sexual misconduct occurred when students were alone with adults and/or in unsupervised areas. Another way to protect students would be to institute a “third wheel” rule, which states an adult witness is always present San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 95 SMH when a student and staff member meet, both in person and through electronic means. In the school environment, student safety and the devastating effects of lifelong trauma because of staff sexual misconduct and abuse outweigh the “right to privacy.” Sometimes it comes down to simply doing the right thing. RUSD Victims: Lifelong Devastating Impact on Victims The interviews of victims and family members persuaded the Grand Jury that the devastating impact of staff sexual misconduct is a lifelong wound still experienced to this day by those abused. As adults, the trauma inflicted upon the victims by a trusted teacher cannot be excused or denied. Those who were fortunate enough to receive early counseling thrive to live normal lives with an understanding that what occurred was not their fault. Those who have not, suffer significant consequences including depression, guilt, and serious life issues which impact their ability to live as happy functioning adults. Many of the victims who were preyed upon in a school setting state in most instances that they were alone with their abusers both before, during and after school hours. It is alarming to find that those instances which occurred during school hours commonly took place within the classroom itself. These children did not understand the “grooming” process or boundaries being crossed by adults who used these to their advantage. At a time when most children should be enjoying their years of school, sporting events, proms, and graduation, these children fell victim to the desires of sexual predators using their trust and authority as teachers. Once the crimes came to light, these children experienced confusion, shame, and isolation. They were left to feel as if they were to blame for the actions of the adults. The Grand Jury recognizes the victims that endured and still endure a past that should have never happened to them - especially in a place and by a person where they should have felt the safest and most secure - their school and teacher. Doing the right thing can also include 96 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report SMH providing victim advocacy during the abuse investigation and RUSD should provide lifelong counseling for traumatized students. FINDINGS

There is no ongoing unified collaboration among RUSD, parents, and the community to work together to ensure proper protocols are in place for prevention of staff sexual misconduct and abuse.

There are not always cameras in classrooms, hallways, small rooms, offices, etc., which in the past has led to staff being able to engage in inappropriate sexual and criminal conduct with students.

The Grand Jury found that the extensive trauma experienced by the victims is lifelong and continues to have a devastating impact on their lives. Many of these victims were alone with teachers, unsupervised, which allowed the egregious acts to occur. The Grand Jury acknowledges the severe difficulties that victims continue to experience, even today. San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 99 SMH RECOMMENDATIONS: (All following recommendations are directed to Redlands Unified School District.) R21-1: During an employee’s performance evaluation, District supervisors are to verify each employee’s understanding of “reasonable suspicion,” mandated reporting laws, predatory behaviors, grooming behaviors, and complaint processes. This information can be obtained via a written question and answer sheet, signed by the employee declaring their comprehension of their legal obligations. This recommendation is to be implemented no later than August 2022. R21-2(a): The District is to create an Administrative Regulation explaining the procedure for immediate mandatory parental notifications before interviewing or investigating students regarding possible suspected sexual abuse by staff. This recommendation is to be implemented no later than June 2022. R21-2(b): Immediate telephonic notification made to the legal guardian followed up by a written copy of notification to the parent/guardian with a documented parent receipt of the notification. This recommendation is to be implemented immediately. R21-3: Each school is to conduct training in conjunction with staff meetings throughout the school year, including but not limited to role-play scenarios. This will begin with the District Superintendent training school administrators, on a quarterly basis. This recommendation is to be implemented no later than August 2022. R21-4: Provide school assemblies at least twice a year in these areas and invite teachers, staff, students, school volunteers, and parents/guardians. Videotape these assemblies and make them available on the RUSD website 100 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report SMH for those unable to attend in person. Show the recordings in the students’ homerooms twice a semester as student reminders. This recommendation is to be implemented no later than October 2022. R21-5: In addition to the Parent-Student Handbook, develop easy-to-read and user-friendly reference sources, with information explaining prohibited behaviors, reasonable suspicion of sexual abuse and grooming, mandated reporting, and the complaint process. This information can be incorporated into smaller pamphlets that are available in the District and school offices, and online. It is also recommended that the English and Spanish versions be separate. This recommendation is to be implemented no later than November 2022. R21-6: Revise the “Working Smart” tips to read, “Prohibited Behaviors,” and “Red Flags” to read, “Boundary Violations.” These listed “red flags” simply identify the past behaviors of staff that permitted the sexual abuse of students to thrive. Therefore, these behaviors should not be “red flagged” but expressly prohibited, to protect the students. These recommendations are to be implemented immediately. R21-7: Ensure that all students receive hall passes from office staff, not the teacher. This recommendation is to be implemented immediately. R21-8: Ensure that “quadrant monitoring” is being completed daily and documented by school administrators throughout the school year, via a sign- in clipboard in each school’s front office for completion verification. This recommendation is to be implemented immediately. R21-9: A “Third Wheel” rule to be instituted whereby an adult third party is always present when a student meets with staff and/or included in any electronic communication. This “Third Wheel” rule ensures the safety of students and staff against misconduct and/or allegations of misconduct due to a witness always being present and/or included. This recommendation is to be implemented immediately. San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 101 SMH R21-10: The Superintendent is to perform short virtual training updates concerning staff sexual misconduct, mandated reporting, grooming, reasonable suspicion, the complaint process, etc., on a quarterly basis to all administrators and school personnel. These trainings are to be available on the RUSD website and available for check-out in all school libraries. This recommendation is to be implemented no later than October 2022. R21-11: Electronic and hard-copy complaints and/or allegations of staff sexual abuse, grooming, etc. retained for a minimum of 10 years. Files of staff sexual misconduct complaints retained in the Superintendent’s office, the Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources office, and the Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services office at the District Office, both electronically and in hard copy for consistency, accountability, and transparency. This recommendation is to be implemented immediately. R21-12: Develop and implement a visual flowchart of the complaint procedures and process, from receipt of complaint to conclusion. Flowchart to be distributed to every school front office in hard copies, put on the RUSD website and “Aeries,” in one of the handbook pamphlets, and placed in staff rooms, classrooms, assembly areas, etc. This recommendation is to be implemented no later than June 2022. R21-13: ACT Now initiative rolled out again by the Superintendent to the District and the communities it serves by April 2022. To be presented to staff meetings, churches, school assemblies, teachers of English classes in Middle and High schools, elementary classrooms, Parent Teachers Association (PTA) or other parent meetings, and other community meetings. This implementation to be done annually and to remain continuously. R21-14: Conduct an annual review of all board policies and administrative policies in these areas, preferably done by a task force headed by the Superintendent, and including, but not limited to, students, parents, staff, school volunteers, and community members. This recommendation is to be implemented no later than October 2022. San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report SMH R21-15: Working cameras to be installed in all locations where teachers and students meet, installations beginning in all classrooms. This recommendation is to be implemented by June 2022 EXHIBITS: E-1: RUSD “Working Smart” tips San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 103 SMH 104 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report SMH San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 105 This Page Left Intentionally Blank 106 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report DOING BUSINESS WITH THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO SUMMARY The City of San Bernardino urgently needs to update, develop, and adopt policy, procedures, and codes of integrity and conduct that will systematically protect it from the past systemic failures in governance. The City of San Bernardino (City) was once a thriving city that won the prestigious All- American City Award in 1977. In the following years, the City’s financial situation grew increasingly dire. By the time the City filed for bankruptcy in 2012, it had accumulated nearly $300 million in unfunded liabilities (i.e., pension funds), there was an estimated $45 million budget deficit, and the General Fund was completely depleted. The City endured a five-year struggle to recover from bankruptcy, which was finally completed in 2017. In subsequent years, the City continued to struggle with declining revenues and increased expenditures. The City made drastic cuts to regular employees and as a result, embraced the practice of outsourcing the services to businesses without a commitment to the success of the City. The quality and timeliness of services provided to the community suffered with little hope or possibility of remedy. Per the proposed 2021/2022 budget, the City has experienced strong revenue growth which is expected to continue over the course of the coming year. The City is in a position to begin to restore the decimated service levels and invest in the City’s infrastructural needs, but the City is by no means out of the woods yet. The City is plagued by media claiming unfair business practices including pay-to-play and rampant accusations of corruption and harassment. These claims were also lodged publicly and during City Council meetings severely impacting the effectiveness of the elected officials. Many of the issues surrounding doing business with the City resulted in numerous lawsuits some of which have been settled at enormous cost to the City. These settlements and losses further reduce the City’s ability to provide necessary services to the residents. The Grand Jury received numerous reports that the persistent cloud of negativity, nepotism, and allegations of corruption, San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 107 directly and indirectly, impacted the ability of the City to recruit and retain long-term employees committed to the success of the City. The overwhelming amount of negative information and community concern over the governance of the City caused the Grand Jury to investigate the City’s management and operations. The City of San Bernardino, its dedicated employees, and its residents deserve better than a continued legacy of failure. Glossary Charter City – A city which operates under the laws contained in the Charter adopted by voters of the City of San Bernardino and laws and rules established by the State of California. The Charter is the basic document that defines the organization, powers, and functions of the city. City – The City of San Bernardino CCB – Commercial Cannabis Business Commercial Cannabis – The legal cultivation, manufacturing, processing, transporting, dispensing, distribution or sale of marijuana. Development Review Committee (DRC) – Is a multi-department committee which reviews development projects prior to and during the permitting process. Ex Parte – The act or activity done with the consideration of only one party or without consideration of all the parties. Pay-to-Play – Politically relates to a situation in which payment is demanded, often illegally, from those wishing to take part in a particular business activity. Procurement – Securing goods and services used for the efficient operation of City departments. San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report RFP – Request for Proposal is a document that announces a project or service need and solicits proposals from interested individuals and/or agencies. METHODOLOGY The Grand Jury determined that the City of San Bernardino is a Charter City operated pursuant to the Council-Manager form of government. The Grand Jury reviewed the City Charter that defines the city’s government and gives the City control over its municipal affairs. The Grand Jury focused extensive research in three primary areas: procurement, permits, and applications/business licenses. The research included a review of the City Code of Conduct, organizational structure, policies and procedures, publicly available websites, City website, City Council meetings, media reports, and the City Development Code. The Grand Jurors interviewed current and former staff, including but not limited to department heads and elected officials, and individuals involved in the City application process as applicants. BACKGROUND The Grand Jury has the responsibility to investigate the Cities, and County organizations in the county by the authority of the California Penal Code § 925a which cites: § 925a. The grand jury may at any time examine the books and records of any incorporated city or joint powers agency located in the county. In addition to any other investigatory powers granted by this chapter, the grand jury may investigate and report upon the operations, accounts, and records of the officers, departments, functions, and the method or system of performing the duties of any such city or joint San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 109 powers agency and make such recommendations as it may deem proper and fit. The purpose of the Grand Jury is to make recommendations where the operations and efficiencies of the organization can improve overall service or save taxpayer’s money. The citizens of the City of San Bernardino are not happy with the governance of their city. The accusations of pay-to-play and unfair business practices has worn the City down and caused a large number of legal actions. Citizens are bone tired of incompetence and unfair bias. During the period of bankruptcy, the budget and staffing in the City were cut to a minimal number. City functions were either assumed by the County of San Bernardino (i.e., fire and protection and emergency medical response services), or were outsourced to Professional Service Providers and Advisors, most of which do not have a presence in the city or county. The City was severely weakened after bankruptcy. The remaining opportunities were limited and resulted in marginal economic stability and growth for the City’s residents. Significant income for the Contracted Professionals and Developers is still being extracted from the City and local resources. Quality-of-life issues of the general population of the City are not the central focus in the current management of the economy. City Website During the course of the investigation, the first challenge the Grand Jury encountered was the City’s website. The website was not user-friendly and lacked current information. An inadequate website causes many issues for the residents and businesses trying to do business with the City. The homepage visual design was cluttered, confusing and outdated. The format of data is not organized in a logical progression and navigation is difficult. Citizens’ confidence and pride are diminished in their city when the City’s website appears unprofessional, not purposeful and lacks adequate security. Since the beginning of Grand Jury’s use of the City website, the City’s Information Technology (IT) system received Department of Justice Security Certification in September 2021. This Certification validates the procedures 110 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report taken to protect from unauthorized access and abuse of the website. This is a very positive step for the City. In addition, it should be noted that considerable financial investment was included in the 2021/2022 budget and some changes and improvements are already underway. The Grand Jury did find several webpages that should be enhanced to improve transparency and information-gathering which would greatly aid the residents and local business community: • The Agenda Web Portal is antiquated, difficult to navigate, and has very limited search capabilities. The agenda is extremely difficult to read and conduct research on, resulting in a public that may not be well-informed on City Council actions. • The City uses PlanetBids for “Bids and RFPs.” PlanetBids is a web- based procurement application that allows staff to manage bids, contracts, insurance certificates and emergency operations. PlanetBids includes all the information related to the City’s procurement activities but requires vendor pre-registration to gain full access. PlanetBids could be used as a dual-purpose site that would inform and update the public and businesses as to procurement opportunities thus improving transparency and openings to doing business with the City. • The Business License page should have the dual-purpose of identifying the licensed business and the nature of those businesses within the City. Enhancing the Business License webpage to allow for multiple search categories would help consumers and businesses connect within the City. Keeping the dollars in the City is beneficial to all. • The Online Permits Search webpage lacks explanation/guidance and has very limited search options which often yield inaccurate results. LICENSES - The appearance of “pay-to-play” The Grand Jury’s review of the California Secretary of State Campaign Finance website (Cal-Access) revealed that contractors and business applicants contributed to candidates and elected officials during the period San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 111 in which they were either engaged or hoped to be engaged in doing business with the City. This review also revealed that elected officials received donations from persons and businesses over which they are called upon to make decisions. The acceptance and timing of contributions appear in nearly all areas of Licenses, Permits, and Procurement. Public complaints and admissions of applicants participating in this practice were noted during public City Council Meetings and during Grand Jury Interviews. The most extreme example that opened the door for potential pay-to-play activities was the Commercial Cannabis Business Permit Application/License process. The City was navigating unchartered waters so missteps should have been expected and dealt with in a transparent manner. The original Application/License included requirements that were confusing and not consistently applied. Changes made by staff in response to the appeals and challenges were filled with oversights, inconsistencies, and often were unfair to the applicants. Not all changes to the process were formally communicated to the applicants, elected officials, or the public. The Grand Jury received reports that during the Application/License process, private meetings between applicants and elected officials took place and that applicants provided gifts, and direct and indirect campaign contributions to elected officials. In an effort to prevent the potential for pay-to-play activities on future Commercial Cannabis Permits, on July 21, 2021, the City approved Integrity Standards (RESOLUTION NO. 2021-166, INTEGRITY STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL CANNABIS PERMIT APPLICANTS), which included: 1. No Ex-Parte Contacts: An applicant and its representatives shall not attempt to contact or initiate contact, in person, by phone, by mail or by electronic means, with the Mayor or any City Council Member. 2. No Gifts: An applicant and its representatives shall not directly or through any agent or intermediary make, or arrange for the making of, any gift to the Mayor, City Council Member or staff person, twelve (12) months immediately preceding the date of the CCB Permit application, while the CCB application is pending and for at least twelve (12) 112 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report months after a CCB permit is awarded. Gift shall have the same meaning as it is defined to have in the California Political Reform Act. 3. No Campaign Contributions: An applicant and its representatives shall not make a campaign contribution or loan of more than two hundred and fifty dollars ($250.00) to the Mayor or any City Council Member while an application is pending. Applicants shall disclose as part of their applications the amount of and the recipient of campaign contributions made in the twenty-four (24) months after the date the application is filed. The Grand Jury applauds this initial effort and recognizes the City’s effort to prevent corruption opportunities in the Commercial Cannabis Permit process. Unfortunately, the Integrity Standards places the burden of “integrity” only on the applicant and not on the elected officials who are the potential recipients of the contact, gift, or campaign contribution. Additionally, the Integrity Standards apply only to the Commercial Cannabis Permit process and not all other business activities within the City. The City has dedicated a huge amount of time and resources on implementing a Commercial Cannabis program that would benefit the City and the residents. Staff, applicants, and the public have suggested that a lottery-type system would be a more fair, transparent, and efficient mechanism to approve future Cannabis businesses. With the many lessons learned from the initial process, the Grand Jury fully supports this suggested change. Cannabis Tax Collection The City carved out a percentage of the Commercial Cannabis revenue to be used for the enforcement of Commercial Cannabis licensing. The licensing process allows the City to monitor compliance and collect the required Cannabis Tax. At the time of the Grand Jury review, more unlicensed than licensed Cannabis businesses existed within the City. The Grand Jury was able to easily identify numerous unlicensed Cannabis businesses. However, the Grand Jury was not able to identify specific law enforcement actions taken in regard to unlicensed Cannabis businesses. San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 113 Beyond the drain on public safety resources, unlicensed businesses do not pay the Cannabis Tax. This tax is necessary to offset the cost to administer the Commercial Cannabis program as well as generate revenue for the General Fund. Increased enforcement costs attributed to unlicensed and untaxed businesses account for significant costs and loss of revenue. Procurement Procurement is the common term used to refer to the process of obtaining services or goods for the City. Procurement activities are conducted by the Purchasing Department which is overseen by the Finance Department. A review of the organizational chart and interviews with staff revealed that the Purchasing Department (Purchasing) included only 1 full time employee. In addition, the Purchasing Guidelines and Procedures Manual, and other written and unwritten practices were incomplete and outdated and were not adhered to by employees involved in securing goods and services. As a result, procurement activities for services often occurred without the necessary oversite to ensure open and fair competition. Non-compliance of the Purchasing Guidelines and Procedures negatively impacted the acquisition of goods and services and the best and most cost-effective product was often not considered or selected. In the absence of ethical and practical oversight, several major procurements were flawed, inconsistent, and lacked transparency. Many of the procurements remain mired in problems, excessive costs, lawsuits, and interrupted services. The true status of these contracts is unknown. The ongoing efforts to pursue resolution have not been conducted in a public and transparent manner. The City website states that it will extend a bidding advantage to local businesses, but it also has a long list of exemptions including: Public Works contracts, Grant Funded contracts or purchases, emergency procurements, sole source contracts and purchases made under a cooperative agreement. The Grand Jury reviewed many of the recent and past professional service contracts issued by the City and found that most of these contracts were made to individuals and firms outside the city and county. San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report As noted previously in this report, access to procurement documents is limited and lacks transparency but the documents that were reviewed demonstrate that efforts to engage local businesses through a bidding advantage have not been successful. Securing contractual relationships with local individuals and businesses is crucial to the success of the community and creates a positive cycle of fiscal and emotional engagement. Inadequate staffing, outdated policies, non-compliance to policies, and a lack of oversight and transparency all contribute to the City’s inability to resolve ongoing procurement issues and prevent future failures. The Purchasing department has commenced an effort to update the procurement policies and the Grand Jury commends this very difficult project. The current budget includes some limited filling of positions with Purchasing, but more staff is necessary to ensure ethical, sound, and transparent procurement activities. Permits and Planning General problems in the permitting process include that the consumer of these services, be they the common citizen or large developer, must navigate through a maze of different City functions: Planning, Development, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), Fire, Code Enforcement, Health Department, and state and federal regulations and permits. The City’s portion of the process is done without full coordination amongst functions. Under these conditions, conflicts, confusion, and poor decision making is to be expected as the norm rather than the exception. The Grand Jury investigated the details behind a development which has garnered wide public comment and news coverage. Our investigational goal was to discover at what point in the process there were failures that created the stalemate and suspended the development project. The investigation included an extensive number of interviews, reading of documents provided by the City and permit research of the accessible City Permit website. The Grand Jury concluded after the review of the permit process that the major fiscal and legal problems would have been avoided if there had been coordinated communications. San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 115 Prior to issuing additional permits to an ongoing project or development, all permits (e.g., city, state, and federal, etc.), should be confirmed as current and in compliance. If those requirements were met and the activity requested is not in violation of State or Federal rules and regulations, a permit issued shall remain viable and not changed or be restricted by future City Council actions. The City should honor the original approved permits and allow the developers to work in accordance with the municipal codes and state and federal laws under which the process began. It is improper for the City to take back a permit under use because of political pressure. It is proper to make code changes that would be enforced from that point forward on new developments, but improper to apply new requirements on already issued permits. Further complicating the navigation of the requirements to obtain development permits is that much of the City’s Planning and Development and Public Works tasks are completed by outside contracted professionals. Outside service providers are not integrated into the daily operation of the permits counter where the public begins the process resulting in time delays, missed requirements and errors in identifying all needs for a project or development. The Grand Jury recommends moving to a One-Stop type of service where the applicant receives information from multiple permitting departments and is provided a clear list of all permits required for the entire proposed project. The Grand Jury also recommends the City enhance its current Development Review Committee process to include all impacted departments and develop an electronic approval process in which all departments must sign off prior to issuing all but the most routine, simple permits. In addition to the internal system failures, Permit/Planning review credibility is harmed by the appearance of pay-to-play when applicants make campaign contributions at strategic times in the applicable process. The very appearance of pay-to-play entering the Permitting/Planning Process has led to distrust in the process and potential legal liabilities to the City. It is important that the adopted CCB Integrity Standards apply to all facets of doing business with the City (especially Permits and Planning), so that the 116 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report public and businesses gain confidence in the health and operations of the City. The Grand Jury also suggests, as part of the City’s current financial planning, to return to in-house professional staffing rather than contracted professional services. The Grand Jury recognizes the dedicated City employees who strive to do the best job possible for the customers, but they are at the mercy of contracted service providers who do not share a long term vested interest in the success of the City. While investigating development permits, the issue of bonding came to the attention of the Grand Jury. In the review of Business Licenses and Building and Development Permits, a variety of bonding requirements were discovered. Bond, Insurance, and Indemnification levels are intended to protect the City from risk and liability. Currently, bond requirements are not assessed proportionate to the actual risk to the City. Bonds are not a means to recover costs of permit process, City Council approved fees are collected for that purpose. Bonds should only be used to cover real risk to the City. Non-performance bonds should be applied to only City Public Work Projects, not businesses failing to open on a projected timeline. For example, a recent bonding requirement for an improperly permitted “construction yard” was a deposit of $1,000. The resulting cost to the City to clean up a construction yard can and in this case, likely will, greatly exceed that bond. On the other hand, the bond for a Commercial Cannabis license holder to ensure that licensee opens a business within 12 months is $200,000. This requirement is intended to ensure the City recovers the exceptional costs associated with preparing for a Commercial Cannabis business. If the Cannabis business encounters lengthy delays or fails to open, the City needs a mechanism to recover the cost of staff time, document preparation, etc. However, the City controls the many required processes (such as permits and inspections) which can impact the opening date. In light of the current system failures within the permitting process, the business could potentially be penalized for not opening as required when the City is also responsible for the failure. The Grand Jury was not able to determine real-time risk San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 117 justification for a $200,000 bond and finds the amount excessive, unfairly punitive and a detriment to all businesses. Another example is the indemnification requirement for a Snow Cone or Fruit vendor which is set at $1,000,000. Evidence established that there is a disconnect between the purpose and use of the bonds and indemnification levels. The Grand Jury finds that such practices do not protect the City from large risks and negatively impacts small businesses. The City should consider a public review of their bonding and indemnification requirements and the methodology used for calculating the amounts levied. On the other hand, the fees charged for Permits and Licenses are calculated based on recovering the cost of processing that permit. The current fee schedule was publicly presented and approved in July 2020. The Grand Jury fully supports this transparent business practice and recommends a similar process be used for all charges applied to customers doing business with the City. City Leadership Lack of documented systems and processes, policies and procedures leave elected officials and employees without clear direction or rules to follow. All aspects of City operations and governance are hampered by inconsistent communications. There is also a department-wide lack of policies and procedures, and very limited written guidelines which leave employees without clear direction or rules to follow. Absent clear direction, employees do not have the tools they need to successfully perform their duties, and interacting with elected officials, management, and the public is unnecessarily difficult. In addition to financial and operational challenges, the City is forced to function in the midst of a dysfunctional and uninformed legislative body. Despite a change to the Charter in 2016 and several elections, relations between the elected officials (especially during public meetings) are strained and contentious. Elected officials report a lack of clear understanding of the budget, how the City operates, and their defined roles as policy makers. The 118 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report Grand Jury supports the expressed desire of staff and elected officials to be informed and educated through concise and specific training. Training should be in easily accessible and multiple formats such as managed tutorials, video training, and department-specific training. Creative use of low-cost media such as YouTube presentations or Recorded Limited Access Teams Presentations could all be part of a curriculum specific to the City of San Bernardino, allowing for the accommodation of different schedule demands and learning styles. FINDINGS