📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
Glenn County Grand Jury
• 2011-2012
Glenn County Office of Education Policies and Harassment Training
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 5 findings
F1
GSRM does not require harassment training; it only provides it as a service to educate their members. It is up to the department to follow the law for supervisor harassment training.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
GSRM has no authority over any county office and cannot demand employees are
No recommendations for this finding
F3
trained. In the event there is a harassment suit filed, any and all county
No recommendations for this finding
F4
employees trained or not, will not be denied coverage. Other than people in supervisory positions, other staff may receive peer training, but it is
No recommendations for this finding
F5
not a requirement of GSRM. A request of GCOE to provide the status of harassment training to all current supervisory per- sonnel revealed that of the 49 eligible management position (as of 3/1/2012), 8 have been com- pleted, with the remainder to be completed by June 30, 2012. GCOE does not offer peer-to-peer harassment training to subordinates. CONCLUSIONS IV. Checks and balances between the Glenn County Office of Education and the Glenn County Board of Education have improved over the past few years, with ongoing development of poli- cies that dictate their interactions. Harassment training is acceptable from the standpoint of GCOE meeting the requirements of the state and their insurer. V.
No recommendations for this finding