Sonoma County Grand Jury • 2003-2004

Santa Rosa City Schools Citizens Bond Oversight Committee:

Published: July 01, 2004 4 pages
View Original PDF

Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12, F13, F14, F15, F16, F17, F18, F19, F20, F21, F22, F23, F24, F25, F26, F27, F28, F29, F30, F31, F32, F33, F34, F35, F36, F37, F38

Findings and Recommendations 7 findings

F1
There is no legal prohibition against an elected board such as the Board of Education having in their regulations or bylaws a stipulation that members of an appointed committee such as the Citizens Bond Oversight Committee “serve at the pleasure of the board.” However, the jury heard testimony that should wording such as “removal for cause” be used instead, it could be “extremely hard” to remove members. Even so, according to an 11/16/2001 Bulletin issued by Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, a law firm specializing in school finance, it is recommend that to establish independence for a bond oversight 2/4 July 1, 2004 committee it would be preferable that removal of committee members be for specified causes such as malfeasance or repeated absence.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
The first Committee meeting for which there are minutes on their website was held 10/3/2003, 19 months after the bond election. It took an additional 5 months for the Committee membership to reach the legal minimum of seven. By February 2004, the Committee had eight members, but was still short a member from one of the five designated demographic classifications. A Board member stated that it was difficult to recruit and maintain members despite heavy advertising.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The Board should devote more attention to staffing and supporting its Committee. All five specified demographic slots must be filled in accordance with law.
F3
The grand jury reviewed the line item performance and financial audits for the fiscal years ending June 2002 and June 2003 as compiled by an independent outside audit firm hired by the Board. Total expenditures for the two years were under budget as of June 2003, and the individual line items were generally under budget as well, contrary to one of the allegations of the complainant. Further, no exceptions to Proposition 39 rules were noted by the auditor in the performance audits. The Committee reviewed these audits also, and concluded that they were thorough and felt no need to duplicate the audits or investigate more deeply.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
The grand jury heard testimony that the Board changes audit firms every two or three years to maintain independence.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
The Committee must meet at least two times per year as required by Administrative Regulation 1172.4. At present, the Committee contemplates three meetings per year. The Committee must communicate with the public by internet and by an annual report. The grand jury reviewed the meeting minutes of other bond oversight committees in California and other states on the internet and found a wide variation in the quality and depth of their activities. For example, Eureka City Schools Committee meets almost every month, makes site visits and reviews Requests for Proposals.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3
The Committee should develop an oversight plan that encompasses the complete expenditure process for Proposition 39 construction funds. Review of the activities of other Committees may provide examples to emulate. Beyond the review of audits, the Committee could add value by active review of proposals and plans prior to expenditure and on-site visits. These activities are authorized by Proposition 39.
R4
The Committee should use its website to keep the public well-informed about the proposed and actual expenditures of Proposition 39 funds. Required Responses to Findings None. Required Responses to Recommendations Santa Rosa City Schools Board of Education – R1, R2 Citizens Bond Oversight Committee – R3, R4
F6
The grand jury heard testimony that the Committee had only enough time to review the audit reports. It had not engaged in other activities such as reviewing proposals or conducting on-site visits. Conclusions The grand jury finds that by having a “serving at the pleasure of the board” regulation, the Board is sending an unnecessary and unwise signal to the members of the Committee to maintain a low profile. This regulation may compromise the independence of the Committee that is intended by law to have oversight of Proposition 39 bond expenditures by the Board. The Committee is just now beginning its mission nearly two years after passage of Proposition 39. As a result of the long delay, there was minimal Committee activity from which the jury could evaluate its effectiveness. The Committee is planning a minimal program of oversight. According to its latest meeting minutes, it will meet three times per year, for about two hours each time. It will review the budget line items in the independent audit as provided by the Board. Considering the large amount of Proposition 39 money still to be expended, and the need for public confidence that this money is spent wisely, there is great opportunity for the Committee to actively exercise oversight and report fully to the public in a timely manner. The tentative Committee decision not 3/4 July 1, 2004 to duplicate the independent audit is reasonable. However, on-site inspections and review of proposals and plans prior to expenditure should also be part of its oversight.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1
The Board should remove the wording specifying that “members serve at the pleasure of the board” from its regulations. Substitute language should be used to the effect that members and Chairpersons of the Committee may be removed by the Board with due discretion, but that it cannot be arbitrary, capricious or discriminatory.
R3
The Committee should develop an oversight plan that encompasses the complete expenditure process for Proposition 39 construction funds. Review of the activities of other Committees may provide examples to emulate. Beyond the review of audits, the Committee could add value by active review of proposals and plans prior to expenditure and on-site visits. These activities are authorized by Proposition 39.
F39
As a result of the long delay, there was minimal Committee activity from which the jury could evaluate its effectiveness. The Committee is planning a minimal program of oversight. According to its latest meeting minutes, it will meet three times per year, for about two hours each time. It will review the budget line items in the independent audit as provided by the Board. Considering the large amount of Proposition 39 money still to be expended, and the need for public confidence that this money is spent wisely, there is great opportunity for the Committee to actively exercise oversight and report fully to the public in a timely manner. The tentative Committee decision not 3/4 July 1, 2004 to duplicate the independent audit is reasonable. However, on-site inspections and review of proposals and plans prior to expenditure should also be part of its oversight.
No recommendations for this finding

Conclusions 1

No Responses Found 1

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

Santa Rosa High School District School District