Investigation Into Operations of the Orchard School District Abstract superintendent admittedly contributed to a

Despite having had training and despite the availability of outside support resources, the OSD Board of Trustees erred in at least three major areas: business and organizational management; compliance with state education codes; and compliance with the Brown Act. (Ref. Facts #1-29)

The board exhibited gross negligence in financial planning and control, including: failure to monitor expenditures versus budgets; failure to assess the risks associated with budget planning assumptions; and failure to ensure adequate funding for all district policy decisions. Various education codes limit or require special authorizations to move district monies between general operational funds and “capital” funds (including interest). The evidence collected by the Grand Jury indicates that the board and superintendent either did not understand these requirements or chose to ignore them. (Ref. Facts # 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21)

The board failed to understand the balanced management focus necessary to accomplish concurrent district goals. The board and the superintendent focused almost entirely on test scores to the exclusion of other critical areas. (Ref. Facts # 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29)

The board did not recognize or act upon the seriously deteriorating relationship 7 Act Section 54954.2) (Ref. Facts # 11 & 14)

Personnel decisions were made without projections for determining needs. The resulting imbalance of teaching staff contributed to the serious shortfall in the 2000-2001 budget. (Ref. Facts # 18, 19, 20)

The board did not follow state guidelines to ensure fair personnel practices for all employees. (Ref. Facts #19 & 23)

The board and its administration failed to consistently create and maintain the documents necessary to maintain orderly records of its meetings and official actions as required by California Education Code Section 35163. (Ref. Facts # 12, 13, 15) The story of OSD is a cautionary tale for school boards statewide. The public trust was breeched at almost every level of OSD administration. As the district teetered between difficulties and chaos, the consequences of the board’s weak governance grew increasingly serious.

The board failed to make timely reports of budgets and expenditures to the county office of education as required by California Education Code Section 42100. (Ref. Fact # 21) In the opinion of the Grand Jury, the most troublesome blunder at OSD was an apparent lack of respect for the public’s right to oversee the business of the district. This disregard for the principle of open government by the OSD board and superintendent was evidenced by outright neglect of the Brown Act and relevant sections of the appropriate California codes.

The district failed to monitor the status of compliance to legal mandates. The board was oblivious to these issues, thereby incurring risk to the district’s legal status and, in some cases, to the quality of education being provided OSD students. (Ref. Fact # 22) The public has both a right and a duty to ask reasonable questions and to expect that those questions be answered. This process provides a safeguard that is critical to the successful operation of democratic government. At OSD, a careless board and autocratic administration created an environment ripe for disaster. Had the public been given proper access to the workings of the district, the problems at OSD might have been recognized and averted before the current crisis.

The board failed to consistently post required agendas sufficiently ahead of meetings and then failed to consistently follow the agendas during meetings as required by the Brown Act. This omission hindered the public’s ability to understand when and how decisions were to be made. Consequently, the public’s ability to make fair comment before the board was abridged. (Brown

The board failed to conduct closed sessions in the approved manner, including properly reporting actions taken, as required by the Brown Act. This omission thwarted the public’s ability to understand what was happening in the district. (Brown Act Sections 54954.2 and 54957). (Ref. Fact # 12)

Prior to March 2001 there had not been a continuously functioning School Site Council, a violation of Education Code Sections 52011 and 52012. During this time, parents and staff were asked to sign documents, implying that the council existed when it did not.

A school-wide plan, including a needs assessment, developed with broad involvement of school personnel and parents was not in place, as required by Education Code Section 52011.

There was no Gifted and Talented Education Program (GATE) during the 2000-2001 school year. It is unclear just how long this situation had existed prior to 2000-2001. Until parents openly complained, the district had improperly accepted the GATE money issued by the state. The 2000-2001 money has since been returned.

No process was in place for disseminating information about the complaint procedures to students, employees, parents, guardians, school advisory committees and interested parties, as required by district policies 1313 and 1314.

Because the OSD English Language Learners Program has been frequently out of compliance, the district has been targeted by the state department of education to participate in a specialized process of strict monitoring and intensive assistance. This program targets chronically non-compliant English Language Learners Programs