Anderson Union High School District Reason for Investigation:

While investigating two citizens’ complaints, the Grand Jury found that the Superintendent and the District complied with relevant sections of both District policy and the California Education Code in a timely manner.

During the tour of four campuses, the Grand Jury found the facilities to be in good repair and well maintained.

The California Department of Education publishes the Academic Performance Index (API) for each school in the state annually. The API is an index designed to measure the school’s overall academic performance. Test scores, socio-economic factors, and location (rural or urban) determine the API. For the 2001/2002 school year, Anderson High School had an API of

The California Education Code requires districts such as AUHSD to maintain a 3% budgetary reserve for economic uncertainties. As of July 2002, the District had accumulated a reserve of approximately 13.5% of its annual budget. In March of 2003, the Board of Trustees decided to use approximately $500,000 of this reserve in order to retain 11 teachers and some classes which would otherwise have been eliminated due to state budget cuts.

During fiscal year 2001/2002, the Anderson Union High School District had a financial deficit of $697,688. A deficit of $114,603 is projected for 2002/2003. Adequate funds were available from the reserve to cover the deficits.

According to Shasta County Office of Education information, AUHSD has experienced declining enrollment over the past four years, as have most other districts within the county.

During the investigation of a citizen’s complaint, the Grand Jury found the District’s administering of certain grant funds to be in order.

AUHSD provides a benefit to the elected Board of Trustees in the form of a paid health insurance policy. The cost of this comprehensive, family health insurance policy is $9,324 per year per Trustee. Some Trustees have declined the benefit. Other school districts in Shasta County that were contacted by the Grand Jury do not offer this benefit to their board members.

The Grand Jury conducted random checks of the credentials held by certain administrators of AUHSD and found the credentials held to be the proper ones for the current assignment.

Early in the investigation, the Grand Jury interviewed the publisher of a local newspaper in Anderson. The newspaper had published several articles critical of AUHSD. These articles were of both the editorial and hard news type. During the interview, the publisher provided the Grand Jury with several allegations and “facts” in both written and verbal form regarding the District. These statements, if true, would indicate improper acts. The Grand Jury spent considerable time and effort attempting to corroborate these allegations and “facts”. The Grand Jury ascertained that nearly all of the “facts” and allegations were unfounded.

The Grand Jury obtained information from seven other counties in the State, all of which have delegated the authority of approving and paying claims to the Auditor-Controller through resolution or other action of the Board. It appears that Shasta County’s process of categorizing some claims as board claims requires less scrutiny by the Auditor-Controller’s staff because if there is no obvious reference on the claim to a purchase order, contract, or other authorization, the claim is simply passed on to the Board for approval. This practice may save time during the initial steps of the process, but the time required for thorough review by members of the Board of Supervisors and the week-long delay in getting payments to vendors results in inefficiency.

California Government Code section 29747 requires the Auditor-Controller to prepare a list of all claims allowed by the Auditor-Controller, showing the date allowed, warrant number, name of claimant, and amount allowed. The list is required to be certified by the Auditor-Controller and one copy filed in the office of the Board of Supervisors, which is not currently being done.

The 2001/2002 Grand Jury recommended that the Auditor-Controller process claims for payment in a timely manner and that the Board of Supervisors authorize an outside contract auditor to conduct a management audit of the Auditor-Controller’s Office. On October 8, 2002, the Board of Supervisors voted to authorize such an audit. As of June1, 2003, the management audit had not been conducted.