2011-2012 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report Luther Burbank School District Misses the Mark

from the Report4 states: Mr. Rodriguez was overly influential in LBSD governance as a consultant. His consultant contract was overly broad and placed inadequate limits on the scope of his duties. Despite his having only a consultant status, Mr. Rodriguez was permitted to exercise direct authority over staff and was given unlimited access to confidential records. Mr. Rodriguez’ letter dated June 23, 2011 states: On June 20, 2011 a copy of your report was hand delivered to my office at Luther Burbank School District. I have reviewed the report and was rather surprised that you would publish such a report without confirming many of the details with me. It states in your report that the 2010-2011 Grand Jury conducted 25 interviews, however I was not interviewed in regards to conclusions made in your report. The LBSD Response states: The District feels the credibility of this Grand Jury report is compromised because some of the Findings express opinions rather than facts, and have needlessly defamed reputations of named parties – without even having taken testimony from the persons who are named. 4 2010-2012 Grand Jury Report, Burbank Revisited, p. 12. Report Finding 7

from the Report5 states: Mr. Rodriguez misled a Board member and board members-elect by suggesting that they could meet and reach consensus on matters coming before the Board. His email dated November 7, 2010 proposed meeting with Board members as a group prior to their swearing in. The email uses language which indicates an effort to circumvent the Brown Act. Mr. Rodriguez’ letter dated June 23, 2011 states: I just want to clarify once again that the board members elect on November 7, 2010 were not considered “elected officials” and were therefore not bound by the rules and regulations of the Brown Act. The votes were still being counted at that time and the certification of the November 2010 election did not happen until November 20, 2010. The LBSD Response states: The Brown Act requirements apply to Board members . . . . Because the conversation referred to in the e-mail evidence submitted to the Grand Jury took place between private individuals before any election was certified there were no board-members elect, therefore no violation of the Brown Act. It is not unusual for an agency to disagree with the Grand Jury’s findings. However, it is noteworthy when a response asserts that the Grand Jury had not performed its work with due diligence. Such was the case in the LBSD Response. In particular, LBSD’s Response to Report Finding 1 that Mr. Rodriguez was overly influential asserts the Grand Jury drew its conclusions without interviewing named parties. LBSD Response to Report Finding 1 was a particularly concerning assertion given that Penal Code Section 933.05(e) requires that “the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation regarding the investigation” unless excused by the court. LBSD Response to Report Finding 7 (that Mr. Rodriguez misled board members and board members-elect) asserts a position, championed in Mr. Rodriguez’ letter, that an elected official’s election results must be “certified” before the official is required to conform his or her conduct to the Brown Act. Ibid, p. 14. To understand how the LBSD Response was prepared and why its assertions were directly counter to the fact-finding of last year’s Grand Jury, the Grand Jury interviewed key individuals knowledgeable about the sources and information used to prepare the District’s Response. LBSD Process for Responding to the Grand Jury Report The letter from Mr. Rodriguez and the content of LBSD’s formal response to the Report are similar enough that the Grand Jury could conclude that Mr. Rodriguez either personally assisted in preparing the Response or he and/or his letter was the basis of information used in the Response. This Grand Jury’s investigation confirmed that Mr. Rodriguez was the source for LBSD’s Response to Findings 1 and 7. Officials with the District agreed that Mr. Rodriguez was upset about the Grand Jury Report and, in hindsight, he lacked the objectivity to be a source in preparing the Response and it was improper to rely on him. Mr. Rodriguez’ personal interest in the Report that was critical of him is good reason for the District to have specifically avoided his influence in their Response. His involvement—in any capacity—in preparing the formal LBSD Response was clearly a conflict of interest. Nonetheless, LBSD’s Response relied on discussions with Mr. Rodriguez and on his personal response without any independent fact-finding. Given that the Report was critical of Mr. Rodriguez, his participation in the LBSD’s formal Response—whether directly or indirectly—was improper. LBSD Response to Finding Number One By statute, the District was required to agree or disagree with the Grand Jury’s finding that its consultant was overly influential. The District Response was that the Grand Jury was expressing opinion, not fact, because it failed to interview the necessary parties. The Grand Jury reviewed archived documents and indisputably confirmed that the parties necessary to support Report Finding 1 were interviewed. After being shown relevant documents, the District conceded that the prior Grand Jury had done due diligence in its fact-finding and, thus, conceded that the Response was an erroneous assertion on behalf of the District. In reaching this conclusion, the District also conceded that it relied on the same official that last year’s Grand Jury found was overly influential. As discussed above, and to the District’s credit, it also acknowledged that it was an error to rely on the subject of the finding. LBSD Response to Finding Number Seven LBSD’s Response to Finding 7 was based on Mr. Rodriguez’ June 23, 2011 letter and no other source. District officials believed Mr. Rodriguez was very knowledgeable about the Brown Act and took no other steps to investigate the Grand Jury’s findings and