📋
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.

Yuba County Grand Jury • 2014-2015

Angil P. Morris-jones County Counsel John R. Vacek

Published: June 19, 2015 26 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F2, F4

Findings and Recommendations 3 findings

F1 Page 187
is entirely premised on the Grand Jury's assertion that a conflict of interest (or potential conflict of interest) existed and that there was a violation of Board Bylaw 9270. As stated in the District's response to the 2013-2014 Grand Jury Report, there was no conflict of interest, nor was there any violation of Board Bylaw 9270. Accordingly, the Board disagrees with Finding 1. The Honorable Julia L. Scrogin August 11, 2015 B. Finding 2: "The 2014-2015 Grand Jury has additionally identified a lack of communication between the Superintendent and the MJUSD Board of Trustees. The Superintendent did not communicate to the MJUSD Board of potential illegal contracts or contract bid splitting of the demolition of MJUSD facilities. It was reported to the Grand Jury through interviews that the Superintendent was aware of, and allowed, the contract splitting of demolition of facilities. The Superintendent did not seek prior approval from the Board for the demolition. As a result, a lawsuit was filed by the lowest bidder and an out of court settlement cost the MJUSD approximately double the work completed. (Board Meeting Minutes, Audio and Written, http://www.mjusd.k12.ca.us) .. Response to Finding 2: Communication and discussion relating to anticipated or pending litigation (e.g. threatened or existing lawsuits) is a proper subject ofclosed session. (Gov. Code, § 54956.9.) As a result, the Board may not disclose detail on such communication or discussion without risking violation of confidential communications from those closed sessions. (Gov. Code, § 54963.) Accordingly, the Board cannot agree or disagree with Finding 2. Furthermore, the Board is not aware of any illegal contracts or illegal bid splitting, and disagrees with Finding 2 to the extent it asserts those as fact. The Board acknowledges that on March 11,2014 they reached a settlement and release agreement. C. Finding 3: "The 2014-2015 Grand Jury identified that the MJUSD Board does not properly provide the public with board meeting agendas. Grand Jury members attended numerous Board meetings and could not locate the agendas posted in some of the stated locations. The MJUSD Board does not properly provide the public with the meeting agenda as specified in the published MJUSD Board Meeting Agendas. See below MJUSD Notification of Meetings as stated in every Board Meeting Agenda: Notification o(Meetings To provide the public with information about what will be on each board meeting agenda, a public notice is published in the newspaper on Thursday prior to a regularly scheduled board meeting Listing items of interest being considered by the Board. In addition, a copy ofevery board meeting agenda is posted at all schools, sent to each PTA President and School Site Council Chairperson, posted on the district website, and available for review at the following locations: District Office "Public Notice Bulletin Board," Yuba County Library, and the Chamber of Commerce. The Grand Jury identified that the MJUSD Board does not properly provide the public with information on the MJUSD Office Public Notice Bulletin Board, Board Meeting Location, and various schools, County Library or the Chamber of Commerce." The Honorable Julia L. Scrogin August 11,2015 Response to Finding 3: The Board disagrees with Finding 3 to the extent it asserts the Board has not complied with open meeting laws concerning posting of agendas. The Brown Act requires that the agenda "shall be posted in a location that is freely accessible to members of the public and on the local agency's Internet Web site, if the local agency has one." (Gov. Code, § 54954.2.) Moreover, Board Bylaw 9320 states that "the agenda shall be posted at one or more locations freely accessible to members of the public." I The Board is not aware of any meeting or agenda posting that did not comply with open meeting laws or with the Board's Bylaw on agenda posting. The Board partially agrees with Finding 3 to the extent it asserts that for the 2014-2015 school year the Board did not post agendas consistent with the language on the Board's agenda concerning locations to post the agenda. On October 14, 2014, the Board ceased posting its agendas at the physical locations noted in Finding 3, and began posting its agendas online to increase transparency and accessibility of the agendas. (Prior to October 14,2014, the Board posted all agendas at the locations noted in Finding 3.) Due to the online posting system, the additional posting locations as stated on the agenda (e.g. Yuba County Library, and the Chamber of Commerce) were no longer necessary and the District ceased posting in those locations. In September 2014, the last Board meeting agenda was mailed out and posted for the September 23, 2014 meeting as set forth in Finding 3. At that time, the following note was attached to each agenda (this note was also mailed or emailed to all District stakeholders on the District's distribution list): Beginning with the 10114114 board meeting, copies ofthe agenda will no longer be distributed. The agenda and related documents can be viewed on the MJUSD website. www.mjusd.com Select: *Board Select: *Board Agendas and Minutes Unfortunately, the agenda template language was not immediately revised to reflect this change. Thus, the agenda language cited in Finding 3 inadvertently remained unchanged even though the District's process and procedure for posting the agenda changed. As a result, the language on the agenda was incorrect. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. As of June 2015, the agenda template has been revised and corrected as follows: 1 All Board Bylaws, Board Policies, and Administrative Regulations are available online here: http://www.mjusd.com/cms/One.aspx?portalld= 14040 1& pageld=43 943 The Honorable Julia L. Scrogin August 11,2015 Notification o(Meetings To provide the public with information regarding agenda items being considered by the Board of Trustees, a public notice is published as follows: * Posted on the MJUSD district website at www.mjusd.com. * Posted on the Public Notice Bulletin Board at the MJUSD District Office at 1919 B Street, Marysville, CA 95901 [located in the hallway outside the Superintendent's Office, Room 101] . * Emailed to all employees of the district, the Appeal-Democrat, and KUBA. D. ''Through interviews, the 2014-2015 Grand Jury has found the Superintendent and MJUSD Board have not established district goals and objectives for the MJUSD Superintendent for each succeeding year, no later than 15 June of the new school year as stipulated in Current Employment Contract between Superintendent and the Governing Board of the of the Marysville Joint Unified School District of Yuba County, California. Interviews with Board Members confirmed that the Superintendent and the MJUSD Board did not establish District goals and objectives by June 15,2014. The Contract states that the Board evaluates the MJUSD Superintendent with the Contract, Job Description, District Goals and Objectives as established by the Board and Superintendent, and the Superintendent Self-Evaluation. The District goals and objectives are a portion of the MJUSD Superintendent evaluation. The Superintendent and the Board are in violation of the current Contract stipulation to jointly establish goals and objectives and reduce to writing for the current school year no later than June 15 of each subsequent year." Response to Finding 4: The Board agrees with Finding 4 regarding the language of the Superintendent's Contract. The Superintendent's Contract provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Commencing no later than August 15,2012, and no later than June 15 of each subsequent school year ofthis CONTRACT, SUPERINTENDENT and BOARD shall establish DISTRICT goals and objectives for the following school year. These goals and objectives shall be among the criteria by which SUPERINTENDENT is evaluated as hereafter provided. The Board disagrees with Finding 4 to the extent it alleges the Board and Superintendent are in violation of the current Contract. The Board and the Superintendent have established written yearly goals each and every year dating back to the inception of the Superintendent's employment in 2005. Each year, the Superintendent has presented written goals to the Board and each year the Board has had an opportunity to comment and provide input. While the Board may not have formally adopted the goals for 2014, the Superintendent presented these written goals prior to June 15. Matters related to the evaluation of the Superintendent are conducted in The Honorable Julia L. Scrogin August 11, 2015 closed session pursuant to Government Code section 54957(b)(1). As a result, the Board may not disclose further detail on this matter without risking violation of confidential communications from those closed sessions. (Gov. Code, § 54963.) E. Finding 5: liThe 2014-2015 Grand Jury has confirmed through interviews from MJUSD employees, staff and Board members that a hostile work environment exists within the Marysville Joint Unified School District. Fear of reprisal, retaliation, retribution and loss ofjob or position has been given to the Grand Jury as examples. Interviews have also revealed loss of faith in the MJUSD system along with fear of speaking to Board members. Employees and staff have expressed that intimidation and manipulation exists within the District. The Grand Jury identified the formal MJUSD system Uniform Complaint Procedures, Board Policy 1312, Interviews with District employees, staff and Board members indicated that this is a cumbersome and non-confidential system and is not being utilized. District employees and staff members stated they fear use of this system will result in possible reprisal, retaliation, retribution and Joss ofjob or position." Response to Finding 5: The Board disagrees with Finding 5. The Board is not aware ofany employee, staff, or Board member that has complained of, or been subject to, unlawful discrimination, harassment, retaliation, or hostile work environment. To the extent someone feels they have been subject to such an environment, the Board encourages them to seek informal resolution of the situation, and if unsuccessful, then they may file a wTitten complaint. With regard to the Uniform Complaint Procedures, Board Policy 1312.3 is modeled after the legally required procedure for uniform complaints as set forth in California Code of Regulations, title 5, Section 4600 et seq. Because this procedure is mandated by law, the Board cannot provide modification to this procedure to make it more or less cumbersome or complex. District Board Policies and Administrative Regulations governing complaints are consistent with industry standard for public school districts in California. The Board encourages anyone with a concern to contact their local administrator and discuss their concern. No specific procedure is required for such contact. Furthermore, Board Policies and Administrative Regulations governing complaints are crystal clear, stating that: The Board acknowledges and respects every individual's right to privacy. Discrimination, harassment, intimidation, or bullying complaints shall be investigated in a manner that protects the confidentiality of the parties and the integrity of the process. This may include keeping the identity of the complainant confidential, as appropriate and except to the extent necessary to carry out the investigation or proceedings, as determined by the Superintendent or designee, on a case-by-case basis. The Honorable Julia L. Scrogin August 11,2015 The Board prohibits any form of retaliation against any complainant in the complaint process, including but not limited to a complainant's filing of a complaint or the reporting of instances of discrimination. Such participation shall not in any way affect the status, grades, or work assignments ofthe complainant. (See e.g. Board Policy 1312.3.) REQUIRED RESPONSES TO RECOMMENDATIONS A. Recommendation 1: "The Grand Jury recommends the MJUSD Board of Trustees shall immediately direct MJUSD Superintendent to improve communications with the Board. (See Fl )" Response to Recommendation 1: Already implemented. The Superintendent is, and has always been, required to maintain effective communications with the Board. Board Policy 2111, Superintendent Governance Standards, provides that the Superintendent is required to: Communicate openly with trust and integrity, including providing all members of the Board with equal access to information and recognizing the importance of both responsive and anticipatory communications. B. Recommendation 2: "The Grand Jury recommends the MJUSD Board of Trustees shall immediately direct MJUSD Superintendent to improve communications with the Board. Improved communications would give the Board information needed to ensure that potential illegal contracts or bid splitting is avoided. (See F2)" Response to Recommendation 2: See Response to Recommendation 1. C. Recommendation 3: "The MJUSD Board needs to properly provide the public with every future board meeting agenda as specified in the published MJUSD Board Meeting Agendas. (See
No recommendations for this finding
F3 Page 175
The Yuba Caunty Administrative Services Directar and the Yuba County Airport Manager responded to a 2013-14finding that: 17here is a posted lin an emergency' placard in every hangar to call 911 in an emergency. " The 2014-15 Grand Jury did locate the Nin an emergencY' checklist placard at the Yuba County Airport (provided asfigure #1 in their report). The Grand Jury, however, found it contained deficiencies: • Phone numbers are not listedfor the Airport Manager or Airport Lead Maintenance Worker. • There ;s no date listed on the checklist to indicate when it was last reviewed orupdated. • There is no point ofcontact ta notify ifthere are any issues with the checklist 915 8TH STREET, SUITE 119. - MARYSVILLE.CA 95901-5273 • The checklist does not define the acronyms FAA, NOTAM, or ELT. • The checklist does not identify who is to notify the FAA or how. Administrative Services Director partially disagrees with this finding. It has been updated. There has been some confusion about what's posted in the hangars of the airport. About a year ago, the attached placard (figure 1 below) was placed in the hangars of the airport printed on bright yellow card stock. It was a much simpler list of who to call and reduced any confusion about who should notify the FAA or other entity. Just a clear list of numbers to call. IN CASE OF EMERGENCY CONTACT: EMERGENCY 911 (FIRE, SHERIFF, ETC.) OPUD FIRE DEPARTMENT 743-7117 (NONEMERGENCY) OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES 749-7520 (NONEMERGENCY) AIRPORT MANAGER AFTER HOURS 682-9003 Figure 1 In addition to this placard being placed in each hangar, an Emergency Procedures checklist was updated based on the Grand Jury's feedback. It is also posted in common pilot areas, and has been redistributed to all public safety agencies supporting the airport. A similar document has previously been shared with all local agencies, and was resent on a regular basis, but this newly updated document has also been shared again with them.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
Page 177
The Grand Jury recommends the Yuba County Airport Manager immediately update the "in an emergency" checklist posted at the airport to include: (See F3) • Phone numbers listed for the Airport Manager and the Airport Lead Maintenance worker. • A date listed to indicate when it was last reviewed and updated. A listed point ofcontact to notify if there are any issues with the checklist. • Spell out the acronyms FAA, NOTAM, and ELT. • Indicate who will notify the FAA. Administrative Services Director agrees with this finding. It has already been implemented. A revised Emergency Call List and an updated Emergency Procedures has been posted by the Airport Manager and shared with her large clients. A sample is attached.
F5 Page 176
The 2013-2014 Grand Jury recommended "The Administrative Services Director revise and update the Airport Manager Job Description to reflect current duties and responsibilities. " The Yuba County Administrative Services Director and the Yuba County Airport Manager responded: "This recommendation will be implemented. The Administrative Services Director will coordinate with the Director ofHuman Resources to review the class specificationfor the Airport Manager and determine ifany updates are needed. This will be done within 30 days. " The Yuba County Board ofSupervisors responded to the samefinding: "This recommendation will be implemented byrequesting a review ofthe job specifications immediately with the intent to complete the review by the end ofthe current fiscal year. " The 2014-2015 Grand Jury conducted an interview with the Yuba County Administrative Services Director on March 26, 2015. The Airport Manager's class specification review (job description), as of that date, was still not complete. The Yuba County Administrative Services Director is in violation of Penal Code §933.05 (b)(2). Administrative Services Director agrees with this finding. It has already been completed. When I last met with the Grand Jury in March of 2015, I had already initiated contact with Human Resources to revise the job description. When a job description update is being requested by an employee it is a high priority but when it's not due to an employee request, it is a lesser priority. I had told them it was a low priority to be done as time and workload allowed. But the job description has been updated and is posted on the Human Resources effective April 2015. http://www.co.yuba.ca.us/Departments/Personnel/documents/Specifications/A/Airport%20 Manager%20April%202015.pdf
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
Page 177
The Grand Jury recommends the Yuba County Board ofSupervisors directs the Yuba County Administrative Services Director to ensure the Yuba County Airport Manager's job specification review (job description) is complete, as represented, by the end of the 2014-2015 fiscal year. (See F5) Administrative Services Director agrees with this finding. It has already been completed. A sample is attached or you may also see the updated class specification at this link: http://www.co.yuba.ca.us/Departments/Personnel/documents/Specifications/A/Airport%20Manager% 20April%202015.pdf sin~;j~/ t D4. McCoy Director, Administrative Services The County of Yuba Department:Of Administrative Services , DOUG McCOY -Director (530) 749-7880 FAX (530) 749-7884 Tuesday, July 21,2015 The ~onorable Julia Scrogin Grand Jury Presiding Judge Yuba County Superior Court 215 Fifth Street, Suite 200 Marysville, CA 95901 , Re: RESPONSE TO 2014-15 GRAND JURY REPORT - "Safety Issues at Yuba County Airport" Dear Judge Scrogin: Provided pursuant to Penal Code Section 933(c) are the comments from the County Administrator related to the findings and recommendations contained in the 2014-15 Grand Jury Final Report - "Emergency Preparedness of Yuba County". Consistent with Section 933(c), responses do not address departments under control of elected officials or o~tside agencies, except where a specific response was solicited and then our response is consistent with provisions of Penal Code Section 933.05(c).

Additional Recommendations 8

These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.