school year due to lack of space for detention to be held, and the lack of

Recommendations 13

• R1
  Create and implement a District written Policy and Procedures Manual for administrative positions in the cabinet, i.e.: Business Manager; Maintenance Director; Human Resources; Payroll, updated yearly. September 30, 2024. Required: Trona Joint Unified School Board Invited: San Bernardino County Board of Education
• R2
  Establish monthly communication between teachers, staff, School Board, and administrators: for example, an accessible newsletter; posted online for the parents and community as well. June 1, 2024 Required: Trona Joint Unified School Board Invited: San Bernardino County Board of Education 122 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS IMPLEMENTATION DATE RESPONSES
• R3
  Write a procedure to address nepotism in the district in compliance with the California Code of Regulations Title 2, Section 86. Enforce and update the procedure annually with signed acknowledgement that the School Board/administration/staff/ teachers have read and understand the policy.
• R4
  Institute monthly meetings between Superintendent/Board members, teachers’ association and parents/community members (virtual also). June 1, 2024 Required: Trona Joint Unified School Board Invited: San Bernardino County Board of Education 123 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS IMPLEMENTATION DATE RESPONSES
• R5
  Re-establish a virtual option for School Board meetings. June 1, 2024. Required: Trona Joint Unified School Board Invited: San Bernardino County Board of Education 124 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS IMPLEMENTATION DATE RESPONSES
• R6
  Job description is to be revised for each position, listing required education and skill sets. If someone is hired who does not have all qualifications for the job, once on-the-job training has been completed, outside training will be considered to improve applicant’s skills in areas where required.
• R7
  Frequent and documented principal or assistant principal visits to every classroom.
• R8
  Implement a systematic method of communication, for example, a monthly grade- level newsletter, for the community, students, parents and the School Board and Superintendent. The communication is to be available in hard copy and online.
• R9
  Develop a community, teacher, Superintendent and Board strategic plan addressing the possibility of the mining company royalties stopping or being significantly reduced (explore a “Plan B”: how to fund the school district without the extra monies). Place in writing and on the website, and update annually. July 1, 2024 Required: Trona Joint Unified School Board Invited: San Bernardino County Board of Education
• R10
  In the future, the School Board to ensure that every high-level, relevant and important decision impacting Trona and its School District be openly and transparently discussed and input solicited by all impacted parties before a major change is made. April 30, 2024 Required: Trona Joint Unified School Board Invited: San Bernardino County Board of Education 127 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS IMPLEMENTATION DATE RESPONSES
• R11
  Implement a written complaint and response procedure. Response to be provided within two weeks from the School Board/Superintendent. April 30, 2024. Required: Trona Joint Unified School Board Invited: San Bernardino County Board of Education
• R12
  Create and implement a system to let parents, students, teachers and administrators know the date of every School Site Council meeting with meetings regularly scheduled for the same time every month. April 30, 2024 Required: Trona Joint Unified School Board Invited: San Bernardino County Board of Education 128 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report GLOSSARY The following Glossary was created by the Civil Grand Jury to provide context and clarification for some terms used in this report. 1. California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP): The California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP) System was established on January 1, 2014. The CAASPP System replaced the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program, which became inoperative on July 1, 2013. 2. Impasse: a situation in which no progress is possible. 3. Liquefaction: conversion of soil into a fluidlike mass during an earthquake or other seismic event. 4. Searles Valley Minerals, Inc.: Searles Valley Minerals Inc. processes brine solutions. The Company offers products such as borax, boric acid, soda ash, and sodium sulfate. Searles Valley Minerals, Inc. operates in Trona, CA. 5. Nepotism: when an employer uses its influence or power to hire, transfer, or promote an applicant or employee because of a personal relationship, without regard to the qualifications/skills of the applicant. 6. Cal Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES): this is an agency of the state government that supervises civil defense, disaster planning and emergency medical services. 7. Royalties: Royalties are a legally binding payment made to an individual or company for the ongoing use of their assets, including copyrighted works, franchises, and natural resources. 8. School Site Council (SSC): The School Site Council is intended to be a decision-making body that represents all stakeholders of the school community. The school principal, teachers, other school personnel, parents, and students (secondary level) make up this group. Their primary responsibility is to identify common goals and assist the leadership team in establishing a plan to achieve the goals. The key to a successful SSC depends upon a good working relationship among all members of the 129 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report Council. Each member of the Council shares their unique perspective and knowledge of the school’s needs, as they affect all students, during SSC meetings. 9. Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA): a document that represents a school’s cycle of continuous improvement of student achievement. 10. Special District: Public agencies/limited purpose local government created to provide one or more specific services to a community, such as water service, sewer service, parks, fire protection and others. REFERENCES August 21, Cal OES provided the following link: https://www.oesnews.com/where-to-go-for-california-earthquake- assistance/. August 26, The SBA announced it would close the Trona Disaster Loan Outreach Center on August 29. For more information contact: https://www.sba.gov/offices/disaster/dfocw/resources/1647366. School Board Accountability Report Card (SARC) www.sia.us.com and DataQuest (CA Dept of Education) California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP) https://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/ca/ California Department of Education-Cohort Graduation Statistics https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/ad/acgrinfo.asp Definition of Soda Ash/Potash https://trona_ca.com_ State Funding EdData - District Profile - Trona Joint Unified (ed-data.org) Cal OES GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES: https://www.CalOES.ca.gov. San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report This Page Left Intentionally Blank 131 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report RESTORE THE PUBLIC TRUST 132 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report The Yucaipa City Council has lost the trust of many citizens. The purpose of this report is to shine a light on the actions of members of the Yucaipa City Council that have agitated and divided this once sleepy town and to make findings and recommendations to the Yucaipa City Council to help regain the trust of the citizens of Yucaipa. SUMMARY Yucaipa is a small but vibrant community nestled in a valley of the San Bernardino mountains, about 70 miles east of Los Angeles. It incorporated in 1989 and formed a City Manager – City Council type of government. For more than 30 years it flourished and grew in harmony. Then, following the 2022 elections, a new City Council took office, and through its non- transparent method of replacing the long-time city manager came resident disdain, resentment, and anger, to replace the pride, civility, and harmony that the city relished. Can the Yucaipa City Council restore that trust? The City itself shows the way in its Yucaipa Code of Conduct: “IT ALL COMES DOWN TO RESPECT • Respect for one another as individuals • Respect for the validity of different opinions • Respect for the democratic process • Respect for the community that we serve” *(From the Yucaipa Code of Conduct for City Council, - see references, from the Yucaipa City Website, https://yucaipa.org) The 2023 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury (GJ, CGJ, Grand Jury, Civil Grand Jury) has some suggestions as well: • Form a watchdog committee to provide oversight of the City Council; to report to the public on the operations of city government; to ensure compliance with general ethics principles and with campaign finance, contracting, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and other laws and regulations; and with government transparency guidelines. San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report • Implement a formal written and on-line complaint process whereby citizens may ask questions or voice concerns about the actions of the City Council. • Develop an effective training policy in all city government transparency policies, as well as in the state statutes and regulations related to city government, such as the Brown Act, the Fair Political Practices Commission regulations about conflicts of interest, and the Yucaipa Code of Conduct. • Update the Yucaipa Code of Conduct for City Council (current copy is 2019). • Implement transparent procedures that give time for council members and the community to provide input before the council solicits applications and appoints high-level city employees. • Implement a Procedural Audit to take place every other year The City Council’s efforts to rezone the North Bench district created an uproar among Yucaipa citizens and spawned raucous City Council meetings. A Citizen’s Group, [named] the Coalition to Save Yucaipa, filed a recall notice seeking to remove three City Council members, one of them the mayor. The City Clerks’ office immediately filed a lawsuit to halt the recall, naming as defendants each citizen who signed the petition. Recall law requires that each petitioner must include his/her address. Subsequently, anonymous letters were sent to each signer, informing them that their information would be published in the local newspaper. The lawsuit filed by the Office of the City Clerk, and the anonymous letters, intimidated many Yucaipa residents, especially those who had their names on the petition, and therefore on the lawsuit. Many Yucaipa citizens are incensed. They do not believe the City Council demonstrated adequate concern for their objections to the possible rezoning of the North Bench and to the approval of the Serrano Estates Project; they did believe that the Council acted with a lack of transparency when it replaced the former city manager and city attorney, with pre-selected people, without much notice to or input from the community. The anonymous letters sent only to the recall petition signers did not help the public perception of the City Council. San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report The following recommendations may guide the way towards a new start for the City of Yucaipa and its City Council. These measures will go a long way towards rebuilding community support, building a more effective City Council and restoring the lost public trust. BACKGROUND Yucaipa is nestled beneath the San Bernardino Peak of the San Gorgonio Mountains. It is known as Yucaipa’t in the language of the Serrano Native American tribe that formerly occupied this land. It has a population of 54,542 according to the 2020 census. In the 2010 census, Yucaipa’s population was determined to be 51,367. Yucaipa has a council-manager form of government. Under this arrangement the residents elect the City Council and the City Council then appoints the City Manager. In this form of government, the City Manager is responsible for carrying out the administrative policies of the City Council and serves at the pleasure of the Council. The City Council can terminate the City Manager’s employment by a majority vote. (see Glossary). Timeline • On August 17, 2022, the Planning Commission voted 4 to 2 against approval of the Serrano Estates Project. (see Glossary) Immediately thereafter, the applicant appealed the decision to the City Council. • On September 12, 2022, the former City Council voted to deny the applicant’s appeal. • On January 9, 2023, the new City Council was installed. • On January 9, 2023, two months after the election of the three new (City Council) members, the City Council called a special session. Although the agenda had brought attention to the fact that this meeting would be used to discuss personnel issues, the public knew no 135 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report particulars. While these actions were permissible, they lacked transparency. During this meeting, (although the present and soon-to- be former city manager's contract was renewed in October 2022, by a 5 to 0 vote) the City Manager resigned. The council immediately appointed a new City Manager to replace him. The newly elected City Council then promptly removed the current City Attorney and installed a new one. When the full meeting continued, constituents were informed of the new appointees. Public outcry ensued. Residents complained they had no input into the changes. The lack of transparency was evident. The selected appointees waited outside in the parking lot, knowing that they would be installed. • On March 15, 2023, the Serrano Estates Project applicant made changes to the plan in accordance with suggestions made by the new City Council, and the council approved it despite the objections of many citizens. • The Grand Jury found that some residents viewed the appointment of the City Council’s choice for City Manager and City Attorney as a move to assure that the Council could approve the Serrano Estates Project. • In March 2023, opposition in the community continued to grow after the Yucaipa City Council approved the project. Opponents expressed their concerns at the City Council meetings and in the local paper. According to meeting minutes and media reports, opposition to the project grew with each City Council meeting. At one of the heated City Council meetings where the council discussed the Serrano Estates Project, a Council Member responded to citizens voicing their concerns by saying, “Blah, blah, blah.” In fairness, the Civil Grand Jury has evidence that many citizens were rude in their addresses to the council. Some members of the public were disruptive; some violated the rules of the meeting; others were name-calling during their speaking time. San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report Regarding the public complaints that the Yucaipa City Council has navigated this project opaquely and with little consideration for some of the objections of the public, the San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury found: • City Council members have prior and current personal and business relationships with entitlement and/or development companies that want to redevelop the North Bench area. • The GJ discovered there was a prior business relationship with a member of the Planning Commission and the City Council. The businesses were real estate sales and development. The procedure complied with the law regarding consideration or approval of the Serrano Estates Project. However, the rule of law is only half of the City Council’s mandate for governing. The voice of the people is the other and perhaps paramount. The 2023 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury was prompted to investigate the Yucaipa City Council from complaints filed by residents of Yucaipa. The original complaint was that there was a violation of the Brown Act (see Glossary). The Grand Jury found no violation. However, there appears to be a violation of the public’s trust. The Grand Jury found that: • Some in the Yucaipa City Council paid scant attention to those opposed to the Serrano Estates Project • Some members of the Yucaipa City Council ignored public outcry, the lack of transparency and public input in the removal of the former City Manager and City Attorney • Some members of the Yucaipa City Council ignored the historic tradition of slow development • Many citizens in the community questioned the possibility of financial gain among the voting City Council without recusal 137 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report • Some voting constituents were so angry that they initiated a recall of three serving members of the City Council, including the mayor • The Office of the City Clerk filed a lawsuit, which is a permissible action, against the residents who had signed the recall petition • The petitioners received anonymous letters • Lawsuits and counter lawsuits between the recall group and the City of Yucaipa have been initiated Reason for Investigation The 2023 San Bernardino County Civil Grand Jury received multiple complaints citing misbehavior on the part of the Yucaipa City Council. Complaints alleged concerns of conflict of interest, Brown Act violations, ethics violations, the unexplained terminations/resignations of executive level staff and the lack of transparency in hiring new executive level staff. The number of complaints received and the ongoing discord between citizens and the City Council compelled the Grand Jury to move forward with this investigation. METHODOLOGY Materials Reviewed • Agendas, minutes and videos of Yucaipa City Council Meetings 2022- 23 • Applicable California codes and regulations • Yucaipa Municipal Codes • Executive Staff Employment Contracts • Executive Staff Separation Agreements • Fair Policial Practices Commission Filings • California Attorney General’s Office website • City of Yucaipa website 138 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report • California Fair Policial Practices Commission website • Yucaipa/Calimesa News Mirror Newspaper: articles and letters to the Editor Interviews Conducted The Grand Jury conducted numerous interviews in person which included: • Current City Council Members • Current City Staff • Complainants • Yucaipa citizens Site Visited • Yucaipa City Council meeting DISCUSSION City Council Meeting of January 9, 2023 For many years, Yucaipa relied on its long-serving City Manager for governance and on its long-serving City Attorney for legal advice. In late 2022 the City Council unanimously renewed the City Manager’s contract. Within a month of taking office in 2023, though, a newly elected City Council decided that the city needed a change. At a closed session it voted to accept the resignation of the City Manager despite the contract renewal just a few months earlier. The reasons for this resignation are unknown to the Grand Jury. At the same closed session, the Council immediately replaced the City Manager with its pre-selected choice. The Council didn’t require applicant vetting; indeed, it didn’t require any applicants at all. The Council didn’t interview other qualified applicants; there were no other applicants to be considered for such an important decision. Some City Council members believed that the applications, vetting and Interviewing took place during the previous council term, and that their only function now was to approve the choices. The evidence showed that some of the council members had not met these pre-chosen candidates until the 139 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
• R86
  Enforce and update the procedure annually with signed acknowledgement that the School Board/administration/staff/ teachers have read and understand the policy. R-3a: Keep records that show School Board/administration/staff/ teachers have read and understand the policy. July 1, 2024