Twin Rivers Unified School District Police Department

Conclusions 15

• CL1
  1 The Director of Classified Personnel issued a reprimand which strongly suggested an employee attend EAP, a strictly voluntary program. The reprimand stated: "Failure to follow these _{Page}87 directives will result in further disciplinary action up to and including dismissal." STUDENT SERVICES The Attorney General's office said state law does not allow student background checks. The Grand Jury received documentation that potentially implicates the Student Services Department of the Twin Rivers Unified School District for running over five hundred criminal checks on students. It appears as though these checks were run through CLETS, the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System and NCIC, a computerized FBI index of criminal justice information (i.e., criminal record history information, fugitives, stolen properties, missing persons). It is available to Federal, State and local law enforcement and other criminal justice agencies. According to witness testimony, it was common practice for the Director and Coordinators of Student Services to direct certain members of Twin Rivers Police Department to conduct criminal background checks on students as young as twelve years of age. The Grand jury learned that the Director of Student Services ordered a Student Services Technician to turn over a "Probation Notification List" that detailed a student's criminal record over a one year period to a consultant. The Technician told the Director that we're not supposed to have that information. The Director ordered the Technician to "give him everything he wanted." When the Technician asked if that included the Probationary Notification List, the Director said "yes." This civil Grand Jury has turned the above information over to the local authorities for criminal investigation. Findings F.1 It appears to be common practice for the Director of Student Services to order illegal background checks on students.
• CL2
  accountable for problems within their Police Department and the effects of the Police Department's actions on the communities they serve. As their first order of business the Board should consider replacement of the
• CL3
  mission statement that reads: "Inspire each student to extraordinary achievement every day by ensuring a safe and secure environment for all students, staff and community."
• CL4
  Violated the rights of employees and peace officers · Abused their fiduciary responsibilities · Showed favoritism in issuing large contracts Talked of taking kick backs
• CL5
  Misled the public with erroneous information
• CL6
  Authorized illegal background checks of students
• CL7
  · Acted unprofessionally
• CL8
  Resign immediately from the Police Department. Take a demotion to Captain.
• CL9
  Be terminated from the department. All three of these options were on the table and discussed in the presence of the Chief's wife, also a sworn Twin Rivers police officer. The Chief stated that he was astonished to hear this proposal, and said that he would like to think about these options. In order to give the Chief time to consider the offer the Superintendent and the legal advisor for the District went to the bar. In testimony from the Associate Superintendent of Human Resources, the Grand Jury was told she was surprised about this turn of events and that this was not the proper setting to make such an offer. The Superintendent should have used his office to have this discussion. She further testified that she did not believe it should have been discussed with another police officer present, even though that officer was the Chief's wife. After about 15 minutes, the Superintendent and the legal advisor returned to the table and requested the Chief's decision. The Chief told them that he would not accept their proposal, and according to the Chief's and the officer's testimony, the Superintendent, who had been drinking at the bar, became visibly upset and even spilled his glass of wine on the legal advisor. The Chief and his wife left the restaurant. The Superintendent, under oath, stated that he paid the bill for the evening using his personal credit card and did not use the District credit card. The next day, the Chief was summoned to the office of the Associate Superintendent of Human Resources and informed that he was being placed on paid administrative leave effective _{\rm Page}79 immediately. The Chief did not receive a written notice as to why he had been put on leave, but was told that the order was from the Superintendent. When the Grand Jury questioned the Associate Superintendent of Human Resources about the POBR, which delineates the proper process in which an officer is taken off duty, she said she was unaware of this process. She also testified that when the Chief was put on leave, he retained the keys to his office, his weapons, cell phone, police identification card, badge, and all other material associated with his job. It was 10 days later that a formal letter was presented to the Chief and the police items listed were turned over to the Human Resources Department. During Grand Jury hearings seeking information as to why the Chief had been placed on administrative leave, the Chief and his wife testified that the charges against the Chief had never been discussed. Another example of the lack of knowledge of process exemplified by the Associate Superintendent was the confusion regarding the Chief's wife, a Detective on the Twin Rivers Police Department. The Grand Jury was informed she had been out on medical leave. Then we were told that she was on paid leave, but she said "she was not being paid." When retired officers from outside the Police Department were brought in to take over the vacated positions, the Grand Jury became more confused about the position of the Chief's wife and why she is on paid - or unpaid - leave. The answers by the Associate Superintendent were unclear. There was nothing in her response as being logical or conforming to any type of a formal policy. THE HIGH SCHOOL VICE PRINCIPAL The Vice Principal testified to the Grand Jury that he was demoted because he reported he was victim of a sexual assault at the hands of a former Principal, a friend of the Superintendent. On December 11, 2009, six months after the Vice Principal agreed to an out-of-court settlement for the sexual assault, the Twin Rivers Superintendent had his Senior Special Assistant call the High School Vice Principal to his office for an appointment. When the Vice Principal inquired why he was being summoned to the Superintendent's office, the Assistant reportedly replied: "I would be worried too if my boss called me into his office." The Vice Principal decided to take a notepad to the meeting. The Grand Jury viewed the Vice Principal's notes taken during the meeting with the Superintendent. The following statements attributed to the Superintendent are based on testimony of the Vice Principal. What appeared to be a defense of the new principal, the Superintendent informed the Vice Principal that "being a new Principal could be challenging," referring to the high school's new Principal. He also stated, if the Community Forum on School Closures (that was held two days ^{Page}80 earlier on 12/9/2009) was any indication, he wasn't certain that the school's new Principal was going to be capable of getting his feet underneath him and might have to be replaced at the end of the year. During the meeting the Superintendent told the Vice Principal "I have people that have my back, and I don't trust you." The Superintendent also said, "A person I trust told me that you were encouraging parents to speak out against the District at the forum." The Superintendent shared "that he was aware of what the Highlands community once was and what it had evolved into." The Vice Principal shared with the Grand Jury that when he asked the Superintendent who the alleged "trusted person" was, the Superintendent refused to respond. The Vice Principal asked the Superintendent to look at the video of the community forum recorded by the camera located in the school's cafeteria. The Superintendent responded, "There are no video cameras in the school's cafeteria." Through other witnesses' testimony, the Grand Jury learned there is a camera in the school's cafeteria. The camera recorded the events of that evening. From the Vice Principal's testimony, the recorded events contradict the accusations made by the Superintendent. The video shows he didn't enter the cafeteria where the forum was being held until the second and final hour of the forum. The Vice Principal is witnessed briefly standing and talking to a woman and a small child, then stands against a wall with the school's Principal for the remainder of the forum. The Superintendent asked the soon-to-be demoted Vice Principal if "he knew what a bootstrap community was?" The Superintendent told the Vice Principal that "many families in the attendance area are now from places like Oakland and Los Angeles and haven't taken advantage of some of the opportunities they have been given and have to pull themselves up by the bootstraps." The Vice Principal interpreted this statement as a "clear reference to minorities." The Superintendent then stated: "I have a plan to revamp the community and I don't think you're on board." The Superintendent demanded that the Vice Principal give him the names of specific community members and teachers that "spoke out against the District and whose comments ended up on the 11:00 news." The Superintendent then "slipped up" in the words of the Vice Principal and stated: "I believe her name is ----- and she teaches math at your school." What was even more troubling according to the Vice Principal was the Superintendent's next question: "How much seniority does she [the teacher] have?" The Grand Jury learned that the Superintendent ended his session in the following manner: The Superintendent told the Vice Principal, "I think you should know something. When the Districts merged I received a phone call from a friend who believed he had some valuable skills and wanted to be a part of the District again, but before that could happen I had to do some research. _{\rm Page}81 When I concluded my research I determined that because of the litigation you propagated [against my friend] that couldn't happen." The Grand Jury heard and reviewed an overwhelming amount of evidence including internal emails, video, and sworn testimony that clearly implicated the Superintendent and the Associate Superintendent of Human Resources in a plan to demote the high school Vice Principal. On June 25, 2010, three months after the March 15th deadline had passed, the Vice Principal's wife was first notified by Human Resources that he was being demoted to the position of "Adult School Administrator on Special Assignment," an obvious violation of "Education Code 44951" that states: Unless a certificated employee holding a position requiring an administrative or supervisory credential is sent written notice deposited in the United States registered mail with postage prepaid and addressed to his or her last known address by March 15 that he or she may be released from his or her position for the following school year, or unless the signature of the employee is obtained by March 15 on the written notice that he or she may be released from his or her position for the following year, he or she shall be continued in the position. The Grand Jury viewed an internal correspondence from the Associate Superintendent of Human Resources regarding the Vice Principal that stated, "We could say it [the demotion] was due to budget cuts." The Associate Superintendent of Human Resources attempted to change the title of the Vice Principal's contract from "Administrator on Special Assignment" to "High School Vice Principal, Adult School" and blamed the confusion "due to a clerical error." There's only one problem with this action: The employee was a high school Vice Principal, and high schools are designated as secondary schools. Adult Education schools are designated as Post-Secondary Schools. The Associate Superintendent of Human Resources signed a document, viewed by the Grand Jury, thanking the Vice Principal for interviewing for one of the vacant Vice Principal positions the District was advertising while they were simultaneously demoting him for a second straight year. However, the Vice Principal told the Grand Jury he was never granted an interview for any of the Vice Principal vacancies that the District was offering. It was his testimony that candidates with no previous experience in school administration were given Vice Principal positions. DIRECTOR OF FACILITIES, PLANNING, AND CONSTRUCTION The Grand Jury also heard testimony from the Director of Facilities, Planning, and Construction, who formally complained that he has been targeted for retaliation. The Facilities Director was a whistleblower reported financial irregularities and illegal activities within Twin Rivers. Over _{\text{Page}}82 several months, the Facilities Director became aware of the misappropriation of school District funds and an improper relationship between the Assistant Superintendent of Facilities Services and outside consultants. After reporting numerous questionable activities on June 15, 2011, he was placed on paid leave. He was told that "he was being placed on leave for his own protection." The Grand Jury also learned that before the Director of Facilities, Planning, and Construction was placed on leave he was questioned about his Grand Jury appearance by his immediate supervisor and Legal Counsel for the District. The Director of Facilities, Planning and Construction testified he was compelled to participate in a "coaching session," by the Deputy Superintendent of Educational Services and the Assistant Superintendent of Facilities in preparation for his testimony in front of the Grand Jury. At the time of this report the Facilities Director has remained on paid administrative leave of absence for nearly one year. In fact, the Director went more than 334 days without being made aware of any charges against him. Additionally, the school District failed to accommodate his requests for information regarding his alleged investigation and he has been directed not to enter school grounds, or to contact District vendors or personnel, including family members and close friends. When the Facilities Director filed a formal administrative complaint through the District's Legal Counsel, they refused to provide information about the reason for his leave of absence and threatened to take the Director of Facilities' Counsel to the State Bar. ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF FACILITIES SERVICES The Grand Jury received testimony and learned of the unauthorized and noncompliant modifications made to a parking lot at the Smythe Academy School in 2008, followed by the death of a young student in November, 2009. Prior to the 2008 unification, the North Sacramento School District designed and engineered improvements to the parking lot at Smythe Academy. The construction work occurred in the summer of 2008 under the direction of the Assistant Superintendent of Facilities. The approved plans showed vehicle ingress and egress at City of Sacramento approved driveway curb cuts along Northgate Boulevard. During the fall of 2008, the Twin Rivers Maintenance Department made alterations that allowed the egress of vehicles at the southern end of the parking lot at a location without an approved driveway. Approximately one year later, while exiting the parking lot on the unapproved driveway, a vehicle struck and killed a student. No investigations were initiated by the Superintendent or the Deputy Superintendent. The Assistant Superintendent of Facilities made a habit, according to sworn testimony, of accepting favors and preferential treatment from outside vendors. Since he joined the Facilities Department the Assistant Superintendent of Facilities commented to many people that he and his family have enjoyed the use of a lead facility consultant's North Tahoe home. District _{\text{Page}}83 accounting records indicate a total in excess of $700,000 was paid to the lead consultant from 7/1/2008 through 5/4/2011. Approximately 53% of this sum was paid through the business office from the general fund with no transparency to the public. These contract assignments were not put out for bid to the general public as required by labor law. The Assistant Superintendent of Facilities ordered a small building from a manufacturing company, without soliciting or receiving bids from approved vendors. The Grand Jury heard testimony from a detective who investigated the theft of building material from the schools by maintenance department employees. He recalled that these employees were paid $17,037 by the salvage company for the stolen items. He said the maintenance department employees had an unofficial salvage fund established for lunches and other items. The employees were arrested. The Grand Jury has since learned that one of the employees was rehired. The Superintendent and the Assistant Superintendent were, in the words of witnesses interviewed, "very excited" about entering into an agreement with a company called Go Green. Ostensibly a sustainable, self-generating power initiative, the initiative was introduced in 2009 and again on August 17, 2010. The Assistant Superintendent of Facilities obtained a Board approved Memo of Understanding (MOU) between Twin Rivers and Go Green Consultants, LLC. This was a no bid agreement in violation of California Public Contract Code. According to the Director of Facilities, Planning and Construction and to witnesses interviewed by the Grand Jury, Go Green would have compensated the Assistant Superintendent of Facilities a 2% commission if Twin Rivers Unified School District committed to a 20 year, $20 million energy supply agreement. The agreement would have established a preliminary set of deliverables to include energy conservation measures, and provided for the adoption of the energy supply agreement. The MOU was to be a no-cost initiative; however, if the District chose not to go forward with the energy supply agreement, a fee of up to $60,000 would be owed to Go Green. Go Green was eventually paid $60,000 and no services were rendered. Had the agreement gone through as planned, the Assistant Superintendent of Facilities would have been paid "kickbacks" of roughly $400,000, a clear violation of the law. The Assistant Superintendent of Facilities told the Grand Jury that "this wasn't an example of a kickback, as he stated he was just kidding about the 2%." However, we have five people who corroborated in sworn testimony that he bragged about receiving a 2% "kickback." The Twin Rivers Board of Education stopped the East Natomas Education Complex (ENEC) project in 2008. The Grand Jury was surprised to learn a new contract, which did not go out for competitive bid, had been awarded in the amount of $546,000 to a construction company. Work has started again at the project site. When the Superintendent was questioned about the hiring of someone from Southern California _{\text{Page}}84 to draw new plans for the area, he told us this was correct, but did not go into detail. However, the Grand Jury received information that the individual was a friend of the Assistant Superintendent of Facilities and Superintendent. The Assistant Superintendent of Facilities urged the Board and the Superintendent to retain his friend's services. THE TWIN RIVERS SERGEANT A former Twin Rivers Police Department Sergeant testified that he was coerced into resigning after conducting an Internal Affairs investigation of the Twin Rivers Police Chief's wife. The Chief's wife also served as a member of the Police Department. A superior officer of the Twin Rivers Police Department instructed the Sergeant to conduct an Internal Affairs investigation in which the Chief's wife and a fellow Twin Rivers Police Department officer were implicated in wrongdoing, including the possession of two unregistered handguns. With the investigation still incomplete, the Chief and his Lieutenant mandated that the Sergeant take an extension of his probationary period beyond one year. Education Code section 45113 and Board Policy 4216 states classified employees shall serve a probationary period not to extend one year. According to the Sergeant's testimony, a few months later in July, 2009, he was asked to resign and told if he did it immediately, he would get 90 days' severance pay. He talked to his lawyer who counseled him to resign. After he thought about it, he went back to the Department of Human Resources. There he saw his letter of resignation had already been filled out and it said that he was resigning for "personal reasons." The next day he went to the Department of Finances where he was told there was no severance pay for public employees. He complained to the Superintendent, Deputy Superintendent, Associate Superintendent of Human Resources and the Director of Classified Personnel, but got no response, as of the date of his testimony. He was told by legal counsel for the District, as late as May 7, 2010, that "...he never asserted that he had completed all the elements of his probation." The Grand Jury couldn't find any of these so- called "elements" that District's Legal Counsel alluded to in their letter to the Sergeant. THE DISTRICT SPOKESPERSON The Communications Director, who is the District spokesperson or PIO, has made erroneous public statements on several occasions when reporting to the community and the media on Twin Rivers Unified School District related matters. On Saturday, April 28, 2012, KCRA 3 reported: "The co-location of Adult Education and Middle School students prompted concern among parents, who worried about the potential for sex offenders in the adult school population." The District Spokesperson replied: "We were able ^{\text{Page}}85 to confirm that there were no sex offenders. I do not know what type of check was performed in order to confirm that." The Grand Jury heard from witnesses who testified that on April 28, 2012, when the PIO made the statement to KCRA, saying there were no sex offenders on the Middle School campus, there were, in fact, sex offenders there. They had been co-located to the Middle School campus with Middle School students. Background checks had been run on all these Adult Education students attending there without their permission. Two weeks earlier, on April 11, 2012, the District spokesperson told KCRA 3: "Administrators do perform background checks, but only on adult students." She further stated, "Such checks are legal and routine." The Grand Jury learned from a spokesman for the California Attorney General's office that state law permits school Administrators to perform background checks only on people who belong to one of three categories: certificated employees, classified employees, and volunteers. Upon review of the "background checks" the Spokesperson alluded to in her prior interview of April 11, 2012, when she admitted Administrators do run background checks on adult students, further demonstrated her lack of knowledge because she should have known student background checks are illegal. She contradicted her statement made on April 28, 2012. Sex offenders were co-located with the Middle School students prior to that date, and she said that had not happened. She had not confirmed if sex offenders had been placed on the Middle School campus or if she knew background checks had been run. On April 7, 2010, the District spokesperson told KCRA 3 in response to two Twin Rivers Unified School District campuses being closed down, "The closure and restructuring decisions came after extensive input from the community." After the Grand Jury spoke with District employees, it became apparent that the decision on what schools to close came long before (months, in some instances) "extensive input from the community" was ever given. In fact, one Administrator shared with us how the Executive Director of the Highland's Neighborhood Network inadvertently stated: "The Superintendent has already decided what schools are closing anyway," as one group of school Administrators met to discuss the issue. In the December of 2010 Twin Rivers Unified School District's "FACT or FICTION" portion of their website a question was posted: "Is it true that the relocation of Harmon Johnson Elementary to Las Palmas and moving the Adult Program from Las Palmas to another site is costing the District millions of dollars?" The Twin Rivers response posted in December of 2010 reads: "The District is currently in negotiations with Pacific Gas and Electric to have them pay for the relocation of Harmon Johnson. In addition, the District filed paperwork with the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) to assist with the cost of the emergency ^{\text{Page}}86 move. Any immediate expenses will be paid for with bond money - there will not be any impact on the District's General Funds." As the Director of Facilities Planning and Construction, alleged in the 19 page document he presented to the Board of Education in March, 2012, the "FACT or FICTION" as of 12/10/2010 indicates that PG&E asserted there was no negotiation to compensate the District for the cost of the Harmon Johnson relocation. In fact, no paperwork had been filed with the Office of Public Schools Construction. The Grand Jury learned that the District Spokesperson was directly responsible for the information that is disseminated on the schools "Fact or Fiction" portion of the District's website. Finding F.1 The District's Spokesperson presented inaccurate and misleading facts concerning Twin Rivers Unified School District to the public and media.
• CL10
  Abused their fiduciary responsibilities.
• CL11
  Showed favoritism in issuing large contracts.
• CL12
  Misled the public with erroneous information.
• CL13
  Authorized illegal background checks of students.
• CL14
  Acted unprofessionally.
• CL15
  Violated POBR and the Skelly hearing process. Final Recommendation It is imperative that there be an extensive assessment of top administrators. The Board must determine if top administrators have the integrity, knowledge, experience, and skills for their positions. 68^{\text{Bage}}