📋
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.
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F11
Findings 13 findings
F1
Page 10
through F15 Black Oak Mine Unified School District Board of Trustees Responses Required for Recommendations
F2
Page 3
In some cases, only a portion of the elected officials responded.
F3
Page 3
Although the Grand Jury requested responses from individual elected. officials, some districts submitted one response for the entire group of elected officials. It is not known how these responses were determined or if only one member responded. The inconsistency of the responses may have been confusion on the part of the elected officials. However, the accompanying letter states “...The Grand Jury feels that completion of a brief survey requiring only a few check marks, would be much more convenient and less time consuming than requiring the personal appearance of each of such a large group of individuals.” (Emphasis added)
F4
Page 13
Visited Golden Ridge School and interviewed the principal ; Reviewed the 2000-2001 Budget for the El Dorado County Office of Education and interviewed the County Superintendent of Schools and her staff: and Interviewed several students chosen at random during a separate visit. Diversity in age, academic proficiency, and length of incarceration, require each student to work on an individualized curriculum. The space of the facility is inadequate for the following reasons: The 2000/2001 Budget of El Dorado County Office of Education allocates funds ~ based on “..an average daily attendance of approximately 53 students.” According to a letter from the County Superintendent of Schools, the facility can handle 40 students. If attendance goes over 40 students, “the administrator has implemented a contingency plan of bringing in another teacher and moving some students and desks into the common area of the building for instruction.” . The principal/counselor's office is a walk-through office situated between a classroom/computer lab and a classroom/library/work area. This does not enable the principal/counselor to engage in impromptu and/or individual counseling in a private manner. There is no workroom or breakroom for educational staff. According to the budget document, “Primary emphasis is improving self-esteem, responsibility skills, and developing ability to work cooperatively with others within a structured setting.” The students interviewed reported the school was meeting these goals. In the opinion of the students we interviewed, they are not receiving adequate individual instruction in advanced math. 43
F5
Page 3
In tabulating the results of the survey, the Grand Jury assumed that the responses from the districts with a single response indicated the feelings of all five of the elected officials of that entity. 33
F6
Page 11
F7. implemented a program to seal the concrete block to prevent further water damage. All damage seen by the 1999/2000 Grand Jury has been repaired. New carpet has been installed in building PA-1. _ Warning signs are posted to prevent blocking access to electrical panels.
F7
Page 14
The students reported that their stay at Juvenile Hall was a positive experience and that their attitude and plans for the future were very optimistic.
F8
Page 12
The above constitutes a repeat violation of the same type found by the 1999/2000 Grand Jury.
F9
Page 12
One of the light fixtures in Building E, that could not previously be opened, has been repaired. The second one has been slated to be repaired when its light tube bums out.
F10
Page 4
The Grand Jury received 73 responses, but using the method described in Finding 5, we tabulated 90 responses. Results of Question 1, “How confident do you feel about your understanding of the Ralph M. Brown Act?” Quite confident - 27 Fairly confident - 54 Not very confident - 9 Not confident at all -1 Results of Question 2, “What sort of training have you had on the provisions of the Brown Act?” There are multiple answers to this question as members reported several kinds of training. Formal seminar - 60 Reading publications - 45 Informal discussion - 40 No training at all -3 Results of Question 3, “When did you last have any formal training on the provisions of - the Brown Act?” A year ago or less - 28 2 to 3 years ago - 25 Over 3 years ago - 8 Never had training - 26 The California School Board Association puts on two formal seminars per year, which include updates or revisions regarding the Brown Act. It is not known how many school districts within the County require their board members to attend these training sessions. Commendation The Grand Jury commends the six entities in which five board members responded. These were: Mother Lode Union School District, Black Oak Mine Unified School District, Garden Valley Fire Protection District, El Dorado Hills Community Service District and Pioneer Fire Protection District.
F12
Page 9
F13. mention of the vote of all members present, as required by Government Code Section 54957.1, was made in this amendment. This amendment of the May 26, 1999 board meeting minutes constitutes an admission that the Board violated the Brown Act on that date. As a matter of custom and practice, the Board's Agendas contain generic notices of closed session discussions regarding evaluation of administrators regardless of the specific purposes of the Closed Sessions. This custom and practice effectively controverts the intent of the Brown Act that the public be notified of the actual intentions of the Board. BOMUSD Board Policy BB 9323.2(a) states: “An 'action' by the Board means: a. A collective decision by a majority of the Board members; b. A collective commitment by a majority of the members to make a positive or negative decision; or c. A vote by the majority of the members when sitting at the Board. (Gov. Code Sec. 54952.6)” This policy is inconsistent with Education Code Section 35163, which states: “Every official action taken by the governing board of every school district shall be affirmed by a formal vote of the members of the board, .....”
F13
Page 12
Although the school does not have a “hot line”, it does have voice mail so students can anonymously report incidents or information to the administration.
F14
Page 9
F15. The Minutes of the Board Meetings of May 26 and August 12, 1999 do not contain sufficient detail to adequately reflect the discussions and/or actions. Similar deficiencies are noted in minutes of other meetings of the Board. The Grand Jury investigation of actions taken by the Board of the BOMUSD was unnecessarily delayed by the current Superintendent and the President of the 2000 Board.
Recommendations 6
-
R1Page 5‘El Dorado County Board of Supervisors 35 or bed (This page is blank) . « ory o. a ~ a . ~_- aa od “ - eed ese ad 4 36 Education Committee Black Oak Mine Unified School District Citizen Complaint #00/01-C-008 Reason for the Report This investigation responded to a citizen complaint of a violation of the Ralph M. Brown Act by the Board of Trustees (Board) of the Black Oak Mine Unified School District (BOMUSD). | The intent of the Brown Act is that the actions of public commissions, boards and councils, and other agencies in California be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly. The philosophy of the Brown Act is that the people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. Scope of the Investigation The Education Committee of the 2000-2001 Grand Jury! Reviewed Government Code sections relating to the Brown Act; Reviewed pertinent provisions of the Education Code; Reviewed the Board Policy Handbook of the BOMUSD; * Interviewed all five members of the 1999 Board; Interviewed the 1999 Superintendent of the BOMUSD; Reviewed the appropriate personnel file; Reviewed Minutes and Agendas of the 1999 Board Meetings; and Reviewed relevant correspondence from attorneys.
-
R2Page 5All Boards subject to the Brown Act should provide training and insure they conduct business in compliance with the Brown Act.
-
R3Page 10Board Meeting Agendas should reflect only the intended subjects of discussion or specific intended action to be taken in Closed Session. The use of generic categories should be discontinued.
-
R4Page 10The Board should add an Index and/or Table of Contents to its Policy Handbook to make it more user friendly.
-
R5Page 10Although it is not required to do so by law, the Board should retain the tapes of all meetings, including both Open and Closed Sessions, for four years, to preserve the best evidence for potential litigation purposes.
-
R6Page 10The Board should hold a workshop regarding the Brown Act and include as a participant the Secretary to the Superintendent who prepares the Agendas and Minutes of Board Meetings.