⚠️ 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.
Findings and Recommendations 3 findings
F01
MM was turned into an unqualified success in terms of achieving the stated goals for construction of school projects. Fact: There are people now working with the School District who have participated at all levels in managing the projects that have been completed under MM. Fact: A basic criterion used in bringing in a new manager for MM was that the manager needed to have extensive experience running large projects. Fact: In 2000 the School District hired a manager with the needed experience.
No recommendations for this finding
F02
The School District now has in place experience that should enable it to successfully manage similar large projects in the future, and it has learned the need to have experienced project management. Fact: Pursuant to the terms of MM, an ICOC was formed to oversee the progress of MM. Fact: The ICOC was composed of dedicated volunteers who had a variety of related expertise and who were willing to spend considerable time on MM matters. Fact: The ICOC recognized the need for bringing in a construction project manager with extensive prior experience.
No recommendations for this finding
F03
The ICOC was instrumental in helping to make MM a success. COMMENDATIONS The 2008/2009 San Diego County Grand Jury commends all of the staff from the San Diego Unified School District who contributed to the success of MM. Particular commendation is owed to the new management that was hired in 2000. The Grand Jury also especially commends the Independent Citizens’ Oversight Committee for their efforts in overseeing the progress of MM. Further commendation goes to the school personnel who participated in the various school construction projects, and to the local contractors who helped make MM a success. The Grand Jury takes note of the fact that the overall success of MM is virtually unprecedented in the administration of public school bond projects in the State of California. The Grand Jury urges the District not to lose sight of the factors that made MM a success as the District manages future school bond issues, including the recently passed Proposition S bond issue. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS The California Penal Code §933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code §933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) As to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal Code §933.05 are required from the: Responding Agency Recommendations Date None
No recommendations for this finding
Commendations 1
-
CM1The 2008/2009 San Diego County Grand Jury commends all of the staff from the San Diego Unified School District who contributed to the success of MM. Particular commendation is owed to the new management that was hired in 2000. The Grand Jury also especially commends the Independent Citizens’ Oversight Committee for their efforts in overseeing the progress of MM. Further commendation goes to the school personnel who participated in the various school construction projects, and to the local contractors who helped make MM a success. The Grand Jury takes note of the fact that the overall success of MM is virtually unprecedented in the administration of public school bond projects in the State of California. The Grand Jury urges the District not to lose sight of the factors that made MM a success as the District manages future school bond issues, including the recently passed Proposition S bond issue. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS The California Penal Code §933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code §933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) As to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for _____________________________________________________________________ 4 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2008—2009 (filed February 4, 2009) discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal Code §933.05 are required from the: Responding Agency Recommendations Date None _____________________________________________________________________ 5 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2008—2009 (filed February 4, 2009)