Predatory Behaviors and Ignorance Within Redlands Unified School District: Has the School District Learned Its Lesson?

There is a lack of understanding of the defined roles and responsibilities for City Council members in the subject of budget and operations.

RUSD lacks a formal written policy instructing staff to immediately notify respective parents that their student will be interviewed or is the subject of an investigation by administration, law enforcement, or a third-party investigator for any serious sexual misconduct type allegations.

There is inconsistent implementation of training and a lack of ongoing training, for RUSD personnel during the academic year, regarding mandated reporting, identifying grooming behaviors, and boundary violations, etc.

The District lacks training for students and parents in identifying predatory grooming behaviors, which adds confusion to students and their parents by not being well-informed. Although the subject is touched on in the Parent-Student Handbook, the information is obscured to meet legal requirements of extensive unrelated procedures and processes, rather than precise educative information on these subjects.

The Parent-Student Handbook is large-scale, arduous, and not parent/student user-friendly. Therefore, it is not often read or used. Although a signed receipt acknowledging the handbook and its contents by students and parents is at 100%, the reality is without this signed acknowledgement 15 https://hs.sbcounty.gov/cfs/AboutUs/pages/How_to_report_child_abuse.aspx San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 97 SMH a student cannot register for classes within RUSD. This mandatory signed acknowledgement creates the false narrative that all parents and students have read and understood the contents of the handbook.

The Grand Jury has identified RUSD “Working Smart” tips as “red flags” for grooming behaviors. These suggested practices do not strengthen RUSD school policies.

Hall passes that authorize students to leave class, must be issued by office staff every time. Currently, there is a lack of adherence to this policy, which, in the past, has led to teachers calling students to their rooms for inappropriate and sexual purposes.

Principals and district administrators are not consistent with “quadrant monitoring” which was set up to ensure that staff and students are supervised daily throughout the school year. There is no checklist to validate the task has been completed.

There is a lack of communication from the top-down in RUSD, causing a difference in policy expectations versus daily practices.

Current staff misconduct complaint retention is inadequate, as it is not kept electronically and is accessible to too few administrators. This causes the perception of a lack of transparency and possible cover-ups. Poor complaint handling and mismanagement of same attributed to the community’s perception of cover-ups. An electronic complaint management system increases efficiency, establishes documentation, confirms corrective actions, avoids miscommunication, and the possibility of lost data. It also ensures easy, trackable, transparent, and immediate access for administrative review.

There is a lack of clear understanding, which inhibits a culture of reporting of the inappropriate conduct complaint process from complaint initiation to complaint conclusion within the District. The distinct steps that a 98 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report SMH complaint or allegation should go through is not clear in the eyes of RUSD personnel, students, and parents. There is also no written step-by-step plan outlining the process.

RUSD is to be commended for the roll out of the ACT Now campaign initiative in 2018. The administration has also taken steps to better define what is “reasonable suspicion.” It is evident that a lack of knowledge, training and understanding of reasonable suspicion had created the conditions that allowed inappropriate sexual relationships between staff and students to have occurred. RUSD has taken a proactive response to address the past reputation that plagued the District. These proactive measures include physical changes on campuses, new processes and procedures to ensure student safety, greater staff accountability, acknowledging flaws and issues with honesty, and sending a clear message that this type of behavior will no longer be tolerated. The Grand Jury found some progress in addition to the need for improvement in specified areas.

There is no ongoing unified collaboration among RUSD, parents, and the community to work together to ensure proper protocols are in place for prevention of staff sexual misconduct and abuse.

There are not always cameras in classrooms, hallways, small rooms, offices, etc., which in the past has led to staff being able to engage in inappropriate sexual and criminal conduct with students.

The Grand Jury found that the extensive trauma experienced by the victims is lifelong and continues to have a devastating impact on their lives. Many of these victims were alone with teachers, unsupervised, which allowed the egregious acts to occur. The Grand Jury acknowledges the severe difficulties that victims continue to experience, even today. San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 99 SMH RECOMMENDATIONS: (All following recommendations are directed to Redlands Unified School District.) R21-1: During an employee’s performance evaluation, District supervisors are to verify each employee’s understanding of “reasonable suspicion,” mandated reporting laws, predatory behaviors, grooming behaviors, and complaint processes. This information can be obtained via a written question and answer sheet, signed by the employee declaring their comprehension of their legal obligations. This recommendation is to be implemented no later than August 2022. R21-2(a): The District is to create an Administrative Regulation explaining the procedure for immediate mandatory parental notifications before interviewing or investigating students regarding possible suspected sexual abuse by staff. This recommendation is to be implemented no later than June 2022. R21-2(b): Immediate telephonic notification made to the legal guardian followed up by a written copy of notification to the parent/guardian with a documented parent receipt of the notification. This recommendation is to be implemented immediately. R21-3: Each school is to conduct training in conjunction with staff meetings throughout the school year, including but not limited to role-play scenarios. This will begin with the District Superintendent training school administrators, on a quarterly basis. This recommendation is to be implemented no later than August 2022. R21-4: Provide school assemblies at least twice a year in these areas and invite teachers, staff, students, school volunteers, and parents/guardians. Videotape these assemblies and make them available on the RUSD website 100 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report SMH for those unable to attend in person. Show the recordings in the students’ homerooms twice a semester as student reminders. This recommendation is to be implemented no later than October 2022. R21-5: In addition to the Parent-Student Handbook, develop easy-to-read and user-friendly reference sources, with information explaining prohibited behaviors, reasonable suspicion of sexual abuse and grooming, mandated reporting, and the complaint process. This information can be incorporated into smaller pamphlets that are available in the District and school offices, and online. It is also recommended that the English and Spanish versions be separate. This recommendation is to be implemented no later than November 2022. R21-6: Revise the “Working Smart” tips to read, “Prohibited Behaviors,” and “Red Flags” to read, “Boundary Violations.” These listed “red flags” simply identify the past behaviors of staff that permitted the sexual abuse of students to thrive. Therefore, these behaviors should not be “red flagged” but expressly prohibited, to protect the students. These recommendations are to be implemented immediately. R21-7: Ensure that all students receive hall passes from office staff, not the teacher. This recommendation is to be implemented immediately. R21-8: Ensure that “quadrant monitoring” is being completed daily and documented by school administrators throughout the school year, via a sign- in clipboard in each school’s front office for completion verification. This recommendation is to be implemented immediately. R21-9: A “Third Wheel” rule to be instituted whereby an adult third party is always present when a student meets with staff and/or included in any electronic communication. This “Third Wheel” rule ensures the safety of students and staff against misconduct and/or allegations of misconduct due to a witness always being present and/or included. This recommendation is to be implemented immediately. San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 101 SMH R21-10: The Superintendent is to perform short virtual training updates concerning staff sexual misconduct, mandated reporting, grooming, reasonable suspicion, the complaint process, etc., on a quarterly basis to all administrators and school personnel. These trainings are to be available on the RUSD website and available for check-out in all school libraries. This recommendation is to be implemented no later than October 2022. R21-11: Electronic and hard-copy complaints and/or allegations of staff sexual abuse, grooming, etc. retained for a minimum of 10 years. Files of staff sexual misconduct complaints retained in the Superintendent’s office, the Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources office, and the Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services office at the District Office, both electronically and in hard copy for consistency, accountability, and transparency. This recommendation is to be implemented immediately. R21-12: Develop and implement a visual flowchart of the complaint procedures and process, from receipt of complaint to conclusion. Flowchart to be distributed to every school front office in hard copies, put on the RUSD website and “Aeries,” in one of the handbook pamphlets, and placed in staff rooms, classrooms, assembly areas, etc. This recommendation is to be implemented no later than June 2022. R21-13: ACT Now initiative rolled out again by the Superintendent to the District and the communities it serves by April 2022. To be presented to staff meetings, churches, school assemblies, teachers of English classes in Middle and High schools, elementary classrooms, Parent Teachers Association (PTA) or other parent meetings, and other community meetings. This implementation to be done annually and to remain continuously. R21-14: Conduct an annual review of all board policies and administrative policies in these areas, preferably done by a task force headed by the Superintendent, and including, but not limited to, students, parents, staff, school volunteers, and community members. This recommendation is to be implemented no later than October 2022. San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report SMH R21-15: Working cameras to be installed in all locations where teachers and students meet, installations beginning in all classrooms. This recommendation is to be implemented by June 2022 EXHIBITS: E-1: RUSD “Working Smart” tips San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 103 SMH 104 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report SMH San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 105 This Page Left Intentionally Blank 106 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report DOING BUSINESS WITH THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO SUMMARY The City of San Bernardino urgently needs to update, develop, and adopt policy, procedures, and codes of integrity and conduct that will systematically protect it from the past systemic failures in governance. The City of San Bernardino (City) was once a thriving city that won the prestigious All- American City Award in 1977. In the following years, the City’s financial situation grew increasingly dire. By the time the City filed for bankruptcy in 2012, it had accumulated nearly $300 million in unfunded liabilities (i.e., pension funds), there was an estimated $45 million budget deficit, and the General Fund was completely depleted. The City endured a five-year struggle to recover from bankruptcy, which was finally completed in 2017. In subsequent years, the City continued to struggle with declining revenues and increased expenditures. The City made drastic cuts to regular employees and as a result, embraced the practice of outsourcing the services to businesses without a commitment to the success of the City. The quality and timeliness of services provided to the community suffered with little hope or possibility of remedy. Per the proposed 2021/2022 budget, the City has experienced strong revenue growth which is expected to continue over the course of the coming year. The City is in a position to begin to restore the decimated service levels and invest in the City’s infrastructural needs, but the City is by no means out of the woods yet. The City is plagued by media claiming unfair business practices including pay-to-play and rampant accusations of corruption and harassment. These claims were also lodged publicly and during City Council meetings severely impacting the effectiveness of the elected officials. Many of the issues surrounding doing business with the City resulted in numerous lawsuits some of which have been settled at enormous cost to the City. These settlements and losses further reduce the City’s ability to provide necessary services to the residents. The Grand Jury received numerous reports that the persistent cloud of negativity, nepotism, and allegations of corruption, San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 107 directly and indirectly, impacted the ability of the City to recruit and retain long-term employees committed to the success of the City. The overwhelming amount of negative information and community concern over the governance of the City caused the Grand Jury to investigate the City’s management and operations. The City of San Bernardino, its dedicated employees, and its residents deserve better than a continued legacy of failure. Glossary Charter City – A city which operates under the laws contained in the Charter adopted by voters of the City of San Bernardino and laws and rules established by the State of California. The Charter is the basic document that defines the organization, powers, and functions of the city. City – The City of San Bernardino CCB – Commercial Cannabis Business Commercial Cannabis – The legal cultivation, manufacturing, processing, transporting, dispensing, distribution or sale of marijuana. Development Review Committee (DRC) – Is a multi-department committee which reviews development projects prior to and during the permitting process. Ex Parte – The act or activity done with the consideration of only one party or without consideration of all the parties. Pay-to-Play – Politically relates to a situation in which payment is demanded, often illegally, from those wishing to take part in a particular business activity. Procurement – Securing goods and services used for the efficient operation of City departments. San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report RFP – Request for Proposal is a document that announces a project or service need and solicits proposals from interested individuals and/or agencies. METHODOLOGY The Grand Jury determined that the City of San Bernardino is a Charter City operated pursuant to the Council-Manager form of government. The Grand Jury reviewed the City Charter that defines the city’s government and gives the City control over its municipal affairs. The Grand Jury focused extensive research in three primary areas: procurement, permits, and applications/business licenses. The research included a review of the City Code of Conduct, organizational structure, policies and procedures, publicly available websites, City website, City Council meetings, media reports, and the City Development Code. The Grand Jurors interviewed current and former staff, including but not limited to department heads and elected officials, and individuals involved in the City application process as applicants. BACKGROUND The Grand Jury has the responsibility to investigate the Cities, and County organizations in the county by the authority of the California Penal Code § 925a which cites: § 925a. The grand jury may at any time examine the books and records of any incorporated city or joint powers agency located in the county. In addition to any other investigatory powers granted by this chapter, the grand jury may investigate and report upon the operations, accounts, and records of the officers, departments, functions, and the method or system of performing the duties of any such city or joint San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 109 powers agency and make such recommendations as it may deem proper and fit. The purpose of the Grand Jury is to make recommendations where the operations and efficiencies of the organization can improve overall service or save taxpayer’s money. The citizens of the City of San Bernardino are not happy with the governance of their city. The accusations of pay-to-play and unfair business practices has worn the City down and caused a large number of legal actions. Citizens are bone tired of incompetence and unfair bias. During the period of bankruptcy, the budget and staffing in the City were cut to a minimal number. City functions were either assumed by the County of San Bernardino (i.e., fire and protection and emergency medical response services), or were outsourced to Professional Service Providers and Advisors, most of which do not have a presence in the city or county. The City was severely weakened after bankruptcy. The remaining opportunities were limited and resulted in marginal economic stability and growth for the City’s residents. Significant income for the Contracted Professionals and Developers is still being extracted from the City and local resources. Quality-of-life issues of the general population of the City are not the central focus in the current management of the economy. City Website During the course of the investigation, the first challenge the Grand Jury encountered was the City’s website. The website was not user-friendly and lacked current information. An inadequate website causes many issues for the residents and businesses trying to do business with the City. The homepage visual design was cluttered, confusing and outdated. The format of data is not organized in a logical progression and navigation is difficult. Citizens’ confidence and pride are diminished in their city when the City’s website appears unprofessional, not purposeful and lacks adequate security. Since the beginning of Grand Jury’s use of the City website, the City’s Information Technology (IT) system received Department of Justice Security Certification in September 2021. This Certification validates the procedures 110 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report taken to protect from unauthorized access and abuse of the website. This is a very positive step for the City. In addition, it should be noted that considerable financial investment was included in the 2021/2022 budget and some changes and improvements are already underway. The Grand Jury did find several webpages that should be enhanced to improve transparency and information-gathering which would greatly aid the residents and local business community: • The Agenda Web Portal is antiquated, difficult to navigate, and has very limited search capabilities. The agenda is extremely difficult to read and conduct research on, resulting in a public that may not be well-informed on City Council actions. • The City uses PlanetBids for “Bids and RFPs.” PlanetBids is a web- based procurement application that allows staff to manage bids, contracts, insurance certificates and emergency operations. PlanetBids includes all the information related to the City’s procurement activities but requires vendor pre-registration to gain full access. PlanetBids could be used as a dual-purpose site that would inform and update the public and businesses as to procurement opportunities thus improving transparency and openings to doing business with the City. • The Business License page should have the dual-purpose of identifying the licensed business and the nature of those businesses within the City. Enhancing the Business License webpage to allow for multiple search categories would help consumers and businesses connect within the City. Keeping the dollars in the City is beneficial to all. • The Online Permits Search webpage lacks explanation/guidance and has very limited search options which often yield inaccurate results. LICENSES - The appearance of “pay-to-play” The Grand Jury’s review of the California Secretary of State Campaign Finance website (Cal-Access) revealed that contractors and business applicants contributed to candidates and elected officials during the period San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 111 in which they were either engaged or hoped to be engaged in doing business with the City. This review also revealed that elected officials received donations from persons and businesses over which they are called upon to make decisions. The acceptance and timing of contributions appear in nearly all areas of Licenses, Permits, and Procurement. Public complaints and admissions of applicants participating in this practice were noted during public City Council Meetings and during Grand Jury Interviews. The most extreme example that opened the door for potential pay-to-play activities was the Commercial Cannabis Business Permit Application/License process. The City was navigating unchartered waters so missteps should have been expected and dealt with in a transparent manner. The original Application/License included requirements that were confusing and not consistently applied. Changes made by staff in response to the appeals and challenges were filled with oversights, inconsistencies, and often were unfair to the applicants. Not all changes to the process were formally communicated to the applicants, elected officials, or the public. The Grand Jury received reports that during the Application/License process, private meetings between applicants and elected officials took place and that applicants provided gifts, and direct and indirect campaign contributions to elected officials. In an effort to prevent the potential for pay-to-play activities on future Commercial Cannabis Permits, on July 21, 2021, the City approved Integrity Standards (RESOLUTION NO. 2021-166, INTEGRITY STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL CANNABIS PERMIT APPLICANTS), which included: 1. No Ex-Parte Contacts: An applicant and its representatives shall not attempt to contact or initiate contact, in person, by phone, by mail or by electronic means, with the Mayor or any City Council Member. 2. No Gifts: An applicant and its representatives shall not directly or through any agent or intermediary make, or arrange for the making of, any gift to the Mayor, City Council Member or staff person, twelve (12) months immediately preceding the date of the CCB Permit application, while the CCB application is pending and for at least twelve (12) 112 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report months after a CCB permit is awarded. Gift shall have the same meaning as it is defined to have in the California Political Reform Act. 3. No Campaign Contributions: An applicant and its representatives shall not make a campaign contribution or loan of more than two hundred and fifty dollars ($250.00) to the Mayor or any City Council Member while an application is pending. Applicants shall disclose as part of their applications the amount of and the recipient of campaign contributions made in the twenty-four (24) months after the date the application is filed. The Grand Jury applauds this initial effort and recognizes the City’s effort to prevent corruption opportunities in the Commercial Cannabis Permit process. Unfortunately, the Integrity Standards places the burden of “integrity” only on the applicant and not on the elected officials who are the potential recipients of the contact, gift, or campaign contribution. Additionally, the Integrity Standards apply only to the Commercial Cannabis Permit process and not all other business activities within the City. The City has dedicated a huge amount of time and resources on implementing a Commercial Cannabis program that would benefit the City and the residents. Staff, applicants, and the public have suggested that a lottery-type system would be a more fair, transparent, and efficient mechanism to approve future Cannabis businesses. With the many lessons learned from the initial process, the Grand Jury fully supports this suggested change. Cannabis Tax Collection The City carved out a percentage of the Commercial Cannabis revenue to be used for the enforcement of Commercial Cannabis licensing. The licensing process allows the City to monitor compliance and collect the required Cannabis Tax. At the time of the Grand Jury review, more unlicensed than licensed Cannabis businesses existed within the City. The Grand Jury was able to easily identify numerous unlicensed Cannabis businesses. However, the Grand Jury was not able to identify specific law enforcement actions taken in regard to unlicensed Cannabis businesses. San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 113 Beyond the drain on public safety resources, unlicensed businesses do not pay the Cannabis Tax. This tax is necessary to offset the cost to administer the Commercial Cannabis program as well as generate revenue for the General Fund. Increased enforcement costs attributed to unlicensed and untaxed businesses account for significant costs and loss of revenue. Procurement Procurement is the common term used to refer to the process of obtaining services or goods for the City. Procurement activities are conducted by the Purchasing Department which is overseen by the Finance Department. A review of the organizational chart and interviews with staff revealed that the Purchasing Department (Purchasing) included only 1 full time employee. In addition, the Purchasing Guidelines and Procedures Manual, and other written and unwritten practices were incomplete and outdated and were not adhered to by employees involved in securing goods and services. As a result, procurement activities for services often occurred without the necessary oversite to ensure open and fair competition. Non-compliance of the Purchasing Guidelines and Procedures negatively impacted the acquisition of goods and services and the best and most cost-effective product was often not considered or selected. In the absence of ethical and practical oversight, several major procurements were flawed, inconsistent, and lacked transparency. Many of the procurements remain mired in problems, excessive costs, lawsuits, and interrupted services. The true status of these contracts is unknown. The ongoing efforts to pursue resolution have not been conducted in a public and transparent manner. The City website states that it will extend a bidding advantage to local businesses, but it also has a long list of exemptions including: Public Works contracts, Grant Funded contracts or purchases, emergency procurements, sole source contracts and purchases made under a cooperative agreement. The Grand Jury reviewed many of the recent and past professional service contracts issued by the City and found that most of these contracts were made to individuals and firms outside the city and county. San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report As noted previously in this report, access to procurement documents is limited and lacks transparency but the documents that were reviewed demonstrate that efforts to engage local businesses through a bidding advantage have not been successful. Securing contractual relationships with local individuals and businesses is crucial to the success of the community and creates a positive cycle of fiscal and emotional engagement. Inadequate staffing, outdated policies, non-compliance to policies, and a lack of oversight and transparency all contribute to the City’s inability to resolve ongoing procurement issues and prevent future failures. The Purchasing department has commenced an effort to update the procurement policies and the Grand Jury commends this very difficult project. The current budget includes some limited filling of positions with Purchasing, but more staff is necessary to ensure ethical, sound, and transparent procurement activities. Permits and Planning General problems in the permitting process include that the consumer of these services, be they the common citizen or large developer, must navigate through a maze of different City functions: Planning, Development, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), Fire, Code Enforcement, Health Department, and state and federal regulations and permits. The City’s portion of the process is done without full coordination amongst functions. Under these conditions, conflicts, confusion, and poor decision making is to be expected as the norm rather than the exception. The Grand Jury investigated the details behind a development which has garnered wide public comment and news coverage. Our investigational goal was to discover at what point in the process there were failures that created the stalemate and suspended the development project. The investigation included an extensive number of interviews, reading of documents provided by the City and permit research of the accessible City Permit website. The Grand Jury concluded after the review of the permit process that the major fiscal and legal problems would have been avoided if there had been coordinated communications. San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 115 Prior to issuing additional permits to an ongoing project or development, all permits (e.g., city, state, and federal, etc.), should be confirmed as current and in compliance. If those requirements were met and the activity requested is not in violation of State or Federal rules and regulations, a permit issued shall remain viable and not changed or be restricted by future City Council actions. The City should honor the original approved permits and allow the developers to work in accordance with the municipal codes and state and federal laws under which the process began. It is improper for the City to take back a permit under use because of political pressure. It is proper to make code changes that would be enforced from that point forward on new developments, but improper to apply new requirements on already issued permits. Further complicating the navigation of the requirements to obtain development permits is that much of the City’s Planning and Development and Public Works tasks are completed by outside contracted professionals. Outside service providers are not integrated into the daily operation of the permits counter where the public begins the process resulting in time delays, missed requirements and errors in identifying all needs for a project or development. The Grand Jury recommends moving to a One-Stop type of service where the applicant receives information from multiple permitting departments and is provided a clear list of all permits required for the entire proposed project. The Grand Jury also recommends the City enhance its current Development Review Committee process to include all impacted departments and develop an electronic approval process in which all departments must sign off prior to issuing all but the most routine, simple permits. In addition to the internal system failures, Permit/Planning review credibility is harmed by the appearance of pay-to-play when applicants make campaign contributions at strategic times in the applicable process. The very appearance of pay-to-play entering the Permitting/Planning Process has led to distrust in the process and potential legal liabilities to the City. It is important that the adopted CCB Integrity Standards apply to all facets of doing business with the City (especially Permits and Planning), so that the 116 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report public and businesses gain confidence in the health and operations of the City. The Grand Jury also suggests, as part of the City’s current financial planning, to return to in-house professional staffing rather than contracted professional services. The Grand Jury recognizes the dedicated City employees who strive to do the best job possible for the customers, but they are at the mercy of contracted service providers who do not share a long term vested interest in the success of the City. While investigating development permits, the issue of bonding came to the attention of the Grand Jury. In the review of Business Licenses and Building and Development Permits, a variety of bonding requirements were discovered. Bond, Insurance, and Indemnification levels are intended to protect the City from risk and liability. Currently, bond requirements are not assessed proportionate to the actual risk to the City. Bonds are not a means to recover costs of permit process, City Council approved fees are collected for that purpose. Bonds should only be used to cover real risk to the City. Non-performance bonds should be applied to only City Public Work Projects, not businesses failing to open on a projected timeline. For example, a recent bonding requirement for an improperly permitted “construction yard” was a deposit of $1,000. The resulting cost to the City to clean up a construction yard can and in this case, likely will, greatly exceed that bond. On the other hand, the bond for a Commercial Cannabis license holder to ensure that licensee opens a business within 12 months is $200,000. This requirement is intended to ensure the City recovers the exceptional costs associated with preparing for a Commercial Cannabis business. If the Cannabis business encounters lengthy delays or fails to open, the City needs a mechanism to recover the cost of staff time, document preparation, etc. However, the City controls the many required processes (such as permits and inspections) which can impact the opening date. In light of the current system failures within the permitting process, the business could potentially be penalized for not opening as required when the City is also responsible for the failure. The Grand Jury was not able to determine real-time risk San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 117 justification for a $200,000 bond and finds the amount excessive, unfairly punitive and a detriment to all businesses. Another example is the indemnification requirement for a Snow Cone or Fruit vendor which is set at $1,000,000. Evidence established that there is a disconnect between the purpose and use of the bonds and indemnification levels. The Grand Jury finds that such practices do not protect the City from large risks and negatively impacts small businesses. The City should consider a public review of their bonding and indemnification requirements and the methodology used for calculating the amounts levied. On the other hand, the fees charged for Permits and Licenses are calculated based on recovering the cost of processing that permit. The current fee schedule was publicly presented and approved in July 2020. The Grand Jury fully supports this transparent business practice and recommends a similar process be used for all charges applied to customers doing business with the City. City Leadership Lack of documented systems and processes, policies and procedures leave elected officials and employees without clear direction or rules to follow. All aspects of City operations and governance are hampered by inconsistent communications. There is also a department-wide lack of policies and procedures, and very limited written guidelines which leave employees without clear direction or rules to follow. Absent clear direction, employees do not have the tools they need to successfully perform their duties, and interacting with elected officials, management, and the public is unnecessarily difficult. In addition to financial and operational challenges, the City is forced to function in the midst of a dysfunctional and uninformed legislative body. Despite a change to the Charter in 2016 and several elections, relations between the elected officials (especially during public meetings) are strained and contentious. Elected officials report a lack of clear understanding of the budget, how the City operates, and their defined roles as policy makers. The 118 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report Grand Jury supports the expressed desire of staff and elected officials to be informed and educated through concise and specific training. Training should be in easily accessible and multiple formats such as managed tutorials, video training, and department-specific training. Creative use of low-cost media such as YouTube presentations or Recorded Limited Access Teams Presentations could all be part of a curriculum specific to the City of San Bernardino, allowing for the accommodation of different schedule demands and learning styles. FINDINGS