Public Oversight of Local Government is the Foundation of American Democracy. Nowhere is this more evident than in our

R2

1 By September 30, 2021, the Stockton Unified School District Board of Trustees publicly and officially affirm their commitment to follow their agreed-upon “Process for Recruitment and Selection of an Interim Superintendent” and the “Process for Recruitment and Selection of Permanent Superintendent” when hiring future superintendents. 2.2 Hiring a Board Attorney: SUSD Bylaws and the Brown Act Ignored On February 24, 2020, a special board meeting was held at 2:00 pm. It is unusual for an SUSD board meeting to be held at that time of day, because it is difficult for many constituents to attend during the normal working day. This limited community members’ access to this important meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to approve a contract with the law firm Burke, Williams & Sorensen to represent the board. It is unusual for a school district to employ an attorney to serve only a board of trustees rather than the entire district. The agenda (Item 1.5) regarding the hiring of the law firm did not include the contract or the funding source. The trustees returned from a closed session to find copies of the contract at their places on the dais. There was a motion to postpone the item until the agreement could be posted for public viewing at the next regularly scheduled board meeting. The motion failed by a vote of four to three. The motion to approve the agreement with Burke, Williams and Sorenson, LLP was then passed, also by a vote of four to three. The SUSD Board Bylaw 9124 states Retaining Legal Counsel When the district is seeking legal advice or representation, the Superintendent or designee shall initiate a Request for Proposals (RFP) to advertise and solicit proposals for legal services. In evaluating the proposals, the Board and Superintendent shall consider the firm's or attorney's background, experience, and reputation in education law; experience advising or representing school districts in California; fees; and experience of attorneys at the firm who will provide legal services. The Board and Superintendent shall annually evaluate the performance of the firm and/or attorneys providing legal services in such areas as efficiency and adequacy of advice; results obtained for the district; reasonableness of fees; and responsiveness to and interactions with the Board, administration, and community. Upon a successful 14 evaluation, the Board may renew the agreement with legal counsel without initiating an RFP. (SUSD Board Bylaw 9214) This was not the first time in recent years that the board decided to hire new attorneys. SUSD board bylaws recommend that legal services are periodically reviewed to determine whether the services are meeting the needs of the district. The attorney for the district with the law firm of Dannis Woliver Kelley had served SUSD for 15 years. This attorney handled matters for the district, not just the board of trustees. The Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP firm was chosen to replace this longtime SUSD attorney. The approved public process was used to hire this firm. A request for proposal (RFP) was developed, following district bylaws. Proposals were accepted from five law firms. Interviews were conducted, followed by reviews and ratings of the proposals, using a scoring rubric developed by a board subcommittee. The vote to hire Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP was approved unanimously. This process was quite different from the one used to hire the designated board attorney in the February 24, 2020 special meeting. There was no RFP, no acceptance of multiple proposals, no interviews, and no scoring rubric. The contract was approved at a public meeting as required by law, however, according to public statements by some board members, they had not been informed of the details, and had not seen the contract before the special meeting. “1.5 (A): Approval of Agreement with Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP” was all that was placed on the agenda. There was no contract to review. Until the special meeting, the name, and qualifications of the attorney for the board were known only to some of the board members. The Grand Jury is concerned that some, but not all, of the board members, appeared to have known in advance about the plan to hire an attorney with Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP to provide legal services, strictly for the board and not for the whole district. This time the vote was not unanimous. It was four to three, and a motion to postpone failed by the same margin. The board members in the minority were upset and believed there was a Brown Act violation. The attorney with Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP was present at the meeting before being confirmed and began work immediately. Formal complaints from the community and some trustees were made, alleging the Ralph M. Brown Act had been violated. The board took up the matter again, two months later, to “cure and correct" what the Grand Jury believes was a valid complaint. At the April 28, 2020, meeting the board voted four to three to reaffirm the hiring of the board attorney.

R1

1 By November 1, 2021, the Stockton Unified School District Board of Trustees complete additional intensive governance training, facilitated by a qualified external body such as the California School Board Association. 2.0 Best Hiring Practices Ignored by Trustees 2.1 Hiring a Superintendent: Agreed-upon Process Disregarded At the May 12, 2020, special board meeting, in anticipation of the superintendent’s June 15th departure, SUSD trustees voted unanimously to use a formal process for selecting a permanent, or if necessary, interim superintendent. This process was similar to that used to select previous superintendents. The following is excerpted from the meeting agenda: Proposed Process for Recruitment and Selection of Interim Superintendent (if needed) to start on June 16, 2020: • The Board will meet in Closed Session at the end of this meeting to consider candidates for Interim Superintendent. • The Board may invite candidates for an interview with the Board. • If necessary, the Board will extend an offer to a candidate for Interim Superintendent if a permanent Superintendent has not been selected by June 16, 2020, or if the selected candidate is unable to commence by June 16, 2020. (The above process was used to select the Interim Superintendent, Brian Biedermann, who served from June 2020 until February 2021.) Proposed Process for Recruitment and Selection of Permanent Superintendent: • Select date for commencement of advertisement of open position and recruitment for Superintendent. • Appointment of ad hoc advisory Board committee to oversee the advertisement process. • Development of ad hoc advisory Board committees at May 12, 2020 Board meeting to obtain feedback from various stakeholder groups: o Family Feedback Committee o Community Feedback Committee o Staff Feedback Committee o Student Feedback Committee • The Feedback committees will meet with stakeholders to share their hopes for the next Superintendent. 12 • The Board will meet in Closed Session to review applications, review stakeholder feedback, and invite candidates to interview. • The Board will announce decision of new Superintendent. These processes for recruiting and selecting a permanent superintendent were adopted unanimously by the board on May 12, 2020. At no time since then has a recruitment and selection process, like the one described above, been used. On July 1, 2020, Mr. John Ramirez, Jr. was contracted by Stockton Unified School District to provide consultant services for SUSD for one year. The contract called for him to “provide support and mentoring for the Interim Superintendent, the Interim Deputy Superintendent, Executive Cabinet, Board of Education, Educational Services, Human Resources Administration, and Budget Management.” He also provided consulting services to an independent charter school, Vision Quest & Career Pathway, before starting this consulting contract. Vision Quest & Career Pathway operated as an independent charter school for formerly incarcerated adults. On January 7, 2020, the charter was approved by the Stockton Unified School Board. After four months Vision Quest & Career Pathway charter school closed. Mr. Ramirez continued to provide consultant services for the district until February 2, 2021. On January 26, 2021, the interim superintendent, Brian Biedermann, gave notice that he was stepping down from the superintendency, citing health issues. The board then named Mr. Ramirez acting superintendent, ending his consultant contract. This lasted until February 9, 2021, when he was elevated to interim superintendent. He remained in that position until May 25, 2021, when the Board voted five to two to make him the permanent superintendent. He is the sixth permanent superintendent in the last 16 years. All the previous, permanent superintendents were selected after using a thorough process, led by search firms. In those cases, in-depth background checks were conducted,

R3

1 By September 30, 2021, a student representative be seated on the Stockton Unified School District Board of Trustees.

R4

1 By September 3, 2021, the Stockton Unified School District Board of Trustees publicly review the California School Board Association Professional Governance Standards. Each trustee publicly agree to adhere to them.

R1

1 By November 1, 2021, the Stockton Unified School District Board of Trustees complete additional intensive governance training, facilitated by a qualified external body such as the California School Board Association. 2.0 Best Hiring Practices Ignored by Trustees 2.1 Hiring a Superintendent: Agreed-upon Process Disregarded At the May 12, 2020, special board meeting, in anticipation of the superintendent’s June 15th departure, SUSD trustees voted unanimously to use a formal process for selecting a permanent, or if necessary, interim superintendent. This process was similar to that used to select previous superintendents. The following is excerpted from the meeting agenda: Proposed Process for Recruitment and Selection of Interim Superintendent (if needed) to start on June 16, 2020: • The Board will meet in Closed Session at the end of this meeting to consider candidates for Interim Superintendent. • The Board may invite candidates for an interview with the Board. • If necessary, the Board will extend an offer to a candidate for Interim Superintendent if a permanent Superintendent has not been selected by June 16, 2020, or if the selected candidate is unable to commence by June 16, 2020. (The above process was used to select the Interim Superintendent, Brian Biedermann, who served from June 2020 until February 2021.) Proposed Process for Recruitment and Selection of Permanent Superintendent: • Select date for commencement of advertisement of open position and recruitment for Superintendent. • Appointment of ad hoc advisory Board committee to oversee the advertisement process. • Development of ad hoc advisory Board committees at May 12, 2020 Board meeting to obtain feedback from various stakeholder groups: o Family Feedback Committee o Community Feedback Committee o Staff Feedback Committee o Student Feedback Committee • The Feedback committees will meet with stakeholders to share their hopes for the next Superintendent. 12 • The Board will meet in Closed Session to review applications, review stakeholder feedback, and invite candidates to interview. • The Board will announce decision of new Superintendent. These processes for recruiting and selecting a permanent superintendent were adopted unanimously by the board on May 12, 2020. At no time since then has a recruitment and selection process, like the one described above, been used. On July 1, 2020, Mr. John Ramirez, Jr. was contracted by Stockton Unified School District to provide consultant services for SUSD for one year. The contract called for him to “provide support and mentoring for the Interim Superintendent, the Interim Deputy Superintendent, Executive Cabinet, Board of Education, Educational Services, Human Resources Administration, and Budget Management.” He also provided consulting services to an independent charter school, Vision Quest & Career Pathway, before starting this consulting contract. Vision Quest & Career Pathway operated as an independent charter school for formerly incarcerated adults. On January 7, 2020, the charter was approved by the Stockton Unified School Board. After four months Vision Quest & Career Pathway charter school closed. Mr. Ramirez continued to provide consultant services for the district until February 2, 2021. On January 26, 2021, the interim superintendent, Brian Biedermann, gave notice that he was stepping down from the superintendency, citing health issues. The board then named Mr. Ramirez acting superintendent, ending his consultant contract. This lasted until February 9, 2021, when he was elevated to interim superintendent. He remained in that position until May 25, 2021, when the Board voted five to two to make him the permanent superintendent. He is the sixth permanent superintendent in the last 16 years. All the previous, permanent superintendents were selected after using a thorough process, led by search firms. In those cases, in-depth background checks were conducted,

R4

1 By September 3, 2021, the Stockton Unified School District Board of Trustees publicly review the California School Board Association Professional Governance Standards. Each trustee publicly agree to adhere to them.

R5

1 As of August 1, 2021, discontinue accepting and investigating all trustee complaints against each other.

R6

1 By August 3, 2021, all Stockton Unified School District board meetings be held in person and open to the public.