8 responses to findings and recommendations
F1
No discussion of the 2010 Bond's possible financial ramifications took place at open Board meetings before the Board passed the resolution to proceed with a ballot measure.
Response: Disagree
Score: -1
The respondent disagrees with the finding and is unclear as to the factual basis there for. The Board had an extensive conversation on March 9,20 10, concerning the possible financial ramifications of the bond.
R1
When contemplating future taxing measures, the Board should allow sufficient time for full disclosure to the public of financial information including legal fees, underwriting costs and repayment obligations. The Board should develop a written process addressing discussion of the financial consequences of taxing measures in a public forum and share their proposal with the public in the next 180 days.
Response: Requires Analysis
Score: 0
Response: This recommendation requires further analysis. The Board will continue to responsibly exercise its fiduciary responsibilities and make all disclosures required by law.
F2
Some of the capital projects, such as solar panels, insulation and window replacement, to be financed with the 2010 Bond should generate energy cost savings for the Districts.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
Response: The respondent agrees with the finding.
R2
To verify the estimated energy savings from specific planned capital projects, there should be an annual audit of energy expenditures. The audit should focus on and reflect any costs reduced by the use of solar panels funded by the Bond. This audit should be done after the initial solar panels are installed and continue on an annual basis for 3 years.
Response: Implemented
Due: Within 180 days
Scheduled: Perpetual monitoring and annual reporting for 5 years
Score: 0
Response: This recommendation has been implemented at multiple levels: 1) System performance will be monitored perpetually throughout the term of the agreement (20 years).
F3
The organization restructuring of the General Counsel's responsibilities has not resulted in anticipated operational effectiveness and may not have fulfilled the cost savings originally projected.
Response: Disagree
Score: -1
Response: The respondent disagrees with the finding. Due to severely decreased state funding and declining enrollment, the District has been forced to make deep budget cuts and to combine positions and responsibilities.
R3
The Board should review the effectiveness of combining the General Counsel's responsibility for legal work and services with transportation, maintenance and food services. They should also analyze the impact of combining these responsibilities on actual costs. Contra Costa County 2010-2011 Grand Jury Report 1102 . . •
Response: Implemented
Scheduled: Ongoing
Score: 0
Response: This recommendation has been implemented. The General Counsel is regularly evaluated. The District is consistently engages in an internal review of its operational effectiveness, budgeting and expenditures.
F4
In addition to the anticipated relief to the general fund from specific 2010 Bond projects, further savings could be achieved through further salary and benefit expenses reductions.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
) Sincerely, /G L- Greg Rolen a' General Counsel
R4
The Board should continue to pursue reducing salaries and benefits to address the District's 2011-2012 budget shortfalls.
Response: Implemented
Scheduled: Recently negotiated
Score: 0
Response This recommendation has been implemented. The District will provide the recently negotiated employee agreements upon request.
