Response to 2009-2010 Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations*

Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F2, F4

Conclusions 14

• CL1
  It appears that the procedures for the personnel (staff and inmates) working in the laundry facility are not followed. Training for inmate workers in this area needs to be improved. The following problems were observed by the committee. a. Laundry inmate workers were observed eating in the laundry. b. Laundry inmate workers were not wearing gloves or aprons (though they were available) while processing the laundry. c. Inmates locked in the laundry room while working. d. Inmates are still not offered Hepatitis B vaccinations as required by OSHA regulation (29 CFR, Section 1910.1030) and Cal OSHA (Title 8, Section 5193.) These issues were raised in the 2008-2009 Grand Jury who received the following response from the Sheriff: "The County Health Officer was already in the process of getting free Hepatitis B/Hepatitis A vaccine for all of our inmates." This Grand Jury believes that the same conditions appear to exist and still present safety concerns. Response to Finding 2: Disagree in part. The laundry is efficient, effective and safe. Some delays were experienced in the vaccination program that have since been remedied. a. Inmates are not authorized to eat in the laundry. b. Laundry workers are required to wear gloves when they handle dirty laundry. They are not required to wear gloves when they handle clean laundry. Jail, by definition, is a place for the secure detention of prisoners. It is a security requirement c. that the laundry remain locked to prevent escapes. d. During the week of July 26, 2010, all laundry workers were offered Hepatitis B vaccinations.
• CL2
  Female inmates are not offered vocational training in electrical or carpentry, nor are they offered to work in the kitchen. The male inmates are not offered life skills training or offered to work in the laundry area. These issues were raised by the 2008-2009 Grand Jury with the following response received by the Sheriff: "Part of the Jail's mission is to prepare prisoners mentally and physically for their successful reintegration in to the community. Optional vocational training is offered to inmates. It is not feasible, operationally or financially, to expand programs and offer equal training to both male and female inmates. There is no requirement to do so." These issues still remain and are a concern to the 2009-2010 Grand Jury. Response to Finding 4: Agree. The finding is accurate in that females are not offered training in carpentry and electrical nor work in the kitchen; males are not offered life skills training or work in the YCSO Grand Jury Response laundry. However, due to the current fiscal crisis, the vocational education programs have been eliminated, and with them, most of this finding.
• CL3
  One member active in a business organization representing the business community located within the district;
• CL4
  One member active in a senior citizens' organization;
• CL5
  One member who is active in bona-fide taxpayers' organization;
• CL6
  One member who is a parent or guardian of a district student; and
• CL7
  One member who is a parent or guardian of a district student and active in a parent-teacher organization. Prohibited Members. No school district official, employee, vendor, contractor, or consultant may serve on the oversight committee. Term of Membership; Compensation. Members serve for a two-year term and may not serve more than two consecutive terms. Members serve without compensation. Conflict rules. Members may not have a financial interest in any contract or sale of property involving the school district. Members may not engage in any employment or activity for compensation that is inconsistent, incompatible or in conflict with their service on the Oversight Committee. Brown Act. Because it is a committee established by the district governing board, the meetings of the committee are subject to the rules of the Ralph M. Brown Act. Other Organizational Rules. As the organizing authority for the committee, the school district governing board may establish such other rules for the operation of the committee as it deems appropriate, including rules for removal of members, filling vacancies, selecting officers, the frequency of committee meetings, the place and time for meetings, the number of members constituting a quorum, the number of votes required for committee action, etc. Purpose The purpose of the oversight committee, as stated in Education Code section 15278, is to "actively review and report" to the public as to whether the school district spends the bond proceeds only for construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of school facilities, including the furnishing and equipping of school facilities, or the acquisition or lease of real property for school facilities, and not for any other purpose, including teacher and administrator salaries and other school operating expenses. Activities Education Code section 15278 provides that the committee may engage in any of the following activities:
• CL8
  Other committees created by formal Board of Education action (cf. 9130 - Board Committees) (cf. 9320 - Meetings and Notices) (cf. 9321 - Closed Session Purposes and Agendas) (cf. 9321.1 - Closed Session Actions and Reports) (cf. 9323 - Meeting Conduct) Committees Not Subject to Brown Act Requirements The following committees are exempt from the Brown Act but must conform with procedural meeting requirements established in Education Code 35147:
• CL9
  Resources available to help the committee perform its tasks
• CL10
  Timelines for progress reports and/or final report
• CL11
  Relevant Board policies and administrative regulations Members of advisory committees are not vicariously liable for injuries caused by the act or omission of the district or a committee and are not liable for injuries caused by an act or omission of a committee member acting within the scope of his/her role as a member of the committee. However, a member may be liable for injury caused by his/her own wrongful conduct. (Government Code 815.2, 820.9) (cf. 3530 - Risk Management/Insurance) Committees Subject to Brown Act Requirements The following committees shall comply with Brown Act requirements pertaining to open meetings, notices, and public participation, pursuant to Government Code 54950-54963:
• CL12
  Again, I would like to thank the 2009/2010 Yuba County Grand Jury for their service and for the opportunity to respond to the findings and recommendations. I look forward to working with the 2010/2011 Grand Jury. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 749-7779. Sincerely, Steven L. Durfor Sheriff-Coroner South Unified Scribos Marysville Joint Unified School District 1919 B Street Marysville, CA 95901 (530) 741-6000 • FAX (530) 742-0573 Connected for Student Succession AUG 1 3 2010 August 12, 2010 COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT H. STEPHEN KONISHISUPERIOR COURT CLERK Honorable Judge O'Connor BY COURT CLERK Supervising Judge of the Grand Jury Yuba County Superior Court 215 Fifth Street, Suite 200 Marysville, CA 95901 RE: Response of Marysville Joint Unified School District, Board of Trustees to the Final Report of the Yuba County Grand Jury 2009-2010 pp. 33-41. The Honorable Judge O'Connor: Pursuant to California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the Marysville Joint Unified School District ("District"), and the Board of Trustees ("Board") hereby submits its formal response to the 2009-2010 Grand Jury Final Report ("Report") on the Bond Oversight Committee as follows: INTRODUCTION I. Measure H In June of 2006, Marysville voters passed Measure H, a $37 million school facilities bond for repairing and modernizing District schools; constructing, acquiring, converting, furnishing, and equipping school facilities; and to help the District qualify for State modernization and construction matching funds. The bond also called for an independent Citizens Oversight Committee (also known as the Bond Oversight Committee ("BOC")). The BOC has a broad-based membership to monitor facilities projects progress, and to ensure that no bond funds are spent on school district salaries or operating expenses. Measure H projects are reviewed by the BOC to ensure the money is spent only for authorized purposes, as defined by the bond text approved by the voters. In addition, the BOC is given reports regarding all District facilities projects, not only those funded by Measure H, but also those funded by state funding, developer fees, and any combination thereof. Thus, the information provided to the BOC exceeds that which is required they be given. On August 8, 2006, pursuant to California Education Code section 15274, the Board confirmed the Measure H election results in its minutes by way of Resolution 2006- 07/09. Subsequent to that time, for approximately eight months, the District utilized 1 All further statutory references are to the California Education Code, unless otherwise noted. Honorable Judge O'Connor August 12, 2010 Page 2 developer's fees to prepare Site Master Plans of the District's facilities projects. The District had previously made a conscious decision to wait to expend the time, staff and resources to conduct such detailed master planning until after the bond was approved. As a result of the focus on this process, coupled with some unforeseen difficulty in finding qualified members from the necessary demographics, as defined in Section 15282, the BOC was not formed until May 21, 2007. At its inaugural meeting on May 21, 2007, BOC members were officially appointed and their terms began. On May 21, 2007, Government Financial Strategies provided training to the BOC members regarding the funding and financing of school facilities in California. On that date, Mark Allgire provided the BOC with a training packet [Attachment 1], prepared by Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard, that addressed the purposes for the establishment of the BOC, and the duties and responsibilities of the BOC members. II. Measure P In November of 2008, Marysville voters passed Measure P, a $47 million school facilities bond for the same general purposes as Measure H. As with Measure H, the Measure P bond also called for an independent BOC. Measure P projects are reviewed by the BOC to ensure the money is spent only for authorized purposes, as defined by the bond text approved by the voters. In addition, the BOC is given reports regarding all District facilities projects; not only those funded by Measure P, but also those funded by state funding, developer fees, and any combination thereof. Thus, the information provided to the BOC exceeds that which is required. On January 13, 2009, pursuant to Section 15274, the Board confirmed the election results in its minutes by way of Resolution 2008-09/39. On the same date, the BOC for Measure P was established by way of Resolution 2008-09/40. Consistent with legal advice provided to the District by P. Addison Covert at Kronick Moscovitz Tiederman & Girard, the BOC for Measure P is comprised of the same members as the BOC for Measure H. III. Bond Oversight Committee, Generally The BOC meets approximately every three months to perform its functions. Its meetings are open to the public and must comply with the requirements of the Brown Act. The BOC prepares an annual report to the community that provides a summary of all projects that are funded with contributions of bond funds, State matching funds, and developer fees. The annual report is distributed to District taxpayers by the United States Postal Service and is generally2 available on the District website: 2 In the Fall of 2009, the District’s website underwent a reconstruction. During that technological overhaul, links to the Annual Reports for 2007/08 and 2008/09 were inadvertently omitted. Those links were restored on August 3, 2010 immediately upon discovery of the omission. Honorable Judge O'Connor August 12, 2010 Page 3 www.mjusd.k12.ca.us/education/components/docmgr/default.p hp?sectiondetailid=1333&linkid=nav-menu-container-4-5006 While the District provides the BOC with necessary technical and administrative assistance as required by Section 15280, the BOC is independent from the Board and the District. REQUIRED RESPONSES TO FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS I. Finding 1, Finding 2, Recommendation 1 and Recommendation 2: The Board defers to the response of the Bond Oversight Committee for responses to Findings 1 and 2, and Recommendations 1 and 2, as they are directed to the responsibilities of an independent body (i.e. the Bond Oversight Committee). II. Finding 3: "The Bond Oversight Committee was established in July 2006, with five of the current members appointed at that time. Based on EC §15282(a), the term limit is two years with one extension; therefore, those five members will complete their terms in July 2010. A written process for replacing members of the Bond Oversight Committee should be timely established." Response to Finding 3: Agree in part; Disagree in part. Term Limits: The Board agrees with the Grand Jury's finding that term limits for Bond Oversight Committee members are limited to two, two-year terms. The Board disagrees with the finding that five of the current members will complete their terms in July 2010. As discussed in the Introduction, the five current BOC members with the longest tenure began their terms when the BOC held its first meeting on May 21, 2007. Accordingly, those five members' terms will expire on May 21, 2011. Written Process: The Board disagrees with Finding 3 to the extent that it implies that the District does not have a process for replacing members of the BOC. The District maintains a written Board Policy and Administrative Regulation that address, among other things, the criteria for the selection of initial Bond Oversight Committee members. [Board Policy 1220, Administrative Regulations 1220 and 7214; Attachments 2, 3 and 4.] With respect to recruitment and selection of new BOC members following a member's resignation from the BOC, or the expiration of a member's or members' term limits, the District has an informal policy whereby it queries the remaining Committee members to obtain a list of potential replacements, thus appropriately leaving the control of filling vacancies within the purview of the Honorable Judge O'Connor August 12, 2010 Page 4 BOC. The Board agrees with Finding 3 to the extent that it suggests that a written process for replacing members of the BOC should be considered by the BOC. Among other possibilities, the BOC may approve and adopt bylaws addressing recruitment and replacement of BOC members. Whether or not to do so, obviously, must be left up to the BOC. III. Recommendation 3: "The Board of Trustees needs to establish a process for recruiting and replacing members of the Bond Oversight Committee. The criteria should include an application process with the following: Active members of the required organizations Desired skill sets Persons that are willing to actively represent the interests of taxpayers" Response to Recommendation 3: Agree in Part; Disagree in Part. The Board disagrees with Recommendation 3 to the extent that it suggests the District does not currently have a written process for recruiting and replacing members of the BOC. As discussed in response to Finding 3, the District has an informal policy on recruitment and selection of new BOC members to replace members who have resigned or whose term limits have expired. The Board further disagrees with Recommendation 3 to the extent that it suggests the Board of Trustees alone should establish a formal written process for recruiting and replacing members of the BOC. The Board believes that for the BOC to maintain its independence from the District, the recruitment and selection for the replacement of BOC members must be the responsibility of the BOC. The BOC will ultimately be responsible for recruiting and replacing its members. The Board agrees with Recommendation 3 to the extent that it suggests that a formal written process should be considered by the BOC. Further, although not legally required, an amendment to Administrative Regulation 7214 may be considered by the Board and may establish the following: (1) that the recruitment and selection for the replacement of BOC members is a responsibility of the BOC; and that the BOC consider adopting bylaws. (2) Honorable Judge O'Connor August 12, 2010 Page 5
• CL13
  The List was mathematically accurate. Board of Trustees and Measure H Oversight Committee Marysville Joint Unified School District Marysville, California We have compiled the accompanying Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Change in Fund Balance - Building Fund (Measure H Bond Fund) for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 (Attachment III), in accordance with Statement on Standards for Accounting and Review Services issued by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A compilation is limited to presenting in the form of financial statements information that is the representation of management. We have not audited or reviewed the accompanying Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Change in Fund Balance - Building Fund for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 and, accordingly, do not express an opinion or any other form of assurance on it. Perry-Smith Lip Sacramento, California January 7, 2009 : ATTACHMENT III MARYSVILLE JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE BUILDING FUND For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2008 Revenues: Interest and investment income $ 761,600 Expenditures: Materials and supplies 134 Rentals and leases 55,000 Contract services and operating expenditures 158,088 Capital outlay 2,888,467 Total expenditures 3,101,689 Excess of expenditures over revenues (2,340,089) Fund balance: Beginning of year 18,526,996 End of year $ 16,186,907 , . See accountant's compilation report and note to financial statements. . Perry-Smith LLP PERRY-SMITH 400 Capitol Mall | Suite 1200 Sacramento, CA 95814 www.perry-smith.com 916.441.1000 INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT ON APPLYING AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES Board of Trustees and Measure H Oversight Committee Marysville Joint Unified School District Marysville, California We have performed the procedures enumerated in Attachment II, which were agreed to by Marysville Joint Unified School District (the "District") and the Measure H Oversight Committee (the "Committee"), solely to assist the Committee in evaluating District management's assertions concerning disbursement of Measure H Bond funds for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009. This agreed-upon procedures engagement was performed in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The sufficiency of these procedures is solely the responsibility of the District and the Committee. Consequently, we make no representation regarding the sufficiency of the procedures described in Attachment II either for the purpose for which this report has been requested or for any other purpose. The procedures performed and conclusions reached as a result of these procedures are identified in Attachment II. Attachment III provides information regarding the financial activity and balance of the bond fund for the year ended June 30, 2009. We were not engaged to, and did not, perform an examination, the objective of which would be the expression of an opinion on management's assertions. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. Had we performed additional procedures, other matters might have come to our attention that would have been reported to you. This report is intended solely for the use of Marysville Joint Unified School District and the Measure H Oversight Committee and should not be used by those who have not agreed to the procedures and taken responsibility for the sufficiency of the procedures for their purposes. Perry- Sminul December 15, 2009 Sacramento | San Francisco ATTACHMENT I MARYSVILLE JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BACKGROUND INFORMATION LEGISLATIVE HISTORY On November 7, 2000, California voters approved Proposition 39, the Smaller Classes, Safer Schools, and Financial Accountability Act. Proposition 39 amended portions of the California Constitution to provide for the issuance of general obligation bonds by school districts, community college districts, or county offices of education, "for the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of school facilities, including the furnishing and equipping of school facilities, or the acquisition or lease of rental property for school facilities", upon approval by 55% of the electorate. MARYSVILLE JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT MEASURE H GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS On June 6, 2006, the electorate of the Marysville Joint Unified School District approved the $37,000,000 Measure H general obligation bonds with greater than 55% of the votes in favor. The Bond funds are to be used to improve the quality of education by repairing and modernizing worn-out local schools, such as repairing, upgrading or replacing roofs, heating/air conditioning and plumbing systems; constructing, acquiring, converting, furnishing and equipping school facilities; and to help qualify for State modernization and construction matching funds. ATTACHMENT II MARYSVILLE JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT PROCEDURES PERFORMED AND CONCLUSIONS PROCEDURES PERFORMED Marysville Joint Unified School District provided to us a list of all Measure H project expenditures (the "List"). A total of 1,162 expenditures were identified representing $22,205,743 in expenditures from July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009. We performed the following procedures related to the List of Measure H bond expenditures: Verified the mathematical accuracy of the List. ٠ Selected 60 expenditures totaling $16,938,505. The audit sample represented 5% of the total number of expenditures and 76% of the total expenditure value. Verified that funds were used for the construction, rehabilitation, or replacement of school facilities, including the furnishing and equipping of school facilities, or the acquisition or lease of real property for school facilities and that funds were not spent for salaries or other administrative expenses.
• CL14
  The List was mathematically accurate. Each of the expenditures tested represented valid Bond expenditures, were ٠ properly charged to the location indicated, were properly coded as to the nature of the expenditure, and were determined to represent construction, rehabilitation, or replacement of school facilities, including the furnishing and equipping of school facilities, or the acquisition or lease of real property for school facilities and were not spent for salaries or other administrative expenses. . Board of Trustees and Measure H Oversight Committee Marysville Joint Unified School District Marysville, California We have compiled the accompanying Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Change in Fund Balance - Building Fund (Measure H Bond Fund) for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009 (Attachment III), in accordance with Statement on Standards for Accounting and Review Services issued by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A compilation is limited to presenting in the form of financial statements information that is the representation of management. We have not audited or reviewed the accompanying Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Change in Fund Balance - Building Fund for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009 and, accordingly, do not express an opinion or any other form of assurance on it. Perry- Smish Ly Sacramento, California December 15, 2009 ATTACHMENT III MARYSVILLE JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE BUILDING FUND For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2009 Revenues: 422,953 $ Interest and investment income Proceeds from the issuance of 19,000,000 General Obligation Bonds 1,248,641 Operating transfers in 389,876 Other financing activities 21,061,470 Total revenues Expenditures: 25,056 Materials and supplies 511,559 Contract services and operating expenditures 21,668,294 Capital outlay 834 Other financing uses 22,205,743 Total expenditures (1,144,273) Excess of expenditures over revenues Fund balance: 16,186,907 Beginning of year $ 15,042,634 End of year . See accountant's compilation report and . note to financial statements. The County of Yuba CQU GRAND JURY 次 R 215 FIFTH STREET, SUITE 200 ° COURTHOUSE ° MARYSVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95901 PHONE (530) 749-7341 * FAX (530) 749-7304 * E-mail: yubagrandjury@yubacourts.org