San Mateo County Grand Jury
• 2009-2010
School Bond Citizens’ Oversight Committees, Prop 39 Issue | Background | Findings | Conclusions | Recommendations |
⚠️ 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 8 findings
F1
All SMCo School Districts that have current Proposition 39 voter approved bonds have established COCs and bylaws for oversight committees as required by Proposition 39. Additionally the Grand Jury learned that COCs: a. Have charters and bylaws that have been developed by the School District Boards. b. Are chartered to review and report to the public on the proper expenditures of approved bond projects as outlined in the bond resolution and to report on the efficiency of the expenditures. c. Are not involved in the approval of projects, the selection of contractors or vendors or the approval of construction contracts. According to State legislation, COCs review and report on expenditures after they have been made.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The Boards of Trustees of the Millbrae Elementary, Las Lomitas Elementary, La Honda- Pescadero Unified, Hillsborough City Elementary, Burlingame Elementary, Belmont- Redwood Shores School Districts, the Jefferson Union and San Mateo Union High School Districts and the San Mateo County Community College District School District, which all have voter approved construction bonds, should: a. Appoint members to fill the various COC categories who have experience or working knowledge of building and construction, fiscal or financial background and an understanding of school bonds. The Grand Jury acknowledges that in some school districts it may be difficult to identify qualified candidates who are willing to serve. b. Clearly communicate to candidates for COC membership the role and responsibility of the local oversight committees. c. Require in COC bylaws that COCs meet at least four times per year. 5 d. Exhibit greater acceptance of and a willingness to act upon input from COCs. COCs should be encouraged to ask more clarifying questions in order to promote a transparent process. e. Arrange for COC members to meet with the project architect. f. Provide COCs with quarterly reports outlining: i. Proposed project budgets and timelines for voter approved bonds ii. Actual to budget expenditures on open projects covered under voter approved bonds iii. Percent of “on time” completion of open projects covered under voter approved bonds g. Improve the procedures that provide formal, periodic and timely reports to the community regarding COC findings, bond projects and approved expenditures. h. Publish a quarterly newsletter or use other media to update the community on bond projects and approved expenditures. i. Ensure that COC bylaws prohibit the School District from removing a COC member, except for cause. j. Periodically review the status of COC members to ensure compliance with Government Codes 1099 and 1125. k. Require COC members and School District Board members to study and familiarize themselves with the 2009 Little Hoover Commission Report “Bond Spending: Expanding and Enhancing Oversight”.
F2
The Grand Jury investigation learned from COC members interviewed that: a. A few COC members viewed their function as irrelevant because they review projects and expenditures after projects have been approved and monies spent to pay for the construction. b. Most COCs interviewed meet four times per year. COCs are required by the Education Code to meet only once a year. COC members and school district personnel interviewed believe that meeting one time a year was ineffective and agreed that four meetings a year should be the minimum. One member interviewed stated they met six times during the year because they felt that with construction underway and expenses being incurred on a regular basis, additional meetings were required. c. Most COC members interviewed recommended that members should know how to read a financial report and have a working knowledge of bonds and construction. d. Most COC members interviewed stated that there is little to no public participation or attendance at COC meetings. e. Some of the COC members interviewed admit they didn’t know or understand what they are reviewing when presented with the bond expenditure reports. These reports are provided by district administration within 72 hours of a COC meeting, as required by the Brown Act. f. One school district developed a process that kept the COC well informed in the planning, design and construction process. g. Some COC members feel that voter approved bond resolution language is often ambiguous and requires legal interpretation. The Little Hoover Commission created in 1962 as an independent and bipartisan state agency charged with making
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The San Mateo County Office of Education, all School Districts in San Mateo County (through the San Mateo County School Boards Association), and the San Mateo County Community College District. a. Develop and provide mandatory independent training for bond Citizen’s Oversight Committee members. b. Develop and host a website with easy-to-access training materials and easy-to-understand descriptions of the roles and responsibilities of the local citizens’ oversight committee members. The website should include an online training course. Response: This recommendation is not yet implemented but LHPUSD supports the concept of providing independent training for bond COC members. This response was reviewed by the La Honda-Pescadero Unified School District Board of Trustees during the October 14, 2010 Board meeting. Sincerely, Amy Wooliever Superintendent Board of Trustees Andy Wilson, Heather McAvoy, Kathy Crane, Andy LaGow, Connie Sarabia
F3
The Grand Jury found that some school districts were not timely in putting agendas, minutes, bond money expenditures, and approved projects on their websites. In most cases the information was not readily accessible or easy to find.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The District disagrees with this finding with respect to our District. All agendas are posted in compliance with the Brown Act. All other reports are made public after the COC has reviewed the information at a meeting.
F4
The president and co-founder of the California League of Bond Oversight Committees, Michael Day, told the Little Hoover Commission that local oversight committees often are not made aware of the important role they can play, the power that they have and the statutory authority that guides their activities. Committee members generally are not well-trained. In testimony to the Little Hoover Commission, Mr. Day said that “they don’t know what they are supposed to do, what they may do, what they may not do. Largely they receive their instructions from the organization they are supposed to oversee. Not conducive to good oversight.”5
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
The District disagrees with this finding with respect to our District. All COC members are given complete copies of the bylaws which delineate their responsibilities as well as the District’s responsibilities to the COC.
F5
Some school districts failed to periodically review the employment and membership on local government commissions and committees to determine that all COC members are compatible in their status as outlined in California Government Codes 1099 and 1125 regarding potential conflict of interest.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
The District disagrees with this finding with respect to our District. Annually, all members are reviewed to ensure they are compatible in their status as outlined in California Government Codes 1099 and 1125. The Honorable Clifford V. Cretan August 4, 2010
F6
Two interviewees said there would be value to COC members meeting with the project architect to better understand project scope. Conclusions The 2009-2010 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury concludes that:
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
The District has offered all resources available to the COC upon request. This would include involving the architects at meetings if requested. RECOMMENDATIONS
F7
At least one school district includes in its COC bylaws a provision allowing the district to remove a COC member without cause. Such a provision could threaten the needed independence of the COC member providing oversight that may be critical of the district. It should be noted that such provisions are common practice in public committees.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
The failure of some school districts to periodically review COC members’ employment and membership on local government commissions and committees, to determine that all are compatible in their status as outlined in Government Codes 1099 and 1125, could lead to conflicts of interest.
No recommendations for this finding
Conclusions 8
-
CL1 Page 4At the time the Grand Jury began this investigation, in many instances the information posted on school district websites was not timely or sufficient and in some cases it was difficult to find because there were no links on their web homepages that could be identified. At the conclusion of this investigation, most school districts had updated their websites and now the information is easier to locate. 5 June 2009 Little Hoover Commission report Bond Spending: Expanding and Enhancing Oversight 4 4. The stated intent and purpose of COCs is to be an “oversight” committee. The term oversight could be misleading to public expectations since it may imply erroneously that oversight is exercised in advance of expenditures.
-
CL2 Page 5It would be valuable for COC members to meet with the architect to better understand project scope.
-
CL3 Page 5At least one school district includes in its COC bylaws a provision allowing the district to remove a COC member without cause. Such a provision could threaten the needed independence of the COC member providing oversight that may be critical of the district. It should be noted that such provisions are common practice in public committees.
-
CL4 Page 5The failure of some school districts to periodically review COC members’ employment and membership on local government commissions and committees, to determine that all are compatible in their status as outlined in Government Codes 1099 and 1125, could lead to conflicts of interest.
-
CL5 Page 4COCs in themselves cannot ensure that bond money is spent effectively, cost overruns are avoided and fraudulent practices or mismanagement of funds do not occur because their review occurs after spending and other project decisions are made. Their role is to discover and bring to public light issues related to school bond spending and cost efficient project management as an outcome of the questioning during the review process.
-
CL6 Page 4The process to select and appoint qualified COC members does not guarantee that persons with the required expertise will be selected. In some districts it was found that it was difficult to recruit qualified candidates, resulting in some districts not having all the required candidates by category.
-
CL7 Page 5The stated intent and purpose of COCs is to be an “oversight” committee. The term oversight could be misleading to public expectations since it may imply erroneously that oversight is exercised in advance of expenditures.
-
CL8 Page 5A Citizen’s Oversight Committee (COC) in itself cannot ensure that bond money is spent effectively, cost overruns are avoided or ensure that fraudulent practices or mismanagement of bond funds does not occur since it is not involved in planning or approving of school construction projects or expenditures. But a COC can and should play an important oversight role and protect the public by diligently reviewing expenditures after they are made to ensure they are only for projects approved by the voters and that such expenditures are cost effective and then reporting their findings to the public.
No Responses Found 3
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
La Honda-Pescadero Unified School District
School District
San Mateo County Community College District
School District