Sacramento County Grand Jury
2003-2004
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The Sacramento City Unified School District Board of Education did not fully explore, question nor understand the joint powers proposal presented by the Chief Financial Officer and supported by the Superintendent.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board needs to fully investigate and research all proposals that incur financial obligations and have fiscal ramifications. A discussion of the pros and cons should be publicly presented with adequate provision for public input.
F2:
In approving the JPA, the Board authorized transfer of district classified employees to CASA.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Future attempts of the Board to compensate district individuals for outstanding service should be within the limits of what is generally given to people in education.
F3:
The SCUSD Board, once CASA was established, paid little attention to issues of oversight and management of the JPA. For example: 6 a. The Board did not appoint representatives to the CASA board but delegated the selection to the Superintendent. b. The Board did not require periodic reports or yearly audits of CASA. c. The Board allowed CASA bylaws to be amended without approval. d. The Board allowed the CFO to assume the position of Executive Director of CASA while serving concurrently as the District CFO.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Board should monitor and control all agencies or entities that the school district creates and for which it assumes liability. The Board should not delegate its oversight responsibilities to others. The Board should demand timely reports and audits. 7
F4:
The Board opted to reward its three contract employees (Superintendent, Chief Financial Officer, Legal Counsel) by giving them inflated retirement benefits. For example: a. Granting 10 additional years of service credit which was excessive and unprecedented for public service positions. b. Granting mileage allowances, travel expenses, and vacation pay to be included in the final compensation calculation for retirement was inappropriate.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Board of Education must guard against appearances of potential conflict of interest whether ethical or legal.
F5:
The CFO and the outside consultants she selected appeared to mislead the Board with incomplete information and strong assurances of cost neutrality of the CASA plan.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Board should establish a process to assure that community and constituent concerns are heard and addressed.
F6:
The Board authorized the issuance of an unnecessary $6.5 million pension obligation bond and incurred financial liability with little or no discussion or understanding of the possible financial impact to the District. The $420,709 cost to issue the bond could have been applied to educational purposes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Sacramento County Juvenile Hall.
F7:
The Board of Education and top administrators were dismissive of community concerns regarding the JPA and CASA.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Warren E. Thornton Youth Center.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R8:
Sandra Larson Women’s Facility located at RCCC.
R9:
Sacramento County Boys Ranch.
R10:
Sacramento Assessment Center.
R11:
Department of the Youth Authority Northern Youth Correctional Reception Center-Clinic. Our tours brought up several points worthy of note including: a) The staff of the Sacramento County Juvenile Hall has emphasized positive activities and appropriate schooling. xi b) The Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center (RCCC) has worked effectively with the Elk Grove Unified School District in developing an educational program for the inmates. c) The Main Jail has included a Spousal Abuse Prevention Program for prisoners. d) The Sacramento County Work Release Facility operated by the Sheriff’s Department is based on the concept that meaningful work, rather than jail time, can be a corrective force. In addition, the facility, in conjunction with the Grant Joint Union High School District, has developed a curriculum that is appropriate to the students. e) The Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department – Internal Affairs Division cooperated with the Grand Jury exhibiting professionalism and courtesy. In addition to our mandated tours, we received presentations from:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
No written comparative analysis of retirement incentive options was prepared for the public, staff or the Board of Education.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
On matters of significant cost, detailed analyses should be in writing, rather than oral summaries.
F2:
Staff could not provide the Grand Jury with documentation that the Board of Education received clearly understandable written information outlining the assumptions underlying the PARS proposal.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Written key assumptions underlying major decisions should be presented to the Board of Education.
F3:
Too much reliance for financial analysis was placed on the representations of the vendor (PARS). There was no independent financial review of the PARS assumptions or numbers before or after the program was selected.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
A detailed process should be adopted for independent financial review by appropriate district personnel, or outside consultants, prior to action on matters of significant expense. Matters of this magnitude should be the work product of a multi-discipline team. Matters brought by outside interests who have a significant financial interest require independent evaluation.
F4:
No analysis was done by the district to determine the effectiveness of the program in relation to the stated goal of saving $2.6 million in the first year.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Standards need to be developed by the district for a timely evaluation of the financial impact of major expenditures. PARS savings need to be identified for years 2-5.
F5:
District staff and the Board of Education did not take adequate steps to ensure confidence in the process used in adopting the PARS program. In light of the failure of CASA for SCUSD, the district should have been especially careful in entering into another retirement related program.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
District staff and the Board of Education need to put policies and procedures in place to ensure accountability when using public monies. The district needs to be more open in its business transactions.
F6:
Board of Education meetings are currently video taped, but the tapes are only retained by the Sacramento Public Library for 60 days.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
SCUSD should retain video tapes for three years or longer. Response Requirements Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to both the finding and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Sacramento Superior Court by October 1, 2006 from: (cid:131) Superintendent, Sacramento City Unified School District (cid:131) Board of Education, Sacramento City Unified School District 28
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The Sacramento City Unified School District Board of Education did not fully explore, question nor understand the joint powers proposal presented by the Chief Financial Officer and supported by the Superintendent.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board needs to fully investigate and research all proposals that incur financial obligations and have fiscal ramifications. A discussion of the pros and cons should be publicly presented with adequate provision for public input.
F2:
In approving the JPA, the Board authorized transfer of district classified employees to CASA.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Future attempts of the Board to compensate district individuals for outstanding service should be within the limits of what is generally given to people in education.
F3:
The SCUSD Board, once CASA was established, paid little attention to issues of oversight and management of the JPA. For example: 6 a. The Board did not appoint representatives to the CASA board but delegated the selection to the Superintendent. b. The Board did not require periodic reports or yearly audits of CASA. c. The Board allowed CASA bylaws to be amended without approval. d. The Board allowed the CFO to assume the position of Executive Director of CASA while serving concurrently as the District CFO.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Board should monitor and control all agencies or entities that the school district creates and for which it assumes liability. The Board should not delegate its oversight responsibilities to others. The Board should demand timely reports and audits. 7
F4:
The Board opted to reward its three contract employees (Superintendent, Chief Financial Officer, Legal Counsel) by giving them inflated retirement benefits. For example: a. Granting 10 additional years of service credit which was excessive and unprecedented for public service positions. b. Granting mileage allowances, travel expenses, and vacation pay to be included in the final compensation calculation for retirement was inappropriate.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Board of Education must guard against appearances of potential conflict of interest whether ethical or legal.
F5:
The CFO and the outside consultants she selected appeared to mislead the Board with incomplete information and strong assurances of cost neutrality of the CASA plan.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Board should establish a process to assure that community and constituent concerns are heard and addressed.
F6:
The Board authorized the issuance of an unnecessary $6.5 million pension obligation bond and incurred financial liability with little or no discussion or understanding of the possible financial impact to the District. The $420,709 cost to issue the bond could have been applied to educational purposes.
F7:
The Board of Education and top administrators were dismissive of community concerns regarding the JPA and CASA.
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The Lindsay M. Hayes Report found that the intake forms being utilized were inadequate. In addition, these forms were not automatically being forwarded to the Jail Psychiatric Services (JPS). In response, the Main Jail staff has revised its current intake forms in accordance with national standards. All appropriate and relevant medical screening forms are now transmitted by fax to the JPS in a timely manner. Also, arresting officers complete newly developed forms to communicate medical information to the county jail medical staff.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
A yearly review should be conducted to determine the effectiveness of intake screening forms.
F2:
The Lindsay M. Hayes Report stated that classification deputies conduct inmate interviews, examine forms and review two screening fields to capture information on an inmate’s prior history. These deputies then use individual discretion to make referrals to the JPS staff. These referrals are not always made on consistent criteria. In response to the Lindsay M. Hayes Report, new classification forms have been implemented, which include questions regarding mental health and suicide.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
A software program should be developed to access quickly and accurately an inmate’s prior health history for use by the classification deputies to ensure consistency in evaluation and referral. 17
F3:
The Lindsay M. Hayes Report states that contrary to some national correctional standards, JPS staff does not conduct a mental health assessment on each inmate within 14 days of confinement. In response, the Suicide Task Force indicated that it would be cost prohibitive to conduct reviews of health records for every inmate. However, there is a mental health screening of all inmates at intake.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Inmates who have been in the system before should have their records checked for mental health issues within 14 days. B. TRAINING
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
Grant Joint Union High School District has used public monies inappropriately by advocating against the redistricting plan of Families for Better Education in articles published in its monthly publication, Grant Today. The articles did not include any information about the opposing point of view.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Officially disseminated information from a school district regarding a contested issue should be fair, impartial and balanced.
F2:
Grant Joint Union High School District has specific written policies regarding the use of district resources for advocating political issues and activities, but these policies were not followed in several articles published in Grant Today.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Grant Joint Union High School District should make its employees aware of these policies and ensure all personnel understand and interpret these guidelines as 13 intended by state law and case law. Employees should refer to publications by the California School Boards Association to give them direction.
F3:
In the August 2003 newsletter of Grant Today, GJUHSD’s Legal Counsel was a visible advocate opposing the coalition’s reorganization plan.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The District Legal Counsel should not advocate for a political issue or activity that affects the District. Legal Counsel should ensure that a political issue discussed in district public communications be fair and balanced.