Santa Clara County 2008-2009 - California Grand Jury Reports

September 13, 2010 — Saratoga Union School District

3 pages 1 findings

Findings & Recommendations 1 findings

F1: Education and financial benefits can be achieved by consolidation and unification of certain county school districts 1

March 23, 2010 — MAR 26 2010 The Honorable Jamie Jacobs-May Presiding Judge David H. Yamasa Chief Executive Officer Santa Clara County

3 pages 6 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 6 findings

F1: Lakeside Joint School District disagrees with this finding. Lakeside Trustees receive no compensation whatsoever. Travel and conference expenses are inimical; in fact none have been claimed for many years. We are unaware ofthe practices of other districts.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Will not be implemented because it is not warranted.

F2: Lakeside Joint School District disagrees with this finding. The Lakeside Superintendent/Principal is the lowest paid superintendent in Santa Clara County. In any event, School Boards face considerable challenges in attracting and retaining qualified personnel in the high profile position of superintendent. The high cost of living in the Silicon Valley necessitates an effort to offer the most robust compensation possible. We are unaware of all of the practices of other districts.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: This recommendation will be partially implemented. Superintendent compensation is reviewed annually as a part ofthe annual performance appraisal ofthe superintendent.

F3: Lakeside Joint School District disagrees with this finding. Lakesides superintendent compensation is in proportion to the size ofthe district. We are unaware of the practices of other districts.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: This recommendation, while irrelevant to the Lakeside Joint School District, describes current practice.

F4: Lakeside Joint School District disagrees with this finding. The tenure of a superintendent at Lakeside far exceeds the average for California. Costs associated with recruitment are amortized over many years. Lakeside consistently uses the lowest cost vendor in the industry. We are unaware ofthe practices of other districts.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: Will not be implemented because it is not warranted.

F5: Lakeside Joint School District disagrees with this finding. While we are unaware of all ofthe legal needs of other districts, litigation is a large part ofthe operation of a school district in 2010. Lakeside selects legal counsel on the basis ofthe issue at hand. Costs are based on complexity and time involved.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: This recommendation is partially implemented. We do employ the Santa Clara County Counsel.

F6: Lakeside Joint School District disagrees with the finding because it is based on an erroneous assumption that superintendent costs should be justified on a per student basis.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: This recommendation has been considered several times in the area where the Lakeside Joint School District operates. Each time voters have resoundingly rejected it. School Districts have a strong preference for local control. Lakeside does not rule out the consideration of a "consolidation".

March 23, 2010 — MAR 26 2010 The Honorable Jamie Jacobs-May Presiding Judge David H. YAMASAChief Executive Officer/OSuperior Court of CA

3 pages 6 findings 7 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 6 findings

F1: Although we are unable to respond regarding how aware allboard presidents are of inventory control, Lakeside Joint SchoolDistrict agrees that they are responsible for inventory control.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Recommendation has been implemented with Lakeside Joint School District with staff reporting at the November 18,2009 meeting on asset inventory practices that included discussion on the findings and recommendations ofthe grand jury.

F2: Lakeside Joint School District agrees that training is not mandated bythe State. We are no aware iftraining has occurred in other districts.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The recommendation has been implemented.

F3: Lakeside Joint School District disagrees with this finding. The Lakeside Board approves equipment purchases and also approves the surplusing ofequipment. Lakeside undergoes an annual audit that includes capital assets and is performed by an independent auditor.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The Board implements this recommendation annually with the presentation ofthe annual audit for approval.

F4: Lakeside Joint School District disagrees with this finding. Monitoring inventory is an ongomg process.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: This recommendation has been implemented. Inventories are reconciled with previous year inventories.

F5: This finding states, specifically, regarding Lakeside: "The following districts do not have an inventory listing or the inventory list that they do have is extremely deficient: Lakeside School District" Lakeside Joint School District disagrees with this finding.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: This recommendation states specifically for Lakeside: "The Boards ofTrustees of the districts in Finding Ashould conduct a full inventory or improve their existing inventory listing." Afull inventory of assets valued above $500.00 as required by EC35168 will be doneduringthe2010/11schoolyea~

F7: Lakeside Joint School District disagrees with this finding. Additionally, Lakeside does not use any credit cards.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: This recommendation regarding pre-approval for purchases made by the superintendent/principal will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The Board approves all warrants. Allpurchases above $500.00 require specific Board approval.

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R6: No Recommendation provided

March 23, 2010 — Orchard School District

2 pages 6 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 6 findings

F1: Agree However, our School Board is aware of the board policy re: inventory process.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Trustees will review and be knowledgeable of education code 35168 for k-8 school district.

F2: Disagree The business manager inventories every 2 years per board policy and keeps the board and Superintendent abreast of all inventories.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Agree Education code 35168 will be used to inform the school board. We use Associated Valuation Services for inventory control.

F3: Disagree Our inventory value is reported to the school board on the audited financial statement ORCHARD SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS KenRiley,SherylShirley,AlanFang,BambiFleming,DannyDailey SUPERINTENDENT Joseph A.Amelio, Ph.D.• DIRECTOR OFEDUCATIONAL SERVICES Jackie Felbinger•BUSINESS MANAGER AnnaLeung. PRINCIPAL Bradley Yee

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: Agree This is done on our 2010-11 report to the board

F4: Disagree We reconcile inventories and add new inventories as they are acquired

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: We reconcile inventories and add new inventories as they are purchased.

F5: Agree We are not familiar with the districts listed.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: Not applicable to Orchard School-not listed

F7: Disagree Superintendent does not have a credit card and does not make purchase orders

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: This is not applicable to Orchard because the Superintendent does not purchase or have a credit card.

October 26, 2009 — Luther Burbank School District Established in 1906 Filed Becki Cohn- Vargas Ed.D. Superintendent-Principal Oct 2 9 2009

30 pages 13 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 13

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Keep learning and achievement for all students as a primary focus, as witnessed by the increasing academic achievement of LBSD students;

R2: Value, support and advocate for public education generally and LBSD 2 specifically, as witnessed by Board member's visibility in the LBSD community and county-wide;

R3: Commits time and energy to be an informed and effective leader, as witnessed by attendance at California School Boards Association education conferences and training sessions;

R4: Through CSBA education training sessions and self-initiated local board training sessions, Board members are made to understand the distinction between Board and administrative roles and refrain from infringing on the roles of staff; and

R5: Through CSBA education training sessions and self-initiated local board training sessions, Board members are made to understand that the authority of the Board is a collective one and does not rest upon any single Board member. G. Have failed toprovide contact information on the LBSD website to enable the public to contact Board members. LBSD response: The LBSD agrees with this finding. Accordingly, the Website has recently been updated to include e-mail addresses for all Board members. The LBSD Website now has information on individual Board members. RECOMMENDATIONS 1: A. Ensure that each member of the Board understands and complies with Board Policy and CSBA guidelines and takes action as appropriate. LBSD response: The recommendation has been implemented. The Board Agenda has scheduled continuing sessions to review, revise and update Board policies and administrative regulations. Board members will continue to participate in CSBA workshops and will continue to update Board policies as needed. B. Actively welcome and reach out to the LBSD community to increase attendance and engage participation at all Board meetings. LBSD response: The recommendation has been implemented. The Board welcomes public participation and complies with legal requirements, including the Brown Act. The Board and LBSD will make it a continuing goal to actively reach out and welcome community participation and will seek to increase attendance and engage participation at Board meetings. With a new Superintendent/principal on board, it will be a goal of the Board to improve the outreach and increase attendance and public participation at Board meetings. C. Actively participate in Board meetings by encouraging discussion within the Board that informs the public of the background, options and financial implications of Board actions. LBSD response: The recommendation has been implemented. D. Actively foster open communication and participation with school organizations including, School Site Council (SSC), Parent Teacher Organization (PTO) and Padres con Poder (Parents with Power) to inform them of Board meetings and school operation/issues. The recommendation has been implemented. All school staff, parents and community members are regularly encouraged to attend and participate at Board meetings. At Board meetings, public participation is encouraged. Further, the Board will be encouraging its members to, in turn, regularly attend the meetings of these District and community organizations. E. Actively utilize the School Site Council (SSC) as an advisory body. LBSD response: This recommendation has been implemented; the Board will continue to review and utilize the SSC as an advisory body. F. Utilize resources and training from the Santa Clara County Office of Education (SCCOE) and CSBA. LBSD response: This recommendation has been implemented. Three members of the Board participated in the CSBA Masters in Governance program. Two Board members participated in the annual CSBA conference. The LBSD seeks support from SCCOE with budget, payroll, human resources, special education, curriculum and instruction and many other resources. The LBSD will continue to strengthen relations with SCCOE. G. Resign. LBSD response: This recommendation will not be implemented. Trustees were duly elected by the voters in a fair and democratic election process. The Grand Jury's recommendation calls for a complete disregard of the democratic process in this working class community. The LBSD and its Board shall respect and follow the democratic process of elections and/or fill vacancies pursuant to the requirements of California law and the California and United States Constitution. 4

R6: HIRING OF INTERIM SUPERINTENDENT - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

R7: BOARD APPOINTMENTS - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

R8: BOARD MEETINGS - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

R9: SCHOOL BOND OBLIGATIONS - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

R10: LBSD FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT

R11: information about District staff LBSD response: The LBSD wholly disagrees with this finding. The Board President did not solicit inappropriate information from LBSD employees about LBSD staff. Aggressively confronting District staff

R12: COMMITMENTS TO THE SUPERIOR COURT - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

R13: REPORT CARD HIGHLIGHTS - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

October 15, 2009 — Luther Burbank School District Established in 1906 Fernando R. Elizondo, Ed.D. Interim Superintendent

7 pages 5 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 5 findings

F1: Boards of Trustees approve generous benefits to themselves which include the following: • Fully paid health benefits for trustees and their families (often exceeding those of teachers and/or with no payment ceiling • Excessivetravel and conference costs • Pension contribution District response: The Luther Burbank School District disagrees with the finding. It isdifficult for a school district to attract competent and dedicated candidates for the challenging role of a trustee. Since trustee stipends are and will remain low, benefits and pension contributions are among the only avenues available to attract and keep qualified candidates. Most Board members provide countless volunteer hours beyond the time dedicated to Board meetings and Office events. Our District will continue to scrutinize all travel and conference costs, and strive to incur such costs only when there are significant benefits to the district.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Boards of Trustees should carefully review the benefits listed in Finding 1and: • Eliminate health benefits for Board Members • Minimize travel and conference costs • Eliminate pension contributions District response: The recommendation has been implemented. Luther Burbank School District has been taken steps to minimize travel and conference costs. A policy on travel was reviewed and updated at the Board Meetings of 2009. The Board reviewed the policy for asecond reading at the October 13, 2009 Board meeting Regarding Item 3, Pension contributions through CalPersor CalSTRSisnot optional if salary compensation isprovided. The remainder of Recommendation 1will not be implemented because it isnot warranted. Typically health benefits and pension contributions policies in our district is not "overly generous" when weighed against the duties of the position, and the importance of attracting qualified candidates. Eliminating them would place greater stress on the governance by discouraging incumbents from staying, and by discouraging new, qualified candidates from running for the seats.

F2: Boards of Trustees are approving overly generous benefits to Superintendents and Chancellors, including the following: • Auto allowances (auto leases/purchases, insurance, maintenance, etc.) to superintendents • Housing allowances • Million dollar housing loans at zero or below market interest rates • Guaranteed annual step and/or longevity increases • Signing bonuses • Contract buyouts • Excessive performance bonuses • Per diem payments when out of the district • Personal technology allowances • Professional memberships and subscription allowances • Excessivetravel and entertainment expenses • Salary increases automatically triggered by increase in teacher's salaries which are in addition to other guaranteed salary increases • Pension allowances (in addition to regular STRS/PERScontributions) • Advanced degree stipends • Lifetime medical insurance benefits • Annual physicals District response: The Luther Burbank School District disagrees with the finding. In our district, top leadership costs represent lessthan one-sixth of one percent ofthe office's total annual budget of $5 million. Additionally, the Superintendent/Principal position will be responsible for and oversees district and school operations. Our district faced a considerable challenge in attracting and maintaining qualified Superintendent applicants. The high cost of living in the area, coupled with extreme demands and pressures of the position, have created a market in which compensation packages offering certain benefits are viewed asa necessity. In the vast majority of cases,the benefits are not "overly generous" but in line with the realities of market supply and demand. Compare the average superintendent total compensation aslisted in the Grand Jury report (Table I, pA) of $207,900 to the average pay for CEOsin Silicon Valley. According to the 2 Mercury News (June 5, 2009), the average pay for CEOslast year was $2.2 million-just over 10 times asmuch asthe amount paid to public school superintendents. Actually, the average bonus ($242,000) paid to the CEOsexceeded the average salary paid to the superintendents. A comparison of apples to apples-or superintendents to superintendents-similarly refutes the idea the notion of "generous administrative expenses." Looking at the average salaries of superintendents in the FarWest region of the United States, a study entitled "Salaries and Wages in California Public Schools 2008-2009 (by ACSA/Foundation for Educational Administration and Educational Research Service, Table B3) found the average salary was $172,646-about $20,000 lessthan the average salary in Santa Clara County of $192,368. Given the extreme cost-of-living disparity of Silicon Valley ascompared to the average of the rest of the FarWest region, an additional $20,000 here, combined with an attractive set of benefits, would not seem "overly generous."

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Boards of Trustees should carefully review and renegotiate the Superintendent/Chancellor benefits listed in Finding 2 for possible reduction and/or elimination. District response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. It is unrealistic to expect our newly appointed superintendent/Prinicipal to renegotiate benefits, and impractical to believe such a renegotiation would not hinder recruitment and retention. Demand for qualified people who can fill these positions isvery high. Inthe current market, incumbents who face reduced benefits can and will leave for similar positions in other districts or states where the benefits are intact; or for positions in the private sector, where compensation packages far exceed those in school districts. The Grand Jury's recommendation did serve asa reminder for our Board to scrutinize benefit packages asthey searched for their new superintendent. The Board's final action was to consolidate the position into aSuperintendent/principal position in the 2010-2011 school year asa cost savings measure.

F3: Superintendent salaries and increases appear to bear no relationship to the number of schools, students, and employees they oversee, nor their district's academic improvement. District response: The Luther Burbank School District disagrees with the findings. School districts leaders oversee income of over $3.5 billion tax dollars annually, and nearly 25,000 employees and 260,000 students in over 367 schools. The school districts annual budget isover 5 million. Superintendent salaries often are related to the sizeof the district-but that isonly one of a myriad of factors that determine compensation. Also, many superintendent evaluations do typically take students academic performances into consideration and will be considered when hiring a new superintendent.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The Board of Trustees should ensure that the Superintendent/Chancellor salaries and increases take into account the number of schools, teachers, and students they oversee, and are tied to the district's students' progress and quantifiable metrics. District response: The recommendation has been partially implemented, in that many superintendent evaluations do typically take student academic performance into consideration. The remainder of the recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. Tying our superintendent salary to our district sizewould be asimplistic and counterproductive approach to finding and retaining district leaders who are best suited for the particular characteristics and challenges of our district. There are many other factors other than sizethat come into play when compensating leadership-a superintendent's tenure, the characteristics of the students served bythe districts, the nature ofthe community, etc. Also, to a large extent the process of hiring asuperintendent istied to the circumstance of the time; a district, whether large, small or in-between, cannot choose to hire a superintendent when market conditions are favorable. Given the crucial nature of the position, districts try to fill the job asexpeditiously asisreasonable.

F4: Boards of Trustees hire costly search firms to recruit successors for retiring or dismissed SuperintendentsfCh ancellors. District response: The Luther Burbank School District disagrees with the finding. Many districts do conduct their own searches. One recent example isour district, for which the SCCOE provided assistance. While some districts do hire search firms, describing the expenditure as "costly" seems to ignore the realities of the market for these positions. The position iscrucial to school success, and therefore it iscrucial to find the right person for the job. The price of hiring a search firm, weighed against the benefit of bringing in an assortment of qualified candidate, does not seem "costly." A more costly approach would beto undertake anything lessthan an intensive search for the right candidate. 4 - --. -. - _•••• -0--- -•••••

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: Boards of Trustees should conduct a preliminary search within the local area prior to hiring search firms. District response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it isnot warranted. Superintendent searches do survey local leadership when attempting to fill local openings-for example, the Oak Grove recently named its assistant superintendent for human resources to fill the vacant superintendent position. However, qualified candidates are not always available locally. To conduct a local "preliminary search," separate from an all-out search, would only delay the process and potentially leave vacant for longer than necessary adistrict's most important leadership position. In our superintendent search all the finalists were local administrators. The appointed Superintendent isfrom Santa Clara County.

F5: Boards of Trustees approve the hiring of multiple private attorneys, in some casesat a tremendous expense: District response: The Luther Burbank School District partially agrees with the finding. Our Board has hired private attorneys. We are involved in complex legal issuesthat require legal expertise in sub-sections of the Education Code, requiring considerable specialized legal capacity, time and energy.

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R6: A consolidation of districts should be considered to reduce the numbers and costs of Superintendent's/Chancellors, Boards of Trustees, administrative staff and overhead. District response: The recommendation cannot be implanted by our local Board of Trustees, because under the California education code, consolidation of school districts isrelegated to the people who live in the school district. Should communities wish to join with other communities to create larger school or community college districts, the process isclearly spelled out in the Education Code, under which avote of the electorate can change district organization. In Santa Clara County, voters from afew districts have chosen in the past to consolidate, but for the most part have established a strong tradition and preference for local control of school districts. The Luther Burbank School District interim superintendent and the superintendent from San Jose Unified School District and corresponding board presidents met informally to discuss the issue. The was concurrence that although consolidation was not feasible at this point in time, there's merit in further discussion within other shared services i.e. Educational and Business services. Presently, Luther Burbank School District iscontracting for food services with SanJose Unified School District. 6

October 13, 2009 — Who really benefits from the education dollars? (Hint: It's not the students)

5 pages 5 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 5 findings

F1: Community colleges and K-12 boards of trustees are responsible for inventory control. However, after interviewing /ALL /board of trustee presidents it was evident they were unaware of their obligation under the law. * All K-8 and K-12 and Community College Districts District response: Disagrees - The Luther Burbank School District partially disagrees with findings. The Board of Trustees is aware of responsibilities of Inventory Control. The districts inventory control 2008-2009 was reviewed with Board of Trustees at the September 8, 2009 Board meeting. At the Board meeting, the Trustees were presented with an overview of the district's Inventory Control System.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Trustees should review and be knowledgeable of Education Code A§35168 for K-12 and Education Code A§81600 for community colleges to ensure complete implementation. * All K-8 and K-12 and Community College District Board of Trustees District response: Agrees: Luther Burbank School District Board reviewed Education Code A§35168 at the October 13, 2009 Board Meeting. It bears noting that the California Education Code A§35168 was first enacted in 1976 and revised in 1984. The amount of $500 has not been changed since 1984 and is out-of-date.

F2: Listing of disbursements District response: Both of these recommendations will be implemented. All credit cards have been discontinued as of August 15, 2009. Also all listings of disbursements are provided for the Board review and action at each Board meeting.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: All Santa Clara County school board trustees and superintendents/chancellors should be required to review and understand Education Code A§35168 and A§81600 and BAM requirements for inventory control. For K-12 districts, the COE should take the lead in providing comprehensive training on inventory control, in conjunction with the release of the new inventory tracking module within Quintessential Software Systems spearheaded by the COE. For community colleges, the CC Board should investigate additional training in the area of inventory control offered through organizations such as the American Association of Community Colleges and the Community College League of California. * All K-8 and K-12 and community districts * COE Board of Trustees District response: Agrees: This recommendation will be implemented. The Board of Trustees will be given a copy of Education A§35168 before the next board meeting.

F3: All district superintendents, chancellors and district staff report incomplete inventory information to their boards. This results in lack of knowledge about the value and size of their inventory. * All K-8 and K-12 and community college districts District response: Disagrees: Luther Burbank School District disagrees with the finding and District Personnel is knowledgeable of the Districts Inventory Control System. The annual 2008-2009 Inventory reports were presented to the Board at the October 13, 2009 Board Meeting.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: All Boards of Trustees should required a presentation on the results of their districts biennial inventory, including total value, variances resulting from reconciliation between past and current inventories and a proposed plan to resolve discrepancies. * All K-8 and K-12 Community College District Boards of Trustees District response: The recommendation will be partially implemented. A Board Presentation was given at the September 8, 2009 Board meeting.

F4: With the exception of Santa Clara Unified and Los Gatos Unified School Districts, all K-12 districts fail to understand the need to reconcile inventories for previous years to the latest inventory update. Without reconciliation, the opportunity to: identify lost, missing or stolen items, take preventive measures, and obtain timely reimbursement may be lost. * All K-B and K-12 Boards of Trustees (except Santa Clara Unified and Los Gatos Unified) District response: Luther Burbank School District disagrees with this finding. We have no knowledge whether or not other districts fail to understand the need to reconcile inventories, etc.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: All K-12 school districts should reconcile the most current, full inventory with prior inventories, to identify missing items and potential losses/thefts. The results will enable the districts to implement safeguards to prevent future losses. * All K-8 and K-12 Boards of Trustees (except Santa Clara Unified and Los Gatos Unified) District response: Luther Burbank School District disagrees, the recommendation will be partially implemented. A Board Presentation was presented at the September 8, 2009 Board meeting.

F7: There is a potential for abuse in K-8 and J-12 districts when those who report to superintendents approve credit card transactions and purchase orders made by their superintendents. * All K-8 and K-12 School Districts District response: Luther Burbank School District agrees with the finding. All district credit cards have been discontinued. District purchase orders are reviewed by appropriate Administrators and the Superintendent.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: To strengthen internal controls and ensure fiscal accountability, purchases made by the K-8 and K-12 Superintendents should be approved by the Boards of Trustees prior to purchase. In the event an immediate purchase is required, post-approval by the Board would ensure no conflicts of interest or abuses occur. Expenditures should be presented separately from the Board's consent calendar to ensure proper scrutiny. Credit card statements and a listing of disbursements should be provided to the Board for approval. * All K-8 and K-12 District Boards of Trustees District response: This recommendation will not be implemented as it is not warranted. Given that our Board only meets once a month, it will be difficult to ask the Board of Trustees to approve Superintendent expenditures ahead of time. 1. Credit card 2. Listing of disbursements District response: Both of these recommendations will be implemented. All credit cards have been discontinued as of August 15, 2009. Also all listings of disbursements are provided for the Board review and action at each Board meeting.

October 01, 2009 — Districtresponsetothe F_

6 pages 5 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 5 findings

F1: Boards of Trustees approve overly generous benefits to themselves which include the following: • Fully paid health benefits for trustees and their families (often exceeding those of teachers and/or with no payment ceiling) • Excessive travel and conference costs • Pension contributions District Response The Berryessa Union School District disagrees with the finding. In fact, this is an expression of an opinion as no comparative or other substantive data is provided. Further terms like, overly generous and excessive are subjective words used without definition or context and, as such detract from the findings credibility.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: 1 Boards of Trustees should carefully review the benefits listed in Finding and: • Eliminate health benefits for Board Members • Minimize travel and conference costs • Eliminate pension contributions District Response HEALTHBENEFITSFORBOARD MEMBERS: The Berryessa Union School District will not be implementing this recommendation. BUSDhas recently reviewed and revised its board policy and administrative regulations related to extending health benefits to board members. The Board determined that benefits for members was appropriate compensation, consistent with statewide practice, and the level of responsibility that board members have for providing a quality educational program for the over 8,000 students who attend the district's schools. In fact, only two of the five board members have chosen to taken benefits at a cost of $8,902. It should also be noted that Board members are eligible for coverage that is less than any employee group. While they are offered the same policies that employees, specifically certificated employees, board members are only given benefits for themselves, not spouses or dependents. Employees are eligible for spouse and dependent coverage as well. Given the District's almost $63 million budget that amount represents only 0.014% of that budget. MINIMIZE TRAVELAND CONFERENCECOSTS: The Board of Trustees does not believe that this is an issue for the district. They further believe that it is as important for them to develop their governance skills and understanding of educational and fiscal issues as it isfor our employees to increase their skills. As professional development is an important goal and priority for our district employees, it is appropriate that board members participate in these types of activities as well. In fact, the total amount spent by board members for conferences and travel in 2008 2009 totaled only $4,170. That translates to 0.0066% of the district budget. Because of the Board's sensitivity to our current fiscal condition, that amount will be less in 2009·2010 than in 2008-2009. 1 6 of ELIMINATE PENSIONCONTRIBUTIONS:The District does not contribute to any pension plan for any board member.

F2: Boards of Trustees are approving overly generous benefits to Superintendents and Chancellors, including the following: • Auto allowances (auto leases/purchases, insurance, maintenance, etc.) to superintendents • Housing allowances • Million dollar housing loans at zero or below market interest rates • Guaranteed annual step and/or longevity increases • Signing bonuses • Contract buyouts • Excessive performance bonuses • Per diem payments when out of the district • Personal technology allowances • Professional memberships and subscription allowances • Excessive travel and entertainment expenses • Salary increases automatically triggered by increases in teacher's salaries which are in addition to other guaranteed salary increases • Pension allowances (in addition to regular STRS/PERScontributions) • Advance degree stipends • Lifetime medical insurance benefits • Annual physicals District Response The Berryessa Union School District disagrees with the finding. Infact, this is an expression of an opinion as no comparative or other substantive data is provided to support the term "overly generous" or the appropriateness of any of the benefits given. Further, the finding assumes all of the items are inappropriate, a subjective opinion made without regard for the needs of the district, requirements of the demands of the community and market place, or the negotiation to bring the highest quality educators to Santa Clara County.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Boards of Trustees should carefully review and renegotiate the Superintendent/Chancellor benefits listed in Finding 2 for possible reduction and/or elimination. District Response The Board of Trustees and Superintendent will consider the opinions of the Grand Jury in future negotiations. Currently, the fact of the matter isthat the Superintendent neither has the great majority of the benefits listed bythe Grand Jury in his current contract nor has asked that they be included in his contract. Those that have been included in the Superintendent's contract meet the requirements the Board has for the Superintendent. The Board and Superintendent have, and will continue to negotiate contracts that are of mutual benefit.

F3: Superintendent salaries and increases appear to bear no relationship to the number of schools, students, and employees they oversee, nor their district's academic improvement. 2of6 District Response The District disagrees with the finding and finds it contradictory to other findings of the Grand Jury. First, in Recommendation 2, the Grand Jury states that superintendents should not get performance bonuses. Here they say that compensation has no relationship with performance. Second, the county data shows that there that there is a general relationship between size of district and compensation, though other criteria also impact those salaries. Superintendent compensation in Santa Clara County compares with other California metropolitan areas. The cost of living is an additional factor that istaken into account when compensating district superintendents. This is also true when comparing teacher and classified salaries to ensure that the District is competitive and attracts talented employees. The specifics of each district differ beyond size and academic achievement (i.e. fiscal condition, labor issues, specific academic issues, cost of living). These issues, the qualifications of the applicant/superintendent, and many more go into negotiating a mutually beneficial contract between a District and Superintendent. While the issue of compensation isworth consideration and discussion by boards and superintendents, it is critical that all issues are considered, not just those of size and achievement.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: TheBoard of Trustees should ensure that Superintendent/Chancellor salaries and increases take into account the number of schools, teachers, and students they oversee, and are tied to the district's student's progress and quantifiable metrics. District Response The District agrees that the criteria mentioned bythe Grand Jury should be considered, along with many other variables, including the needs of the district, district revenues, etc. when negotiating salary with a superintendent. The District disagrees that they should be the only criteria. The District also disagrees with the Grand Jury's recommendation that size of district should determine salaries for any employee. If district's did that, small school districts would not be able to compete for the highest quality employees be they classified, teachers, or superintendent and that would negatively impact the quality of education students in those districts receive.

F4: Boards of Trustees hire costly search firms to recruit successors for retiring or dismissed Superi ntendentjCha ncellors. District Response The District disagrees with the finding for a number of reasons, including: • The finding generalizes what districts in the county do when conducting superintendent searches and issues an opinion rather than a finding based on any type of data or comparisons. • The finding arbitrarily uses the term, "costly" without definition or criteria. • The finding provides nojustification for their opinion that districts should search locally rather than statewide or nationally. • The finding neither gives priority nor credence to the fact that Boards of Trustees are obligated to find the best possible educators to lead their districts rather than the best available educator who happens to reside locally. This begs the question of whether saving money is more important that getting the best educator/leader for a district. 3of6

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: Boards of Trustees should conduct a preliminary search within the local area prior to hiring search firms. District Response The District does not agree with the recommendation as a mandate, but believes it is a strategy a Boards of Trustees may wish to consider. The obligation the Board isto find the best educator/leader they can find, not the best internal or local candidate for the position. If it is determined that a wide area search isappropriate, the ability of a search firm to bring the highest quality candidates to the Board for consideration is appropriate and cost effective. Each Board should consider the options that make the most sense for their district rather than being tied to an opinion indicating that only local candidates should be recruited first because it saves money. The savings of not using a search consultant when one is indicated is penny wise, dollar foolish when the leadership of multi-million dollar educational organizations that serve thousands of children and families is at stake.

F6: Theoperation of 34 K-12 schools districts and four (4) community college districts creates excessively high management and administrative costs. Five K-12 school districts have excessively high Superintendent costs per student which is reflected of the district's having only one or two schools. District Response The District partially agrees with the finding. The district agrees that small school districts of one or two schools may have, because of their small size, higher overhead costs, not just for administration, but in the areas of operational costs, special education, and transportation. The District does not agree with the finding that having 34 districts and 4 community college districts results in "excessively high management and administrative costs." Once again, the Grand Jury substitutes opinion for any type of factual evidence or comparative data while using subjective and sensational terms such as "excessively high" without substantiation.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: A consolidation of districts should be considered to reduce the numbers and costs of Superintendent/Chancellors, Boards of Trustees, administrative staff and overhead. District Response The District does not support this overly generalized statement. Factual data on costs, staffing, actual savings through consolidation, and educational research relating to optimal school district size are not presented for consideration or support of the opinion labeled a recommendation. Without that information, the District cannot support the conclusions of the Grand Jury. ConclusionsmA District Response It is obvious that the Grand Jury spent considerable time looking at a variety of issues related to school districts, boards of trustees and superintendents. The District found the issues worthy of honest discussion, but found the findings and recommendations lacking substantiation and rigor. The substitution of opinions for fact based findings and recommendations were disconcerting and inappropriate.

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R5: Boards of Trustees approve the hiring of multiple private attorneys, in some cases at a tremendous expense. District Response This is a finding that is often accurate. However, given the environment in which public schools operate, the assumption that having multiple law firms is problematic is unfounded. It is not at all unusual for any organization the size of school districts to have different attorney firms with different areas of specialization represent them. Further, Boards of Trustees are obligated to find the best representation possible to protect the interests of each district, not hire the least expensive legal counsel. If retaining the best counsel results in districts engaging more than one firm that is an appropriate decision. To assume otherwise is presumptuous and lacks a true understanding of an educational enterprise. The District agrees that legal expenses are high. However, that is not just an issue in school districts. Again, the Grand Jury provides no comparison with other industries, public or private, to support whether legal expenses in school districts are similar, less, or more than what other industries spend. If the term, "tremendous" was intended to say we spend a lot of money on legal issues, they are correct. If they intend it to mean that it is too much or are outside the norm for other industries or for other counties in the state, they provide no evidence to support that claim.

October 01, 2009 — Mount Pleasant School District

5 pages 5 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 5 findings

F1: Boards of Trustees approve overly generous benefits to themselves which include the following: • Fully paid health benefits for trustees and their families (often exceeding those of teachers and/or with no payment ceiling) • Excessive travel and conference costs • Pension contributions District Response The Mount Pleasant Elementary School District disagrees with the finding. We find this to be a subjective conclusion without basis of comparison and substantiated data.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: 1 Boards of Trustees should carefully review the benefits listed in Finding and: • Eliminate health benefits for Board Members • Minimize travel and conference costs • Eliminate pension contributions District Response The Mount Pleasant Elementary School District will not be implementing this recommendation. The Board determined that benefits for members was appropriate compensation, consistent with statewide practice, and the level of responsibility that board members have for providing a quality educational program. The Board has previously restricted individual conference and travel expenses. The only payroll benefits paid for by the district are those required by law.

F2: Boards of Trustees are approving overly generous benefits to Superintendents and Chancellors, including the following: • Auto allowances (auto leases/purchases, insurance, maintenance, etc.) to superintendents • Housing allowances • Million dollar housing loans at zero or below market interest rates • Guaranteed annual step and/or longevity increases • Signing bonuses • Contract buyouts • Excessive performance bonuses • Per diem payments when out of the district • Personal technology allowances • Professional memberships and subscription allowances • Excessive travel and entertainment expenses • Salary increases automatically triggered by increases in teacher's salaries which are in addition to other guaranteed salary increases • Pension allowances (in addition to regular STRS/PERScontributions) • Advance degree stipends • Lifetime medical insurance benefits • Annual physicals District Response The Mount Pleasant Elementary School District disagrees with the finding. We find this to be a subjective conclusion without basis of comparison and substantiated data.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Boards of Trustees should carefully review and renegotiate the Superintendent/Chancellor benefits listed in Finding 2 for possible reduction and/or elimination. District Response The Board of Trustees and Superintendent will consider the opinions of the Grand Jury in future negotiations. The Board and Superintendent have, and will continue to negotiate contracts that are of mutual benefit.

F3: Superintendent salaries and increases appear to bear no relationship to the number of schools, students, and employees they oversee, nor their district's academic improvement. District Response The Mount Pleasant Elementary School District disagrees with the finding. The factors in determining a Superintendent's salary are much more complex then the four mentioned in the finding.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: TheBoard of Trustees should ensure that Superintendent/Chancellor salaries and increases take into account the number of schools, teachers, and students they oversee, and are tied to the district's student's progress and quantifiable metrics. District Response The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable. In an area known to have one of the most expensive costs of living a small must district must be somewhat competitive to draw qualified candidates. In a smaller district the Superintendent usually wears many more hats, has less support staff and the same responsibility.

F4: Boards of Trustees hire costly search firms to recruit successors for retiring or dismissed Superintendent/Chancellors. District ResDonse The Mount Pleasant Elementary School District disagrees with the finding. We find this to be a subjective conclusion without basis of comparison and substantiated data. This is one of the most important functions of a Board primarily made up of elected non-educators, not familiar with personnel procedures and effective recruitment efforts in public education.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: Boards of Trustees should conduct a preliminary search within the local area prior to hiring search firms. District Response The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable. The Silicon Valley does not have a corner on the best Administrators in the state nor would you ask any business in the private sector to limit itself in such a fashion in its search for a CEO. ---- ------ -------------- ------ .Finding 5 Boards of Trustees approve the hiring of multiple private attorneys, in somecases at a tremendous expense. District Response The Mount Pleasant Elementary School District agreeswith the finding.

F6: Theoperation of 34 K-12 schools districts and four (4)community college districts creates excessively high management and administrative costs. Five K-12 school districts have excessively high Superintendent costs per student which is reflected of the district's having only one or two schools District Response The Mount Pleasant Elementary School District disagrees with the finding. The cost per student is an arbitrary measure of cost for administrative expenses in a small school district. In many small school districts the Superintendent is not only Superintendent he isalso principal, or Director of Human Resourcesor Director of Curriculum without all the support staff of a big district. Administrative costs are not just the Superintendent's salary. This isa too narrow a look at running a school district.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: A consolidation of districts should be considered to reduce the numbers and costs of Superintendent/Chancellors, Boards of Trustees, administrative staff and overhead. District Response The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable. The California state education code entrusts this decision to the public residing within the district. Current research shows that smaller personal settings are better for students and their families. -JJ!l'~ Bob Ramirez President Board of Trustees Mount Pleasant Elementary School District ~e~~ Superintendent

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R5: All Boards of Trustees should engage County Counsel whenever possible and leverage their buying power to negotiate lower fees with private law firms. District Response The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable. School districts are involved in complex legal issuesthat require specialized legal expertise and considerable legal capacity. TheMount Pleasant Elementary School District will continue to use legal counsel it feels best will meet our legal needs.

September 28, 2009 — "'ii"'~dak

5 pages 4 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 4 findings

F2: Boards of Trustees are approving overly generous benefits toSuperintendents and Chancellors, including thefollowing: • Auto allowances (auto leases/purchases, insurance, maintenance, etc.) to superintendents • Housing allowances • Million dollar housing loans at zero or below market interest rates • Guaranteed annual step and/or longevity increases • Signing bonuses • Contract buyouts • Excessive performance bonuses • Per diem payments when out of the district • Personal technology allowances • Professional memberships and subscription allowances • Excessive travel and entertainment expenses • Salary increases automatically triggered by increases in teacher's salaries which are in addition to other guaranteed salary increases • Pension allowances (in addition to regular STRS/PERS contributions) • Advanced degree stipends • Lifetime medical insurance benefits • Annual physicals Response: The Oak Grove School District disagrees with the finding. In 2008-09 the superintendent compensation costs represent less than 0.2 percent of the District's total budget of $96,561,521. The Grand Jury's data of total compensation places Oak Grove in the bottom third of all districts of cost per student and the newly hired superintendent compensation costs represent even less. Considering the challenge of attracting and maintaining qualified candidates, the immense pressure of the position, and the cost of living in the area, compensation packages provided are considered a necessity and not "overly generous."

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Boards of Trustees should carefully review and renegotiate the Superintendent/Chancellor benefits listed in Finding 2for possible reduction and/or elimination. Response: The Grand Jury recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. It is not a realistic action to expect superintendents to renegotiate their benefits, let alone to eliminate them. This would truly hinder recruitment in the future. The Oak Grove Superintendent does not receive a housing allowance, amillion dollar housing loan or loan of any kind, guaranteed annual step or longevity bonus, signing bonus, excessive performance bonus, per diem when out of the district, or excessive travel and entertainment expenses. The recommendation from the Grand Jury does provide Boards of Trustees an awareness of practices that could be greatly scrutinized.

F3: Superintendent salaries and increases appear to bear no relationship to the number of schools, students, and employees they oversee, nor their district's academic improvement. Response: The Oak Grove School District partially disagrees with the finding. Superintendent salaries and increases often are related to the size of the district, but that is only one of a number of factors that determine compensation. Oak Grove is one of the largest elementary school districts in the county, ranked fourth highest of twenty-one elementary districts. This is one of the factors used in determining compensation for the superintendent.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The Board of Trustees should ensure that Superintendent/Chancellor salaries and increases take into account the number ofschools, teachers, and students they oversee, and are tied to the district's students' progress and quantifiable metrics. Response: The recommendation has been partially implemented, in that our Five-Year Plan has a major component of student achievement and stated goals for student success upon which the superintendent is evaluated. The remainder of the recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. Simply placing the superintendent salary tied into the number of schools, teachers, and students they oversee is not a productive approach to obtaining and retaining the best candidate for the position.

F4: Boards of Trustees hire costly search firms to recruit successors for retiring or dismissed Superintende nts/Chance IIors. Response: The Oak Grove School District disagrees with the finding. The benefit of hiring a search firm allows boards to bring in the best candidates and draw from a stronger pool of candidates. Boards of Trustees do not have the resources, and in some cases, the time to conduct a meaningful search for a candidate. The current Oak Grove Superintendent replaced a 10-year veteran superintendent and was hired from within after consulting with a firm and their findings. This saved the district funds since no funds were needed for a larger scale search from the work provided at the first level of the search. Oak Grove continually looks to hire from within to avoid costly searches.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: Boards of Trustees should conduct apreliminary search within local areaprior to hiring search firms. Response: This recommendation will not be implemented as it is not warranted. The Board of Trustees in Oak Grove is not currently searching for a superintendent and recently hired a new superintendent. The Board will consider this option when the time is appropriate. Findine: 5 Boards of Trustees approve the hiring of multiple private attorneys, insome cases at a tremendous expense. Response: The Oak Grove School District partially agrees with this finding. Schools have complex issues that require legal expertise. The Oak Grove School District currently retains the services of specialized legal firms. However, the reality is that school districts have complex legal issues that require legal expertise in sub-sections of the Education Code. Contract negotiations, special education, property sales and/or surplus property status, and employee dismissal (Certificated and Classified) all are unique and require specialized legal capacity.

F6: The operation of34 K-12 school districts andfour (4) community college districts creates excessively high management and administrative costs. Five K-12 school districts have excessively high Superintendent costs per student which is reflective of the district's having only one or two schools. Response: The Oak Grove School District disagrees with the findings. We are not in position to determine the operational needs of other districts or the community colleges. Each district is unique and has its own challenges. To attract quality superintendents, districts need to look at the whole picture.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: A consolidation of districts should be considered to reduce the numbers and costs of Superintendents/Chancellors, Boards of Trustees, administrative staff and overhead. Response: The recommendation will not be implemented. The Oak Grove School District Board of Trustees cannot implement the recommendation due to California Education Code. Consolidation of school districts is relegated to the people who live in the school district. Should communities wish tojoin with other communities to create larger school or community college districts, the process is clearly spelled out in the Education Code, under which a vote of the electorate can change district organization. IN:cm

Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Boards of Trustees should carefully review the benefits listed in Finding and: J • Eliminate health benefits for Board Members • Minimize travel and conference costs • Eliminate pension contributions lany Garcia, Superintendent Board ofTrustees: Yvonne Cook, Dennis Hawkins, Dianne Lemke, Jeremy Nishihara, Mary Noel An Equal Opporrunity/Mfirmative Action Employer • Our mission ... "to ensure that everychild's potential is achieved." .. -- ..-. -- ... -- ...-- -~- . - -. -- - Response: The recommendation will not be implemented. The Oak Grove School District will continue to provide medical benefit levels for Board Members since they are not "overly generous" when weighed against the duties and responsibilities of the position and the fact that those who choose to participate pay the same contribution amount as management to cover the monthly premiums. Eliminating benefits would be a deterrent to attract and retain qualified candidates. I refer you back to our findings as stated in Finding 1.

R5: All Boards of Trustees should engage County Counsel whenever possible and leverage their buying power to negotiate lowerfees with private lawfirms. Response: This recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented by the District in the future.

September 24, 2009 — Fremont Union High School District Cupertino, Fremont, Homestead, Lynbrook, Monta Vista High Schools andAdult/Community

6 pages 6 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 6 findings

F1: Boards of Trustees approve overly generous benefits to themselves, which include the following: • Fully paid health benefits for trustees and their families (often exceeding those of teachers and/or with no payment ceiling) • Excessive travel and conference costs • Pension contribution The Fremont Union High School District respectfully disagrees with thefinding. It is difficult for school districts to attract competent and dedicated candidates for the challenging and highly scrutinized role of Trustee. Since Trustee stipends are and will remain low, benefits contributions are among the only avenues available to attract and keep qualified candidates. Most Trustee members provide countless volunteer hours beyond the time dedicated to Board meetings and office events. The Fremont Union High School District Board of Trustees already has agreed to reduce and virtually eliminate all travel and conference costs except when such costs are significant benefits to the districts. Bullet point three is not applicable to the Fremont Union High School District Trustees since they do not receive pension contributions. BOARDOFTRUSTEES:Nancy A. Newton, Barbara F.Nunes, Homer H.e.Tong, Hung Wei, Bill Wilson 589 West Fremont Avenue (408) 522-2200 Post Office Box F FAX (408) 245-5325 Sunnyvale, CA 94087 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER http://www.fuhsd.org/ September 24, 2009

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Boards of Trustees should carefully review the benefits listed in Finding 1and: • Eliminate health benefits for Board Members • Minimize travel and conference costs • Eliminate pension contributions Bullet 2 of the recommendation has been implemented. The District Board of Trustees has always minimized travel and conference costs. The main travelfor the Trustees has been to the annual CSBA State Conference, which alternates between Northern and Southern California. Given the budget challenges that the District isfacing thisyear, and thefact that the conference is being held inSouthern California, the Board of Trustees has already decided not to attend thisyear 'sconference and avoid any airline travel and overnight stays. Bullet 3 is already apart of the current practice ofFremont Union High School District. No pensions are offered to Trustee members. The remainder ofRecommendation 1will not be implemented because it is not warranted. Typical health benefits are not "overly generous" when weighed against the duties of theposition, and the importance of attracting qualified candidates. Eliminating them would place greater stress on the governance of districts by discouraging incumbents from staying and by discouraging new, qualified candidates from runningfor the seats.

F2: Boards of Trustees are approving overly generous benefits to Superintendents and Chancellors, including the following: • Auto allowances (auto leases/purchases, insurance, maintenance, etc.) • Housing allowances • Million dollar housing loans at zero or below market interest rates • Guaranteed annual step and/or longevity increases • Signing bonuses • Contract buy-outs • Excessive performance bonuses • Per diem payments when out of the district • Personal technology allowances • Professional memberships and subscription allowances • Excessive travel and entertainment expenses • Salary increases automatically triggered by increases in teacher's salaries which are in addition to other guaranteed salary increases • Pension allowances (in addition to regular STRS/PERS contributions) September 24, 2009 • Advanced degree stipends • Lifetime medical insurance benefits • Annual physicals The Fremont Union High School District respectfully disagrees with thisfinding with respect to their Superintendent's compensation. The Superintendent does not receive an auto allowance, a housing allowance, a housing loan, a signing bonus, aperformance bonus, per diem payments when out of the District, apersonal technology allowance, or a salary increase automatically triggered by teacher's salary increases, pension allowance in addition toSTRS, lifetime medical insurance benefits, or coverage for annual physicals. The Superintendent ispaid using a salary schedule where the annual increments match the annual step increase of the teachers' and other administrators' salary schedules. The longevity and advanced degree stipends also match those of all administrators in the District. The contractual buy out clause mirrors what Ed Code allows. Travel, membership and subscription allowances are limited and monitored by the Board. The Superintendent does receive a health care stipend of $400 dollars per month. This is the same stipend that isgiven to all District administrators and does not cover the cost of the PERS healthcare plan. At the Fremont Union High School District, top leadership costs represent less than one-fifth of onepercent of the office's total annual budget of$199 million. The high cost of living in the area, coupled with extreme demands and pressures of theposition, have created a market inwhich compensation packages offering certain compensation are viewed as a necessity.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Boards of Trustees should carefully review and renegotiate the Superintendent/Chancellor benefits listed in Finding 2 for possible reduction and/or elimination. The Board of Trustees of the Fremont Union High School District carefully scrutinized the benefit package offered to the Superintendent when theyfirst negotiated the contract with her. The current contract for the Superintendent isfor four years ending inJune of 2013. The Trustees review the Superintendent's contract annually, and the Trustees and the Superintendent plan to continue this annual review. For these reasons, the Fremont Union High School District agrees with the recommendation that Boards of Trustees should carefully review and renegotiate Superintendent's benefits listed in Finding 2 for possible reduction and/or elimination, provided such a reduction would notprevent the District from attracting and retaining the best Superintendent for the District.

F3: Superintendent salaries and increases appear to bear no relationship to the number of schools, students, and employees they oversee, nor their district's academic improvement. The District respectfully disagrees with Finding 3. Fremont Union High School District's Superintendent oversees an annual budget that is over $199 million, five large high schools, over 1,000 employees, over 10,000 high school students and 38,000 adult school students. The Superintendent's salary is related to the size of the district, and that is only one of manyfactors that determine compensation. Response to Grand Jury September 24, 2009

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The Board of Trustees should ensure that Superintendent/Chancellor salaries and increases take into account the number of schools, teachers, and students they oversee, and are tied to the district's students' progress and quantifiable metrics. The Superintendent's contract does take into account the size and complexity of the Fremont Union High School District as well as the number of schools, teachers, and students in the District. The Superintendent must receive a satisfactory evaluation, in writing,from the Board annually in order to receive salary increases specified in the contract. Students' academic progress is one of thefactors given high consideration in the Board of Trustees 'evaluation. For these reasons, the Fremont Union High School District agrees with the recommendation that Boards of Trustees should ensure that the salary and compensation increases for the Superintendent be tied to the number ofschools, teachers, students and the District's students' progress as well as other goals set by the Board of Trustees.

F4: Boards of Trustees hire costly search firms to recruit successors for retiring or dismissed Superintendents/Chancellors. Hiring a Superintendent for a school district is one of the most important and complex tasks a Board of Trustees undertakes. While there are costs involved in using searchfirms, these amounts are small when one considers the stakes involved and thefact that Superintendents are often in their positions for many years. Board members are typically inexperienced inSuperintendent searches, and the existing staff of a school district are not always bestpositioned to recruit and employ their supervisor. However, the use of search firms depends upon theparticular circumstances and timing of the hiring. There are times when an appropriate and highly qualified individual can befound within the District as well as times when looking outside the District is necessary.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: Boards of Trustees should conduct a preliminary search within the local area prior to hiring search firms. The Fremont Union High School District largely agrees with thisfinding with the caveat that this decision is dependent on theparticular circumstances. In thefall of 2006, after the dismissal of the sitting Superintendent, the Fremont Union High School District Board of Trustees appointed an in-house administrator to theposition of interim-superintendent. After six months this individual was appointed Superintendent, and no search firm was used. Over the last 20years the Board has used a variety of approaches to recruiting and hiring Superintendents. On three occasions the Board of Trustees hired a search firm. On two occasions they chose in-house candidates. The approach usedfit the needs and demands of the District at the time, as well as the strength of the local or in-house pool of candidates. When a searchfirm was used, a number offirms were carefully interviewed andfully vetted. Then one was chosen to lead the recruitment process. The Fremont Union High School District Board of Trustees believes that they must use search firms to assist with the recruitment and the selection process of Superintendents when a local candidate cannot befound that meets the needs and demands of the District or when the Board has determined that the District must take a new direction that cannot be achieved by hiring local talent. September 24, 2009

F5: Boards of Trustees approve the hiring of multiple private attorneys, in some cases at a tremendous expense. The Fremont Union High School District respectfully disagrees with thisfindingfor the reasons outlined below in the response to Recommendation 5.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: All Boards of Trustees should engage County Counsel whenever possible and leverage their buying power to negotiate lower fees with private law firms. Over thepast twenty years the Fremont Union High School District has considered using County Counsel and has rarelyfound this option to be ideal. Quality legal advice depends on two elements not addressed in the recommendations of the Grand Jury. Thefirst is an extensive knowledge of the district. Given the wide variety of school districts and their challenges, it is difficult to envision County Counsel possessing the breadth of knowledge and experience toprovide the high level of support districts need on high-stakes legal issues. Beyond knowledge of the district, the satisfactory resolution of complex legal issues requires experience with and comfort in the relationships between district employees, Trustees, and members of the community. Fremont Union High School District has minimized the needfor legal services byproactively addressing areas that typically incur significant legal costsfor school districts. Our District has extremely collaborative and close working relationships with our employee groups. We do not use attorneys in negotiation sessions, and we have attorneys who have helped us develop a Revenue Sharing Process that we use inplace of negotiated salaries with all groups. Changing Counsel for this work would be unwise and could potentially undermine the trust we have built with our union groups. The District has also worked closely with Special Education students and theirparents to ensure that the needs of those students are met without resorting to legalproceedings. We are double checking to be certain that we are not currently paying any excess costs using our attorneys rather than County Counsel, but even if these costs are somewhat greater than they could be, the District feels strongly that the benefits of these elements far outweigh any marginal cost difference in legal costs.

F6: The operation of 34 K-12 school districts and four community college districts creates excessively high management and administrative costs. Five K-12 school districts have excessively high Superintendent costs per student which is reflective of the districts having only one or two schools. The Fremont Union High School District believes that it is not inaposition tojudge the districts identified and is respectfully unable to agree or disagree with thisfinding. September 24, 2009

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: A consolidation of districts should be considered to reduce the numbers and cost of Superintendents/Chancellors, Boards of Trustees, and administrative staff and overhead. The recommendation cannot be implemented by local Boards of Trustees, because under the California Education Code, consolidation of districts is relegated to thepeople who live in the district. Should communities wish tojoin with other communities to create larger K-12 or community college districts, the process is clearly spelled out in the Education Code, under which a vote of the electorate can change district organization. In Santa Clara County, votersfrom afew districts have chosen to consolidate in thepast, butfor the most part, they have established a strong tradition andpreference for local control. The Santa Clara County Office of Education offers many centralized services such as alternative schools, special education, finance, and technology services, all directed at reducing costsfor districts. Sincerely, GOVERNING BOARD OF THE FREMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT J C '---:::> er 11,- . I Q' C. Tong, Board Presi~ent Polly M. /mcd Grand Jury.doc

September 23, 2009 — Fil" Sep 3 Uz009 Saratoga Union School District Chief executive Officer/CI CO~~kt8JB~~ Sup~~r are David H.yamasa~

4 pages 5 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 5 findings

F1: Boards of Trustees approve overly generous benefits which include thefollowing: • Fully paid health benefits for trustees and theirfamilies • Excessive travel and conference costs • Pension contribution

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Board of Trustees should carefully review the benefits listed inFinding 1and: • Eliminate health benefits for Board Members • Minimize travel and conference costs • Eliminate pension contributions Response: . --_.- ----- .... - -.. ------ -- SARATOGA UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSD board members receive $200.00/month for their service. SUSD does not exceed the $240/month limit as stated in the California Education Code. SUSD board members are permitted to participate in the district's health and welfare benefit program. A portion of benefit premium costs are covered by district funds. Total cost to the district in 2008-2009 was $13,146. There is no pension plan available to SUSD board members.

F2: Boards of Trustees are approving overly generous benefits to Superintendents and Chancellors, including thefollowing: • Auto allowances (auto leases/purchases, insurance, maintenance, etc.) to superintendent • Housing allowances • Million dollar housing loans at zero or below market interest rates • Guaranteed annual step and/or longevity increases • Signing bonuses • Contract buyouts • Excessive performance bonuses • Per diem payments when out the district • Personal technology allowances • Professional memberships and subscription allowances • Excessive travel and entertainment expenses • Salary increases automatically triggered by increases in teachers' salaries, which are in addition to other guaranteed salary increases • Pension allowances (in addition to regular STRS/PERS contributions) • Advanced degree stipends • Lifetime medical insurance benefits • Annual physicals

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Boards of Trustees should carefully review and renegotiate the Superintendent/Chancellor benefits listed inFinding 2for possible reduction and/or elimination. Response: - - - . ----~_ .. ---- . --- - .. SCHOOL DISTRICT The Superintendent is the CEO of the organization and his compensation is in line with similar organizations and has similar responsibilities. The Superintendent's job is a difficult and demanding job which requires a person with proven skills and experience. The high cost of living in the area has created a market in which compensation packages offering certain benefits are present. In the vast majority of cases, the benefits are not "overly generous," but in line with the realities of market supply and demand.

F3: Superintendent salaries and increases appear to bear no relationship to the number of schools, students, and employees they oversee, nor their district's academic improvement.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The Board of Trustees should ensure thaTSuperintendent/Chancellor salaries and increases take into account the number of schools, teachers, and students they oversee and are tied to the district's students' progress and quantifiable metrics. Response: Disagree The decision to consolidate districts is in the hands of local voting citizens. Citizens overwhelmingly support local control of school districts. There is a strong preference for smaller sized school districts. Larger districts are no guarantee of better financial performance. (i.e. Oakland, Los Angeles, West Contra Costa County, San Francisco)

F4: Boards of Trustees hire costly search firms to recruit successors for retiring or dismissed Superintendents.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: Boards of Trustees should conduct a preliminary search within the local area prior to hiring search firms. Response: Agree 20460 Forrest Hills Drive. Saratoga. California 95070 • (408) 867-3424 • (408) 867-2312 fax • www.saratogausd.org Students deserve the highest qualified person to lead the district. Board members are not qualified to be Human Resources recruiters -professional assistance and guidance is required.

F5: Boards of Trustees approve the hiring of multiple private attorneys, in some cases at tremendous expense.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: All Boards of Trustees should engage County Counsel whenever possible and leverage their buying power to negotiate lowerfees withprivate lawfirms. Response: Agree Unfortunately, legal costs for school districts are high. Schools operate in an extremely complex web of regulations, rules, laws, and procedures. Professional assistance is necessary to protect the rights and safety of students and staff. SUSD is committed to minimizing legal expenses while fulfilling all educational and legal responsibilities. Submitted on behalf Mthe Saratoga Union School District Board of Trustees, ~ymeiss Superintendent

September 21, 2009 — Orchard School District

2 pages 6 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 6 findings

F1: We disagree. The Board of Trustees receives the same benefits as employees, maximum of $10,500 and 4 of 5 board members use these benefits. Travel and conference cost are for CSBA conference which is now eliminated from the budget as part of the reductions. There is no pension contribution.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Board of Trustees reviews the benefits as listed above.

F2: Disagree. The Superintendent receives ACSA dues and a 6 month buy-out. Full medical benefits are paid by the district. Superintendent receives a doctoral and masters stipend the same as certificated and classified.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The board of trustees annually reviews the superintendent's contract and for the past three years has not received any benefits other than the above.

F3: Disagree. The superintendent's contract is not tied to districts academic improvement

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The superintendent's annual evaluation has 5 goals and student achievement is one of the goals but there is no compensation for achieved goals ORCHARD SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS Ken Riley, Sheryl Shirley, Alan Fon9, Bambi Fleming, Danny Dailey SUPERINTENDENT Joseph A.Amelio, Ph.D.• DIRECTOR OF EDUCATIONAL SERVICES Jackie Felbinger •BUSINESS MANAGER Anna Leun9 •PRINCIPAL Bradley Yee

F4: Board of Trustees does not hire search firms and uses the community made up of staff, management and parents in searches of superintendents.

F5: Disagree Board of Trustees has one counsel for negotiations and legal matters and one counsel for Special Education and established trusting relations with counsel for al 0 years.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: See above. The fees are lower than the county counsel.

F6: Disagree The superintendent salary is the lowest in the county and does not reflect high costs per student.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: The Orchard community wants local control. Orchard has been in existence for 158years in Santa Clara County. Sincerely, Jo~h A. Amelio, Superintendent 921 Fox Lane, San Jose, CA 95131 CC: Ken Riley, President Board of Trustees

September 21, 2009 — T Education Santa Clara County Office of Charles Weis,Ph.D. Count;' Superinterulent a/Schools

8 pages 6 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 6 findings

F1: Boards of Trustees approve overly generous benefits to themselves which include thefollowing: •Fully paid health benefits for trustees and theirfamilies (often exceeding those of teachers and/or with nopayment ceiling) •Excessive travel and conference costs •Pension contribution The Santa Clara County Office of Education disagrees with the finding. It is difficult for school districts to attract competent and dedicated candidates for the challenging and highly scrutinized role of trustee. Since trustee stipends are and will remain low, benefits and pension contributions are among the only avenues available to attract and keep qualified candidates. Most Board members provide countless volunteer hours beyond the time dedicated to Board meetings and Office events. The County Board of Education, as well as anumber of local boards, already have reduced travel and conference costs, and strive to incur such costs only when there are significant benefits to the districts.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Boards of Trustees should carefully review the benefits listed inFinding 1and: •Eliminate health benefits for Board Members •Minimize travel and conference costs •Eliminate pension contributions Bullet 2 of the recommendation has been implemented. The County Board of Education, as well as a number of local boards, has taken steps to minimize travel and conference costs. The remainder of Recommendation I will not be implemented because it is not warranted. Typical health benefits and pension contribution policies in county districts are not "overly generous" when weighed against the duties of the position, and the importance of attracting qualified candidates. Eliminating them would place greater stress on the governance of districts, by discouraging incumbents from staying, and by discouraging new, qualified candidates from running for the seats. Further, in those cases where salary compensation is provided to board members, pension contributions through CalPERS or Cal STRS are not optional. Board ofEducation LeonF.Beauchman •Joseph DiSalvo. T.N.Ho•Jane Howard. GraceH.Mah •CraigMann. AnnaSong 1290 Ridder Park Drive•SanJose, CA95131-2304.408-453-6500. www.sccoe.org .'1900011J5 AChampionfor Children,Schools,andCommunity' AnEquatOpportunityEmployer

F2: Boards of Trustees are approving overly generous benefits to Superintendents and Chancellors, including thefollowing: •Auto allowances (auto leases/purchases, insurance, maintenance, etc.) to superintendents •Housing allowances •Million dollar housing loans at zero or below market interest rates • Guaranteed annual step and/or longevity increases •Signing bonuses • Contract buyouts •Excessive performance bonuses •Per diem payments when out of the district •Personal technology allowances •Professional memberships and subscription allowances •Excessive travel and entertainment expenses •Salary increases automatically triggered by increases in teacher's salaries which are in addition to other guaranteed salary increases •Pension allowances (in addition to regular STRS/PERS contributions) •Advanced degree stipends •Lifetime medical insurance benefits •Annual physicals The Santa Clara County Office of Education disagrees with the finding. At the SCCOE, top leadership costs represent less than one-sixth of one percent of the office's total annual budget of $250 million. Additionally, the County Superintendent is responsible for and oversees public school operations that have a combined annual income of over $3.5 billion. Santa Clara County school districts face considerable challenges in attracting and maintaining qualified applicants for superintendent/chancellor positions. The high cost of living in the area, coupled with extreme demands and pressures of the position, have created a market in which compensation packages offering certain benefits are viewed as anecessity. In the vast majority of cases, the benefits are not "overly generous," but in line with the realities of market supply and demand. Compare the average superintendent total compensation as listed in the Grand Jury report (Table 1, pA) of$207,900 to the average pay for CEOs in Silicon Valley. According to the Mercury News (June 5, 2009), the average pay for CEOs last year was $2.2 million-just over 10times as much as the amount paid to public school superintendents. Actually, the average bonus ($242,000) paid to the CEOs exceeded the average salary paid to the superintendents. A comparison of apples to apples-or superintendents to superintendents-similarly refutes the idea the notion of "generous administrative expenses." Response to Grand Jury Report, "Who Really Benefits?" p. 20f6 Looking at the average salaries of superintendents in the Far West region of the United States, a study entitled "Salaries and Wages in California Public Schools 2008-2009" (by ACSAlFoundation for Educational Administration and Educational Research Service, Table B3) found the average salary was $172,646-about $20,000 less than the average salary in Santa Clara County of$192,368. Given the extreme cost-of-living disparity in Silicon Valley as compared to the average of the rest of the Far West region, an additional $20,000 here, combined with an attractive set of benefits, would not seem "overly generous."

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Boards of Trustees should carefully review and renegotiate the Superintendent/Chancellor benefits listed inFinding 2for possible reduction and/or elimination. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. It is unrealistic to expect superintendents and chancellors to renegotiate their benefits, and impractical to believe such a renegotiation would not hinder recruitment and retention in these crucial positions. Demand for qualified people who can fill these positions is very high. In the current market, incumbents who face reduced benefits can and will leave for similar positions in other districts or states where the benefits are intact; or for positions in the private sector, where compensation packages far exceed those in school districts. The Grand Jury's recommendation does serve as areminder to all trustees to carefully scrutinize benefit packages offered to superintendents in future contracts.

F3: Superintendent salaries and increases appear to bear no relationship to the number of schools, students, and employees they oversee, nor their district's academic improvement. The Santa Clara County Office of Education disagrees with the finding. School district leaders oversee income of over $3.5 billion tax dollars annually, and nearly 25,000 employees and 260,000 students in over 367 schools. The SCCOE's annual budget is over $250 million. Superintendent salaries often are related to the size of the district--but that is only one of a myriad of factors that determine compensation. Also, many superintendent evaluations do typically take student academic performance into consideration. Response to Grand Jury Report, "Who Really Benefits?" p. 30f6

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The Board of Trustees should ensure that Superintendent/Chancellor salaries and increases take into account the number ofschools, teachers, and students they oversee, and are tied to the district's students' progress and quantifiable metrics. The recommendation has been partially implemented, in that many superintendent evaluations do typically take student academic performance into consideration. The remainder ofthe recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. Tying superintendent/chancellor salaries to district size would be a simplistic and counterproductive approach to finding and retaining district leaders who are best suited for the particular characteristics and challenges of a given district. There are many other factors other than size that come into play when compensating leadership-a superintendent's tenure, the characteristics of the students served by the districts, the nature of the community, etc. Also, to a large extent the process of hiring a superintendent is tied to the circumstance of the time; a district, whether large, small or in-between, cannot choose to hire a superintendent when market conditions are favorable. Given the crucial nature ofthe position, districts try to fill the job as expeditiously as is reasonable. Some of the smaller districts in the county are located in areas with the highest cost of living, and therefore are forced to offer compensation packages that are commensurate.

F4: Boards of Trustees hire costly search firms to recruit successors for retiring or dismissed Superintendents/Chancellors. The Santa Clara County Office of Education disagrees with the finding. Many districts do conduct their own searches. One recent example is the Luther Burbank School District in San Jose, for which the SCCOE provided assistance. While some districts do hire search firms, describing the expenditure as "costly" seems to ignore the realities of the market for these positions. The position is crucial to school success, and therefore it is crucial to find the right person for the job. The price of hiring a search firm, weighed against the benefit of bringing in an assortment of qualified candidate, does not seem "costly." A more costly approach would be to undertake anything less than an intensive search for the right candidate.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: Boards of Trustees should conduct apreliminary search within the local area prior to hiring search firms. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. Superintendent searches do survey local leadership when attempting to fill local openings-for example, the Oak Grove recently named its assistant superintendent for human resources to fill the vacated superintendent position. However, qualified candidates are not always available locally. To conduct a local "preliminary search," separate from an all-out search, would only delay the Response to Grand Jury Report, "Who Really Benefits?" p. 40f6 process and potentially leave vacant for longer than necessary a district's most important leadership position.

F5: Boards of Trustees approve the hiring of multiple private attorneys, insome cases at a tremendous expense. The Santa Clara County Office of Education partially agrees with the finding. Boards do sometime hire private attorneys. School districts often are involved in complex legal issues that require legal expertise in sub-sections of the Education Code, requiring considerable specialized legal capacity, time and energy.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: All Boards of Trustees should engage County Counsel whenever possible and leverage their buying power to negotiate lowerfees with private lawfirms. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented by the SCCOE in the future. The County Superintendent met in September with members of the County Counsel's office to explore the feasibility of using the office's services, and agrees that, pending approval by the County Board of Education, the issue merits continued consideration and possible implementation.

F6: The operation of 34K-12 school districts andfour (4)community college districts creates excessively high management and administrative costs. Five K-12 school districts have excessively high Superintendent costsper student which is reflective of the district's having only one or two schools. The Santa Clara County Office of Education partially agrees with the finding, in that the large number of districts does compound administrative costs. However, to draw cost-benefit conclusions on the basis of superintendent costs per student can be ahighly misleading approach.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: A consolidation of districts should be considered to reduce the numbers and costs of Superintendents/Chancellors, Boards of Trustees, administrative staff and overhead. The recommendation cannot be implemented by local boards and trustees, because under the California education code, consolidation of school districts is relegated to the people who live in the school district. Should communities wish tojoin with other communities to create larger Response to Grand Jury Report, "Who Really Benefits?" p. 50f6 school or community college districts, the process is clearly spelled out in the Education Code, under which a vote of the electorate can change district organization. In Santa Clara County, voters from a few districts have chosen in the past to consolidate, but for the most part they have established a strong tradition and preference for local control of school districts. The Santa Clara County Office of Education offers many centralized services-such as alternative schools, special education, finance and tech services-all directed at reducing costs for districts. A final word: Today, more than ever, Santa Clara County school districts are examining expenditures and procedures in order to be as efficient and thrifty as possible. The Grand Jury report is one more reminder of the necessity ofthat. Butjust as the districts are all cognizant of financial realities, they also understand it is their responsibility to provide their students with the best educational leadership possible. If they are able to meet that responsibility, the answer to the question "Who Really Benefits?" becomes clear: It is the students, their families, and the community as awhole. Response to Grand Jury Report, "Who Really Benefits?" p. 60f6

September 21, 2009 — Union School District

5 pages 6 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 6 findings

F1: Boards of Trustees approve overly generous benefits to themselves which include thefollowing: •Fully paid health benefits for trustees and theirfamilies (often exceeding those of teachers and/or with nopayment ceiling) •Excessive travel and conference costs •Pension contribution Union Elementary School District disagrees with the finding. Trustees inUSD do not approve "overly generous benefits" to themselves. Board members provide countless volunteer hours beyond the time dedicated to Board meetings and school events. It is difficult for school districts to attract competent and dedicated candidates for the challenging and highly scrutinized role of trustee. Since trustee stipends are and will remain low, benefits and pension contributions are among the only avenues available to attract and keep qualified candidates. Union Elementary School District has already reduced travel and conference costs and has historically ensured that all of these types of expenditures are not excessive.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: 1 Boards of Trustees should carefully review the benefits listed in Finding and: •Eliminate health benefits for Board Members •Minimize travel and conference costs •Eliminate pension contributions The recommendation to eliminate health benefits for Board Members will not be implemented because it is not warranted. As noted previously, because the compensation for trustees is low, benefits are one of the only ways school districts can recruit and retain highly qualified members of the community to serve in these important roles. The recommendation to minimize travel and conference costs has been implemented. The recommendation to eliminate pension contributions will not be implemented because it is neither warranted nor feasible. CalPERS requires pension contributions if salary compensation is provided.

F2: Boards of Trustees are approving overly generous benefits toSuperintendents and Chancellors, including thefollowing: •Auto allowances (auto leases/purchases, insurance, maintenance, etc.) to superintendents •Housing allowances •Million dollar housing loans at zero or below market interest rates • Guaranteed annual step and/or longevity increases •Signing bonuses 1 • Contract buyouts •Excessive performance bonuses •Per diem payments when out of the district •Personal technology allowances •Professional memberships and subscription allowances •Excessive travel and entertainment expenses •Salary increases automatically triggered by increases in teacher's salaries which are in addition to other guaranteed salary increases •Pension allowances (in addition to regular STRS/PERS contributions) •Advanced degree stipends •Lifetime medical insurance benefits •Annual physicals Union Elementary School District disagrees with this finding. The Superintendent's salary and benefits in Union Elementary School District is lower than the average of neighboring districts of similar size. School Boards face considerable challenges in attracting and maintaining qualified applicants for the demanding and high profile position of superintendent. The high cost of living in Silicon Valley necessitates the type of compensation packages that will attract and retain high quality leaders. In the vast majority of cases, the benefits are not "overly generous," but in line with the realities of market supply and demand.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Boards of Trustees should carefully review and renegotiate the Superintendent/Chancellor benefits listed inFinding 2for possible reduction and/or elimination. The recommendation will be partially implemented. On an annual basis, the Board of Trustees in Union Elementary School District carefully reviews salary and benefits agreements during the Superintendent's performance evaluation.

F3: Superintendent salaries and increases appear to bear no relationship to the number of schools, students, and employees they oversee, nor their district's academic improvement. Union Elementary School District disagrees with the finding. Superintendent salaries are usually related to the size of the district. In addition, most superintendents have academic performance and improvement goals tied to their evaluations and potential salary increases.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The Board of Trustees should ensure that Superintendent/Chancellor salaries and increases take into account the number of schools, teachers, and students they oversee, and are tied to the district's students' progress and quantifiable metrics. The recommendation has been partially implemented. In Union Elementary School District, the Board of Trustees has established success indicators and priorities for the Superintendent which 2 ________________ • .- • . n •__ include students' progress and quantifiable metrics. Progress toward those is taken into consideration in annual performance evaluations. The remainder of the recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. Many factors in addition to size of a district need to be considered when determining leadership compensation. Prior experience, an area's comparable compensation agreements, unique challenges facing districts, and other factors need to be considered when determining fair compensation for top leadership.

F4: Boards of Trustees hire costly search firms to recruit successors for retiring or dismissed Superintendents/Chancellors. Union Elementary School District disagrees with the finding. Some districts do conduct their own searches. Oak Grove School District recently hired an internal candidate for its vacant Superintendent position, and Luther Burbank:School District in San Jose utilized the services of the Santa Clara County Office of Education for its most recent search.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: Boards of Trustees should conduct apreliminary search within the local areaprior to hiring search firms. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. Some districts already do informal preliminary searches to identify potential internal candidates. Unfortunately, qualified candidates are not always available locally. It is important that Boards of Trustees have the discretion to recruit successors for retiring or dismissed Superintendents in a manner they believe will result in fmding the most qualified candidate.

F5: Boards of Trustees approve the hiring of multiple private attorneys, in some cases at a tremendous expense. Although we are unaware of the hiring practices of other districts, Union Elementary School District agrees with this finding. School districts are faced with complex legal issues that require legal expertise, in some cases at great cost to the district. Costs are related to expertise, the amount of time expended, and the quality of the service received.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: All Boards of Trustees should engage County Counsel whenever possible and leverage their buying power to negotiate lowerfees with private lawfirms. The recommendation has been implemented. Union Elementary School District uses County Counsel for all cases in which specialized expertise of other firms is not required. Weare unaware of the legal practices and requirements of other districts. 3 ______ . + • • 0 ~_u -

F6: The operation of34 K-12 school districts andfour (4) community college districts creates excessively high management and administrative costs. Five K-12 school districts have excessively high Superintendent costs per student which is reflective of the district's having only one or two schools. Union Elementary School District disagrees with the finding because it is based on an erroneous assumption that Superintendent costs should bejustified on a per student basis.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: A consolidation of districts should be considered to reduce the numbers and costs of Superintendents/Chancellors, Boards of Trustees, administrative staff and overhead. The recommendation will not be implemented. Under the California education code, voters who reside in the school district are responsible for determining whether or not districts should consolidate. A vote of the electorate is required to change district organization. A relatively recent proposal to unify elementary and high school districts in west San Jose was resoundingly defeated by voters. Voters in the Union Elementary School District community have a strong preference for local control of schools. 4

September 18, 2009 — Fil September 18, 2009 Sep 2 S Zooh Don Kawashima, Foreperson Chief ExecutJveOfficer/C

5 pages 6 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 6 findings

F1: Boards of Trustees approve overly generous benefits to themselves which include thefollowing: •Fully paid health benefits for trustees and theirfamilies (often exceeding those of teachers and/or with nopayment ceiling) •Excessive travel and conference costs • Pension contribution Campbell Union High School District disagrees with this fmding. It does not consider its benefits to be overly generous. Government Code 53208.5 provides that elected officials for school districts are entitled to the same health and welfare benefits as provided to the employees of that district. The trustee stipend is quite small and health benefits are among the only avenues available to attract and retain competent and dedicated board members. Most Board members provide numerous hours beyond the time dedicated to Board meetings. Travel and conference costs in the Campbell Union High School District have never been excessive and have only been approved where there ISSIgnIficant beneiit to the dIstnct. There are no pension contributions for the CUHSD Board Members. 3235 UNIONAVENUE,SANJOSE,CALIFORNIA 95124-2096 PHONE:(408)371-0960 FAX:(408)558-3006 WWW.CUHSD.ORG BoyntonHighSchool BranhamHighSchool CamdenCommunityDaySchool DelMarHighSchool LeighHighSchool ProspectHighSchool WestmontHighSchool M.Madalinski,Principal T.Utic,Principal M.Madalinski,Principal J. Russell,Principal D.Hope,Principal D.Burbank,Principal O.Hege,Principal 626-3404 626-3407 626-3409 626-3403 626-3405 626-3408 626-3406 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Boards of Trustees should carefully review the benefits listed inFinding 1and: •Eliminate health benefits for Board Members •Minimize travel and conference costs •Eliminate pension contributions 1. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. Government Code 53208.5 provides that elected officials for school districts are entitled to health and welfare benefits asprovided to the employees of that district. However, as a resuh of this report, the Board will further discuss the health and welfare benefits offered to the Board 2. The recommendation had previously been implemented Before this report was issued, Campbell Union High School District, as well as its board members, had significantly reduced travel and conference costs as aresuh of the current budget crisis. However, travel and conference costs in the Campbell Union High School District have never been excessive and have only been approved where there is significant benefit to the district. 3. The recommendation will not be implemented as it does not pertain to this district.

F2: Boards of Trustees are approving overly generous benefits to Superintendents and Chancellors, including thefollowing: •Auto allowances (auto leaseslpurchases, insurance, maintenance, etc.) to superintendents •Housing allowances •Million dollar housing loans atzero or below market interest rates • Guaranteed annual step and/or longevity increases •Signing bonuses • Contract buyouts •Excessive performance bonuses •Per diem payments when out of the district •Personal technology allowances •Professional memberships and subscription allowances •Excessive travel and entertainment expenses •Salary increases automatically triggered by increases in teacher's salaries which are in addition to other guaranteed salary increases •Pension allowances (in addition to regular STRS/PERS contributions) •Advanced degree stipends •Lifetime medical insurance benefits •Annual physicals Campbell Union High School District disagrees with the finding. CUHSD, as well as other districts in Santa Clara County, faces considerable challenges in attracting and maintaining qualified applicants for administrative as well as teaching positions. The high cost of living in the area, coupled with extreme demands and pressures of the position, have created a market in which compensation packages offering certain benefits are viewed as a necessity. The package provided to om superintendent is not overly generous and does not contain most of the benefits listed in the report

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Boards of Trustees should carefully review and renegotiate the Superintendent/Chancellor benefits listed inFinding 2for possible reduction and/or elimination. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. Our Superintendent's benefit package isnot overly generous and the majority of benefits listed inthe report are not applicable to this district. Of the few that are provided to the superintendent most are provided to all certificated personnel in the district. The Board annually reviews the Superintendent's contract as part of the Superintendent's evaluation.

F3: Superintendent salaries and increases appear to bear no relationship to the number ofschools, students, and employees they oversee, nor their district's academic improvement. Campbell Union High School District disagrees partially with the finding. The superintendent's evaluation conducted by the Board of Trustees does typically take student academic perfonnance into consideration as well as the overall operations of the district. The Superintendent's compensation is also affected by the negotiations ofthe certificated employees of the district. If any employee group receives a rollback because of financial difficuhies, the superintendent and all other administrators will receive the same percent rollback.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The Board of Trustees should ensure that Superintendent/Chancellor salaries and increases take into account the number of schools, teachers, and students they oversee, and are tied to the district's students' progress and quantifiable metrics. Part of the recommendation has been standard practice, inthat the superintendent evaluation does take student academic perfonnance into consideration. The remainder of the recommendation will not be implemented because it isnot warranted. Tying superintendent salaries to district size would be a counterproductive approach to finding and retaining district leaders who are best suited for the particular characteristics and challenges of Campbell Union High School District. The Superintendent's expertise and experience inmeeting the specific needs of all of our students are important factors when setting compensation.

F4: Boards of Trustees hire costly search firms to recruit successors for retiring or dismissed Superintendents/Chancellors. Campbell Union High School District disagrees with the finding CUHSD has been able to locate qualified candidates for the superintendent and senior positions using its own resources. There have been 4 superintendents since 1969 and three of them, including the current one, were administrators inthe district when they were appointed Superintendent. However, the Board should have autonomy to decide on the means to identify acceptable superintendent candidates.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: Boards of Trustees should conduct apreliminary search within the local areaprior to hiring search firms. The recommendation will not be implemented because it isnot warranted. It has been able to locate qualified candidates for the superintendent and senior positions using its own resources. However, the Board should have autonomy to decide on the best way to identify acceptable superintendent candidates.

F5: Boards of Trustees approve the hiring of multiple private attorneys, insome cases at tremendous expense. Campbell Union High School District disagrees with the finding. It is incumbent for Boards to seek legal counsel based on qualifications, expertise and cost for services.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: All Boards of Trustees should engage County Counsel whenever possible and leverage their buying power to negotiate lowerfees withprivate lawfirms. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. School districts often are involved incomplex legal issues that require legal expertise in sub sections of the Education Code, requiring considerable specialized legal capacity, time and energy. It is also sometimes necessary to use firms other than the county counsel to prevent conflicts of interest inrepresentation.

F6: The operation of 34 K-12 school districts andfour (4) community college districts creates excessively high management and administrative costs. Five K-12 school districts have excessively high Superintendent costsper student which is reflective of the district's having only one or two schools. Campbell Union High School District disagrees with the finding as it applies to this district. CUHSD has seven school sites, including five large comprehensive sites.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: A consolidation of districts should be considered to reduce the numbers and costs of Superintendents/Chancellors, Boards of Trustees, administrative staff and overhead. The recommendation cannot be implemented by local boards because under the California education code, consolidation of school districts isrelegated to the people who live in the school district. Should communities wish tojoin with other communities to create larger school or community college districts, the process is clearly spelled out in the Education Code, under which a vote of the electorate can change district organization. Should you have any questions related to this matter please do not hesitate to contact me at (408) 371-0960. Sincerely, Rhonda E. Farber, Ph.D. Superintendent Att. cc: Royce Peterson, Board President

September 18, 2009 — I::OMAPRiETA I·joint. Union· School· District· I

4 pages 7 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings

F1: Community colleges and K-12 boards of trustees are responsible for inventory control. However, after interviewing ALL board of trustee presidents it was evident they were unaware of their obligations under the law.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Trustees should review and be knowledgeable ofEducation Code 35168for K-12 and Education Code 81600for Community Colleges. Response: This recommendation will be implemented. We will be incorporating CSBA language into the Board of Education' spolicies and procedures and will incorporate areview of Education Code 35168 within the 2009-10 fiscal year.

F2: No trustees or superintendents/chancellors have been trained in inventory control. Inventory control training for board members and superintendents is not mandated by the State, resulting in a lack offamiliarity and inconsistent application of inventory requirements by many districts. • All K-8, K-12 and community college districts

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: All Santa Clara County school board trustees and superintendents/chancellors should be required to review and understand Education Code 35168 and 81600 and BAM (Community College Budget and Accounting Manual) requirements for inventory control. Response: This recommendation will be implemented in the 2009-10 fiscal year when the Board addresses the Board policy update. For K-12 Districts, the COE should take the lead inproviding comprehensive training on inventory control, in conjunction with the release of the new inventory tracking module within Quintessential Software Systems spearheaded by the COE. Response: This recommendation will be implemented. The SCCOE plans to launch the inventory tracking/fixed asset module of the Quintessential Software Systems in fiscal year 2009-10 and will offer training for interested districts.

F3: All district superintendents, chancellors and district staff report incomplete inventory information to their boards. This results in lack of knowledge about the value and size of their inventory.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: All Boards of Trustees should require apresentation on the results of their districts' biennial inventory, including total value, variances resulting from the reconciliation between past and current inventories and aproposed plan to resolve discrepancies. 10f3 9/18/2009 Response: This recommendation will be partially implemented. The results of the annual inventory are contained in the Combined Annual Financial Reports which are presented to the Board each year. However, with our current fiscal outlook it is doubtful that there are funds to commit personnel or contractor funds required to perform this work. This is not a high priority item, as we have had fairly low exposure to loss of inventory. Additionally, this level of full inventory is not mandated by Education Code. The California State Accounting Manual states that the California Department recommends an annual inventory, but goes on to quote the Federal Register that: A physical inventory of equipment shall be taken and the results reconciled with theproperty records at least once verv 2 vears to verifY 4 the existence, current utilization, and continued needfor the equipment. statistical samoling basis is acceptable .... (CSAM Procedure 410)

F4: With the exception of Santa Clara Unified and Los Gatos Unified School Districts, all K-12 districts fail to understand the need to reconcile inventories from previous years to the latest inventory update. Without reconciliation, the opportunity to: identifY lost, missing or stolen items, take preventive measures, and obtain timely reimbursement may be lost.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: All K-12 school districts should reconcile the most current, full inventory with prior inventories, to identifY missing items andpotential losses/thefts. The results will enable the districts to implement safeguards toprevent future losses. Response: this will be implemented in 09-10.

F5: Many K-12 Districts are notfollowing requirements for inventory control as stated inEducation 35168, and/or their ownpolicies:

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: See categories (A)(B)(C)(D): Response: Please see responses to recommendations 1and 3.

F6: Some school districts observed by the Grand Jury had a demonstrated understanding of the needfor inventory control. Best practices include documenting and following aprocess, conforming to the Education Code requirements, andperforming reconciliation toprior inventories. Thefollowing districts are to be commended on their bestpractices: • Fremont Union School District • Los Gatos Elementary District 20f3 9/18/2009 • Moreland School District • Orchard School District • Santa Clara Unified School District Response: not required.

F7: There is apotential for abuse in K-8 and K-J2 districts when those who report to superintendents approve credit card transactions and purchase orders made by their superintendent. • All K-8 and K-J2School Districts Response: not required.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: To strengthen internal controls and ensurefiscal accountability, purchases made by the K-8 and K-J2 Superintendents should be approved by the Boards of Trustees prior topurchase. In the event an immediate purchase is required, post approval by the Board would ensure no conflicts of interest or abuses occur. • All K-8 and K-J2 District Boards of Trustees Response #7: The recommendation will be implemented by October 30,2009. Inventory purchases will be approved by the Board of Trustees prior to purchase. In the event an immediate purchase is required, post-approval by the Board will occur. Expenditures should bepresented separately from the Board's consent calendar to ensure proper scrutiny. Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. If a Board member wishes to discuss an item on the consent calendar, he/she can and will request that the consent item in question be pulled and scrutinized. Credit card statements and a listing of disbursements should beprovided to the Boardfor approval. Response: This recommendation will be implemented by October 30,2009. The Superintendent will provide credit card statement on a monthly basis. 30f3

September 16, 2009 — SEP 252009 Don Kawashima, Foreperson

6 pages 10 findings 10 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 10 findings

F1: Community colleges and K-12 boards of trustees are responsible for inventory control. However, after interviewing ALLboard oftrustee presidents it was evident that they were unaware oftheir obligations under the law. • All K-8 and K12 and Community College Districts District ResDonse The Berryessa Union School District accepts the accuracy of the finding.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Trustees should review and be knowledgeable ofEducation CodeSection 35168 for K-12 and Education CodeSection 81600 for community colleges to ensure complete implementation. • All K-8 and K-12 and Community College District Boards ofTrustees District ResDonse The District has reviewed Education Code Section 35168 with the Board of Trustees as part of updating our board policy and administrative regulation related to the equipment inventory procedures. The Board is now aware of what the law requires and has completed their responsibilities related to policy development and approval.

F2: No trustees or superintendents/chancellors have been trained in inventory control. Inventory control training for board members and superintendents is not mandated by the State, resulting in alack of familiarity and inconsistent application ofinventory requirements by many districts. • All K-8 and K-12 and community college districts District ResDonse The Berryessa Union School District agrees in general with the finding though the Superintendent has not only been trained in inventory control but has in the past been responsible for large inventory control systems in public agencies. 10fS

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: All Santa Clara Countyschool board trustees and superintendents/chancellors should be required to review and understand Education CodeSections 35168 and 81600 and BAM requirements for inventory control. For K-12 districts, the COEshould take the lead in providing comprehensive training on inventory control, in conjunction with the release of the new inventory tracing module within Quintessential Software Systems spearheaded bythe COE. For community colleges, the CC Board should investigate additional training in the area of inventory control offered through organizations such as the American Association of Community Colleges and the Community College Leagueof California. • All K-8 and K-12 and Community College District Boards of Trustees • COEBoard of Trustees District Response The Board of Trustees and Superintendent have reviewed Education Code Section 35168 in the process of updating board policy and administrative regulation related to inventory control. The District has chosen not to use the QSS inventory control software and has instead contracted with an outside vendor to conduct biennial physical inventories of all district sites. The first of these inventories was completed in February, 2009. On-going inventory control (additions, deletions, etc.) is maintained under the direction of the Assistant Superintendent - Business Services.

F3: All district superintendents, chancellors and district staff report incomplete inventory to their boards. This results in lack of knowledge about the value and size of their inventory. District Response The District provides the Board of Trustees with evidence that board policy and administrative regulations related to equipment inventory have been fully implemented. Specifically, education code and district policy do not require specific information about the size and value of the district's equipment to be shared with the Board though that information is maintained and available to the Board and public upon request.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: All Boards of Trusteesshould require a presentation on the results of their districts' biennial inventory, including total value, variances resulting from reconciliation between past and current inventories and a proposed plan to resolve discrepancies. District Response The District has fulfilled this recommendation through the updating of district policy and administrative regulation and providing information to the Board on the February, 2009 inventory.

F4: With the exception ofSanta Clara Unified and LosGatos Unified School Districts, all K-12 districts fail to understand the need to reconcile inventories from previous years to the latest inventory update. Without reconciliation, the opportunity to identify lost, missing or stolen items, take preventive measures, and obtain timely reimbursement may be lost. • All K-8 and K-12 Boards of Trustees (except Santa Clara Unified and LosGatos Unified) District Response The District disagrees with this finding only in the fact that the Berryessa UnionSchool District has not only updated its inventory in February 2009, but reconciled that new report with previous reports. This was completed in March 2009.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: All K-12 school districts should reconcile the most current, full inventory with prior inventories, to identify missing and potentiallossesjthefts. The results will enable the districts to implement safeguards to prevent future losses. • All K-8 and K-12 Boards of Trustees (except Santa Clara Unified and LosGatos Unified) District Response The District has complied with this recommendation (see above).

F5: No District response required.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: No District Response required.

F6: No District response required.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: No District Response required.

F7: There is a potential for abuse in K-8and K-12 districts when those who report to superintendents approve credit card transactions and purchase orders made bytheir superintendent. District Response TheSuperintendent does not have access to nor usesa district credit card and has limited use of credit cards to only two individuals. One isthe purchasing agent. Theother isthe Superintendent's Administrative Assistant. With the exception of registration for conferences and air fare to those conferences, neither individual usesthe district credit cards for any purchases related to the Superintendent. Inthose situations, the Superintendent is required to follow all of the same procedures for providing appropriate receipts for conference registration, hotel registration, and airline tickets. All Superintendent travel and conference attendance is approved bythe Board of Trustees. Purchase orders requested bythe Superintendent are completed by hisAdministrative Assistant following all of the procedures required of other employee inthe district including budget analysis, and required purchase information (vendor, amount, description of item, etc.). Uponreceipt of goods, the Superintendent is required to provide detailed receipts confirming the purchase as isany other employees. All purchase made bythe Superintendent are approved bythe Board of Trustees. TheSuperintendent infrequently requests reimbursement for other expenditures (less than 5 times a year). Onthose occasions he is required to complete the same documentation and provide the same evidence of purchase to the business department as any other employee. The Board of Trustees approves all of those expenditures.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: Tostrengthen internal controls and ensure fiscal accountability, purchases made bythe K-8 and K-12 Superintendents should be approved bythe Boards of Trustees prior to purchase. Inthe event an immediate purchase is required, post-approval bythe Board would ensure no conflicts of interest or abuses occur. Expenditures should be presented separately from the Board's consent calendar to ensure proper scrutiny. Credit card statements and a listing of disbursements should be provided to the Board for approval. • All k-8 and K-12 District Boards of Trustees District ResDonse The District will work with the Board of Trustees to establish a system bywhich: • the Superintendent will receive prior approval from the Board President for expenditures of $250 or more; • the Board President initials purchase requisition and reimbursement claims initiated by the Superintendent; • in cases where time urgency prevents having the Board President initialing a purchase requisition initiated bythe Superintendent, the Superintendent will get either e-mail or phone approval of the Board President prior to the processing of that purchase requisition; and, • confirmation of the above approvals will becommunicated to the Board. The above procedure will be used in lieu of having items considered separately from other routine purchase and reimbursement expenditures. Board members, having beengiven the information directly always have the opportunity to have purchase orders, reimbursements, and/or conference and travel approvals pulled from the consent agenda if they wish further consideration of these items. As the Superintendent does not have useof a district credit card, it is not necessary to provide the Board with a separate listing of credit card expenditures made bythe Superintendent.

F9: No District response required.

Related Recommendations (1)

R9: No District Response required.

F10: No District response required.

Related Recommendations (1)

R10: No District Response required.

F11: No District response required.

Related Recommendations (1)

R11: No District Response required.

September 11, 2009 — Board of Education

4 pages 5 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 5 findings

F1: Disagree for thefollowing reasons: • MUSD Board of Education trustees do not receive fully paid health benefits for themselves and their families. Trustees are eligible to receive the same health benefits as MUSD employees. • MUSD trustees do not have excessive travel and conference costs. While some minor training and educational expenses are reimbursed to trustees, most trustee travel and conference costs were cut when the MUSD budget was cut two years ago. • MUSD trustees do not receive pension contributions

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is neither warranted nor reasonable: • MUSD trustees are eligible to receive the same health benefits as MUSD employees. Trustees also receive a stipend of $250 per month for the duties they perform for the citizens in MUSD. It is very hard to retain veteran trustees and also hard to attract community members to run for positions on the MUSD Board of Education. Publicly elected trustees can volunteer over 20 hours a week on MUSD business, in addition to the two mandatory School Board meetings that trustees must attend and prepare for. • The budget for MUSD trustee travel and conference expenses was cut from the budget two years ago. At this time there are minimal monies available on a case-by-case basis for local training of trustees. With the complex compliance issues facing education and trustees, what is being recommended is a short-sighted solution to meet the cuts facing education. Trustees who are unable to personally afford to attend state and local conferences /trainings can unintentionally cost their districts many times the amount needed for trainings and travel with one bad decision. • MUSD trustees do not receive pension contributions

F2: Disagree for thefollowing reasons: • The MUSD Superintendent does not receive 12of the 16benefits listed in the Grand Jury Final Report • The MUSD Board of Education requires that the Superintendent maintain membership in appropriate professional organizations, get comprehensive medical examination at least once ayear and to attend nighttime and weekend school and community events. Since these are contractual items the Superintendent is reimbursed for these items, separate from his annual salary. This separation is required by Cal STRS, as including these items in the Superintendents salary would be considered "salary spiking" for retirement purposes and is not allowed.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is neither warranted nor reasonable: • As stated above, the MUSD superintendent already does not receive 12of the 16listed benefits. The benefits that the MUSD superintendent does receive are reasonable and required by contract and by statute must be paid separate from the Superintendents salary. In order to make sure that the MUSD staff, students and community are led a competent and caring leader, the Board of education feels that the few benefits that the Superintendent receives are in line with the budget that we have to work with.

F3: Disagree for thefollowing reasons: • The MUSD Superintendent is evaluated by the Board of Education annually based on goals set the previous year. Closing the achievement gap while improving student achievement for all students has been one of the ongoing goals for our Superintendent. • The salary of the MUSD Superintendent is below the average of all Santa Clara County (SCC) superintendents and also below the average of the 5 unified school districts in SCC.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is neither warranted nor reasonable: • As stated above the MUSD Superintendent's salary is already below average for SCC. • Boards of Education are elected by their communities to oversee the education of their children. If a community feels that a Board or certain members of that Board are not doing their best, then the community has the right to contact the Board with their concerns and if needed be, to not re-elect members to the Board of Education. Ithas been the practice of the local newspaper to publish all the wages of MUSD employees, including the Superintendent's.

F4: Disagree for thefollowing reason: • By definition "costly" is of high price or value and/or entailing great lose or sacrifice. To hire an unbiased professional firm to quickly find experienced, capable candidates to lead a district seems to be a practical and inexpensive way to get this job done. The staff and community time and money wasted by not finding the correct candidates does not seem to be a very smart thing for a Board of Education to be doing.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is neither warranted nor reasonable: • If the occasion occurs and there is aneed to find a Superintendent for MUSD, the past practice has been to not limit the Boards choices to in-house candidates or to personally recruit staff from neighboring districts. While in the past, the Board has chosen inside candidates to fill the Superintendents position (those choices have performed admirably), it would be presumptuous to conclude that there is no one outside the district who might do a better job. • For trustees to conduct a preliminary search with in a local area and to go through all the community process needed to hire such a valuable community leader, it would be a waste of time and money to not include all viable candidates for thejob.

F5: Disagree for the following reason: • While attorneys rates may seem tremendous, if the District acts on legal issue incorrectly the costs could far outdistance the fees charges by a competent attorney

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not responsible: • If all the districts in SCC used County Counsel then County Counsel would be overwhelmed and forced to contract out with private firms. • There are many different reasons that school districts hire law ftrms and the ability to choose ftrms based on their area of expertise, instead of relying on County Counsel on a subject they may not have much experience in does not seem advisable. There are many issues which districts face each year, such as personnel issues, Workers Comp, special education, etc. Itwould be advisable to ftnd attorneys that have more expertise in one area or another.

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R6: This recommendation is already in place: • MUSD is not one ofthe ftve K-12 districts with only one or two schools. • It is a community's choice whether or not they want to be included in a larger, neighboring district. There is a system in place already to this, through the County Offtce of Education Michael J. Mendizabal President Milpitas Unifted School District Board of Education Ice

September 11, 2009 — Clara Unified School Sep 2 12009 Don Kawashima, Foreperson District David H.yama

2 pages 3 findings

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 3 findings

F1: Boards of Trustees approve overly generous benefits which include the following: Fully paid health benefits for trustees and theirfamilies; Excessive travel and conference costs; Pension contribution. The Board of Trustees in the SCUSDreceives the same benefit package asdo teacher bargaining unit members. Medical benefits are capped at $725.90 per month; the premium for maximum coverage of $2000 per year isfully paid for dental care; and, a family vision care plan with a$15 deductible ispaid for by the district. No pension payments are made for Board members, Board members have been allotted attendance at one conference per year which required out of district, but within the state, travel. Not every Board member attends the conference, and for the 2009-2010 school year, the number of Board members attending the CSBAannual conference has been limited to three. Findings 2and 3: Boards of Trustees are approving overly generous benefits to Superintendents. Superintendent salaries and increases appear to be no relationship to the number of schools, students and employees they oversee. BOARD OF EDUCATION I:'oJAK.BEr-;l)l~ D(lN BORDENAVE 1I~1(,-\'.:0\.\ ELl~El)cYOUH, "The mission of Santa Clara Unified School District is to prepare students PATFLOT of aUages and abilities to succeed in an ever~changing world." ,.\LBERTl;UNZALEZ ANDREW RATERMANN The SCUSDSuperintendent does not receive an auto allowance, a housing allowance, amortgage assistance loan of any kind, aguaranteed annual salary increase, a longevity bonus, a performance bonus, per diem expenses while out of district, any professional membership or subscription allowances, a pension allowance other than hisand the district's mutual contribution to STRS,lifetime medical benefits, or an annual district-paid medical physical. The average enrollment for school districts in Santa ClaraCounty is7,962. SCUSD'sis14,151. The average total compensation for superintendents in the County is$206,076. The SCUSDsuperintendent's total compensation is$192,726. The average total cost per student for asuperintendent's compensation in the County is$25.88. Forthe SCUSDsuperintendent, it is$13.62. Only two districts in the County have more schools than SCUSD,and only three districts serve more K-12 students.

F4: Boards of Trustees hire costly search firms torecruit successors for retiring ordismissed Superintendents. The current Superintendent in SCUSDis in his second year of serving in the position. The previous Superintendent served for three years, and the Superintendent before that served for ten years. The current and former superintendents were hired from within, without outside searches or search consultants. The ten-year superintendent formerly served asan assistant superintendent in the county.

F5: Boards of Trustees approve the hiring of multiple private attorneys, insome cases at tremendous expense. For routine matters and general counsel, SCUSDrelies on the expertise and legal advice of County Counsel. Forsome of the complexities of special education, negotiations with newly authorized bargaining units" lay-ofts, property acquisition, and contact breaches, outside attorneys have been employed. Final Word: Student safety and student achievement remain the stated and primary goals of the SCUSD. Fiscal responsibility follows closely behind those two. We believe that we have met our obligations and without hesitation respond that the beneficiaries remain our students, their families and our taxpayers. Sincerely, Pat Flot, President ofthe Board of Trustees Steve Stavis, Superintendent

September 10, 2009 — SEP 1 7 20u~ Davidh. YAM Chief Executlve 0tti4 Don Kawashima, Foreperson '1J~Kl~8tr" SupeBriYoru

4 pages 7 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings

F1: Community colleges and K-12 boards of trustees are responsible for inventory control. However, after interviewing ALL board of trustee presidents it was evident they were unaware of their obligations under the law. Cupertino Union School District Response: We agree that Boards are responsible for inventory control. However, it is not known whether or not Community College Boards and other K-12 Boards of Trustees are aware of their obligations under the law.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Trustees should review and be knowledgeable of Education Code 35168 for K-12 and Education Code 81600 for Community Colleges to ensure complete implementation. Cupertino Union School District Response: This recommendation will be implemented. A copy of Education Code 35168 will be added to the next regular communication with the Board of Education.

F2: No trustees or superintendents/chancellors have been trained in inventory control. Inventory control training for board members and superintendents is not mandated by the State, resulting in a lack offamiliarity and inconsistent application of inventory requirements by many districts. Cupertino Union School District Response: We agree training on inventory control is not mandated by the state for superintendent/chancellor or the Board. We have no familiarity of the application of inventory requirements of other districts.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: All Santa Clara County school board trustees, superintendents/ chancellors should be required to review and understand Education Code 35168 and 81600 and BAM (Community College Budget and Accounting Manual) requirements for inventory control. Cupertino Union School District Response: This recommendation will be implemented. The Board of Education will be provided a copy of Education Code 35168.

F3: All district superintendents, chancellors and district staff report incomplete inventory information to their Boards. This results in lack of knowledge about the value and size of their inventory. Cupertino Union School District Response: We disagree with this finding because we have not seen the data and are not in the position to comment on the knowledge of all Board members.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: All Boards of Trustees should require a presentation on the results of their districts' biennial inventory, including total value, variances resulting 10f3 9/10/2009 from the reconciliation between past and current inventories and a proposed plan to resolve discrepancies. Cupertino Union School District Response: This recommendation will be implemented. Annual financial reports contain the value of inventory. It should be noted that this level of full inventory is not mandated by Education Code. The California State Accounting Manual states that the California Department recommends an annual inventory, but goes on to quote the Federal Register that: "Aphysical inventory of equipment shall be taken and the results reconciled with the property records at least once every 2 years to verify the existence, current utilization. and continued need for the equipment. A statistical sampling basis isacce[)table.... (CSAM Procedure 410)" However, our district policies/regulations have been revised to reflect full inventories at least biennially. A full inventory is nearing completion and a comprehensive report will be provided to the Board by November 2009.

F4: With the exception of Santa Clara Unified and Los Gatos Un(fied School Districts, all K-12 districts fail to understand the need to reconcile inventories from previous years to the latest inventory update. Without reconciliation, the opportunity to: identify lost, missing or stolen items, take preventive measures, and obtain timely reimbursement may be lost. Cupertino Union School District Response: We disagree. We have no knowledge whether or not other districts fail to understand the need to reconcile inventories, etc.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: All K-12 school districts should reconcile the most current, full inventory with prior inventories, to identify missing items andpotential losses/thefts. The results will enable the districts to implement safeguards toprevent future losses. Cupertino Union School District Response: This is in the process of being implemented and will be completed by November 2009.

F5D: Selected districts do not conduct Inventory on a biennial basis as required by Education Code 35168. Cupertino Union School District Response: We agree that an inventory is required biennially, but we have no knowledge about the practices of other districts listed.

F7: There is a potential for abuse in K-8 and K-12 districts when those who report to superintendents approve credit card transactions and purchase orders made by their superintendent. • All K-8 and K-12 School Districts Cupertino Union School District Response: We agree. However, this potential is minimized by assigning an internal auditor to review transactions and purchase orders.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: To strengthen internal controls and ensure fiscal accountability, purchases made by the K-8 and K-12 Superintendents should be approved by the Boards of Trustees prior to purchase. In the event an immediate purchase is required. post approval by the Board would ensure no conflicts of interest or abuses occur. • All K-8 and K-12 District Boards of Trustees Cupertino Union School District Response: This recommendation will not be implemented as it is not warranted. Given that the Board only meets once or twice a month, it will be difficult to ask the Board of Education to approve Superintendent expenditures ahead of time. Expenditures should be presented separately from the Board's consent calendar to ensure proper scrutiny. Cupertino Union School District Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. If a Board member wishes to discuss an item on the consent calendar, it can be pulled and scrutinized. Credit card statements and a listing of disbursements should beprovided to the Board.for approval. Cupertino Union School District Response: The Board receives and ratifies a list of disbursements monthly. Any Board member may ask for detailed information regarding any disbursement. 30f3

F2009: Refresher training has been provided for appropriate staff involved in inventory. Finding #7: There is a potential for abuse in K-8 and K-12 districts when those who report to superintendents approve credit card transactions and purchase orders made by their superintendent. • All K-8 and K-12 School Districts Cupertino Union School District Response: We agree. However, this potential is minimized by assigning an internal auditor to review transactions and purchase orders.

Page 4

September 10, 2009 — Superintendent

5 pages 6 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 6 findings

F1: Boards of Trustees approve overly generous benefits to themselves which include the following: • Fully paid health benefits for trustees and their families (often exceeding those of teachers and/or with no payment ceiling) • Excessive travel and conference costs Pension contribution

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Boards of Trustees should carefully review the benefits listed in Finding 1and: -Eliminate health benefits for Board Members -Minimize travel and conference costs -Eliminate pension contributions GUSD Response: Disagree. Therecommendation toeliminate health benefits willnot be implemented. Board members benefits do not exceed those ofstaff. Health benefits for board members are authorized by law. Board members devote many long hours each month - estimated to be an average of30+ hours amonth - toschool districtmatters. Theyare literally on-call to thepublic and district at alltimes. Thecompensation they receive is a small price to pay for the time they devote to thisjob and theservices theyprovide to the GUSD. If benefits are eliminated, then the pool ofcandidates running for school board will be limited to those who can afford their own health benefits. A school board should represent all segments of the community. Board travel and conference costs are already minimized. Theyattend one conference per year, the Califomia School Board Association annual conference. Thisconference provides essential training and information needed to effectivelyperform their duties. Board members do not receive pension contributions. FindinQ2 Boards of Trustees are approving overly generous benefits to Superintendents and Chancellors, including the following: - Auto allowances (auto leases/purchases, insurance, maintenance, etc.) to superintendents - Housing allowances 30f5 • Million dollar housing loans at zero or below market interest rates • Guaranteed annual step and/or longevity increases • Signing bonuses • Contract buyouts • Excessive performance bonuses • Per diem payments when out of the district • Personal technology allowances • Professional memberships and subscription allowances • Excessive travel and entertainment expenses • Salary increases automatically triggered by increases inteacher's salaries which are in addition to other guaranteed salary increases • Pension allowances (in addition to regular STRS/PERS contributions) • Advanced degree stipends • Lifetime medical insurance benefits • Annual physical

F2: Boards of Trustees are approving overly generous benefits to Superintendents and Chancellors, including the following: Auto allowances (auto leases/purchases, insurance, maintenance, etc.) to superintendents Housing allowances 3 of 5 Million dollar housing loans at zero or below market interest rates • Guaranteed annual step and/or longevity increases • Signing bonuses ٠ Contract buyouts • Excessive performance bonuses • Per diem payments when out of the district • Personal technology allowances Professional memberships and subscription allowances ٠ Excessive travel and entertainment expenses Salary increases automatically triggered by increases in teacher's salaries which • are in addition to other guaranteed salary increases Pension allowances (in addition to regular STRS/PERS contributions) • Advanced degree stipends ٠ Lifetime medical insurance benefits • Annual physical •

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Boards of Trustees should carefully review and renegotiate the Superintendent/ Chancellor benefits listed in Finding 2 for possible reduction and/or elimination. GUSD Response: Disagree The GUSD Board of Education already has in place a process to review and renegotiate the Superintendent's benefits. Five of the items listed in the report apply to the GUSD Superintendent and are warranted for the reasons listed below; 1. Auto allowance - to fairly compensate the superintendent for actual expenses 2. Contract buy-out - to allow the board the option to release the superintendent if conditions warrant it 3. Professional memberships and subscriptions - to ensure that the superintendent receives vital information and training related to the position. 4. Advanced degree stipends - to attract highly qualified, skilled individuals to the position 5. Annual physical- to ensure the superintendent's health willallow him/her to sustain the rigors of theposition. Findinq 3 Superintendent salaries and increases appear to bear no relationship to the number of schools, students, and employees they oversee, nor their district's academic improvement.

F3: Superintendent salaries and increases appear to bear no relationship to the number of schools, students, and employees they oversee, nor their district's academic improvement.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The Board of Trustees should ensure that Superintendent/Chancellor salaries and increases take into account the number of schools, teachers, and students they oversee, and are tied to the district's students' progress and quantifiable metrics. 40f5 GUSD Response: Disagree The GUSD Board of Education can not comment on other district's compensation of superintendents. However, in the case of the GUSD Superintendent's compensation, the Board has taken into account various locally based indicators, particularly, the GUSD budget, in determining appropriate compensation. The superintendent's salary is less than .2% ofthe total GUSD budget. Also, in order to attract highly qualified individuals to thejob, it is necessary for the compensation to be competitive and to compensate the superintendent for real expenses. The total compensation should also match the level of responsibility of the position. The GUSD superintendent is the CEO of a large, complex, organization that has, for instance, over 1,000 employees, 11,000 students, and 18 schools. Findinq4 Boards of Trustees hire costly search firms to recruit successors for retiring or dismissed Superintendents/Chancellors.

F4: Boards of Trustees hire costly search firms to recruit successors for retiring or dismissed Superintendents/Chancellors.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: Boards of Trustees should conduct a preliminary search within the local area prior to hiring search firms. GUSD Response: Disagree The Board of Education believes it is essential to hire the best qualified individual as the Superintendent and educational leader ofthe GUSD. Superintendent search firms specialize in Superintendent searches and are most capable ofidentifying top notch individuals. Findinq 5 Boards of Trustees approve the hiring of multiple private attorneys, in some cases at a tremendous expense.

F5: Boards of Trustees approve the hiring of multiple private attorneys, in some cases at a tremendous expense.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: All Boards of Trustees should engage County Counsel whenever possible and leverage their buying power to negotiate lower fees with private law firms. GUSD Response: Disagree In 2008, the GUSD Board of Education released an RFP for legal services, interviewed legal firms that specialize in educational legal matters, and selected one legal firm to provide legal services to the district. This resulted in better, more cost effective services to the district. It is essential that the district utilize the services of a legal firm that specializes in K-12 educational law with members of the firm who understand and know the laws that pertain to the issues facing public schools. 50f5 FindinQ 6 The operation of 34 K-12 school districts and four (4) community college districts creates excessively high management and administrative costs. Five K-12 school districts have excessively high Superintendent costs per student which is reflective of the district's having only one or two schools.

F6: The operation of 34 K-12 school districts and four (4) community college districts creates excessively high management and administrative costs. Five K-12 school districts have excessively high Superintendent costs per student which is reflective of the district's having only one or two schools.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: A consolidation of districts should be considered to reduce the numbers and costs of Superintendents/Chancellors, Boards of Trustees, administrative staff and overhead. GUSD Response: Disagree The GUSD is located in the southern most area of the county. It serves the unique needs of the Gilroy community and a very large geographic area (approximately 600 square miles). It would not be cost effective to consolidate with other districts. Additionally, there is aprocess required by law for the consolidation of school § districts as outlined in the Education Code.Education Code 35500 to 35785, describes the procedure and requirements for the reorganization ofdistricts. The process can be complex and costly.

September 10, 2009 — Los Altos Business Services

4 pages 7 findings 7 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings

F1: Community colleges and K-12 boards of trustees are responsible for inventory control. However, after interviewing ALL board of trustee presidents it was evident they were unaware of their obligations under the law. LASDResponse The district agrees with thefinding that boards are responsible for inventory control. However, we believe our board is generally aware of its obligations under the law.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Trustees should review and be knowledgeable of Education Code 35168 for K-12 and Education Code 81600 for community colleges to ensure complete implementation. LASDResponse The recommendation has not yet been implemented but willbe implemented beginning in the 2009-10 fiscal year. A copy of EC35168 has been shared with our board. Additionally, the district business manager willreview EC35168 with the board of trustees annually as part of the presentation of the unaudited actuals for the prior year. During that presentation the business manager willalso provide an update on the value of district inventory as well as comment on any reconciliations done during the prior year. Itbears noting that EC35168 wasfirst enacted in1976 and revised in1984. The threshold of $500 has not changed since 1984 and isout-of-date.

F2: No trustees or superintendents/chancellors have been trained in inventory control. Inventory control training for board members and superintendents isnot mandated by the State, resulting in alack of familiarity and inconsistent application of inventory requirements by many districts. LASDResponse The district agrees with thefinding that inventory control training isnot mandated by the state. We are not familiar with application of inventory requirements inother districts; however, inour district the majority of board members have been trained ininventory control.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: All Santa Clara County school board trustees and superintendents/chancellors should be required to review and understand EC35168.....requirements for inventory control. For K-12 districts, the COEshould take the lead in providing comprehensive training on inventory control, in conjunction with the release of the new inventory tracking module within QSSspearheaded by the COE. LASDResponse The recommendation has not yet been implemented but the district expects it to be implemented during the 2009-10 fiscal year. Asstated above, the district board of trustees was given acopy of EC35168at the August 31, 2009 board meeting. The Santa ClaraCounty Office of Education plans to implement the inventory tracking/fixed assets module of the Quintessential Software Systems during the 2009-10fiscal year and offer training for interested districts.

F3: All district superintendents, chancellors and district staff report incomplete inventory information to their boards. This results in lack of knowledge about the value and size of their inventory. LASDResponse The district agrees with thefinding.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: All Boards of Trustees should require apresentation on the results of their districts' biennial inventory, including total value, variances resulting from reconciliation between past and current inventories and aproposed plan to resolve discrepancies. LASDResponse See response to recommendation 1. As stated inour response to the grand jury's report last year, the district's annual financial report contains the value of all capital assets. With our current financial outlook itisdoubtful there willbefunds to commit personnel or contractor funds 1 Response to2008-09 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report required to perform abiennial inventory of all items valued at $500 or more. Thisisnot a high priority item, as we have had fairly low exposure to loss of inventory. Additionally, this level offull inventory isnot mandated by Education Codeas the grand jury report seems to imply. The California State Accounting Manual states that the California Department of Education recommends an annual inventory, but goes on to quote the Federal Register that: /lAphysical inventory of equipment shall be taken and the results reconciled with the property records at least once every 2 years to verify the existence, current utilization, and continued needfor the equipment. Astatistical samplinq basis isacceptable ... (CSAM Procedure 410). /I

F4: all K-12 districts fail to understand the need to reconcile inventories from previous years to the latest inventory update. Without reconciliation, the opportunity to: identify lost, missing or stolen items, take preventive measures, and obtain timely reimbursement may be lost. LASDResponse The district disagrees with thefinding. The district recognizes the need to reconcile inventories, but may not have the resources to perform inventories and reconciliations asfrequently asthe grand jury suggests.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: All K-12 school districts should reconcile the most current, full inventory with prior inventories, to identify missing items and potential losses/thefts. The results will enable the districts to implement safeguards to prevent future losses. LASDResponse The recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented during the 2009-10 fiscal year and biennially thereafter.

F5: Many K-12 districts are not following requirements for inventory control asstated in EC35168, and/or their own policies and procedures. A) Not applicable to LASD. B) LASDlacks Board Policy or Administrative Regulations regarding inventory, and/or failed to delegate inventory responsibility. C) LASDisnot tracking all items valued above $500 asrequired by EC35168. D) LASDdoes not conduct inventory on abiennial basisas required by Education Code. LASDResponse The district agrees with thefinding.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: B) Board Policies/Administrative Regulations should be implemented, assigning inventory control responsibilities and training the superintendent, business manager, or appropriate designee. The district should ensure that policies remain current and in compliance. The district should provide training for staff responsible for inventory. C) LASDboard should fully implement the tracking requirements for equipment with current market value above $500 and provide training for staff responsible for inventory. D) LASDboard should conduct inventory at least biennially and track all parameters asspecified in EC35168. The district should provide training for staff responsible for inventory. LASDResponse B) The recommendation hasnot yet been implemented, but will be implemented during the 2009-10 fiscal year. Thedistrict will update its policies and administrative regulations where appropriate, review them annually in order to stay current, and provide staff training as needed. C) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented during the 2009-10 fiscal year including the training of staff asneeded. D) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented starting in the 2009-10 fiscal year. Thereafter, the district will perform biennial inventories for all items valued on or above $500. 2

F6: Not applicable. LASD Response Not applicable.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: No recommendation. LASD Response No response.

F7: There isa potential for abuse in K-g and K-12 districts when those who report to superintendents approve credit card transactions and purchase orders made by their superintendent. LASD Response The district agrees with thefinding.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: To strengthen internal controls and ensure fiscal accountability, purchases made by.....superintendents should be approved by the Board of Trustees prior to purchase. Inthe event an immediate purchase isrequired, post-approval by the Board would ensure no conflicts of interest or abuses occur. Expenditures should be presented separately from the Board's consent calendar to ensure proper scrutiny. Credit card statements and alisting of disbursements should be provided to the Board for approval. LASD Response Currently allcredit card purchases are reviewed carefully by the district business manager and one member of hisstaff. The district agrees that additional controls and procedures are needed. Given that the board of trustees meets only once ortwice a month, it willbe difficult to ask the board to approve superintendent expenditures ahead of time. Thedistrict willnot implement the recommendation that superintendent expenditures be separate from the board's consent calendar, because if a board member wishes to discuss an item on the consent calendar itcan be pulled and scrutinized. Therecommendation to provide credit card statements and a listing of disbursements willbe implemented during the 2009-10 fiscal year. Responses prepared by the administration and governing board of LosAltos School District. q-/tJ-09 (Date) 3

September 09, 2009 — Los Gatos Union School District

2 pages 6 findings

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 6 findings

F1: Our district has become well aware of the Board responsibility for inventory control after a well publicized inventory issue in our school district. Education Code 35168 has been distributed to all Board members. We agree with the finding and the recommendation has been implemented.

F2: Our board receives regular reports on inventory control in the district, and we count our inventory twice annually. This isreported through a Board Subcommittee in exhaustive detail. We disagree in part with the finding and recommendation, as we do not currently use the QSS software referred to by the Grand Jury. We agree that the Board should understand Education Code applicable to the district and the recommendation has been implemented.

F3: As mentioned above, our board through a Subcommittee oversees inventory control. The presentation to the Subcommittee is exhaustive and the Subcommittee members report back to the Board in its entirety. We disagree that the inventory reports are incomplete and we believe we have implemented this

F4: Finding and Recommendation 4 do not apply to Los Gatos Union School District. BOARD OF TRUSTEES -Kathleen Bays -Phil E.Couchee -Doug Halbert -Chris Miller -Tina Orsi-Hartigan Finding and Recommendation 5 do not apply to Los Gatos Union School District.

F6: We agree with the finding.

F7: We agree with the general finding that there isa potential for abuse. We disagree in part with the

September 09, 2009 — overly generous.

6 pages 6 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 6 findings

F1: Boards of Trustees approve overly generous benefits to themselves which include the following: • Fully paid health benefits for trustees and their families (often exceeding those of teachers and/or with no payment ceiling) • Excessive travel and conference costs • Pension contribution The Moreland School District disagrees with this finding. The benefits our Board members receive do not exceed those of our employee groups. Also, our Board members are called upon to spend numerous hours of their time for meetings as well as district and school activities. If a consideration were to be made, it would be to increase these benefits to be more accurately commensurate with the duties. Board members do not receive pension contributions. Being sensitive to the district's financial position, the board proactively made reductions in conference expenditures for board members during the 2008-09 year, as well as for the current year. BOARD OF TRUSTEES LORI BOOROOJIAN • JIM MACFARLANE' HEATHER. SUTTON' ROBER.TVARlCH . KAREN WHIPPLE 4711 CAMPBELL AVENUE . SAN JOSE,CALIFORNIA' 95130-1790 (408) 874-2901 • FAX (408) 374-8863 • GISHIWATA@MOIULAND.K12.CA.US

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Boards of Trustees should carefully review the benefits listed in Finding 1and: • Eliminate health benefits for Board Members This recommendation will not be implemented for the reasons given above. • Minimize travel and conference costs This recommendation has been implemented. • Eliminate pension contributions Moreland School District does not make pension contributions for board members.

F2: Boards of Trustees are approving overly generous benefits to Superintendents and Chancellors, including the following: •Auto allowances (auto leases/purchases, insurance, maintenance, etc.) to superintendents • Housing allowances • Million dollar housing loans at zero or below market interest rates • Guaranteed annual step and/or longevity increases • Signing bonuses • Contract buyouts • Excessive performance bonuses • Per diem payments when out of the district • Personal technology allowances • Professional memberships and subscription allowances • Excessive travel and entertainment expenses • Salary increases automatically triggered by increases in teacher's salaries which are in addition to other guaranteed salary increases • Pension allowances (in addition to regular STRS/PERS contributions) •Advanced degree stipends • Lifetime medical insurance benefits •Annual physicals Moreland School District disagrees with this finding. Superintendents are independent contractors in a profession that is limited in the quantity of qualified, experienced candidates. School boards compete against those of other districts for the most qualified candidate that fits the specific needs of their district. Moreland's compensation is competitive yet not "overly generous." Concomitant with the compensation are expectations that are documented through annual goals set by the board.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Boards of Trustees should carefully review and renegotiate the Superintendent/Chancellor benefits listed in Finding 2 for possible reduction and/or elimination. This recommendation is currently partially implemented. On an annual basis, the Board of Trustees in Moreland School District carefully reviews salary and benefits agreements during the Superintendent's performance evaluation. Renegotiation has not occurred.

F3: Superintendent salaries and increases appear to bear no relationship to the number of schools, students, and employees they oversee, nor their district's academic improvement. Moreland School District disagrees with this finding. While we cannot speak for other districts, superintendents' salaries do appear to be linked to the size of districts. In Moreland the superintendent's compensation is directly related to the goals of the district and monitored through an annual review of the superintendent. The Moreland Board of Trustees sets annual goals for the superintendent. The objectives for these goals are jointly created between the board and superintendent. Each year, the board conducts a 360-degree survey to gather information about the superintendent's status of the goals for the year. This information, combined with the perceptions of the five board members based on numerous sources, forms the basis of a comprehensive review of the superintendent that is shared with him during a discussion of successes, shortcomings, and future goals.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The Board of Trustees should ensure that Superintendent/Chancellor salaries and increases take into account the number of schools, teachers, and students they oversee, and are tied to the district's students' progress and quantifiable metrics. This recommendation is partially implemented. As described above, the Moreland School District's Board of Trustees annually measures the progress of the school district (based on multiple measures: survey results, data, and observations) and achievement of goals and objectives.

F4: Boards of Trustees hire costly search firms to recruit successors for retiring or dismissed Superintendents/Chancellors. ---------- _~. .0- . __ -----0--- Moreland School District disagrees with this finding. The costs of search firms are reasonable. The onerous task of replacing a superintendent is couched in complex, contemporary understandings of the status of public education and impact of these conditions inthe specific school districts during the vicissitudes of our politics, economics, and social conditions. The costs paid by districts are aligned with the challenges facing the search firms.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: Boards of Trustees should conduct apreliminary search within the local area prior to hiring search firms. The Moreland Board of Trustees will not implement this recommendation. The Board studies the potential candidates within the district. If none clearly qualifies to ascend to the superintendency, the board seeks a firm to conduct the search. The specialized acumen and experience of the professional staff of these firms allow them to understand the complex relationships among staff members within and across school districts. They are able to research the knowledge, skills, and experience of candidates without raising the suspicion of the current employer, thus minimizing the risk of jeopardizing a "sitting" superintendent's relationship with his/her board.

F5: Boards of Trustees approve the hiring ofmultiple private attorneys, in some cases at a tremendous expense. The Moreland School District agrees with this finding. The Board of Trustees is advised by the superintendent regarding legal situations that districts face. Inthe current culture of society today, school districts must seek legal counsel and representation for a plethora of issues. Legal firms specialize in the various kinds of issues facing school districts, much as doctors specialize in various areas of medical practice. A county counsel cannot be versed well enough in each of these categories.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: All Boards of Trustees should engage County Counsel whenever possible and leverage their buying power to negotiate lower fees with private law firms. Moreland School District will implement this recommendation. The district will determine whether the qualifications of the County Counsel match the needs of the district as future legal situations arise. Our district is engaged in different legal cases ranging from construction to special education, from charter school to employee discipline. The history of previous cases impacts the current cases and provides a common body of knowledge and experience that both the legal counsel and client can discuss for the best consideration of options for the --- --- ----- -- --_.--- - -- district. The loss of one case could financially place a district in a grave financial position. The complex juxtaposition of multiple cases must be considered and the potential impact weighed relative to the total legal and economic status of the district. The legal firms with which Moreland has worked provide a continuity and consistency that maximize the opportunities for success. A one-size fits all County Counsel would be in a less propitious position to address the intricate interrelationships of the various aspects facing our district.

F6: The operation of 34 K-12 school districts and four (4) community college districts creates excessively high management and administrative costs. Five K-12 school districts have excessively high Superintendent costs per student which is reflective of the district's having only one or two schools. Moreland School District disagrees with this finding. The Moreland School District's Board of Trustees regularly monitors the number and duties of administrators as a logical product of the negotiations process with our certificated and classified unions. In addition both unions monitor the number and duties of administrators and bring this information into the negotiations process. The attribution of a cost per student for superintendents' compensation is faulty. The quantity of work for a superintendent does not directly relate to the quantity of students in a school district. All of the educational, financial, operational, and personnel duties are constant from one district to another, based on the requirements of the United States Department of Education, the California State Department of Education, and municipalities, as well as labor laws. The breadth of these responsibilities is consistent from one district to the next, although the number of instances may vary because of the number of students and employees. The work of the superintendent draws on a singular, common body of knowledge and multi-faceted body of skills.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: A consolidation of districts should be considered to reduce the numbers and costs of Superintendents/Chancellors, Boards of Trustees, administrative staff and overhead. The Moreland School District will not implement this recommendation. A fundamental tenet of families is that the neighborhood school will provide the best education for and best meet the needs of their children. Neighborhood schools are most responsive to needs of the residents. Similarly local school districts best meet the needs of the residents. The federal court-ordered cross-town bussing implemented by one district in Santa Clara County proved to be a dismal failure. It quickly led to the flight of middle class Asian and White families from the district resulting in a district now disproportionately populated by low-income and minority children. Under the California education code, voters who reside inthe school district are responsible for determining whether or not districts should consolidate. A vote of the electorate is required to change district organization. A relatively recent proposal to unify elementary and high school districts in west San Jose was resoundingly defeated by voters. ~\;J Robert Varich Board President Moreland School District

September 08, 2009 — SEP 2 " ChiefExecutlveOffi'" rk, September 8, 2009 SuperiorDCAouVrtIDofHCA. YCAouMnm~' K~i Clllf<i By-d-aldycki

6 pages 7 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings

F1: Community colleges and K-12 boards of trustees are responsible for inventory control. However, after interviewing ALL board of trustee presidents Board of Trustees it was evident they were unaware of their obligations under the law. Alan Baker Gary D, Chronert 1- Response Finding We agree with this finding, that boards are responsible Karen Chung Susan Pyne for inventory control. However, it is not known whether K-12 Boards Donald Rocha of Trustees are aware of their obligations under the law.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Superintendent Trustees should review and be knowledgeable of Education Code 35168 for Deborah L.Blow, Ed.D. K12 Response Recommendation l--This recommendation will be implemented. A copy of Education Code 35168 will be added to the next regular communication with the Board of Trustees. It bears noting that the California Education Code 35168 was first enacted in 1976 and revised last in 1984. The amount of $500 has not been changed since 1984 and is out-of-date. of6

F2: No trustees or superintendents have been trained in inventory control. Inventory control training for board members and superintendents is not mandated by the State, resulting in a lack of familiarity and inconsistent application of inventory requirements by districts. Response Finding 2 - We agree that training on inventory control is not mandated by the state for the superintendent or the board. We have no familiarity of the application of inventory requirements of other districts.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: All Santa Clara County school board trustees and superintendents should be required to review and understand Education Code 35168 and BAM requirements for inventory control. Response Recommendation 2a - This recommendation will be implemented. The Board of Trustees will be given a copy of Education 35168 before the next board meeting. For K-12 districts, the COE should take the lead inproviding comprehensive training on inventory control, in conjunction with the release of the new inventory tracking module within Quintessential Software Systems spearheaded by the COE. Response Recommendation 2b -- The district will take part in comprehensive training on inventory control provided by the Santa Clara County Office of Education. The board members and superintendent will receive a report regarding any inventory control requirement training.

F3: All district superintendents and district staff report incomplete inventory information to their boards. This results in lack of knowledge about the value and size of their inventory. Response Finding 3- We disagree with this finding. The Cambrian School District Board of Trustees approves warrant lists for purchase of equipment and also approves the surplusing of equipment. Each year the Board approves the budgets, actual expenditures, and interim reports which include objects 4400, 6400, and 6500 defined as Non-capitalized Equipment, Equipment and Equipment replacement.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: All Boards of Trustees should require a presentation on the results of their districts' biennial inventory, including total value, variances resulting from reconciliation between past and current inventories and aproposed plan to resolve discrepancies. 3- Response Recommendation This recommendation will be implemented. We are in the process of improving our existing inventory control system. This process includes annual financial reports that contain the value of our inventory. Current fiscal challenges may impact the district's ability to commit funds, personnel, or contractor funds required to perform this work. We have had fairly low exposure to loss of inventory.

F4: With the exception of Santa Clara Unified and Los Gatos Unified School Districts, all K 12districts fail to understand the need to reconcile inventories from previous years to the latest inventory update. Without reconciliation, the opportunity to: identify lost, missing or stolen items, take preventive measures, and obtain timely reimbursement may be lost. Response Finding 4 - We disagree. We do have knowledge of the importance of an inventory control system.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: All K-12 school districts should reconcile the most current, full inventory with prior inventories, to identify missing items and potential losses/thefts. The results will enable the districts to implement safeguards to prevent future losses. 4- Response Recommendation Please see response to recommendation 3.

F5: Many K-12 districts are not following requirements for inventory control as stated in Education Code 35168 and/or their own policies and procedures. A. The following district do not have an inventory listing or the inventory lists that they do have is extremely deficient: • Cambrian School District • Lakeside School District • Morgan Hill School District B. The following districts lack Board Policy or Administrative Regulations regarding inventory, and/or they failed to delegate inventory responsibility: • East Side Union High School District • Gilroy Unified School District • Los Altos Unified School District • Montebello School District • Mountain View Whisman School District • Palo Alto Unified School District • Saratoga Union School District C. The following districts are not tracking all items valued above $500 as required by Education Code 35168: • Cambrian School District • Gilroy Unified School District • Los Altos Unified School District • Palo Alto Unified School District • D. The following districts do not conduct inventory on a biennial basis as required by Education Code: • Alum Rock School District • Cambrian School District • Cupertino Union School District • East Side Union School District • Evergreen School District • Fremont Union High School District • Gilroy School District • Los Altos School District • Los Gatos/Saratoga High School District • Morgan Hill Unified School District • Mountain View/Los Altos Union High School District • Palo Alto Unified School District

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: A) The boards of Trustees for the district listed in Finding SA should conduct a full inventory or improve their existing inventory listing. Response Recommendation 5A- Working with the Santa Clara Office of Education, we will improve our current inventory control system. B) Board Policies/Administrative Regulations should be implemented by the Board of Trustees in all district listed in Finding 5B, assigning inventory control responsibilities and training to the superintendent, business manager, or appropriate designee. All districts should ensure that their policies remain current and in compliance. CSBA provides a food template for Board Policies inthe area of inventory control conforming to Education Code 35168. These districts should provide for staff responsible for inventory. Not Applicable C) The following districts are not tracking all items valued above $500 as required by Education Code 35168 Response Recommendation 5C- Working with the Santa Clara Office of Education, we will improve our current inventory control system which will include technology equipment and musical instruments valued above $500 asper administrative regulation 3440.1 D) The following districts do not conduct inventory on a biennial basis as required by Education Code Response Recommendation 5D- Working with the Santa Clara Office of Education, our current inventory system will improved and continue to be conducted on an annual basis.

F6: Some school districts observed by the Grand Jury had a demonstrated understanding of the need for inventory control. Best practices include documenting and following a process, conforming to the Education Code requirements, and performing reconciliation to prior inventories. The following districts are to be commended on their best practices: No response needed

F7: There is a potential for abuse in K-8 districts when those who report to superintendents approve credit card transactions and purchase orders made by their superintendent. Response Finding 7- This recommendation will not be implemented as it is not warranted. Given that the Board only meets once or twice a month, it will be difficult to ask the Board of Trustees to approve Superintendent expenditures ahead oftime.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: To strengthen internal controls and ensure fiscal accountability, purchases made by the K-8 superintendents should be approved by the board of trustees prior to purchase. In the event an immediate purchase is required, post-approval by the board would ensure no conflicts of interest or abuses occur. Expenditures should be presented separately from the board's consent calendar to ensure prior scrutiny. Credit card statements and a listing of disbursements should be provided to the board for approval. of6 Response Recommendation 7-This recommendation will be partially implemented. Cambrian School District has excellent internal controls in place. The business department is charged with ensuring that all expenditures including payroll, benefits, supplies, travel, services, equipment and construction, etc. follow stringent internal controls. Rigorous oversight is performed by the controller and CFO. On a yearly basis, external auditors test all areas of controls, examine in detail selected expenditures and review the credit card expenditures. The auditors report directly to the board on the financial condition of the district and on any concerns they have with business procedures. The board approves the credit card payments on the warrant list each month. Additionally the board president will review the superintendent's credit card statement on a monthly basis. Sincerely, ~()CQ}-- Gary Chronert Deborah Blow, Ed.D. Board President Superintendent Cambrian School District Cambrian School District

September 08, 2009 — Gavilan College

8 pages 7 findings 7 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings

F1: Community colleges and K-12 boards of trustees are responsible for inventory control. However, after interviewing ALL board of trustee presidents itwas evident they were unaware of their obligations under the law. •All K-8 and K-12 and Community College Districts

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Trustees should review and be knowledgeable of Education Code §35168 for K-12 and Education Code §81600 for community colleges to ensure complete implementation. •All K-8 and K-12 and Community College District Boards of Trustees Districts Response 1 The District disagrees for the following reasons: 1. The governing board members are aware of the fact that they are responsible for the fiscal management and control of all operations of the district to include inventory and fixed assets acquired to operate the district. The district believes the jury questioning methodology may have resulted in a misunderstanding of the knowledge trustees have about their responsibilities as board members. The governing board members are not likely to have a detail level of knowledge of all of the provisions of the Education Code that would allow any member to quote a specific section of the Education Code. Additionally, board members are not expected to know detailed level practices of the district. The governing board delegates responsibility for the day to day management of the district to the Superintendent/President. However, even though a significant amount of authority is delegated to the Superintendent/President, the board retains complete responsibility for all aspects of the district's operations. 2. The provision of the Education Code related to the Board's responsibility for inventory in Section 81600 states infull: "The governing board of a community college district shall manage and control school property within its district." There are similar provisions to other aspects of the district's operations that also state the governing board is responsible for various segments of the district's operations. It is not fair to state that the governing board is unaware of its broad responsibilities for inventory or for any other part of the district's operations. The district disagrees with the jury's findings as the board members are fully aware of their overarching obligations for all aspects of the district's operations. The general nature of the Education Code regarding inventory is not substantially different than the obligations of board members identified in other sections of the Education Code. Generally, the board is responsible for all operations of the college and relies on the superintendent/president to ensure college operations comply with these provisions. That is in fact what occurs at Gavilan College. 1 - - --- ~------- - --~- -_._~ .-------- --- ----------- ----.-------- ..-. -- ---- 3. Gavilan Joint Community College Board Policy (BP) 6520 approved on April 9, 2002 states: ''The President of the College shall establish procedures necessary to manage, control and protect the assets of the District, including but not limited to ensuring sufficient security to protect property, equipment and information from theft, loss, or significant damage." BP 6520 charges the president with establishment of procedures and practices that will ensure inventory is protected from loss for any combination of reasons. BP 6520 charges the President with responsibility for ensuring the district's assets including its inventory of property from all forms of loss including theft. The district complies with Education Code Section 81600 and Board of Trustee policies to ensure the district's operations comply with Education Code Section 81600.

F2: No trustees or Superintendents/Chancellors have been trained in inventory control. Inventory control training for board members and superintendents is not mandated by the State, resulting in a lack of familiarity and inconsistent application of inventory requirements by many districts.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: All Santa Clara County school board trustees and superintendents/chancellors should be required to review and understand Education Code §35168 and §81600 and BAM requirements for inventory control. For K-12 districts, the County Office of Education (COE) should take the lead in providing comprehensive training on inventory control, in conjunction with the release of the new inventory tracking module within Quintessential Software Systems spearheaded by the COE. For community colleges, the CC Board should investigate additional training inthe area of inventory control offered through organizations such as the American Association of Community Colleges and the Community College League of California . •All K-8 and K-12 and Community College District Boards of Trustees • COE Board of Trustees Districts Response 2 The District agrees. The recommendation has been implemented with the District's Board of Trustees review of California Education Code Sections 81600,84030, and The California Community Colleges Budget and Accounting Manual (BAM) requirements for inventory control as noted below. California Education Code Section 81600 states: "The governing board of a community college district shall manage and control school property within its district." California Education Code Section 84030 states in part: "The accounting system including the uniform fund structure used to record the financial affairs of any community college district shall be in accordance with the definitions, instructions, and procedures published inthe California Community Colleges Budget and Accounting Manual as approved by the Board of Governors and furnished by the Board of Governors." The California Community Colleges Budget and Accounting Manual (BAM), Chapter 4, pages 4.64 and 4.65 states in part: "Districts shall maintain an historical inventory, audit trace inventory system, or any other acceptable inventory system that contains the description, name, identification numbers, original cost, date of acquisition, location, and time and mode of disposal for all items of equipment that cost or had a market value at time of acquisition in excess of one thousand dollars ($1,000)."

F3: All district superintendents, chancellors and district staff report incomplete inventory information to their boards. This results in lack of knowledge about the value and size of their inventory. • All K-8 and K-12 and community college districts

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: All Boards of Trustees should require a presentation on the results of their districts' biennial inventory, including total value, variances resulting from reconciliation between past and current inventories and a proposed plan to resolve discrep~ncies. • All K-8 and K-12 & Community College District Boards of Trustees Districts Response 3 This recommendation will not be implemented because the recommendations are not reasonable and are not warranted. This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not required by existing regulations governing California community colleges. Important at this point in time is the fact the all public schools and community colleges have experienced significant reductions in revenues. It is inappropriate to take resources out of instructional activities for non-instructional and non-mandated activities. Additionally, the district sees no value in increasing controls over property though installation of a costly and time consuming process that would require substantial resources to be reallocated to non-instructional activities. Also, the district is audited annually by a licensed Certified Public Accountant. Internal controls to safeguard assets from loss are reviewed as a routine part of the annual audit. The governing board has 3 determined that implementing this recommendation will cause the district to incur additional costs yet provide no additional benefit. Since there is no legal or regulatory requirement to conduct a biennial inventory, the district does not see that this is the time to implement any practice that is not required under existing law. Accordingly, the Board of Trustees will not implement this recommendation as it is unwarranted and unreasonable.

F8: All community college districts delegated the responsibilities for Inventory Control to the Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor or the College Presidents. Gavilan Joint Community College District does not have a Board Policy or Administrative Regulation addressing Inventory Control. • Gavilan Joint Community College District

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: The Board of Trustees for Gavilan Joint Community College District should ensure development and implementation of Board Policy and Administrative Procedure addressing inventory control. Foothill/De Anza College has a Board Policy and Administrative Procedures that could be utilized as a template by Gavilan if they so choose. This district should ensure that their policies remain current and in compliance and provide training for staff responsible for inventory. • Gavilan Joint Community College District Board of Trustees Districts Response 8 The District disagrees. This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted and is not reasonable. As explained below the proposed policies already exist at Gavilan College and are therefore unnecessary. The recommendation will not be implemented because Gavilan Joint Community College BP 6520 satisfies this requirement. BP 6520 states in full: "The President of the College shall establish procedures necessary to manage, control and protect the assets of the District, including but not limited to ensuring sufficient security to protect property, equipment and information from theft, loss, or significant damage." Additionally, BP 6100 is a broad delegation of authority that states in full: "The Board delegates to the President of the College the authority to supervise the general business procedures of the District to assure the proper administration of property and contracts; the budget, audit and accounting of funds; the acquisition of supplies, equipment and property; and the protection of assets and persons. All transactions shall comply with applicable laws and regulations, and with the California Community Colleges Budget and Accounting Manual." 4 No contract shall constitute an enforceable obligation against the District until it has been approved or ratified by the Board (See BP 6340). The President of the College shall make appropriate periodic reports to the Board and shall keep the Board fully advised regarding the financial status of the District. " BP 6520 and BP 6100 fully describe the policies of Gavilan College related to inventory control. These policies are complete and when followed by the College will satisfy the requirements of Education Code Section 81600 stipulating the governing board's responsibility to control its inventory.

F9: Three (3) of four (4) community college districts failed to conduct inventory as is specified by CSAM 410 (California School Accounting Manual) Procedures and the California Community College Budget and Accounting Manual (BAM). Districts only included items at or above $5000 in their inventory, where the requirements in CSAM and the BAM state that any items greater than $1000 should be included. • Foothill/De Anza Community College District • Gavilan Joint Community College District • West Valley/Mission Community College District

Related Recommendations (1)

R9: The Board of Trustees for Foothill/De Anza, Gavilan, and West Valley/Mission College Districts should ensure compliance with the CSAM 410 procedures and BAM guidelines by tracking inventory items greater than $1,000. These districts should provide training for staff responsible for inventory. • Foothill/De Anza Community College District Board of Trustees • Gavilan Joint Community College District Board of Trustees • West Valley/Mission Community College District Board of Trustees Districts Response 9 The District agrees. The recommendation to comply with the California Community Colleges Budget and Accounting Manual (BAM) concerning inventory control will be implemented within the next few months. Gavilan College intends to assign managers with the responsibility of accounting for property used within their departments. Regular inventories will be conducted by the manager and the warehouse specialist to validate inventory is physically on hand and in the designated location. Adjustments will be made as necessary. 5

F10: The following community college districts are not conducting inventories annually or reconciling to verify the existence, current utilization, and continued need for the equipment on a biennial basis, according to procedures specified in CSAM 410 (California School Accounting Manual). • Foothill/De Anza Community College District • Gavilan Joint Community College District

Related Recommendations (1)

R10: The Boards of Trustees for Foothill/De Anza and Gavilan Joint Community College Districts should ensure inventories are conducted as specified in CSAM 410. • Foothill/De Anza Community College Board of Trustees • Gavilan Joint Community College Board of Trustees Districts Response 10 The District agrees. The California School Accounting Manual (CSAM) applies to K-12 districts and not community colleges. However, the recommendation is appropriate and will strengthen controls at Gavilan College. This recommendation will be implemented as described in the previous recommendation.

F11: Chancellors' purchases (both credit card and purchase orders) are approved by subordinates, mainly direct reports. While the vast majority of these direct reports expressed that their chancellors are very conservative with regard to spending, there is a potential for abuse. • Foothill/De Anza Community College District • Gavilan Joint Community College District • San Jose/Evergreen Community College District •West Valley/Mission Community College District

Related Recommendations (1)

R11: To strengthen internal controls and ensure fiscal accountability, purchases made by chancellors should be approved by the Board of Trustees. In the event an immediate purchase is required, post-approval by the Board would ensure no conflicts of interest or abuses occur. Credit card statements and a listing of disbursements should be provided to the Board for approval. Expenditures should be presented separately from the Board's consent calendar to ensure proper scrutiny. 6 • Foothill/De Anza Community College District Board of Trustees • Gavilan Joint Community College District Board of Trustees • San Jose/Evergreen Community College District Board of Trustees •West Valley/Mission Community College District Board of Trustees Districts Response 11 The District agrees. The recommendation will be implemented. 7

September 08, 2009 — Governing Board Cynthia Chang Roger Mason Los Gatos-Saratoga High School District Michele van Zuiden Rosemary Rossi

4 pages 5 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 5 findings

F1: Governing Board members are not offered overly generous benefits. Reasonable benefits help to attract and maintain well-qualified, hard working and dedicated governing board members.

Page 1

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: • Removing health benefits will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable. This benefit is of great help in attracting and maintaining well-qualified, hard working and dedicated governing board members. Board members do not receive benefits that are more generous than employee benefits, e.g., premium copayments are required at some benefit levels. • Minimize travel and conference costs. The district has taken measures to minimize travel and conference costs and the reimbursements are limited to documented and necessary costs in accordance with board policy. The district benefits greatly from board member training and ultimately help our students succeed. • Pension contributions are not offered to members of the governing board. DISTINGUISHED CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED FOR EXCELLENCE Los Gatos High School Saratoga High School Adult Education Alternative Education superintendent's benefits are not overly generous.

F2: The superintendent's benefits are not overly generous.

Page 1

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union High School District provides a reasonable compensation package to the Superintendent and changes to the contract will not be made and are not warranted. • Auto Allowance ($600/mo): The superintendent is on call to perform duties twenty-four hours a day. Much of the work of the superintendent requires in and out-of-district travel. The allowance is sized to reimburse the superintendent for the use of his personal vehicle on district business. • Housing Allowance: Not applicable • Million dollar housing loans at zero or below market interest rates: Not applicable • Guaranteed annual step and/or longevity increases: Not applicable • Signing bonuses: Not applicable • Contract buyout: Provided by Education Code and is in accordance with regulations. The superintendent is charged with making sometimes unpopular decisions and this provision provides the superintendent the ability to make the best decision to help students succeed in apolitical environment. • Excessive performance bonuses: Not applicable • Per diem payments when out of the district: The superintendent is only paid for full days worked in a documented system to provide 220 days of service, excluding vacation. Additionally, the superintendent receives 30 days of vacation. The superintendent does not receive compensation outside of this contractual obligation. • Personal technology allowances: Not applicable • Professional memberships and subscription allowances: The superintendent receives paid membership fees in professional educational organizations that advance the cause and understanding of public education. • Excessive travel and entertainment expenses: The district has taken measures to minimize travel and conference costs and the reimbursements are limited to documented and necessary costs in accordance with board policy. • Salary increases automatically triggered by increases in teacher's salaries which are in addition to other guaranteed salary increases: Not applicable • Pension allowances (in addition to regular STRS/PERS contributions: Not applicable • Advanced degree stipends: Not applicable • Lifetime medical insurance benefits: Not applicable • Annual physicals: Required and protects the district from the loss of its chief executive officer at a critical time. superintendent's salary is related to a myriad of factors and realities of market supply and demand for top executives.

F3: The superintendent's salary is related to a myriad of factors and realities of market supply and demand for top executives.

Page 1

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union High School District governing board believes its superintendent is properly compensated and changes will not be made and are not warranted. The district is a high performing district located in an area of Santa Clara County with one of the highest cost of living. Tying the superintendent's salary to district size would be simplistic and counterproductive to finding and retaining its leader. Response to Finding 4 The Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union High School District disagrees with Finding 4. The Board has a strong interest in hiring the best person for the position of superintendent.

F4: The Board has a strong interest in hiring the best person for the position of superintendent.

Page 1

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union High School District will not implement the recommendation because it is not warranted. Qualified superintendent candidates are not always available locally. To conduct a local "preliminary search" may delay the hiring process and could jeopardize the ability to get the most qualified person for this important leadership position. Response to Finding 5 The Governing Board for the Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union High School District partially agrees with the finding. The school district should engage the services of County Counsel when appropriate and limit the number of private attorneys providing services.

F6: In the Los Gatos-Saratoga communities and the other jurisdictional boundaries, there exists a strong preference for local control of the school district. - .-- . - - -- . - -. - - - - - .. - - .

Page 1

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: The Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union High School will not implement finding 6 because it is not warranted. The district encompasses the largest geographical area in Santa Clara County and includes areas in Santa Cruz County. These diverse communities value local control. Currently, the district is in the process of annexing a small portion of the area formally apart of the Montebello school attendance area. The Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union High School District will provide education services to students residing in this community that attend grades 9 through 12. This annexation is not directly related to Finding 6 however it does result in a consolidation of districts. The annexation is representative of 5 school districts working together to provide the best outcome to students and families. The district's are: Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union High School District, Saratoga Union Elementary School District, Cupertino Union School District and Fremont Union High School District and Montebello Elementary School District. Please feel free to contact me or the superintendent if you have questions or need additional information. Sincerely, ~ ~ Rosemary RosSI President of the Governing Board Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union High School District

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R5: The Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union High School District will implement fmding 5 by using County Counsel when appropriate. The district is sometimes involved in complex legal issues that require legal expertise in sub-sections of the Education Code, requiring considerable specialized legal capacity, time and energy. The District will review its current list of approved attorneys and consolidate where possible. Response to Finding 6 The Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union High School District disagrees with finding 6. In the Los Gatos-Saratoga communities and the other jurisdictional boundaries, there exists a strong preference for local control of the school district. - .--. ---- .- -.- - - - -.. - - .

September 08, 2009 — Governing Board CynthiaChang Los Gatos-Saratoga High School District RogerMason MichelevanZuiden

3 pages 4 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 4 findings

F1: Governing Boards are responsible for inventory control and they need to be knowledgeable of the regulations.

Page 1

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Board Members have been provided copies of Education Code 35168 and asked to review the regulations concerning inventory accounting and control. Additionally board members have been invited to contact the district's chief business officer if they have any questions concerning the regulations and the district's operating practices. Response to

F2: Inventory Control training for board members and superintendents is not required by the state and there is a lack of familiarity with the regulations. DISTINGUISHED Los Gatos High School CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS Saratoga High School NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED FOR EXCELLENCE Adult Education Alternative Education

Page 1

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union High School District will provide documentation, training and reporting of inventory control to its board members who bear the ultimate responsibility for inventory control of district assets. Response to Finding 3 The Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union High School District agrees with Finding 3. The value and size of the district's inventory is not well known or understood.

F3: The value and size of the district's inventory is not well known or understood.

Page 1

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union High School District will provide documentation on the results of the districts' biennial inventory (last inventory was conducted in spring of2009) to the governing board. Response to Finding 4 The Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union High School District agrees with Finding 4. The district administration fully understands the need to reconcile inventories on a timely basis.

F4: The district administration fully understands the need to reconcile inventories on a timely basis.

Page 1

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union High School District has reconciled the current inventory to identify missing items and potential losses and thefts. Response to Finding 5(d) The Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union High School District agrees with Finding 5ed). The district will conduct a comprehensive inventory on abiennial basis.

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R7: The Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union High School will discuss the establishment of a board approved system of approving purchases made by the superintendent. Please feel free to contact me or the superintendent if you have questions or need additional information. Sincerely, ~~ Rosemary Rossi President of the Governing Board Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union High School District

September 08, 2009 — Moreland School District Glen Ishiwata OyAlITY Education Since1851 Superintendent September 8, 2009

5 pages 5 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 5 findings

F1: Community colleges and K-12 boards of trustees are responsible for inventory control. However, after interviewing ALL board of trustee presidents it was evident they were unaware of their obligations under the law. 1- Response Finding We agree with this finding, that boards are responsible for inventory control. However, it is not known whether, K-12 Boards of Trustees are aware of their obligations under the law.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Trustees should review and be knowledgeable of Education Code 35168 for K12 Response Recommendation 1--This recommendation will be implemented. A copy of Education Code 35168 will be added to the next regular communication with the Board of Trustees. It bears noting that the California Education Code 35168 was first enacted in 1976 and revised last in 1984. The amount of$500 has not been changed since 1984 and is out-of-date.

F2: No trustees or superintendents have been trained in inventory control. Inventory control training for board members and superintendents is not mandated by the State, resulting in a lack of familiarity and inconsistent application of inventory requirements by districts. BOARD OF TRUSTEES LORI BOOROOJIAN • JIM MACFARLANE' HEATHER SUTTON' ROBERT VARlCH • KAREN WHIPPLE 4711 CAMPBELL AVENUE • SAN JOSE.CALIFORNIA' 95130-1790 (408) 874-2901 • FAX (408) 374-8863 . GISHIWATA@MORELAND.K12.CA.US Response Finding 2 - We agree that training on inventory control is not mandated by the state for superintendent or the Board. We have no familiarity of the application of inventory requirements of other districts.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: All Santa Clara County school board trustees and superintendents should be required to review and understand Education Code 35168 and BAM requirements for inventory control. Response Recommendation 2a - This recommendation will be implemented in our district. The Board of Trustees will be given a copy of Education Code 35168 before the next board meeting. For K-12 districts, the COE should take the lead in providing comprehensive training on inventory control, in conjunction with the release of the new inventory tracking module within Quintessential Software Systems spearheaded by the COE. Response Recommendation 2b --The attached flow chart was developed using Education Code 35168 and the California School Accounting Manual. This document will be used to train board members and superintendent on inventory control requirements. The District will also take part in any and all comprehensive training on inventory control provided by the Santa Clara County Office of Education.

F3: All district superintendents and district staff report incomplete inventory information to their boards. This results in lack of knowledge about the value and size of their inventory. Response Finding 3- We disagree with this finding. We have not seen the data and are not in the position to comment on the knowledge of all district Board members and superintendents.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: All Boards of Trustees should require apresentation on the results of their districts biennial inventory, including total value, variances resulting from reconciliation between past and current inventories and a proposed plan to resolve discrepancies. Response Recommendation 3--The Moreland School District performs their biennial inventory in every odd year. The inventory is performed in October, with data returned to the District by December of that year. District staff will report to the Board in April of each even year, the total value, reconciliation variances and the resolution plan to such variances.

F4: With the exception of Santa Clara Unified and Los Gatos Unified School Districts, all K 12districts fail to understand the need to reconcile inventories from previous years to the latest inventory update. Without reconciliation, the opportunity to: identify lost, missing or stolen items, take preventive measures, and obtain timely reimbursement may be lost. Response Finding 4 - We disagree. We have no knowledge whether or not other districts fail to understand the need to reconcile inventories, etc.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: All K-12 school districts should reconcile the most current, full inventory with prior inventories, to identify missing items and potentiallosses/thefts. The results will enable the districts to implement safeguards to prevent future losses. Response Recommendation 4--In April of each even year (off biennial inventory) inventory information is submitted to sites and departments for review. The information is due back to the Business Office by June of that year. Information reviewed by site and departments shall review and reconcile to the previous year's biennial report. In the odd year the biennial report shall be reconciled to the previous year's inventory information. The reconciled information will be reported out to the board of trustees each April.

F7: There is a potential for abuse in K-8 districts when those who report to superintendents approve credit card transactions and purchase orders made by their superintendent. Response Finding 7- We agree that it is advisable for the Superintendent to submit monthly credit card statements directly to the Board of Trustees for approval.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: To strengthen internal controls and ensure fiscal accountability, purchases made by the K-8 superintendents should be approved by the board of trustees prior to purchase. In the event an immediate purchase is required, post-approval by the board would ensure no conflicts of interest or abuses occur. Expenditures should be presented separately from the board's consent calendar to ensure prior scrutiny. Credit card statements and a listing of disbursements should be provided to the board for approval. Response Recommendation 7--The superintendent of the Moreland School District does not have a credit card issued by the District. The District has two credit card holders - Assistant Superintendent, Business & Support Services and Office Manager. The President of the Board reviews credit card expenditures of the Office Manager during agenda setting meetings with the superintendent. The superintendent reviews credit card expenditures of the Assistant Superintendent, Business and Support Services. The District prepares monthly board reports on credit card purchases that appear on the first monthly agenda. These items along with a purchase order report for all purchases of the superintendent's department are detailed and appear under the consent agenda. If a Board member wishes to discuss an item on the consent calendar, it can be pulled and scrutinized. Sincerely, Robert Varich Board President Moreland School District "bysicallnventory ManagelDell, The purpose of taking aphysical inventory is to verify the physical existence of District property and equipmen Biennial Inventory by Outside firm Updated Report Record as Annual Site Review Reconcile part of (Apr/May) Differences Inventory Additions Annual Deletions Report to to Record Board of Trustees

September 08, 2009 — Board of Trustees Superintendent

4 pages 7 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings

F1: Community colleges and K-12 boards of trustees are responsible for inventory control. However, after interviewing ALL board of trustee presidents it was evident they were unaware of their obligations under the law. Mountain View Whisman School District Response: We agree with this finding, that Boards are responsible for inventory control. However, it is not known whether or not Community College Boards and other K-12 Boards of Trustees are aware of their obligations under the law. The Mountain View Whisman School District Board of Trustees is aware of its legal responsibility related to inventory control.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Trustees should review and be knowledgeable of Education Code 35168 for K-12 and Education Code 81600 for Community Colleges. Mountain View Whisman School District Response: This recommendation will be implemented. A copy of Education Code 35168 will be added to the next regular communication with the Board of Trustees. It bears noting that the California Education Code 35168 was first enacted in 1976 and revised in 1984. The amount of $500 has not been changed since 1984 and is out-of-date.

F2: No trustees or superintendents/chancellors have been trained in inventory control. Inventory control training for board members and superintendents is not mandated by the State, resulting in a lack of familiarity and inconsistent application of inventory requirements by many districts. Mountain View Whisman School District Response: We agree, training on inventory control is not mandated by the state for superintendent/chancellor or the Board. We have no familiarity of the application of inventory requirements of other districts.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: All Santa Clara County school board trustees/ superintendents/ chancellors should be required to review and understand Education Code35168 and 81600 and BAM (Community College Budget and Accounting Manual) requirements for inventory control. 750-ASanPierreWay· MountainView· CA·94043 I T:[650] 526-3500 I F:[650] 964-8907 •• Responseto GrandJury FinalReport,datedJune9, 2009 Mountain View Whisman School District Response: This recommendation will be implemented. The Board of Trustees will be given a copy of Education Code 35168 before the next board meeting. For K-12 Districts/ the COEshould take the lead in providing comprehensive training on inventory control/ in conjunction with the release of the new inventory tracking module within Quintessential Software Systems spearheaded by the COE. Mountain View Whisman School District Response: SCCOEplans to implement the inventory tracking/fixed asset module of the Quintessential Software Systems in FiscalYear 2009-10 and will offer training for interested districts. #3:

F3: All district superintendents, chancellors and district staff report incomplete inventory information to their boards. This results in lack of knowledge about the value and size of their inventory. Mountain View Whisman School District Response: We disagree with this finding. We have not seen the data and are not in the position to comment on the knowledge of Board members.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: All Boards of Trustees should require a presentation on the results of their districts' biennial inventory, including total value, variances resulting from the reconciliation between past and current inventories and a proposed plan to resolve discrepancies. Mountain View Whisman School District Response: This recommendation will be partially implemented. Annual financial reports contain the value of inventory. However, with our current fiscal outlook it is doubtful that there are funds to commit personnel or contractor funds required to perform this work. This is not a high priority item, as we have had fairly low exposure to loss of inventory. Additionally, this level of full inventory is not mandated by Education Code. The California State Accounting Manual states that the California Department recommends an annual inventory, but goes on to quote the Federal Register that: A physical inventory of equipment shall be taken and the results reconciled with the property records at least once very 2 years to verify the existence, current utilization, and continued need for the equipment. A statistical sampling basis is acceptable. . . . (CSAM Procedure 410)

F4: With the exception of Santa Clara Unified and Los Gatos Unified School Districts, all K-12 districts fail to understand the need to reconcile inventories from previous years to the latest inventory update. Without reconciliation, the opportunity to: identify lost, missing or stolen items, take preventive measures, and obtain timely reimbursement may be lost. Mountain View Whisman School District Response: We disagree. We have no knowledge whether or not other districts fail to understand the need to reconcile inventories, etc. On the other hand, the Mountain View Whisman School District understands the need to reconcile inventories from previous years to the latest inventory update, and efforts are being made to ensure that reconciliation process is formalized.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: All K-12 school districts should reconcile the most current/ full inventory with prior inventories/ to identify missing items and potential losses/thefts. The results will enable the districts to implement safeguards to prevent future losses. Mountain View Whisman School District response: Please see responses to recommendations 1 and 3. #5:

F5: Many K-12 Districts are not following requirements for inventory control as stated in Education 35168, and/or their own policies: Mountain View Whisman School District Response: Please see responses to recommendations 1 and 3.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: See categories (A)(B)(C)(D): Mountain View Whisman School District Response: Please see responses to recommendations 1 and 3.

F6: Some school districts observed by the Grand Jury had a demonstrated understanding of the need for inventory control. Best practices include documenting and following a process, conforming to the Education Code requirements, and performing reconciliation to prior inventories. The following districts are to be commended on their best practices: Fremont Union School District Los Gatos Elementary District Moreland School District Orchard School District Santa Clara Unified School District Mountain View Whisman School District Response #6: No response required.

F7: There is a potential for abuse in K-8 and K-12 districts when those who report to superintendents approve credit card transactions and purchase orders made by their superintendent. Mountain View Whisman School District Response #7: We agree, it is advisable for the Superintendent to submit monthly credit card statements directly to the Board of Trustees for approval. In the Mountain View Whisman School District, the President of the Board of Trustees and the District's Chief Financial Officer reviews the Superintendent's credit card statements on a monthly basis, prior to payment of the statement.

September 08, 2009 — Board of Trustees Superintendent

4 pages 7 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings

F1: Community colleges and K-12 boards of trustees are responsible for inventory control. However, after interviewing ALL board of trustee presidents it was evident they were unaware of their obligations under the law. Mountain View Whisman School District Response: We agree with this finding, that Boards are responsible for inventory control. However, it is not known whether or not Community College Boards and other K-12 Boards of Trustees are aware of their obligations under the law. The Mountain View Whisman School District Board of Trustees is aware of its legal responsibility related to inventory control.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Trustees should review and be knowledgeable of Education Code 35168 for K-12 and Education Code 81600 for Community Colleges. Mountain View Whisman School District Response: This recommendation will be implemented. A copy of Education Code 35168 will be added to the next regular communication with the Board of Trustees. It bears noting that the California Education Code 35168 was first enacted in 1976 and revised in 1984. The amount of $500 has not been changed since 1984 and is out-of-date.

F2: No trustees or superintendents/chancellors have been trained in inventory control. Inventory control training for board members and superintendents is not mandated by the State, resulting in a lack of familiarity and inconsistent application of inventory requirements by many districts. Mountain View Whisman School District Response: We agree, training on inventory control is not mandated by the state for superintendent/chancellor or the Board. We have no familiarity of the application of inventory requirements of other districts.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: All Santa Clara County school board trustees/ superintendents/ chancellors should be required to review and understand Education Code35168 and 81600 and BAM (Community College Budget and Accounting Manual) requirements for inventory control. 750-ASanPierreWay· MountainView· CA·94043 I T:[650] 526-3500 I F:[650] 964-8907 •• Responseto GrandJury FinalReport,datedJune9, 2009 Mountain View Whisman School District Response: This recommendation will be implemented. The Board of Trustees will be given a copy of Education Code 35168 before the next board meeting. For K-12 Districts/ the COEshould take the lead in providing comprehensive training on inventory control/ in conjunction with the release of the new inventory tracking module within Quintessential Software Systems spearheaded by the COE. Mountain View Whisman School District Response: SCCOEplans to implement the inventory tracking/fixed asset module of the Quintessential Software Systems in FiscalYear 2009-10 and will offer training for interested districts. #3:

F3: All district superintendents, chancellors and district staff report incomplete inventory information to their boards. This results in lack of knowledge about the value and size of their inventory. Mountain View Whisman School District Response: We disagree with this finding. We have not seen the data and are not in the position to comment on the knowledge of Board members.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: All Boards of Trustees should require a presentation on the results of their districts' biennial inventory, including total value, variances resulting from the reconciliation between past and current inventories and a proposed plan to resolve discrepancies. Mountain View Whisman School District Response: This recommendation will be partially implemented. Annual financial reports contain the value of inventory. However, with our current fiscal outlook it is doubtful that there are funds to commit personnel or contractor funds required to perform this work. This is not a high priority item, as we have had fairly low exposure to loss of inventory. Additionally, this level of full inventory is not mandated by Education Code. The California State Accounting Manual states that the California Department recommends an annual inventory, but goes on to quote the Federal Register that: A physical inventory of equipment shall be taken and the results reconciled with the property records at least once very 2 years to verify the existence, current utilization, and continued need for the equipment. A statistical sampling basis is acceptable. . . . (CSAM Procedure 410)

F4: With the exception of Santa Clara Unified and Los Gatos Unified School Districts, all K-12 districts fail to understand the need to reconcile inventories from previous years to the latest inventory update. Without reconciliation, the opportunity to: identify lost, missing or stolen items, take preventive measures, and obtain timely reimbursement may be lost. Mountain View Whisman School District Response: We disagree. We have no knowledge whether or not other districts fail to understand the need to reconcile inventories, etc. On the other hand, the Mountain View Whisman School District understands the need to reconcile inventories from previous years to the latest inventory update, and efforts are being made to ensure that reconciliation process is formalized.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: All K-12 school districts should reconcile the most current/ full inventory with prior inventories/ to identify missing items and potential losses/thefts. The results will enable the districts to implement safeguards to prevent future losses. Mountain View Whisman School District response: Please see responses to recommendations 1 and 3. #5:

F5: Many K-12 Districts are not following requirements for inventory control as stated in Education 35168, and/or their own policies: Mountain View Whisman School District Response: Please see responses to recommendations 1 and 3.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: See categories (A)(B)(C)(D): Mountain View Whisman School District Response: Please see responses to recommendations 1 and 3.

F6: Some school districts observed by the Grand Jury had a demonstrated understanding of the need for inventory control. Best practices include documenting and following a process, conforming to the Education Code requirements, and performing reconciliation to prior inventories. The following districts are to be commended on their best practices: Fremont Union School District Los Gatos Elementary District Moreland School District Orchard School District Santa Clara Unified School District Mountain View Whisman School District Response #6: No response required.

F7: There is a potential for abuse in K-8 and K-12 districts when those who report to superintendents approve credit card transactions and purchase orders made by their superintendent. Mountain View Whisman School District Response #7: We agree, it is advisable for the Superintendent to submit monthly credit card statements directly to the Board of Trustees for approval. In the Mountain View Whisman School District, the President of the Board of Trustees and the District's Chief Financial Officer reviews the Superintendent's credit card statements on a monthly basis, prior to payment of the statement.

September 08, 2009 — Administrative Office

3 pages 6 findings 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 6 findings

F1: Community Colleges and K-l2 boards of trustees are responsible for inventory control. However, after interviewing ALL board of trustee presidents it was evident they were unaware of their obligations under the law. The respondent agrees with the finding.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The recommendation has not yet been implemented. It will be implemented at the September 23, 2009 Mt. Pleasant School District Board of Trustees meeting.

F2: No trustees or superintendents/chancellors have been trained in inventory control. Inventory control training for board members and superintendents is not mandated by the State, resulting in a lack of familiarity and inconsistent application of inventory requirements by many districts. The respondent agrees with the finding.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The recommendation has not yet been implemented. It will be implemented at the September 23, 2009 Mt. Pleasant School District Board of Trustees meeting.

F3: All district superintendents, chancellors and district staff report incomplete inventory information to their boards. This results in lack of knowledge about the value and size of their inventory. The respondent agrees with the finding.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The recommendation has not yet been implemented. It will be implemented at the September 23,2009 Mt. Pleasant School District Board of Trustees meeting. 2007-2008TA CLARA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT

F4: With the exception of Santa Clara Unified and Los Gatos Unified School Districts, allK-12 districts fail to understand the need to reconcile inventories from previous years to the latest inventory update. Without reconciliation the opportunity to: identify lost, missing or stolen items, take preventive measures, and obtain timely reimbursement may be lost. The respondent agrees with the finding.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The recommendation has been implemented. As of August 2008 acomplete inventory was taken, however reconciliation with prior inventories did not occur as the most recent inventory was only a partial inventory taken in 2003.

F5: and 6 (Not Applicable)

F7: There is a potential for abuse in K-8 and K-12 districts when those who report to superintendents approve credit card transactions and purchase orders made by their superintendent. The respondent agrees with the finding. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented at the October 7, 2009 Mt. Pleasant School District Board of Trustees meeting.

September 08, 2009 — Oak Grove School District

5 pages 7 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings

F1: Community colleges and K-12 board of trustees are responsible for inventory control. However, after interviewing ALL board of trustees presidents, it was evident they were unaware of their obligations under the law. Response: OGSD agrees with this finding, that Boards are responsible for inventory control. However, OGSD is not inthe position of knowing whether or not Community College Boards and other K-12 Boards of Trustees are aware of their obligations under the law.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Trustees should review and be knowledgeable of Education Code 35168for K-12 and Education Code 81600 for Community Colleges. Response: This recommendation will be implemented. A copy of Education Code 35168 will be added to the next communication with the Board of Trustees.

F2: No trustees or superintendents/chancellors have been trained in inventory control. Inventory control trainingfor board members and superintendents is not mandated by the State, resulting in a lack of familiarity and inconsistent application of inventory requirements by many districts . • All K-8, K-12 and community college districts Response: OGSD agrees, training on inventory control is not mandated by the State for Superintendents/Chancellor or the Board. We have no familiarity of the application of inventory requirements of other districts.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: All Santa Clara County school board trustees, superintendents/chancellors should be required to review and understand Education Code 35168 and 81600 and BAM (Community College Budget and Accounting Manual) requirements for inventory control. Response: This recommendation will be implemented. The Board of Trustees will be given a copy of Education Code 35168 and Board Policy 3400 for their review and understanding. Tony Garcia, Superintendent Board ofTrustees: Mary Noel, Yvonne Cook, Dennis Hawkins, Dianne Lemke, Jeremy Nishihara Our mission... "toensurethateverychild's potentialisachieved." OAK IiROVE SCHOOL DISTRICT 6578 Santa Teresa Boulevard, SanJose, CA 95119408-227-8300 Fax408-227-2719 For K-12 Districts, the COE should take the lead inproviding comprehensive training on inventory control, in conjunction with the release of the new inventory tracking module within Quintessential Software Systems spearheaded by the COE. Response: SCCOE plans to implement the inventory tracking/fixed asset module of the Quintessential Software Systems in Fiscal Year 2009-10 and will offer training for interested districts.

F3: All district superintendents, chancellors and district staff report incomplete inventory information to their boards. This results in lack of knowledge about the value and size of their inventory. Response: We disagree. OGSD has not seen the data and are not in the position to determine which boards have a lack of knowledge about the value and size of their inventory.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: All Boards of Trustees should require apresentation on the results of their districts' biennial inventory, including total value, variances resulting from the reconciliation between past and current inventories and aproposed plan to resolve discrepancies. Response: This recommendation will be partially implemented. The results of the value of the inventory are included in the Annual Financial reports which are presented to the Board each year. In addition, data regarding the results of the inventory variances will be submitted to the Board for their review. The recommendation for this full level of inventory is not mandated by Education Code. The California State Accounting Manual states that the California Department recommends an annual inventory, but goes on to quote the Federal Register that: Aphysical inventory of equipment shall be taken and the results reconciled with theproperty records a least once every 2years to verify the existence, current utilization, and continued need for the equipment. A statistical sampling basis is acceptable ... (CSAM Procedure 410)

F4: With the exception of Santa Clara Unified and Los Gatos Unified School Districts, all K-12 districts fail to understand the need to reconcile inventories from previous years to the latest inventory update. Without reconciliation, the opportunity to: identify lost, missing or stolen items, takepreventive measures, and obtain timely reimbursement may be lost. Response: We disagree with this finding. OGSD has no knowledge whether or not other districts fail to understand the need to reconcile inventories, etc. Tony Garcia, Superintendent Board ofTrustees: Mary Noel, Yvonne Cook, Dennis Hawkins, Dianne Lemke, Jeremy Nishihara Our mission ... "to ensure that every child's potential isachieved." OAK GROVE SCHOOL DISTRICT 6578 Santa Teresa Boulevard, SanJose, CA 95119 408-227-8300 Fax408-227-2719

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: All K-12 school districts should reconcile the most current, full inventory with prior inventories, to identifY missing items and potential losses/thefts. The results will enable the districts to implement safeguards toprevent future losses. Response: Please see responses to recommendation 1and 3.

F5: Many K-12 Districts are notfollowing requirements for inventory control as stated inEducation 35168, and/or their ownpolicies: Response: Please see responses to Recommendations 1and 3.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: See categories (A)(B)(C)(D): Response: Please see responses to Recommendations 1and 3.

F6: Some school districts observed by the Grand Jury had a demonstrated understanding of the needfor inventory control. Best practices include documenting andfollowing aprocess, conforming to the Education Code requirements, and performing reconciliation toprior inventories. Thefollowing districts are to be commended on their best practices: • Fremont Union School District • Los Gatos Elementary District • Moreland School District • Orchard School District • Santa Clara Unified School District Response: No Response required.

F7: There is apotential for abuse inK-8 and K-12 districts when those who report to superintendents approve credit card transactions and purchase orders made by their superintendent. • All K-8 and K-12 School Districts Response: OGSD agrees, its advisable for the Superintendent to submit monthly credit card statements directly to the Board of Trustees for approval. Tony Garcia, Superintendent Board ofTrustees: Mary Noel, Yvonne Cook, Dennis Hawkins, Dianne Lemke, Jeremy Nishihara Our mission ... "to ensure that every child's potential is achieved." OAK GROVE SCHOOL DISTRICT 6578 Santa Teresa Boulevard, SanJose, CA 95119 408-227-8300 Fax408-227-2719

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: To strengthen internal controls and ensure fiscal accountability, purchases made by the K-8 and K-12 Superintendents should be approved by the Boards of Trustees prior topurchase. In the event an immediate purchase is required, post-approval by the Board would ensure no conflicts of interest or abuses occur. • All K-8 and K-12 District Boards of Trustees Response: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is unreasonable. Given that the Board only meets once or twice each month, it would not be practical to require advance approval for all purchases. Expenditures should bepresented separately from the Board's consent calendar to ensure proper scrutiny. Response: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. If aBoard member wishes to discuss an item on the consent calendar, it can be pulled and then discussed further. Credit card statements and a listing of disbursements should beprovided to the Board for approval. Response: This recommendation will be partially implemented. Credit card statements will be submitted monthly to the Board President for approval. Tony Garcia, Superintendent Our mission ... "to ensure that every child's potential isachieved."

September 08, 2009 — SEP 2 ZaDY David H.yamasa September 8, 2009 Chief Executive Officer/CI

4 pages 7 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings

F1: Community colleges and K-J2 boards of trustees are responsible for inventory control. However, after interviewing ALL board of trustee presidents it was evident they were unaware of their obligations under the law. SCCOE Response: SCCOE agrees that Boards are responsible for inventory control. However SCCOE is not in the position to know whether Board members are aware of their obligations under the law.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Trustees should review and be knowledgeable of Education Code 35168 for K-12 and Education Code 81600 for Community Colleges. SCCOE Response: This recommendation will be implemented. SCCOE is incorporating California School Boards Association (CSBA) language into the Board of Education's policies and procedures and will incorporate a review of Education Code 35168 within ,the 2009-10 fiscal year.

F2: No trustees or s.uperintendents/chancellors have been trained in inventory control. Inventory control trainingfor board members and superintendents is not mandated by the State, resulting in a lack offamiliarity and inconsistent application of inventory requirements by many districts. SCCOE Response: SCCOE agrees that inventory control training for board members and superintendents is not mandated by the state. The SCCOE is not in the position to know if trustees· and superintendents have been trained.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: All Santa Clara County school board trustees and superintendents/chancellors should be required to review and understand Education Code 35168 and 81600 and BAM (Community College Budget and Accounting Manual) requirements for inventory control. SCCOE Response: This recommendation will be implemented in the 2009-10 fiscal year. SCCOE is incorporating CSBA language into the Board of Education's policies and procedures and will incorporate areview of Education Code 35168 within the 2009-10 fiscal year. For K-12 Districts, the COE should take the lead inproviding comprehensive training on inventory control, in conjunction with the release of the new inventory tracking module within Quintessential Software Systems spearheaded by the COE. SCCOE Response: This recommendation will be implemented. SCCOE plans to launch the inventory tracking/fixed asset module of the Quintessential Software Systems in fiscal year 2009-10 and will offer training for interested districts.

F3: All district superintendents, chancellors and district staff report incomplete inventory information to their boards. This results inlack of knowledge about the value and size of their inventory. 10f3 SCCOE Response: We disagree. SCCOE has not seen the data, and consequently is not in the position to determine which boards have a lack of knowledge about the value and size of their inventory.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: All Boards of Trustees should require apresentation on the results of their districts' biennial inventory, including total value, variances resulting from the reconciliation between past and current inventories and aproposed plan to resolve discrepancies. SCCOE Response: This recommendation will be partially implemented. The results of the annual inventory are contained in the Combined Annual Financial Reports which are presented to the SCCOE Board each year.

F4: With the exception of Santa Clara Unified and Los Gatos Unified School Districts, all K-I2 districtsjail to understand the need to reconcile inventories from previous years to the latest inventory update. Without reconciliation, the opportunity to: identify lost, missing or stolen items, takepreventive measures, and obtain timely reimbursement may be lost. SCCOE Response: Based upon the information contained inthe matrix, the SCCOE is not required to respond to this finding.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: All K-I2 school districts should reconcile the most current, full inventory withprior inventories, to identify missing items and potentiallosseslthefts. The results will enable the districts to implement safeguards toprevent future losses. SCCOE Response: Based upon the information contained inthe matrix, the SCCOE is not required to respond to this finding.

F5: Many K-I2 Districts are notfollowing requirements for inventory control as stated inEducation 35168, and/or their ownpolicies: SCCOE Response: Based upon the information contained in the matrix, the SCCOE is not required to respond to this finding.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: See categories (A)(B)(C)(D): SCCOE Response: Based upon the information contained inthe matrix, the SCCOE is not required to respond to this finding.

F6: Some school districts observed by the Grand Jury had a demonstrated understanding of the needfor inventory control. Best practices include documenting and following aprocess, conforming to the Education Code requirements, andperforming reconciliation toprior inventories. Thefollowing districts are to be commended on their bestpractices: • Fremont Union School District • Los Gatos Elementary District 20f3 • Moreland School District • Orchard School District • Santa Clara Unified School District SCCOE Response: Based upon the information contained in the matrix, the SCCOE is not required to respond to this finding.

F7: There is apotential for abuse inK-8 and K-I2 districts when those who report to superintendents approve credit card transactions andpurchase orders made by their superintendent. SCCOE Response: We agree there is potential for abuse when appropriate internal controls are not established and followed.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: To strengthen internal controls and ensure fiscal accountability, purchases made by the K-8 and K-I2 Superintendents should be approved by the Boards of Trustees prior topurchase. In the event an immediate purchase is required, post-approval by the Board would ensure no conflicts of interest or abuses occur. SCCOE Response: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is unreasonable. Given that the board only meets once or twice each month it is not practical to require advance approval for all purchases. The SCCOE will analyze the feasibility of implementing post-approval action by the board. Expenditures should bepresented separately from the Board's consent calendar to ensure proper scrutiny. SCCOE Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. Board members can request that any consent item be moved to study action for discussion and review. Credit card statements and a listing of disbursements should beprovided to the Board for approval. SCCOE Response: This recommendation will be implemented by January, 2010. The County Superintendent will provide the credit card statement and the monthly financial report which details disbursements. These items will be submitted to the board for approval. 30f3

September 03, 2009 — Fremont Union High School District Cupertino, Fremont, Homestead, Lynbrook, Monta Vista High Schools and

4 pages 4 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 4 findings

F2: No trustees or superintendents/chancellors have been trained in inventory control. Inventory control training for board members and superintendents is not mandated by the State, resulting in a lack offamiliarity and inconsistent application of inventory requirements by many districts . • All K-8, K-12 and community college districts Response: FUHSD agrees, training on inventory control is not mandated by the state for superintendents/chancellors or board members. It is important, however, that staff be well trained in inventory control.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: All Santa Clara County school board trustees, superintendents/chancellors should be required to review and understand Education Code 35168 and 81600 and BAM (Community College Budget and Accounting Manual) requirements for inventory control. Response: The recommendation has been implemented. The Board of Trustees/Superintendent has reviewed and is knowledgeable of Education Code 35168 and is aware of their obligations under the law. For K-12 Districts, the COE should take the lead inproviding comprehensive training on inventory control, in conjunction with the release of the new inventory tracking module within Quintessential Software Systems spearheaded by the COE. Response: SCCOE plans to implement the inventory tracking/fixed asset module of the Quintessential Software Systems in Fiscal Year 2009-10 and will offer training for interested districts. FUHSD will send staff to these trainings when they are offered.

F3: All district superintendents, chancellors and district staff report incomplete inventory information to their boards. This results in lack of knowledge about the value and size of their inventory. Response: FUHSD disagrees with this finding due to the fact that the annual financial reports contain fixed asset information.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: All Boards of Trustees should require apresentation on the results of their districts' biennial inventory, including total value, variances resulting from the reconciliation between past and current inventories and aproposed plan to resolve discrepancies. Response: This recommendation will be partially implemented. The annual financial reports contain the value of inventory and are presented to the Board each year. With the current fiscal outlook it is doubtful that there are funds to commit personnel or contractor funds required to perform all of this work. This is not ahigh priority item, as we have had fairly low exposure to loss of inventory. Additionally, this level of full inventory is not mandated by Education Code. The California State Accounting Manual states that the California Department recommends an annual inventory, but goes on to quote the Federal Register that: Aphysical inventory of equipment shall be taken and the results reconciled with theproperty records at least once every 2 years to verify the existence, current utilization, and continued needfor the equipment. A statistical samplinz basis is acceptable .... (CSAM Procedure 410) Over the summer FUHSD conducted a complete physical inventory and is planning to use a "statistical sampling basis" next year.

F4: With the exception of Santa Clara Unified and Los Gatos Unified School Districts, all K-12 districts fail to understand the need to reconcile inventories from previous fiscal years to the latest inventory update. Without reconciliation, the opportunity to: identify lost, missing or stolen items, takepreventative measures, and obtain timely reimbursement may be lost. Response: FUHSD disagrees with this finding. FUHSD understands that inventory reconciliation can be helpful in identifying lost and stolen items and taking preventative measures and obtaining timely reimbursement.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: All K-12 school districts should reconcile the most current, full inventory with prior inventories, to identify missing items andpotential losses/thefts. The results will enable the districts to implement safeguards toprevent future losses. Response: Please see responses to recommendations 1and 3.

F5: ("D" onlv) Many K-12 Districts are notfollowing requirements for inventory control as stated inEducation Code 35168, and/or their ownpolicies andprocedures. D) Thefollowing districts do not conduct Inventory on a biennial basis as required by Education Code (Note: A rolling inventory is not considered aphysical inventory as defined by code) Response: Please see responses to recommendations 1and 3.

Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Trustees should review and be knowledgeable of Education Code 35168for K-12 and Education Code 81600for Community Colleges. Response: The recommendation has been implemented. The Board of Trustees has reviewed and is knowledgeable of Education Code 35168 and is aware of their obligations under the law. It bears noting that the California Education Code 35168 was first enacted in 1976 and revised in 1984. The amount of$500 has not been changed since 1984 and is out of date. BOARDOFTRUSTEES:Nancy A.Newton, Barbara F.Nunes, Homer H.e. Tong, Hung Wei, Bill Wilson 589 West Fremont Avenue (408) 522-2200 Post Office Box F FAX (408) 245-5325 Sunnyvale, CA 94087 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER http://www.fuhsd.org/

R7: To strengthen internal controls and ensure fiscal accountability, purchases made by the K-8 and K-12 Superintendents should be approved by the Boards of Trustees prior topurchase. In the event an immediate purchase is required, post-approval by the Board would ensure no conflicts of interest or abuses occur. Expenditures should bepresented separately from the Board's consent calendar to ensure proper scrutiny. Credit card statements and a listing of disbursements should beprovided to the Board for approval . • All K-8 and K-12 District Boards of Trustees Response: The recommendation has been partially implemented. Purchase orders issued by the Superintendent are presented to the Board for approval. In the event an immediate purchase is required, the purchase order is presented to the Board for post-approval. Purchase orders issued by the Superintendent are approved by the Board of Trustees on the consent calendar. If aBoard member wishes to discuss an item on the consent calendar, it can be pulled and scrutinized. Credit card statements and a listing of disbursements are approved by the Board President. If you require additional information please feel free to call me. Sincerely, Christine Mallery Chief Business Officer/Associate Superintendent crn/nrn

September 03, 2009 — Santa Clara County Schools - Inventory Practices

5 pages 7 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings

F1: Community colleges and K-12 boards of trustees are responsible for inventory control. However, after interviewing ALL board of trustee presidents it was evident they were unaware of their obligations under the law. MVLA Response: We agree with this finding, that Boards are responsible for inventory control. However, we believe our Board is generally aware of its obligations under the law.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Trustees should review and be knowledgeable of Education Code 35168 for K-12 and Education Code 81600 for Community Colleges. MVLA Response: This recommendation will be implemented. A copy of Education Code 35168 will be added to our September 14, 2009 Board Meeting Agenda and each year thereafter. It bears noting that the California Education Code 35168 was first enacted in 1976 and revised in 1984. The amount of $500 has not been changed since 1984 and is out-of-date.

F2: No trustees or superintendents/chancellors have been trained in inventory control. Inventory control training for board members and superintendents is not mandated by the State, resulting in alack of familiarity and inconsistent application of inventory requirements by many districts . • All K-8, K-12 and community college districts MVLA Response: We agree that training on inventory control is not mandated by the state for superintendent/chancellor or the Board. We have no familiarity of the application of inventory requirements of other districts.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: All Santa Clara County school board trustees and superintendentslchancellors should be required to review and understand Education Code 35168 and 81600 and BAM (Community College Budget and Accounting Manual) requirements for inventory control. MVLA Response: This recommendation will be implemented. The Board of Trustees will be given a copy of Education 35168 at the September 14, 2009 Board meeting. For K-12 Districts, the COE should take the lead in providing comprehensive training on inventory control, in conjunction with the release ofthe new inventory ----------- -_.- -_.--_.-- --_ .. Union High School District Responses: Santa Clara County Schools, Inventory Practices 9/3/09 tracking module within Quintessential Software Systems spearheaded by the COE. MVLA Response: Upon SCCOE's launch of its new inventory tracking/fixed asset module, MVLA plans to implement this system and have two business office staff members trained in its operation. Our conversion to this system is anticipated to be completed in the 2009-2010 school year.

F3: All district superintendents, chancellors and district staff report incomplete inventory information to their boards. This results in lack of knowledge about the value and size of their inventory. MVLA Response: The district agrees with the finding.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: All Boards of Trustees should require a presentation on the results of their districts' biennial inventory, including total value, variances resulting from the reconciliation between past and current inventories and a proposed plan to resolve discrepancies. MVLA Response: This recommendation will be partially implemented. Annual financial reports contain the value of inventory. However, with our current fiscal outlook, it is doubtful that there are funds to commit personnel or contractors required to perform this work. This is not a high priority item, as we have had fairly low exposure to loss of inventory. Additionally, this level of full inventory is not mandated by Education Code. The California State Accounting Manual states that the California Department recommends an annual inventory, but goes on to quote the Federal Register that: A physical inventory of equipment shall be taken and the results reconciled with the property records at least once every 2 vears to verity the existence, current utilization, and continued need for the equipment. A statistical samplinq basis is acceptable .... (CSAM Procedure 410)

F4: With the exception of Santa Clara Unified and Los Gatos Unified School Districts, all K-12 districts fail to understand the need to reconcile inventories from previous years to the latest inventory update. Without reconciliation, the opportunity to identify lost, missing or stolen items, take preventive measure, and obtain timely reimbursement may be lost. _. __ -__ - -- _n _ ----- ----- . -.----- -- ------.- .- Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School District Responses: Santa Clara County Schools, Inventory Practices 9/3/09 MVLA Response: We disagree. We have no knowledge whether or not other districts fail to understand the need to reconcile inventories, etc. The district recognizes the need to reconcile inventories, but may not have the resources to perform inventories and reconciliations as frequently as the Grand Jury suggests.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: All K-12 school districts should reconcile the most current, full inventory with prior inventories, to identify missing items and potential losses/thefts. The results will enable the districts to implement safeguards to prevent future losses. MVLA Response: Please see responses to Recommendations #1 and #3.

F5: Many K-12 districts are not following requirements for inventory control as stated in Education Code 35168, and/or their own policies. MVLA Response: The district agrees with the finding as detailed below: (A), (8), and (C) are not applicable to MVLA UHSD. (D): please see responses for Recommendations #1 and #3.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: See categories (A) (B) (C) (0): MVLA Response: Same as the response to Finding #5.

F6: Some school districts observed by the Grand Jury had a demonstrated understanding of the need for inventory control. Best practices include documenting and following a process, conforming to the Education Code requirements, and performing reconciliation to prior inventories. The following districts are to be commended on their best practices: • Fremont Union School District • Los Gatos Elementary District • Moreland School District • Orchard School District • Santa Clara Unified School District MVLA Response: No response required.

F7: There is a potential for abuse in K-8and K-12 districts when those who report to superintendents approve credit card transactions and purchase orders made by their superintendent . • All K-8 and K-12 School Districts 30f4 Responses: Santa Clara County Schools, Inventory Practices 9/3/09 MVLA Response: We agree with the finding.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: to strengthen internal controls and ensure fiscal accountability, purchases made by the K-8 and K-12 Superintendents should be approved by the Boards of Trustees prior to purchase. In the event an immediate purchase is required, post-approval by the Board would ensure no conflicts ofinterest or abuses occur. • All K-8 and K-12 District Boards of Trustees MVLA Response: We agree with the recommendation and implemented the process in July 2009. Expenditures should be presented separately from the Board's consent calendar to ensure proper scrutiny. MVLA Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. If a Board member wishes to discuss an item on the consent calendar, it can be pulled and scrutinized. Credit card statements and a listing ofdisbursements should be provided to the Board for approval. MVLA Response: A listing of disbursements has been included in our Board packets for many years. Effective with the September 14, 2009 Board meeting, we will include credit card statements for the Superintendent's office.

September 02, 2009 — SEP 1 52009 Foothill-de Anza Davidh. YAM Community College District Chief executive 0tfI Superior Court ofCACou lara

22 pages 6 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 6 findings

F1: Community colleges and K-12 boards of trustees are responsible for inventory control. However, after interviewing ALL board of trustee presidents it was evident they were unaware of their obligations under the law.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: 9/2/2009 Honorable Jamie Jacobs-May Page2of 7 Trustees should review and be knowledgeable of Education Code §35168 for K-12 and Education Code §81600 for community colleges to ensure complete implementation. Response 1: The district disagrees with Finding #1. FHDAhasacomprehensive set of Board Policies that govern inventory, inventory control and capitalization and appropriate means of disposal of equipment that isnot required for school purposes Through Board policy 3140, the Board delegates to one or more officers or employees of the District the authority to purchase supplies, materials, apparatus, equipment and services, subject to any restrictions and requirements of Education Code section 81656. These delegation resolutions are presented to the Board annually for adoption. Inventory Control isgoverned by Board Policy 3142 which ensures that appropriate records of capital outlay items are maintained asrequired bythe California Community Colleges Budget and Accounting Manual. Capitalization of District Property occurs for any real or personal property acquired by gift or purchase with an estimated useful life greater than one fiscal year and isgoverned by Board Policy 3210. This policy isimplemented through Administrative Procedure 3210 which includes acapitalization threshold based on asset types. Personal property belonging to the District that isfound to be unsatisfactory or unsuitable for school use may bedisposed of following the requirements of Board Policy 3211. Inthe event a need arises to utilize district owned equipment in an off-campus capacity such activity isgoverned by Board Policy 3212 and generally prohibits such useabsent express approval by chancellor or designee.

F2: No trustees or superintendents/chancellors have been trained in inventory control. Inventory control training for board members and superintendents is not mandated by the State, resulting in alack of familiarity and inconsistent application of inventory requirements by many districts.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: All Santa Clara County school board trustees and superintendents/chancellors should be required to review and understand Education Code §35168 and §81600 and BAM 9/2/2009 Honorable Jamie Jacobs-May Page3of 7 requirements for inventory control. For community colleges, the CCBoard should investigate additional training in the area of inventory control offered through organizations such asthe American Association of Community Colleges and the Community College League of California. Response 2: The district disagrees with Finding #2. FHDAhasacomprehensive set of Board Policies that govern inventory, inventory control and capitalization and appropriate means of disposal of equipment that is not required for school purposes.

F3: All district superintendents, chancellors and district staff report incomplete inventory information to their boards. This results in lack of knowledge about the value and sizeof their inventory.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: All Boards of Trustees should require a presentation on the results of their districts' biennial inventory, including total value, variances resulting from reconciliation between past and current inventories and a proposed plan to resolve discrepancies. Response 3: The District disagrees in part with Finding #3. The district is in the midst of implementing a new Financial Operating System and this system will include a Fixed Asset Module that isscheduled to go on-line bythe end of the 2009-10 fiscal year. With this system in place we will beable to implement a biennial inventory process and report this to the board.

F9: Three (3) of four (4) community college districts failed to conduct inventory asis specified by CSAM410 (California School Accounting Manual) Procedures and the California Community College Budget and Accounting Manual (BAM). Districts only included items at or above $5000 intheir inventory, where the requirements in CSAM and the BAM state that any items greater than $1000 should be included.

Related Recommendations (1)

R9: The Board of Trustees for Foothill/De Anza, Gavilan, and West Valley/Mission College Districts should ensure compliance with the CSAM410 procedures and BAM guidelines 9/2/2009 Honorable Jamie Jacobs-May Page4 of 7 bytracking inventory items greater than $1000. These districts should provide training for staff responsible for inventory. Response 9: The district disagrees with Finding #9. Inventory tracking at FHDAisgoverned by several sources. We are using the BAM Section 5.12 asaguide for our asset tracking policy for Economic Development equipment with apurchase price of $1000 or more for each individual item. For assets purchased with federal funds we used EDGAR(Education Department General Administrative Regulations) 34CFR80.32 to help usestablish procedures to value and track capital assets purchased with federal grants. Our policy includes identifying and valuing assets at $5000 or more per individual item, tagging the asset, maintaining alist of assets, performing an inventory every two years, and disposing of the assets. The requirements of the California Community Colleges Budget and Accounting Manual (BAM) are from time to time modified through certain Accounting Advisories. Accounting Advisory No. 2001-01, dated June 18, 2001, isexcerpted below and notes the following: "Based on federal guidelines, the State of California hasadopted a$5,000 capitalization threshold for capital assets (formerly tailed fixed assets). The FiscalStandards and Accountability Committee unanimously recommended raising the threshold for community colleges to the same level. Districts retain authority to inventory assets at alower level if there is local need to do so, but the $5,000 level isthe uniform system level for capitalization and depreciation. The committee also unanimously recommended tying the capitalization threshold for community colleges to the federal guidelines." "In further support of this position, the committee noted that raising the threshold will usually eliminate about 80% of the inventory line items, while retaining about 80% of the total value of the inventory. " "This Accounting Advisory supersedes the Budget and Accounting Manual, pages 2.47, 2.48, 4.64, 4.65, and 5.12 asit relates to inventory, capitalization, and depreciation." The content of these pages issummarized below: Pages2.47 and 2.48, noted the General Fixed Assets Account Group should account for all assets associated with the Governmental Fund Group having cost which exceed the minimum threshold for maintaining atrace inventory system ($1,000) and have auseful life of one year or longer. Pages4.64 and 4.65, required Districts to maintain an historical inventory, audit trace inventory system, or any other acceptable inventory system that contains the description, name, identification numbers, original cost, date of acquisition, location, and time and mode of disposal for all items of equipment that cost or had a market value at time of acquisition in excess of one thousand dollars ($1,000). Items of 9/2/2009 Honorable Jamie Jacobs-May Page5 of 7 equipment in the inventory system, aswell asany additions, should be accounted for in the General FixedAssets Account Group. Lastly, .12 defined equipment ashaving apurchase price of $200 or more and a useful life of one year or longer. The threshold for maintaining equipment in atrace inventory system and for recording the asset in the General FixedAssets Account Group is$1,000 and a useful life of one year or longer. Research indicates the following procurement patterns for FHDAequipment purchases with avaluation between $1000 and $4999 during the past two years: FiscalYear 2008-09 Atotal of 1629 items were purchased at acost of $2,744,999. Ofthe total acquisition amount, approximately 79.4% of the items were technology or computer related. FiscalYear 2007-08 Atotal of 1621_items were purchased at acost of $2,844,889. Ofthe total acquisition amount, approximately 75.6% %ofthe items were technology or computer related. Asnoted above, most of the equipment procured with avalue between $1,000 and $5,000 istechnology related. Our Educational Technology Services Division (ETS)usesthe following established procedure for tracking and tagging such equipment: All district purchased desktop and laptop computers are received through District Receiving. Then Plant Services delivers the equipment to the corresponding ETSTechnical Services team for each Campus. Once received byTech Services, the equipment isinventoried and compared to the Purchase Order to ensure all items and the correct items have been received. The equipment istagged, engraved and entered into the inventory database prior to deployment to the classroom or staff / faculty personnel. If equipment moves to adifferent staff person or department, the inventory database isupdated. For equipment that issurplused, the inventory database isupdated as to its disposition prior to being moved to the District holding location. 9/2/2009 Honorable Jamie Jacobs-May Page6of 7 For computer servers under the $5,000 dollar limit, they are inventoried and tagged byTech Services similar to the desktop and laptop computers. Our current practices allow usto track the vast majority of equipment that is purchased within this $1,000 to $5,000 range. The district isin the midst of implementing anew Financial Operating System and this system will include a FixedAsset Module that is scheduled to go on-line bythe end of the 2009-10 fiscal year.

F10: The following community college districts are not conducting inventories annually or reconciling to verify the existence, current utilization, and continued need for the equipment on a biennial basis, according to procedures specified in CSAM410 (California School Accounting Manual).

Related Recommendations (1)

R10: The Boards of Trustees for Foothill/De Anza and Gavilan Joint Community College Districts should ensure inventories are conducted asspecified in CSAM410. Response 10: The District disagrees in part with Finding #10. The district isin the midst of implementing a new Financial Operating System and this system will include a Fixed Asset Module that isscheduled to go on-line bythe,end of the 2009-10 fiscal year. With this system in place we will beable to implement a biennial inventory process and report this to the board.

F11: Chancellors' purchases (both credit card and purchase orders) are approved by subordinates, mainly direct reports. While the vast majority of these direct reports expressed that their chancellors are very conservative with regard to spending, there is a potential for abuse.

Related Recommendations (1)

R11: To strengthen internal controls and ensure fiscal accountability, purchases made by chancellors should be approved bythe Board of Trustees. Inthe event an immediate purchase is required, post-approval bythe Board would ensure no conflicts of interest or abuses occur. Credit card statements and a listing of disbursements should be 9/2/2009 Honorable Jamie Jacobs-May Page7of 7 provided to the Board for approval. Expenditures should be presented separately from the Board's consent calendar to ensure proper scrutiny. Response 11: The district agrees with Finding #11 even though each expense claim hasbeen found to be procedurally correct, the inherent conflict isobvious.

August 25, 2009 — Fil September 2,2009 Oct 0 9 2009 CDhieAfVeIxDecuHtiv.eYAOMfflcAerS/CAllKi'kI

24 pages 16 findings 15 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 16 findings

F1: 1a. FAF is invited but rarely attends the monthly meetings held by the Elmwood Captain at Elmwood, where Operations and Custody issues are discussed. Effective exchange of issues and concerns does not occur among all responsible agencies. 1b. The DOC Support Services Division Commander meets monthly with the FAF Executive Manager of Building Operations at Berger Drive. Problems expressed by staff do not appear to reach these individuals. Ie. Corrective Maintenance meetings are held every Thursday at I pm. on Berger Drive. They are attended by FAF Managers and the supervisors who answer to them. One or two high-ranking DOC Operations staff usually attend. Custody attends only when they have a problem. There is no agenda and no minutes are kept. These are informal meetings to air problems and give status reports on major projects. Id. FAF states they have an appointed Facilities Manager at DOC. However, DOC staff state they do not know of any "Facilities Manager."

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: DOC and FAF should schedule weekly meetings with mandatory attendance by DOC Operations Managers and FAF Maintenance Managers to discuss common problems and concerns, and to share project plans and updates. There should be a formal agenda and published minutes available toallstaff of both facilities, including Custody administration. The DOC Facilities Manager should be formally identified and his responsibilities as liaison made explicit toall staffby the Support Services Division Commander. FAF should implement the formal customer feedback mechanism cited in its reply to the 2008 County Building Maintenance Report. DOC Response Due to the long-term nature of maintenance and construction projects, weekly meetings between FAF and DOC managers are unnecessary. The suggestion of recording official minutes of meetings have merit and we support this recommendation. Currently the Correctional Support Services Manager (Operations/Facilities Manager) represents the DOC at monthly meetings attended by the FAF Building Operations Manager and the DOC Support Services Commander. Additionally the Correctional Support Services Manager meets monthly with the FAF managers from each ofthe identified "work centers" as established byFAF. The DOC "Facilities Manager" isthe Correctional Support Services Operational Manager. When DOC staff were asked if there was a Facilities Manager assigned to Elmwood by FAF to act as liaison; DOC staffwere confused by the phrasing ofthe question bythe Civil Grand Jury. DOC concurs that the customer feedback mechanism would behelpful.

F2: DOC is limited to setting all service requests as "Priority Three" orbelow, though they phone in emergency Priority One and Two requests for immediate help. Work orders are prioritized by the MAXIMO Building Operations Monitor Systems Operator and responded to according to the urgency of theproblem, defined as the "severity of the damage itcan do and the disruption tothe client's operations": . Priority 1- Healthand Safety - Immediate Response Priority 2- Mission Critical- 24-hour Response Priority 3- Painting, etc- 48-hour Response Priority 4- Tenant request, non-urgent - ten-day Response Priority 5- 30-day Response Priority Three response time is typically over one week. DOC states that problems such as a malfunctioning security camera may be assigned the samepriority as apainting job.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The ability of DOC to set priority should be revisited during the mandatory meetings between FAF and DOC. DOC Response DOC agrees; The DOC would like to establish service request priorities while taking into consideration FAF project and workload coordination. Recently DOC and FAF partially addressed this issue by consolidating the DOC input functions, giving responsibility to fewer people andproviding stafftraining.

F3: The Elmwood Office Specialist's primary job is to submit service requests to FAF. Other DOC personnel submit them as well, sometimes resulting in the same request being sent in multiple times, and duplicate work orders.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: DOC should assign one Office Specialist and one designated back up toenter all service requests to avoid duplicates. It should benoted DOC isalready working onthis problem. DOC Response DOC agrees; this issuehas been addressed as noted inDOC Response to Recommendation 2.

F4: DOC is not givenadvance notice of whenjobs will begin, but require such notice ifinmates must be moved.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: DOC service requests should indicate ifinmates would needtobe moved to allowFAF access. It should be noted that Custody administration has put itself on-call to be available any time for inmate moving to assist FAF inaccessing areas. DOC Response DOC agrees; The DOC understands that this issue delays project and maintenance details and has established better lines ofcommunication with FAFtomitigate these concerns.

F5: 5a. There are approximately 100 entries and exits per day by FAF personnel at Elmwood, 30 of which are not electronically recorded, and 70 of which are recorded by card swipe. 5b. With an average of20 corrective maintenance service requests per day, DOC is unable to reconcile the large number of workers with the number ofjobs, and the large numbers of entries and exits. DOC questions the need for so many FAF staff at Elmwood. 5c. DOC does not know which jobs are being done on any particular day. 5d. DOC is not informed ofjob progress. This is problematic when jobs involve more than one trade. Trades do not communicate and work stops until DOC realizes the first part of ajob is done and it is time to schedule the next trade. 4 5e. DOC is not given notice ofjob completion and must personally check job areas for job status, which is time-consuming in a 62+ acre facility.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: Sa. FAF should track entries by work order number. This will identify any superfluous personnel at Elmwood. 5b. FAF should addan additional cardreader atthe West entrance off Thompson St. 5c. FAF should simultaneously fax duplicates of daily work orders to the OS desk. DOC would be able tospot-check work inprogress, precluding the need to contact FAF. 5d. SeeFinding 5dand5e. 5e. SeeFinding 5dand 5e. DOC Response DOC defers toFAF inregards to 5a, 5b,and 5c. DOC agrees with 5d and 5e; DOC has concerns about the lack of information available to determine "real time" status of work orders and in progress projects. The Correctional Support Services Manager is working with FAF managers to address this issue. DOC staff is also reviewing the FAF work order database and the interface database and will make modification recommendations designed toaddress these concerns.

F6: DOC has been unable to electronically monitor work status.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: FAF should provide DOC with training on how to access and utilize MAXIMO capabilities as they relate to DOC concerns. DOC Response DOC agrees; DOC and FAF have recently worked together to provide staff training and to provide increased access tothe MAXIMO system for DOC staff.

F7: 7a. There islittle orno supervision of FAF staff and DOC notices, "idle" FAF staff. 7b. DOC Operations staff does not inspect or approve completed jobs done by either FAF or outside vendors/contractors. FAF workers sign off ontheir ownjobs. 4 7c. The DOC Correctional Support Services Manager is not readily available at Elmwood. Custody personnel must liaise with FAF on big jobs, though Operations is not their responsibility. 7d. The DOC Assistant Operations Manager, though stationed at Elmwood, does not frequently leavethe shop area tomonitor theoverall stateofthe facility, andto oversee and coordinate the efforts of Ops and FAF. This task is left to other Operations and Custody personnel who arethen forced toneglect their specified duties.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: DOC should direct the DOC Correctional Support Services Manager to spend sufficient time at Elmwood to effectively supervise and monitor ongoing work. He should be accessible to his Ops staff soissues canbe conveyed toFAF during meetings. DOC should ensure that the appropriate DOC personnel conduct spot visits to work areas and regular patrols of Elmwood with the Safety Officer, and be available to liaise with FAF on major projects. DOC Response DOC agrees; the Correctional Support Services Manager has been directed to spend moretime at Elmwood and is currently required tovisit the Elmwood Complex and inspectsFAF work details as needed. DOC operations and custody staff arecurrently performing spot checks ofFAF work. '

F8: FAF deletes work orders that are not addressed within three months from the system without always firstnotifying the client.

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: FAF needs to check with DOC before deleting or closing inactive work orders, even though the deletions may seem tobe "common sense" decisions. DOC Response DOC agrees.

F9: On average, there are four outside vendors/contractors working at Elmwood per day. They must be escorted by CSAs. If they arrive unexpectedly, CSAs may be on other assignments, and the vendors must wait until CSAs areavailable, wasting time andmoney.

Related Recommendations (1)

R9: FAF should inform DOC as far in advance as possible to arrange for escorts when multiple vendors are scheduled. FAF should advise DOC of where vendors are to work, and be prepared to escort the vendors if necessary. DOC Response DOC agrees.

F10: FAF work isfrequently delayed when inmates are inareas FAF needsto access. ReconunendationlO FAF should make every effort to let DOC know when FAF needs access to inmate occupied areas. It should be noted that Custody administration has put itself on-call to be available any time for inmate moving to assist FAF in accessing areas, and that FAF plans to assign one of its long-time Elmwood workers as onsite supervisor forthe entire facility. DOC Response DOC agrees.

Related Recommendations (1)

R10: FAF should make every effort to let DOC know when FAF needs access to inmate occupied areas. It should be noted that Custody administration has put itself on-call to be available any time for inmate moving to assist FAF in accessing areas, and that FAF plans to assign one of its long-time Elmwood workers as onsite supervisor for the entire facility. FAF Response Agree. FAF will make every effort to advise DOC as far in advance as possible that work in an occupied area isplanned.

F11: DOC receives a non-itemized bill from FAF for accumulated corrective maintenance charges. In FY 2008, this bill totaled $3.364M.

Related Recommendations (1)

R11: FAF should provide to DOC an itemized quarterly statement so that the charges can be reconciled with the servicesprovided to ensure accurate accounting. DOC Response DOC agrees.

F12: Several DOC personnel enter service requests to FAF (through the FAF web site or bye-mail). This at times results in duplicate requests, resulting in duplicate work orders. The duplicates show up onMAXIMO as incompletejobs, requiring review several months later.

Related Recommendations (1)

R12: It should be noted DOC is already working on designating only one individual to enter all requests. DOC Response DOC agrees. ., 6

F13: FAF supervisors work at Berger Drive. They make brief and infrequent visits to Elmwood. As a result, FAF is unable to verify the hours their workers spend on the job.

Related Recommendations (1)

R13: FAF should designate a supervisor for Elmwood. It should be noted that FAF plans to assign one of their long-time Elmwood workers as onsite supervisor for the facility. DOC Response DOC agrees.

F14: FAF has not implemented the formal customer feedback process cited in its response to the 2007-2008 Civil Grand Jury Report County Building Maintenance: High Cost, Poor Customer Communication.

Related Recommendations (1)

R14: FAF should implement the formal customer feedback process cited in its response to the 2007 2008 Civil Grand Jury Report County Building Maintenance: High Cost, Poor Customer Communication. DOC Response DOC agrees.

F15: FAF Building Operations last received a county management audit in 1991 when it was known as GSA.

Related Recommendations (1)

R15: The County Board of Supervisors should order a management audit on FAF. Administration Response: The Department of Corrections and Fleet and Facilities have communicated openly and productively on the suggestions for improvements for their relationship discussed in the report. Each year, the management auditor, Harvey Rose, does a risk assessment and the Finance Committee requests input from Board members and then establishes the work plan for Harvey Rose which is then approved by the full Board. The risk assessment reviews the last time a department was audited and the GeneralFund exposure as a way of determining priority. The Board considers each department every year before setting priorities, and /the Grand Jury recommendation will be included in the Board's consideration for FY 2011. Customer service is a high priority for the new FAF Director, and itwould be the Administration's preference that the energy and focus for the Department be on making improvements in that area rather than supporting the work required for a management audit. The foregoing instrument isa correct copy cc: Jeff Draper, Facilities and Fleet Director of the original. Edward Flores, Chief of Correction ATTEST: Maria Marinos Clerk ofthe Board 2 Attachments BY:~"-"'-~~ Deputy Clerk Date: AUG 2 ~ 2009 Board ofSupervisors: Donald F.Gage.George M.Shirakawa. DaveCortese. KenYeager. Liz Kniss Acting County Executive: Gary A.Graves County of Santa Clara Department of Correction 180West Hedding Street San Jose, California 95110-1772 (408) 808-3640 Fax288-8271 Edward C.Flores Chief ofCorrection August 10, 2009 Gary A. Graves Acting County Executive County Executive's Office 70 West Hedding Street, 11th Floor San Jose, Ca 95110 Subject Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report "Department of CorrectionIFacilities and Fleet - a Broken Relationship in Need of Repair" -Dear Mr. Graves: Per your request attached you will find the Department of Correction's response to the Department of CorrectionIFacilities and Fleet - a Broken Relationshjp in Need of R~pair. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Edward C. Flores The foregoing instrument isacorrect copy of the original. Chief of Correction ATTEST: Maria Marinos Clerk ofthe Board ECF:cc Copy: BY:~~~~ Deputy Clerk Date: AUG 2 5 2009 Board ofSupervisors: Donald F.Gage,George M.Shirakawa, DaveCortese, KenYeager, LizKniss Acting County Executive: Gary A.Graves Response to Grand Jury Report 2008 - 2009 Civil Grand Jury Report Title: Department of Correction/Facilities and Fleet - a Broken Relationship in Need of Repair Report Date: August 6,2009 Response by: Edward Flores Title: Chief of Correction Department of Correction, County of Santa Clara

FI: Ia. FAF is invited but rarely attends the monthly meetings held by the Elmwood Captain at Elmwood, where' Operations and Custody issues are discussed. Effective exchange of issues and concerns does not occuramong allresponsible agencies. Ib. The DOC Support Services Division Commander meets monthly with the FAF Executive Manager of Building Operations at Berger Drive. Problems expressed by staff do not appear to reach these individuals. I Ie. Corrective Maintenance meetings are held every Thursday at pm. on Berger Drive. They are attended by FAF Managers and the supervisors who answer to them. One or two high ranking DOC Operations staff usually attends. Custody attends only when they have a problem. There is no agenda and no minutes are kept. These are informal meetings to air problems and give status reports onmajor projects. Id. FAF states they have an appointed Facilities Manager at DOC. However, DOC staff state they do notknow of any"Facilities Manager." Board ofSupervisors: Donald F.Gage, GeorgeM. Shirakawa, DaveCortese, KenYeager, LizKniss Acting County Executive: Gary A.Graves Recommendation 1 DOC and FAF should schedule weekly meetings with mandatory attendance by DOC Operations Managers and FAF Maintenance Managers to discuss common problems and concerns, and to share project plans and updates. There should be a formal agenda and published minutes available toallstaff of both facilities, including Custody administration. The DOC Facilities Manager should be formally identified and his responsibilities as liaison made explicit toall staffby the Support Services Division Commander. FAF should implement the formal customer feedback mechanism cited in its reply to the 2008 County Building Maintenance Report. DOC Response Due to the long-term nature of maintenance and construction projects, weekly meetings between FAF and DOC managers are unnecessary. The suggestion of recording official minutes of meetings have merit and we support this recommendation. Currently the Correctional Support Services Manager (Operations/Facilities Manager) represents the DOC at monthly meetings attended by the FAF Building Operations Manager and the DOC Support Services Commander. Additionally the Correctional Support Services Manager meets monthly with the FAF managers from each ofthe identified "work centers" as established byFAF. The DOC "Facilities Manager" isthe Correctional Support Services Operational Manager. When DOC staff were asked if there was a Facilities Manager assigned to Elmwood by FAF to act as liaison; DOC staffwere confused by the phrasing ofthe question bythe Civil Grand Jury. DOC concurs that the customer feedback mechanism would behelpful. Finding 2 DOC is limited to setting all service requests as "Priority Three" orbelow, though they phone in emergency Priority One and Two requests for immediate help. Work orders are prioritized by the MAXIMO Building Operations Monitor Systems Operator and responded to according to the urgency of theproblem, defined as the "severity of the damage itcan do and the disruption tothe client's operations": . Priority 1- Healthand Safety - Immediate Response Priority 2- Mission Critical- 24-hour Response Priority 3- Painting, etc- 48-hour Response Priority 4- Tenant request, non-urgent - ten-day Response Priority 5- 30-day Response Priority Three response time is typically over one week. DOC states that problems such as a malfunctioning security camera may be assigned the samepriority as apainting job. Recommendation 2 The ability of DOC to set priority should be revisited during the mandatory meetings between FAF and DOC. DOC Response DOC agrees; The DOC would like to establish service request priorities while taking into consideration FAF project and workload coordination. Recently DOC and FAF partially addressed this issue by consolidating the DOC input functions, giving responsibility to fewer people andproviding stafftraining. Finding 3 The Elmwood Office Specialist's primary job is to submit service requests to FAF. Other DOC personnel submit them as well, sometimes resulting in the same request being sent in multiple times, and duplicate work orders. Recommendation 3 DOC should assign one Office Specialist and one designated back up toenter all service requests to avoid duplicates. It should benoted DOC isalready working onthis problem. DOC Response DOC agrees; this issuehas been addressed as noted inDOC Response to Recommendation 2. Finding 4 DOC is not givenadvance notice of whenjobs will begin, but require such notice ifinmates must be moved. Recommendation 4 DOC service requests should indicate ifinmates would needtobe moved to allowFAF access. It should be noted that Custody administration has put itself on-call to be available any time for inmate moving to assist FAF inaccessing areas. DOC Response DOC agrees; The DOC understands that this issue delays project and maintenance details and has established better lines ofcommunication with FAFtomitigate these concerns. FindingS Sa. There are approximately 100 entries and exits per day by FAF personnel at Elmwood, 30 ofwhich arenot electronically recorded, and 70ofwhichare recorded bycard swipe. Sh. With an average of 20 corrective maintenance service requests per day, DOC is unable to reconcile the large number of workers with the number ofjobs, and the large numbers of entries and exits. DOC questions the need for somany FAF staff atElmwood. Sc. DOC does notknow whichjobs arebeing doneon anyparticular day. 3 5d. DOC is not informed of job progress. This is problematic when jobs involve more than onetrade. Trades do not communicate andwork stops until DOC realizes the first part of a job is done andit istime to schedule thenext trade. 5e. DOC is not given notice of job completion and must personally check job areas for job status, which istime-consuming ina62acrefacility. Recommendation 5 Sa. FAF should track entries by work order number. This will identify any superfluous personnel at Elmwood. 5b. FAF should addan additional cardreader atthe West entrance off Thompson St. 5c. FAF should simultaneously fax duplicates of daily work orders to the OS desk. DOC would be able tospot-check work inprogress, precluding the need to contact FAF. 5d. SeeFinding 5dand5e. 5e. SeeFinding 5dand 5e. DOC Response DOC defers toFAF inregards to 5a, 5b,and 5c. DOC agrees with 5d and 5e; DOC has concerns about the lack of information available to determine "real time" status of work orders and in progress projects. The Correctional Support Services Manager is working with FAF managers to address this issue. DOC staff is also reviewing the FAF work order database and the interface database and will make modification recommendations designed toaddress these concerns. Finding 6 DOC has been unable to electronically monitor work status. Recommendation 6 FAF should provide DOC with training on how to access and utilize MAXIMO capabilities as they relate to DOC concerns. DOC Response DOC agrees; DOC and FAF have recently worked together to provide staff training and to provide increased access tothe MAXIMO system for DOC staff. Finding 7 7a. There islittle orno supervision of FAF staff and DOC notices, "idle" FAF staff. 7b. DOC Operations staff does not inspect or approve completed jobs done by either FAF or outside vendors/contractors. FAF workers sign off ontheir ownjobs. 4 7c. The DOC Correctional Support Services Manager is not readily available at Elmwood. Custody personnel must liaise with FAF on big jobs, though Operations is not their responsibility. 7d. The DOC Assistant Operations Manager, though stationed at Elmwood, does not frequently leavethe shop area tomonitor theoverall stateofthe facility, andto oversee and coordinate the efforts of Ops and FAF. This task is left to other Operations and Custody personnel who arethen forced toneglect their specified duties. Recommendation 7 DOC should direct the DOC Correctional Support Services Manager to spend sufficient time at Elmwood to effectively supervise and monitor ongoing work. He should be accessible to his Ops staff soissues canbe conveyed toFAF during meetings. DOC should ensure that the appropriate DOC personnel conduct spot visits to work areas and regular patrols of Elmwood with the Safety Officer, and be available to liaise with FAF on major projects. DOC Response DOC agrees; the Correctional Support Services Manager has been directed to spend moretime at Elmwood and is currently required tovisit the Elmwood Complex and inspectsFAF work details as needed. DOC operations and custody staff arecurrently performing spot checks ofFAF work. ' Finding 8 FAF deletes work orders that are not addressed within three months from the system without always firstnotifying the client. Recommendation 8 FAF needs to check with DOC before deleting or closing inactive work orders, even though the deletions may seem tobe "common sense" decisions. DOC Response DOC agrees. Finding 9 On average, there are four outside vendors/contractors working at Elmwood per day. They must be escorted by CSAs. If they arrive unexpectedly, CSAs may be on other assignments, and the vendors must wait until CSAs areavailable, wasting time andmoney. Recommendation 9 FAF should inform DOC as far in advance as possible to arrange for escorts when multiple vendors are scheduled. FAF should advise DOC of where vendors are to work, and be prepared to escort the vendors if necessary. DOC Response DOC agrees. Finding 10 FAF work isfrequently delayed when inmates are inareas FAF needsto access. ReconunendationlO FAF should make every effort to let DOC know when FAF needs access to inmate occupied areas. It should be noted that Custody administration has put itself on-call to be available any time for inmate moving to assist FAF in accessing areas, and that FAF plans to assign one of its long-time Elmwood workers as onsite supervisor forthe entire facility. DOC Response DOC agrees. Finding 11 DOC receives a non-itemized bill from FAF for accumulated corrective maintenance charges. In FY 2008, this bill totaled $3.364M. Recommendation 11 FAF should provide to DOC an itemized quarterly statement so that the charges can be reconciled with the servicesprovided to ensure accurate accounting. DOC Response DOC agrees. Finding 12 Several DOC personnel enter service requests to FAF (through the FAF web site or bye-mail). This at times results in duplicate requests, resulting in duplicate work orders. The duplicates show up onMAXIMO as incompletejobs, requiring review several months later. Recommendation 12 It should be noted DOC is already working on designating only one individual to enter all requests. DOC Response DOC agrees. ., 6 Finding 13 FAF supervisors work at Berger Drive. They make brief and infrequent visits to Elmwood. As a result, FAF is unable to verify the hours their workers spend on the job. Recommendation 13 FAF should designate a supervisor for Elmwood. It should be noted that FAF plans to assign one of their long-time Elmwood workers as onsite supervisor for the facility. DOC Response DOC agrees. Finding 14 FAF has not implemented the formal customer feedback process cited in its response to the 2007-2008 Civil Grand Jury Report County Building Maintenance: High Cost, Poor Customer Communication. Recommendation 14 FAF should implement the formal customer feedback process cited in its response to the 2007 2008 Civil Grand Jury Report County Building Maintenance: High Cost, Poor Customer Communication. DOC Response DOC agrees. Finding 15 FAF Building Operations last received a county management audit in 1991 when it was known as GSA. Recommendation 15 The County Board of Supervisors should order a management audit on FAF. DOC Response DOC will defer to Administration. Theforegoing Instrumentisacorrectcopy oftheoriginal. ATTEST: MariaMarinos n BY:~~ Clerk~ theBoa~d _ (\ Deputy Clerk Date: AUG 2 5 2009 7 County of Santa Clara Facilities and Fleet Department Administration 2310 N.First Street, 2nd Floor, Suite 200 San Jose, California 95131-1101 (408)993-4700 FAX (408)993-4801 Date: August 10, 2009 To: Gary A. Graves Acting Coun lve From: rrey D. Draper, Director Facilities and Fleet Department Subject: Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report "Department of Correction/Facilities and Fleet - a Broken Relationship in Need of Repair" While Facilities and Fleet (FAF) agrees with a number of the recommendations contained in the 12 page report, FAF disagrees with the report's characterization of the relationship between the Department of Correction (DOC) and FAF as dysfunctional. The fact is that great effort over the last few years has led to a significantly improved working relationship between the departments. DOC and FAF are both large and complex organizations that operate 24 hours per day in various locations under trying circumstances, e.g. austere budget situation, unrelenting and daunting workloads, aging facilities, etc. Communication, priority setting and coordination of operations are challenging, and both departments acknowledge that improvements can be made both within our departments and in working with each other. To that end, FAF will redouble efforts at improving communication and coordination with DOC in order to provide the best possible service to DOC within the resources available in order to help DOC achieve its mission. The Grand Jury stated that the DOC generates "over 66% of the county's FAF business." While DOC is a major customer, DOC facilities represent 23.94% of the 4,797,954 square feet maintained by FAF. Looked at differently, 36% of the direct service staffhours of the FAF Building Operations Division is used to service DOC facilities including preventive and corrective maintenance as well as project related work. Or yet another look, 39% of the work orders received by FAF are generated by DOC. FAF noted from the Grand Jury's report that there is some confusion, at least in the minds of some staff interviewed in conjunction with the investigation, about the roles and responsibilities of parties in both departments toward maintenance of DOC facilities. Apparently, the role of what the County labels a departmental "Facility Manager" needs to be clarified and reinforced. The number of secure entries by FAF staff needs to be better understood and perhaps made more efficient. Proper methods of accessing the work order entry system in order to initiate work and be kept up dated on its status, need to be improved upon and communicated. The system of tracking time and evaluating employee productivity and performance also needs to be more closely studied for improvement opportunities. Board ofSupervisors: Donald F.Gage, George Shirakawa, DaveCortese, KenYeager, LizKniss Acting County Executive: GaryA Graves FAF's response to each recommendation is as follows: Finding 1 1a. FAF is invited but rarely attends the monthly meetings held by the Elmwood Captain at Elmwood, where Operations and Custody issues are discussed. Effective exchange of issues and concerns does not occur among all responsible agencies. 1b. The DOC Support Services Division Commander meets monthly with the FAF Executive Manager of Building Operations at Berger Drive. Problems expressed by staff do not appear to reach these individuals. Ie. Corrective Maintenance meetings are held every Thursday at I pm. on Berger Drive. They are attended by FAF Managers and the supervisors who answer to them. One or two high-ranking DOC Operations staff usually attend. Custody attends only when they have a problem. There is no agenda and no minutes are kept. These are informal meetings to air problems and give status reports on major projects. Id. FAF states they have an appointed Facilities Manager at DOC. However, DOC staff state they do not know of any "Facilities Manager." Recommendation 1 DOC and FAF should schedule weekly meetings with mandatory attendance by DOC Operations Managers and FAF Maintenance Managers to discuss common problems and concerns, and to share project plans and updates. There should be a formal agenda and published minutes available to all staff of both facilities, including Custody administration. The DOC Facilities Manager should be formally identified and his responsibilities as liaison made explicit to all staff by the Support Services Division Commander. FAF should implement the formal customer feedback mechanism cited in its reply to the 2008 County Building Maintenance Report. FAF Response FAF Building Operations attends the DOC Chiefs Weekly Staff meeting along with all DOC divisions including Custody administration atboth facilities. FAF Building Operations and DOC Operations meet monthly and important issues are documented for follow up. FAF is willing to meet more often provided DOC feels additional meetings would add value. The DOC "Facilities Manager" isthe DOC Support Services Manager. DOC is not confused on this issue. FAF does not have a "Facilities Manager" assigned to either Elmwood or the jail complex. While email, telephone calls, meetings, and personal visits provide ample opportunities for customer feedback, FAF agrees that a formal customer feedback system needs to be implemented and is in the process of doing so. Finding 2 DOC is limited to setting all service requests as "Priority Three" or below, though they phone in emergency Priority One and Two requests for immediate help. Work orders are prioritized by the MAXIMO Building.Operations Monitor Systems Operator and responded to according to the urgency of the problem, defined as the "severity of the damage it can do and the disruption to the client's operations": I- Priority Health and Safety - Immediate Response Priority 2- Mission Critical - 24-hour Response Priority 3- Painting, etc - 48-hour Response Priority 4 - Tenant request, non-urgent - ten-day Response Priority 5- 30-day Response Priority Three response time is typically over one week. DOC states that problems such as a malfunctioning security camera may be assigned the same priority as a painting job. Recommendation 2 The ability of DOC to set priority should be revisited during the mandatory meetings between FAF and DOC. FAF Response Agree in concept with this recommendation. FAF will take the lead in revisiting the structure of the prioritization system with DOC to make sure the system works for both departments. DOC currently has the ability to set priorities. High priority work must be called in to the MAC Room, while priority 3,4, and 5 work can be submitted via a web site. A malfunctioning security camera should be classified as a priority I or 2 depending on DOC's determination of that camera's importance to their mission. A response time goal for priority 3 work is one work week, not 48-hours as noted in the finding. Finding 3 The Elmwood Office Specialist's primary job is to submit service requests to FAF. Other DOC personnel submit them as well, sometimes resulting in the same request being sent in multiple times, and duplicate work orders. Recommendation 3 3 DOC should assign one Office Specialist and one designated back-up to enter all service requests to avoid duplicates. It should be noted DOC is already working on this problem. FAF Response Agree in concept with this recommendation. DOC has recently consolidated input functions giving responsibility to fewer people and providing training to each person to obtain the best result. FAF has been supporting this shift by providing DOC staff more training. Finding 4 DOC is not given advance notice of when jobs will begin, but require such notice if inmates must be moved. Recommendation 4 DOC service requests should indicate if inmates will need to be moved t.oallow FAF access. It should be noted that Custody administration has put itself on-call to be available any time for inmate moving to assist FAF in accessing areas. FAF ReslJonse Agree in concept with the recommendation. FAF and DOC collaborate regularly in scheduling work and in spite of the challenges and emergencies that occur, mostly find away to accomplish most of the work without major impacts to either department. DOC and FAF staff will continue to communicate . regarding work scheduling to minimize disruptions and maximize productivity. Finding 5 5a. There are approximately 100 entries and exits per day by FAF personnel at Elmwood, 30 of which are not electronically recorded, and 70 of which are recorded by card swipe. 5b. With an average of20 corrective maintenance service requests per day, DOC is unable to reconcile the large number of workers with the number ofjobs, and the large numbers of entries and exits. DOC questions the need for so many FAF staff at Elmwood. 5c. DOC does not know which jobs are being done on any particular day. 5d. DOC is not informed ofjob progress. This is problematic when jobs involve more than one trade. Trades do not communicate and work stops until DOC realizes the first part of ajob is done and it is time to schedule the next trade. 4 5e. DOC is not given notice ofjob completion and must personally check job areas for job status, which is time-consuming in a 62+ acre facility. Recommendation 5 5a. FAF should track entries by work order number. This will identify any superfluous personnel at Elmwood. 5b. FAF should add an additional card reader at the West entrance off Thompson St. 5c. FAF should simultaneously fax duplicates of daily work orders to the OS desk. DOC would be able to spot::check work in progress, precluding the need to contact FAF. 5d. See Finding 5d and 5e. 5e. See Finding 5d and 5e. FAF Response 5a. Agree in concept, but implementation is complex since staff members are typically assigned more than one work order at a time. However FAF will evaluate the suggestion for future implementation as part of its initiative to implement real time tasking via handheld electronic devices. 5b. Agree to work with DOC and evaluate the situation. Review of the May 2009 data showed only 9 FAF entries at the West Gate. Four ofthese were FAF staff, while five were contractor staff working on facility projects. Contractor staff members are required to enter through the West gate to go to a project site tU1lessthey are driving a piece of equipment necessary to support the project. FAF will work with DOC to monitor the level of FAF or other departmental entries at the West gate over the next few months, but atthis time it does not appear the level of FAF entries at this location warrants a card reader installation at this location. FAF will follow DOC's protocols for entries and exits at the West Gate. 5c. Agree in concept. DOC now has access to work order status through computerized maintenance management system. 5d. Agree in concept. FAF is working with DOC to improve commtU1ication on each and every project. Supervisory staff members are being asked to follow up with DOC more regularly regarding work status, scheduling, and completion. FAF is also working to improve the computerized maintenance management system to automate work order status reports in as real time as possible and FAF is looking into implementing the use of handheld devices for tasking and noting completion of work orders on a real time basis. 5 5e. Agree in concept FAF is working with DOC and the computerized maintenance management system to make work order status checks as real time as possible. FAF is looking into implementing the use of handheld devices for tasking and noting completion of work orders on a real time basis. Finding 6 DOC has been unable to electronically monitor work status. Recommendation 6 FAF should provide DOC with training on how to access and utilize MAXIMO capabilities as they relate to DOC concerns. FAF Response DOC and FAF have been working together to provide this training and to provide increased use of the MAXIMO system for DOC staff. Finding 7 7a. There is little or no supervision of FAF staff and DOC notices "idle" FAF staff. 7b. DOC Operations staff does not inspect or approve completed jobs done by either FAF or outside vendors/contractors. FAF workers sign off on their own jobs. 7c. The DOC Correctional Support Services Manager is not readily available at Elmwood. Custody personnel must liaise with FAF on big jobs, though Operations is not their responsibility. 7d. The DOC Assistant Operations Manager, though stationed at Elmwood, does not frequently leave the shop area to monitor the overall state of the facility, and to oversee and coordinate the efforts of Ops and FAF. This task is left to other Operations and Custody personnel who are then forced to neglect their specified duties. Recommendation 7 DOC should direct the DOC Correctional Support Services Manager to spend sufficient time at Elmwood to effectively supervise and monitor ongoing work. He should be accessible to his Ops staff so issues can be conveyed to FAF during meetings. DOC should ensure that the appropriate DOC personnel conduct spot visits to work areas and regular patrols of Elmwood with the Safety Officer, and be available to liaise with FAF on major projects. FAF Response DOC's Support Services Manager has been spending more time at Elmwood. 6 . In addition to the recommended DOC spot checks ofFAF work, FAF supervisors have been directed to spend more time spot checking work in the field and they regularly report to Elmwood. Finding 8 FAF deletes work orders that are not addressed within three months from the system without always first notifying the client. Recommendation 8 FAF needs to check with DOC before deleting or closing inactive work orders, even though the deletions may seem to be "common sense" decisions. FAF Response Agree that FAF will consult with DOC prior to cancelling any work orders. While no work orders are deleted from the system, it has been common practice to cancel certain types of work orders that have no work hours against them after 90 days. Examples of such work orders are toilet back ups or plumbing leaks. FAF staff members do respond to these calls regularly and correct the deficiencies but periodically put their time on other work orders they are working on that day. As a result some of the work orders have remained in the system as still in progress until cancelled. Recent changes in the computerized maintenance management system have improved management's ability to see and check status on work orders that are exceeding the expected response times. Finding 9 On average, there are four outside vendors/contractors working at Elmwood per day. They must be .escorted by CSAs. If they arrive unexpectedly, CSAs may be on other assignments, and the vendors must wait until CSAs are available, wasting time and money. Recommendation 9 FAF should inform DOC as far in advance as possible to arrange for escorts when multiple vendors are scheduled. FAF should advise DOC of where vendors are to work, and be prepared to escort the vendors if necessary. FAF Response Agree. FAF will inform DOC as far in advance as possible to arrange for escorts. FAF will also advise vendors to coordinate access requests in a timely manner. There has been a lot of facilities work at Elmwood over the past couple of years, and as aresult the DOC CSA staff has been stretched thin. Finding 10 7 FAF work is frequently delayed when inmates are in areas FAF needs to access. Recommendation 10 FAF should make every effort to let DOC know when FAF needs access to inmate occupied areas. It should be noted that Custody administration has put itself on-call to be available any time for inmate moving to assist FAF in accessing areas, and that FAF plans to assign one of its long-time Elmwood workers as onsite supervisor for the entire facility. FAF Response Agree. FAF will make every effort to advise DOC as far in advance as possible that work in an occupied area isplanned. Finding 11 DOC receives a non-itemized bill from FAF for accumulated corrective maintenance charges. In FY 2008, this bill totaled $3.364M. Recommendation 11 FAF should provide te DOC an itemized quarterly statement so that the charges can be reconciled with the services provided to ensure accurate accounting. FAF Response Agree in concept. In FY 2008, DOC was billed $582,423 and in FY2009, DOC was billed only $369,846. The figure of $3.364M in the finding is a reference to all work that was accomplished at any DOC facility in FY2008, with most of those resources having been programmed and expensed as part of the FAF budget. DOC actually has access to billing information in the County accounting system. FAF regularly accepts feedback and resolves overcharges from departments who feel they have been inappropriately charged for reimbursable work. Finding 12 Several DOC personnel enter service requests to FAF (through the FAF web site or by e-mail). This at times results in duplicate requests, resulting in duplicate work orders. The duplicates show up on MAXIMO as incomplete jobs, requiring review several months later. Recommendation 12 It should be noted DOC is already working on designating only one individual to enter all requests. FAF Response DOC is already implementing this recommendation. Finding 13 FAF supervisors work at Berger Drive. They make brief and infrequent visits to Elmwood. As a result, FAF is unable to verify the hours their workers spend on the job. Recommendation 13 FAF should designate a supervisor for Elmwood. It should be noted that FAF plans to assign one of their long-time Elmwood workers as onsite supervisor for the facility. FAF Response Agree in concept. FAF Managers and Supervisor have put into effect a schedule for daily visits to Elmwood to provide supervision and monitoring of FAF staff. These supervisors and managers will be coordinating closely with the DOC Support Services Manager. Finding 14 FAF has not implemented the formal customer feedback process cited in its response to the 2007-2008 Civil Grand Jury Report County Building Maintenance: High Cost, Poor Customer Communication. Recommendation 14 FAF should implement the formal customer feedback process cited in its response to the 2007-2008 Civil Grand Jury Report County Building Maintenance: High Cost, Poor Customer Communication. FAF Response Agree in concept with this recommendation. FAF is working with DOC to clarify issues and open communications through weekly and monthly meetings and FAF daily supervisor site visits. Frank discussions with Elmwood Captain, Lt. Taylor and Sgt Liddle indicate communications with FAF have greatly improved over the past couple afyears and they are generally happy with the current situation. It was noted by DOC that some past unfavorable events may continue in the memory of current DOC staff While emai1, telephone calls, meetings, and personal visits provide ample opportunities for customer feedback, FAF agrees that a formal customer feedback system needs to be implemented and is in the process of doing so. Finding 15 FAF Building Operations last received a county management audit in 1991 when it was known as GSA. Recommendation 15 The foregoing Instrument isacorrect copy of the original. ATTEST: Maria Marinos 9 Clerk ofthe Board ••.. B'f.~~~ Deputy Clerk Date: AUG 2 5 2009 The County Board of Supervisors should order a management audit on FAF. FAF Response FAF will defer to the Administration regarding an audit. 10

August 24, 2009 — Santa Clara

21 pages 6 findings 24 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 6 findings

F2: The CWC is not independent. ewe members are appointed or have their appointment approved the VTA Board, the verypeople they are charged with overseeing. In other transportation agencies in California, citizen oversight bodies are appointed and/or approved by independent third parties (See Appendix A). Response VTA disagrees with the finding. While the Board of Directors does ratify CWC appointments, the appointments come from avariety of specified organizations. The model used was the successful 1996 Measure B Citizens Watchdog Committee. The Board has never rejected a proposed CWC appointment.

Related Recommendations (4)

R2: "CAC/CWC members are approved by the Board, compromising independence of thought and action. " The Board ratifies the appointments made by stakeholder groups, such as BOMA-Silicon Valley or the Chamber of Commerce Coalition; this procedure was in place when voters approved Measure A that established the membership process for the CWe. The statement that this appointment process compromises independence of thought and action cannot be not substantiated.

R2a: The Grand Jury recognizes that the assignment of members of the CACas the CWC is part of existing law and cannot be changed without a new ballot measure. However, the Board is at liberty to change the eAe bylaws and hence change who approves membership in this combined committee. The Grand Jury recommends that the Board change the bylaws so that the selection process is conducted by, and selections approved by an independent third party. Response VTA disagrees with the finding. Since there is no evidence that the CWC has failed or is likely to fail in its responsibilities, VTA does not feel it prudent or necessary to change this successful oversight model.

R2b: Former elected officials should not be allowed tosit on the Citizens Advisory Committee to eliminate thepossibility of biasfrom prior responsibilities. Response VTA disagrees with this finding. It is unclear why former elected officials serving on the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) is detrimental to the committee. Neither the independent organizational assessment conducted by the Hay Group in 2007 nor the California Statue Bureau of Audits analysis in 2008 identified this as a concern. In fact, VTA advisory committees function best when members have a long history of public service, are active in their community and are interested in regional transportation issues.

R2c: The eweshould have its own staff, independent ofVTA staff, to set meeting agendas, coordinate project investigations, write reports and do other tasks assigned to the ewe. Response VTA disagrees with the finding. VTA staff supports all VTA committees, the Board of Directors and most importantly, the citizens of Santa Clara County. The general manager serves at the will of the Board; the general manager and the staff support the efforts of the Board and the committees. Through the Board's leadership and the work carried out by staff, VTA is able to provide transportation services to the citizens of Santa Clara County. Hiring separate staffs for each committee would result in a fractured collection of staff members reporting to various committees. Itwould require new resources, create inefficiencies and duplicate work efforts.

F3: The ewe is not in control of its own agenda. cwebylaws do not explicitly allow members toparticipate in setting the agenda for their own meeting. Other VTA committees such as the Policy Advisory Committee have this explicit right. The CWC chairperson reviews the staff-proposed agenda inadvance and can suggest changes. Other members only view the agenda whenformally published. Response VTA disagrees with the finding. At each meeting, the CWC agenda includes a standing item to review the committee's work plan. The work plan lists the items that the committee will consider over the next several months. Members can and do make suggestions or add items to the work plan for consideration.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The bylaws should be amended to allow the ewe toprepare and set their own agenda without involvement ofVTA staff. IfVTA staffwishes toplace an agenda item, they should consult with ewe Chairperson, not the other way around. Response VTA disagrees with the finding. The ewe serves the citizens of Santa Clara County through 2000 Measure A. The role mandated by the citizens is to ensure that the revenues collected through Measure A are spent appropriately on Measure A projects. VTA staff provides the ewe with the necessary information and resources to ensure that the committee fulfills their mission. Ifthe ewe requires additional information or resources, VTA provides these needs as well. It is essential that the ewe remain focused entirely on the assignment mandated through Measure A.

F4a: While meeting the minimum requirement, ewe reports to thepublic have not been comprehensive, timely or complete. The ewe haspublished only two three-page status reports since its inception inJuly 2006. Thefinancial auditfor FY 2007 (June 2007) was conducted by an independent auditor retained by VTA staff, not an independent auditor retained by the ewe. In FY 2008, audits of 2000 Measure A expenditures will be conducted by BOTH an independent auditor retained by VTA and an independent auditor retained by the ewe. The ewe hasfailed to take the opportunity tofile morefrequent reports on Measure A 2000 expenditures, such as monthly or quarterly reports. Response VTA disagrees with the finding. The reports produced by the ewe have provided the necessary independent oversight to ensure the public that Measure A is being spent appropriately. The compliance auditor hired for the FY 2008 audit was hired by the ewe for this purpose. Again, these reports are similar to the efforts of the 1996 Measure B watchdog committee which served the public well. Finding4b The ewe hasfailed to inform thepublic that the 2000 Measure A sales tax revenue is not sufficient to complete all of the Measure Aprograms, andfederal and statefunding has not been identified tofill the gap. This has been clear to VTA management for some time. Response VTA disagrees with the finding. This is not aresponsibility of the ewe. The ewe is mandated to oversee the expenditure of2000 Measure A funds. VTA has made it clear for many years that the 2000 Measure A sales tax revenue will not be sufficient to complete all the projects contained in Measure A. In fact, VTA's Measure A Revenue & Expenditure (R&E) Plan, which was approved in 2006 by the VTA Board of Directors, stated that VTA would need the equivalent of an additional ~ cent sales tax to meet the shortfall. Measure A revenues have been the subject of many board workshops and discussions in the media. At the April 25, 2008 Board workshop (a noticed and public meeting), the financial consulting firm of AEeOM updated the Board on the financial projections for Measure A. Their findings stated that the sales tax projections for Measure A were $4.9 billion less than previously expected.

F5: The VTA staff hasforced its own perspective on the ewe regarding committee roles and responsibilities. VTA staff dictates have stifled independent thinking on thepart of ewe members. Response VTA disagrees with the finding. The role of the ewe is defined by Measure A, not by staff. The ewe is comprised of community leaders who bring a history of community activism and service to the table.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: The Board should direct VTA staff to revise its training materials and memoranda to include bestpractices of other transit agency watchdog committees and encourage the ewe to establish its ownpriorities and responsibilities. VTA disagrees with the finding. The role of the ewe is defined by Measure A - not by VTA staff or the members of the ewe. Regarding revising training materials and memorandum, VTA is always open to review best practices of other agencies to improve our processes. With reference to

F6: Board work plans and meeting agendas are developed primarily by VTA staff. of 12 Response VTA agrees with the finding. VTA staff primarily develops the work plan and agendas. Staff meets regularly with the chair and vice-chair of the Board to discuss agendas and upcoming policy issues.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: The VTA Board should prepare its own agenda and work plans. The Chairperson of the Board should consult with Board members, standing and advisory committees and VTA staff toformulate the agenda. Response VTA disagrees with the finding. As is the case in both the public and private sector, the role of the board of directors is to provide policy direction to the executive management and to make final decisions on these policies. The Board hires a general manager to implement the vision set forth by the Board; the general manager hires professional staff, who provide the board with the technical expertise necessary to carry out the vision. As stated previously, the staff meets regularly with the chair and vice-chair of the Board to discuss agendas and upcoming policy issues. Findinz 7 With the exception of members from San Jose and the County, Board members have inadequate staff support tofully participate inBoard activities. The volume of information supplied to Board members can serve to obscure key issues that deserve focus. Response VTA disagrees with the finding. While the City of San Jose and the County of Santa Clara do have full-time staff support, the smaller cities all have transportation and/or public works departments who are also full time, professional staff. In addition, board members contact VTA staff on aregular basis for assistance. The agenda packets are compiled to provide members with the information they need to make decisions, not to obscure key issues. In fact, each agenda item is presented in an orderly fashion and includes: (a) a recommendation from staff; (b) background on the item; (c) discussion on the item; (d) the fiscal impact; and (c) comments provided by the standing committees, and advisory committees, if appropriate; and (d) any relevant attachments.

F13: e The Board allowed Measure to beplaced on the November 2008 ballot asking voter approval of the VTP 2035 plan when neither the Board nor thepublic had seen a draft of thefull plan. of 12 Response VTA disagrees with the finding as it is factually incorrect. VTA provided many updates to the board and the advisory committees on the draft plan throughout 2008. Furthermore, draft chapters were available on VTA's website well before the election; VTA held open houses as well as conducting an online survey to solicit input from the public. Had the public rejected Measure C, VTA would have considered reevaluating the long-term plan. However, the public overwhelming approved the plan (by nearly 70%), which sent a message to VTA that the public approved of the direction of the plan. This was taken into account when the Board ultimately approved the full plan in early 2009.

Related Recommendations (1)

R13: The Board should ensure that VTA's long-range strategic plans are thoroughly reviewed and vetted by thepublic prior to being offeredfor approval by whatever body is deemed responsible. Response VTA agrees with the finding. As outlined above, VTA's long-range plans are thoroughly vetted through the appropriate committees and the public. Findinf! 14 Measure Afunds were used on non-Measure Aprojects. The Measure Afund exchange violated to 2000 Measure A ballot requirements that 2000 Measure A revenue was to be spent only on 2000 Measure Aprograms. But VTA believes it is entitled to use these funds for other programs as long as repayment is certain. It appears that there is infact repayment uncertainty. Even though the initial $50M swap was approved inFebruary 2007, the ewecertified (over the chairperson's signature) in the FY 2007 2000 Measure A Status Report that all Measure A revenue was spent only onMeasure Aprograms. It is clear that the ewedoes notfully understand its responsibility with respect to this requirement. Response VTA disagrees with the finding. VTA does not believe it is entitled to use Measure A funds for other programs. Measure A is clear regarding which projects may be built with Measure A revenues. VTA does exchange funds from various local, regional, state and federal sources as a means for advancing projects and finding efficiencies. These exchanges are always approved by the board and provide agencies with the flexibility needed to advance and complete projects. If agencies were not aggressive in identifying funding opportunities, cities and counties would be left with a series of under funded projects that are unable to move forward.

Additional Recommendations 13

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The members of the CAC/CWC interviewed all stated they workfor the VTA Board. The primary tenet emphasized at new CAC/CWC orientation is the different, separate duties of the CAC versus the CWC. This includes that CAC is advisory to the VTA Board, reports to the Board, and is free to express opinions and recommendations on Measure A policy decisions (project composition, funding, schedule, etc.). For the CWC, it is made clear that they are established by the electorate, report to the public, not the Page AS of9 VTA Board, and that it is not within their purview to express opinions on Measure A policy decisions. These points are reiterated and emphasized at annual training provided separately to each committee on its specific duties and responsibilities (the last training on CWC duties and responsibilities was held at the February 2009 meeting: http://www .vta.orgfinside/boards/ committee advisory/ cac/agendas minutes/2 009/02 feb /cac 021109 full?acket. odf).

R1a: The ewe should reevaluate its scope and expand itsfunctions beyond the minimum standards stated in 2000 Measure A and operate as a true "watchdog" committee. Response The CWC provides the public with a valuable service by ensuring that Measure A revenues are spent consistently with what the voters approved in 2000. The CWC provides this oversight for the public through its reviews and independent audits. VTA disagrees with the recommendation to expand the authority of the watchdog committee as this would require VTA to return to the voters with a list of new responsibilities.

R1b: The Board should provide the ewe with independent advisors, including legal counsel, to assist them in this effort. Response Per Measure A, the CWC is empowered to and does spend money on an independent compliance auditor. It is unclear why the CWC might need legal counselor other independent advisors to fulfill their responsibilities. If legal counsel were ever required, VTA's Board would provide it in the most effective manner available.

R7: The VTA Board should have its own staff, independent ofVTA staff, toset meeting agendas, doproject investigations, write reports, publish minutes and do other tasks required by the Board. Response VTA disagrees with the finding. The VTA Board has its own staff. As stated earlier, VTA staff supports the Board of Directors and most importantly, the citizens of Santa Clara County. The general manager serves at the pleasure of the Board. Through the Board's leadership and the work carried out by staff, VTA is able provide transportation services to the citizens of Santa Clara County. FindinJ! 8 Both the Hay Report and the State Auditor Report recommended that the VTA Board make every effort to insure that new board members have transportation experience by appointing new members with previous transportation experience and reappointing members for multiple terms. Nevertheless the Mayor of San Jose recently appointed two new board members to represent San Jose who have noprevious transportation expenence. Response VTA agrees that transportation experience on the Board is important. In fact, the Board has already taken action to encourage appointments with transportation experience. VTA disagrees with the statement that the Mayor of San Jose appointed members with no previous transportation experience. The Mayor appointed members who are experienced in community issues (including transportation), land use and planning. One member, a well respected community activist and private sector software executive made transportation improvements her second highest priority during her campaign. The other served on the San Jose Planning Commission dealing with a myriad of development issues including transportation, and served one year as chair. Since a major portion of VTA's work is planning and congestion management, these skills are also provide value for Board service.

R8: New VTA Board members must have transit knowledge. The VTABoard should require at least onefull year on the PAC or another VTA advisory committee prior to being appointed to the Board. Response VTA disagrees with the finding. VTA agrees that having experience in transportation is beneficial to Board members prior tojoining the Board. So too is having experience in land use planning, public policy, finance, law and construction. VTA's responsibilities are far broader and its need for meaningful policy guidance is not constrained to public transit. As mentioned above the VTA Board has taken action on these matters. Findinf! 9 VTAfailed toprovide an updated Measure A Revenue and Expenditure Plan per their published schedule. As a result, voters were deprived of critical information necessary to make an informed decision regarding 2008 Measure B, an additional 1/8-cent sales tax tofund operating costsfor a BART extension toSan Jose/Santa Clara. The VTA had sufficient time and information to complete this update and made a deliberate decision not topublish itprior to the election. As a result, voters were never told thatfull funding for the BART extension wouldjeopardize the completion of other Measure Aprojects. of 12 Response VTA disagrees with the finding. VTA elected not to update the Measure A Revenue and Expenditure (R&E) Plan as economic issues, such as the dramatic downturn in the economy and its impact on sales tax receipts for the longer term are not fully understood, even today. VTA has instead adopted a fiscally sound two year budget based on apay as you go approach to manage our way through this debilitating recession. Concerning the statement that the public was unaware that VTA needs additional revenue to complete the Measure A program, as referenced above, VTA has been clear for the past several years that an additional revenue source is needed to complete the Measure A Program. Again, the R&E that was approved by the VTA Board of Directors in 2006 stated that VTA would need additional revenues equivalent to a Y4-centsales tax to complete the Measure A Program. And, at the April 25, 2008 Board Workshop, the financial consulting firm of AECOM informed the Board that the sales tax projections were $4.9 billion less than previously expected. This was widely reported in the media.

R9a: The VTA Board should explain why thesefacts were withheld from thepublic. Response VTA disagrees with the finding. The shortage of funding required to complete all Measure A projects has been discussed repeatedly during 2008 and was widely reported in the media. No facts were withheld from the public.

R9b: Infuture elections, the VTA Board should ensure that VTA staffprovides thepublic with a comprehensive explanation of the ramification of each measure, including the impact on both capital and operating fund, projections and budgets, as well as the effect on other projects. Response VTA agrees with the finding. The finding is consistent with the history and policy of VTA. Again, VTA does not withhold information from the public at any time nor will we in the future. Findinf! 10 VTA effectively suspended the shovel-ready light rail extension to Eastridge, without informing the VTA Board or the ewe in advance. Additionally, they used evasive language toprevent the Board and thepublic from understanding the true status ("reaffirming" support) of theproject. Thepeople of the east Valley deserve betterfrom the representatives of San Jose on the VTA Board. Response VTA disagrees with the finding. Large construction projects are frequently advanced and slowed down due to avariety of factors including but not limited to: funding availability, property acquisition, contractor availability and funding opportunities. The project of 12 continues to move forward in aphased approach. Furthermore, VTA is actively seeking potential funding opportunities at the regional, state and federal levels for this project.

R10a: The Board should amend the CAC/CWC bylaws toprovide the CWC with the authority to review and make recommendations regarding any changes to thepriority and status of all 2000 Measure Aprograms. This is a specific request over and above the responsibilities assigned by the 2000 Measure A ballot wording. Response VTA disagrees with the finding. VTA already provides the ewe with regular updates on Measure A projects. The finding is arecommendation that the Board of Director's abdicate their public policy responsibility for Measure A projects to the ewe. As stated earlier, the ewe provides the public with avaluable tool in ensuring that Measure A revenues are spent consistent with what the voters approved in 2000. The ewe provides this oversight for the public through its reviews and audits. Expanding the authority of the watchdog committee would require VTA to return to the voters with a list of new responsibilities.

R10b: The staff should not make unilateral changes regarding Measure Aprojects without prior CWC review and Board approval. Specific procedures should beput into place to assure that the VTA Board has reviewed and approved all changes to the scope, funding and schedule ofMeasure Aprojects before VTAstaff proceeds. Response VTA disagrees with the finding. Staff makes recommendations but does not make significant changes to projects without the Board's approval. All Measure A updates relating to the ewe's authority are brought to the committee. Findinf! 11 The Board approved Measure Cand D to beplaced on the November 2009 ballot aspart of the consent agenda and without prior review by advisory committees. This occurred on the dayprior to the deadline for the submittal of ballot measures for the November 2008 election. Response VTA agrees with the finding. VTA is required by law to place Measure e on the ballot and did so. Measure D was placed on the ballot as acost savings mechanism. The Board acted within the scope of their capacity. VTA did take the contents of Measure e (Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2035) to the advisory committees multiple times prior to placing Measure e on the ballot. None of the advisory committees expressed significant concern with the contents ofVTP 2035.

R11: The Board should ensure the ballot measures are submitted for Board approval on the regular agenda (never the consent agenda) after thorough review and discussion at both advisory and standing committee meetings. Response VTA disagrees with the finding. VTA has aprescribed process that takes agenda items to one of three board standing committees prior to the item moving forward to the full board. The committee considers the item carefully and makes any recommended policy changes to the item. The item is then sent to the full board for their approval. The committee recommends the item be placed either on the consent or regular agenda. Any item on the consent agenda may be removed and placed on the regular agenda by any board member, member of the public or staff request. Committee members use their judgment to determine if an item should be placed on the consent or regular agenda. The authority to place an item on the consent or regular agenda will remain at the discretion of the committee. Due to issues of timing or the public interest (such asballot measures) the Board mayor may not solicit the input of advisory committees. Findinz 12 The Board put 2008 Measure D on the ballot, assigning the responsibility for citizen review offuture VTA long-range strategic plans to the ewe, without notifYing the ewe of its intent to do so. In addition, the ewe will cease to exist on June 30, 2036, leaving the subsequent responsibility for review of the long-range plan in limbo. Response VTA agrees with the first statement of the finding. Please see the response to "Finding 11" above. The second sentence is factually inaccurate. The committee continues to exist as long as it has the legal requirement granted by Measure D to do so.

R12: The hastily implemented Measure D needs to be rethought before 2036. The Board should assign the responsibility for reviewing the long-range strategic plan to an organization that will remain in existence permanently. Response VTA disagrees with the finding. Measure D was not hastily implemented, in fact it is yet to be implemented as the CWC will not be required to review VTA's long-range transportation plan for five years. Measure D was not hastily put together, as the Administration & Finance Committee analyzed the issues carefully.

R14: The Board should give the ewethe opportunity to review all 2000 Measure Afund transfers. The eweshould point out such usage offunds to thepublic in their reports. The eweshould make apublic decision whether this usage offunds in consistent with the intention of the voters with respect to 2000 Measure A. of 12 Response VTA agrees with the finding. VTA does provide this information to the CWC. Findim! 15 Measure B on the 2008 Ballot approved a lI8-cent sales taxfor BART operations. Tax collection is slated tostart when the BART project receives full federal and statefunding. However, VTA intends tostart collecting this tax when only thejirst 2.2 miles of the BART project arefunded, not the complete project. Response VTA disagrees with the finding. VTA will begin collecting the tax once the requirements contained in Measure B are met.

R15: The Board should consider the intention of the voters as well as the specifics of the ballot measure when considering the issue. This tax should only be collected whenfundingfor thefull 16.1- mile BART extension is obtained from the state andfederal government. Response VTA disagrees with the finding. As stated above, VTA will begin collecting the tax once the requirements contained in the 2008 Measure B are met. Also the first phase is 9.9 miles (not 2.2). \1 ~i~CerelY, .. ~L".0 ,..----1{; O-l'Ldu ". ..--/ I ~ ./"0,__ / Dolly Sandoval, Chairperson Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority of 12 ATTACHMENT A VTA Response 2008-09 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury (CGJ) Report Errors, Omissions, Exaggerations NOTE: The following detailed analysis and responses to the 2008-09 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury (CGJ) Report follows the structure of the Grand Jury Report. The specific page number, heading, title, and, where applicable, item number are listed for easy cross-reference to the CGJ Report. Statements quoted from the report are shown in italics. "VTA is a multi-billion dollar enterprise ... " This implies VTA is a company organized for commercial purpose, no mention VTA is a special district, etc. "At anyone point in time, nine cities are not represented. " All cities are in fact represented through their city grouping. The city groupings hold meetings outside of the Board meetings to discuss VTA issues. A correct statement: that "...nine cities are not directly represented." VTA Committee Structure Regarding the CAC appointment process, it states that "San Jose chooses two, County Board of Supervisors choose one, ..." In fact, these entities appoint their members and the Board ratifies the appointment. VTA Committee Structure (continued) It is stated that the National Association ofIndustrial and Office Properties (NAIOP) is an appointing authority for CAC, which is incorrect. Approximately three years ago (June 2006) the Board approved replacing NAIOP, with Building Owners &Managers Association - Silicon Valley (BOMA-SV). The correct membership structure is reflected multiple places on VTA's website (roster, CAC bylaws, etc.). The current CAC/CWC Vice Chair Bob Jacobvitz is BOMA's representative "Regarding the CWC, ... this committee would be comprised of the existing VTA's Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC)." Although the report acknowledges that the ballot established the CWe's membership structure, later in the report when it states the membership structure is somehow a problem (former elected officials, etc.). The report fails to recognize the cost of a ballot measure (estimated at about $1 million) that would be required to modify the CWC membership structure. "The Eastridge light rail extension, which is shovel-ready is on hold." The statement is not correct. "Measure Cwas an advisory vote. It asked the voters to approve VTP 2035. " It is not an accurate statement that Measure C asked voters to approve VTP 2035. Measure C was an affirmation ofVTA and county-wide transportation services, and passed with 69.7% of voters voting in favor. Measure C was required by the 1976 cent sales tax measure. VTP Y2 2035 is not approved by the voters but by the Board. "The Hay Group Report proposed a comprehensive overhaul of VTA's organization and practices. " End of statement gives reader impression VTA did not pursue and/or achieve recommendations set forth. This gives an impression to the public that VTA has not made significant progress on addressing the recommendations (not overhaul) ofVTA's organization. "Thus even as VTA attempts to reform its governance structure it continues tofollow apractice the Hay Group report specifically criticized; namely, advisory committees do not have an opportunity to consider policy and plans in the early stages of development ... " Not true. Examples of early and frequent committee participation are the Comprehensive Operational Analysis (bus), Bus Rapid Transit, HOT Lanes, etc. "The Hay Report made a number of recommendations that would improve the VTA Board's ability to exercise its responsibilities with "reasonable care and loyalty'. " End of statement implies Board of Directors ignored recommendation. Report fails to acknowledge Board Workshop on Fiduciary Responsibility and the work of the original Governance Subcommittee on these issues. Citv Representation "San Jose, withfive members on the Board, dominates the Board." San Jose cannot technically dominate the board as they do not hold a majority. A total of seven affirmative votes are required to pass any measure except those with higher threshold requirements mandated by statute. Page A2 of9 "For a Board that ispledged to have a countywide outlook irrespective of city boundaries the current structure of representation does notpromote this ideal and lends itself to the question of just where allegiances should lie." This statement is refuted by Light Rail expansion, Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA), BART, Caltrain, Capital Corridor, ACE, Highway 17service, etc. "...was ultimately shuffled to the Audit and Finance Committee for burial. " This statement is false. First, it was sent to the Administration & Finance (A&F) Committee, not "Audit". Second, the A&F Committee discussed the item in August, September and October 2009, as well as in April 2009. The A&F committee has instructed staff to return with the item in August 2009. It is not "buried." "Meeting agendas areprepared by VTAstaffwith inputfrom the Board chairperson. " This contradicts other statements in the report and the report's "staff driven" references. Every Board agenda has a standing item entitled "Items of Concern and Referral to Administration" where members may bring up any item not on the agenda for future discussion. Token committees • Does not cite specific examples, although report states, "This Grand Jury uncovered examples that support this conclusion. " • The statements" ... Committees arepresented with items to review only after the Board and/or staff (emphasis added) has already made a decision" and "Thus, theAdvisory Committee is only asked to bless the decision after thefact" are inaccurate. Except for unusual circumstances where urgency precludes the normal process, items are vetted with the appropriate Advisory Committee(s) and their input is transmitted to the Board and, in many cases, incorporated into the proposal. Also, the Board is responsible for decisions, not staff. • The report does not reflect Advisory Committee Enhancement (ACE) Process or the changes it has recommended. These include adding Advisory Committee votes and the addition of major comments from Committees to the Board memo. • The report does not acknowledge that the CAC Chairperson Report and the similar PAC Chairperson Report are standing items on every Board agenda. This provides the Advisory Committee chair the opportunity to apprise the Board of his committee's comments and concerns on items considered or on future issues. (The CAC Chair Report to the VTA Board was a specific recommendation of the Bureau of State Audits report and the Board approved amending the CAC bylaws to add this provision in September 2008. Both the CAC and PAC Chairperson Reports are standing items on every Board agenda.) • "VTA's attitude toward these committees ..." The statement cannot be verified, no specific examples are cited. This is especially true for "retaliation for independent thinking". • "One of the key criticisms is that the Advisory Committees arepresented with items to review only after the Board and/or staff has already made a decision. " The statement is not correct. • "One advisory committee member, responding to the question of whether the Board provided direction to the committee said, The Board does not even know we exist '." PageA3of9 VTA understands the sentiment conveyed by this statement and has taken action to address it. Examples are ACE process, VTA Chair & Vice-Chair meetings with Advisory Committee chairs, advisory committee meeting minutes in Board agenda packet, advisory committee input on items included inboard memorandums, and the orientation and training materials provided to new Board members. Board/Committee communication • Staff collaborates with the Committee chairperson on setting the Advisory Committee meeting agendas. For example, the CAC/CWC Chairperson reviews, provides input, and approves the draft agenda prior to distribution. • Formal review of the Advisory Committee Work Plan with the committee is done at every meeting to receive committee input and direction. It is a standing item on every agenda, and is the last agenda item in order to incorporate any committee changes or requests made earlier at that meeting. • The Board Chair reviews and approves the Consolidated Board & Committee Work Plan every six months. This planning document includes the items projected to be reviewed and considered by the Advisories (and Standing Committees) prior to Board consideration, including those requiring Board adoption. • The report does not reflect the recently-implement ACE recommendation that the vote and the addition of major comments from the Advisory Committees on the memo submitted to the Board and that becomes the official record. Due to timing constraints, the vote and major comments are provided to the Standing Committees via a summary report. Prior to this, Advisory Committees comments were verbally relayed to the Standing Committees. • It is not a correct statement: "... the PAC and CAC Chairs were recently invited to make a short presentation at each meeting". The PAC Chairperson Report was added approximately five years ago and the CAC in September 2008. PAC and CAC: Committee views not valued • "PAC is the only place in VTAgovernance where there is equal representation for each city without an overwhelming advantage to San Jose. " This is factually inaccurate. There is no advisory committee where the City of San Jose with over fifty percent of the population has "an overwhelming advantage." The TAC has one member representing each Member Agency (the 15cities and the County of Santa Clara); TAC members are staff of the Member Agency they represent. The BPAC also has one member representing each Member Agency; BPAC representatives are private citizens appointed by the Member Agency they represent; CTA membership has representatives from City Groupings. • "The VTA Board has recently formed ACE, the Advisory Committee Enhancement Committee, to develop a new structure and methodology by which the Advisory Committees can start toprovide some form of useful service to the Board. " This is inaccurate. Numerous examples can be cited to disprove it. These include but are not limited to the valuable input provided by CAC and PAC on the Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA), CAC's initiative to ban smoking at all VTA facilities, the BPAC's input PageA4of9 and expertise on development of technical works such as the Bicycle Technical Guidelines, Pedestrian Technical Guidelines, etc. • Referencing PAC, "... itfrequently serves as a breeding ground for new Board Members." This contradicts the statement that Board members have little transit experience. Role of the CAC/CWC in VTA Governance The CAC bylaws (as well as those for BPAC, PAC and TAC) provide that items may be placed on the agenda by the committee chairperson (which is done consistently and frequently) and by the vote of a majority of the committee. The same group of citizens is assigned to both committees • This structure was defined by the 2000 Measure A ballot. The voters put it in place and an election would be required to change it. • Report fails to delineate the major differences between CAC and CWC: CAC is an advisory committee established by, and reporting to the VTA Board. Membership is derived from a variety of community stakeholder groups including business and labor. The CWC is an oversight committee established by the electorate that reports to county residents, not the VTABoard. • The statement" ... the same people, serving as the CWC, have the duty to communicate to the public, hold hearings, issues reports, " fails to acknowledge these responsibilities apply only to 2000 Measure A-related activities. cwe Performance • "VTA Staffreleased an auditfor FY2008 performed by the VTA auditor (VTD) without review or approval by the CWc." This is factually inaccurate. This was the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), which presents VTA's financial statements for the period. Itwas brought to the CWC, as an information item at its 2/11/09 meeting where Leonard Dana, aVTD partner, presented the item and explained the audit's findings. The CWC does not have the authority to approve this report since it covers all aspects of VTA ("Comprehensive"), not just Measure A. • "cwe reports to thepublic have been neither comprehensive, timely nor complete. " VTA disagrees with this statement. The Committee responsible for preparing them, the CWC, judged they were comprehensive, complete and as timely aspossible. Neither CWC members nor VTA have received negative comments or complaints about the reports. What's Wrong with the Citizens Watchdog Committee? 1. The members of the CAC/CWC interviewed all stated they workfor the VTA Board. The primary tenet emphasized at new CAC/CWC orientation is the different, separate duties of the CAC versus the CWC. This includes that CAC is advisory to the VTA Board, reports to the Board, and is free to express opinions and recommendations on Measure A policy decisions (project composition, funding, schedule, etc.). For the CWC, it is made clear that they are established by the electorate, report to the public, not the Page AS of9 VTA Board, and that it is not within their purview to express opinions on Measure A policy decisions. These points are reiterated and emphasized at annual training provided separately to each committee on its specific duties and responsibilities (the last training on CWC duties and responsibilities was held at the February 2009 meeting: http://www .vta.orgfinside/boards/ committee advisory/ cac/agendas minutes/2 009/02 feb /cac 021109 full?acket. odf). 2. "CAC/CWC members are approved by the Board, compromising independence of thought and action. " The Board ratifies the appointments made by stakeholder groups, such as BOMA-Silicon Valley or the Chamber of Commerce Coalition; this procedure was in place when voters approved Measure A that established the membership process for the CWe. The statement that this appointment process compromises independence of thought and action cannot be not substantiated. 3. "Many CAe/CWC members complained and confirmed that the VTA staff shows them little or no respect. The VTA staff does not return their calls or answer their questions." This statement cannot be substantiated by VTA. Members have indicated that there is a substantial amount of information contained in their agenda packets but have not stated that it is "overwhelming." A substantial amount of information in each agenda packet is to be expected since it is for two committees and given the importance and magnitude of the oversight responsibilities of the CWC. CAC/CWC does control its own agenda. The committee and the committee chair, not individual members that make the decision. The final item on each agenda is the Committee reviewing and modifying its work plan as it sees fit. It is common for the Committee to add! delete or change the timing of specific items. In addition, the draft agenda is sent to the committee chair and vice chair each month for review, input and approval prior to publication. Under ORDERS OF THE DAY the Committee has, and often utilizes, the ability to defer or change the sequencing of items on that specific agenda. 4. "A conflict of interest ispresent, whether actual orperceived, in the discharge of their duties as a member of the CWe. " This statement cannot be substantiated. 5. The statement that the bylaws for the CWC "were written by staff" is not correct. Staff drafted the bylaws and submitted them for Committee review and adoption. The CWe's bylaws (which are apart of the CAC bylaws) were primarily derived from, and, in many cases, quoted the Measure A ballot. The CWC is not free to select duties and responsibilities other than those specified in the ballot. "An additional sales tax of cent was proposed to the voters in November, 2006 but was ;I; rejected. " While the statement is factually accurate it implies this was a VTA measure. The referenced measure was placed on the ballot by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors for general fund purposes, not VTA. While the campaign literature (not in any way connected to VTA) did mention the BART project, the measure was not aVTA ballot measure. Page A6 of9 Date of June 2008 Downtown/East Valley Policy Advisory Board is wrong. (should be June 11) "Particularly noteworthy was thefact that VTA staff suspended theproject (DTEV) without prior Board authorization." Construction projects are frequently advanced and slowed down to account for a variety of factors including but not limited to: funding availability, property acquisition process, contractor availability, competition for resources, etc. "However, property acquisition, utility relocation construction and completion of bid documents for construction contracts were not authorized." VTA does not agree with this statement, it is factually inaccurate. These items are authorized via adopted budget. "The public was not informed of the 2000 Measure A 30-year financial situation before the November 2008 election." This comment is a well-utilized ballot argument The Board and public were informed of the financial implications of the economic downturn by VTA and the news media (KCBS, KGO, Mercury News and other local newspapers). "If the 30-year Revenue and Expenditure Plan had been updated asplanned, it likely would have shown that if the BART extension was built asplanned, the remaining 2000 Measure Aprojects would require massive additional investment ..." "If the updated Revenue &Expenditure Plan had been readily available to thepublic, Measure B might not have passed. " These are speculative comments. The fact that more funding is needed to complete Measure A has been publicly stated by VTA. In fact, the 2006 Revenue & Expenditure Plan assumed the equivalent funding of revenue equivalent to a new 1/4 cent sales tax to complete the plan. Furthermore, at the April 25, 2008 Board workshop, the financial consulting firm AECOM reported that sales tax projections were $4.9 billion less than previously expected. This was widely reported in the news media and was discussed public ally at several VTA Board meetings. "According to the Measure A Semi-Annual Report (internal) dated June 2008 ..." Implies document was not made available to the public and did not go to the Committee, which is not factually correct. "Now that virtually all Measure A tax revenue is being reserved for the shortened BART extension project, the light rail to Eastridge project has beenput on hold until otherfunding sources can be identified." The statement is false. Page A7 of9 "The VTA Board has approved the exchange (swap) of approximately $107M ofMeasure A funds ... Thepayback from the state depends on state approval of two Measure Aprojects for state (STIP) funding, ..." The projects have been approved by the state. Copies of the State Transportation funding database listing (CTIPS) are available. "There was noprior discussion or notification to the Citizen Watchdog Committee. The CWC was informed after thefact in a reportfrom VTAstaff. " This is only partially correct. There were two exchange actions. The first, approved by the VTA Board in February 2007, was presented to the CAC at its January 10, 2007 meeting. This item was correctly submitted to CAC for consideration since it provides advice and counsel to VTA Board, whereas the CWC does not. It would be inappropriate for the CWC to provide comment on this item since Measure A policy decisions (project composition, schedules and funding levels) are the responsibility of the VTA Board and the CWC is solely responsible for reviewing Measure A expenditure to ensure they were spent in accordance with the ballot. The CAC discussed the first exchange at its January 2007 meeting and unanimously recommended approval to the VTA Board, as reflected in the approved minutes. The second exchange did not go to the CWC in advance. The timing of the 2008 STIP information from the State was such that VTA staff was unable to bring the program to any of the VTA advisory committees and standing committees prior to its review and subsequent approval by the VTA Board in December 2007. VTA staff made a follow-up report to the CWC at its next (January 2008) meeting and there was no comment. Minutes are available. The CWC subsequently determined that the fund swaps were appropriate as long as the funds were repaid in full, with appropriate interest, and that other projects in Measure A were not adversely affected by the swap. In effect, the swap is a loan subject to future repayment - the funds were loaned to a non-Measure A project and STIP funds will be used to repay Measure A. "At its February 11, 2009 meeting, a discussion regarding the CWC's responsibilities in this area was initiated by a CWC member, and stifled by VTAstaff." VTA disagrees with this statement. Items not on the published agenda may not be discussed at the meeting. Allowing the unagendized discussion to move forward would have violated the Brown Act. The committee chose not to pursue this discussion further. "VTP 2035 wasfirst presented to thepublic eight days after the November 2008 election. " The statement is factually incorrect. The draft VTP 2035 had been presented to the board, advisory committees and public several times. Also, draft chapters were available online during the fall, before the election. The time frames for formal adoption ofVTP 2035 were driven by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). "2008 Measure B Sales Tax - Promised 16.1 miles, Delivering 2.2 miles" The statement is factually incorrect. PageA8of9 "The Board tolerates behaviors that do not encourage informed public debate ... " The statement is factually incorrect. "VTA staff develops plans internally with little or nopublic (orBoard) input at the early stages ..." The statement is factually incorrect. "The board has taken apassive role, ..." VTA disagrees with this statement. PageA9of9

August 20, 2009 — Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury by

4 pages 5 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 5 findings

F1: Community colleges and K-12 boards of trustees are responsible for inventory control. Hmvever, after interviewing ALL board of trustee presidents it was evident they were unaware oftneir obligations under the law. Response to Finding 1 CUHSD agrees in part with Finding Number 1. CUBSD agrees that K-12 boards of trustees are responsible for inventory control. However, CUHSD disagrees with Finding Number 1in that CUHSD has inadequate information regarding other Boards of Trustees Presidents.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Trustees should review and be knowledgeable of Education Code 35168 for K-12 to ensure complete implementation . ••oymonHlgn:;cnool BranhamHighSchool CamdenCommunityDaySchool DelMarHighSchool LeighHighSchool ProspectHighSchool WestmontHighSchool M.Madalinski,Principal T. Utic,Principal M.Madalinski,Principal J. Russell,Principal D.Hope,Principal D.Burbank,Principal o.Hege,Principal 626-3404 626-3407 626-3409 626-3403 626-3405 626-3408 626-3406 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Response to Recommendation 1 CUHSD has implemented Recommendation 1.

F2: No trustees or superintendents have been trained in inventory control. Inventory control training for board members and superintendents is not mandated by the State, resulting in a lack of familiarity and inconsistent application of inventory requirements by many districts. Response to Finding 2 CUHSD disagrees with Finding Number 2 in that CUHSD has inadequate information regarding other school districts.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: All Santa Clara County school board trustees and superintendents should be required to review and understand Education Code 35168 and BAM requirements for inventory control. For K-12 districts, the COE should take the lead in providing comprehensive training on inventory control, in conjunction with the release of the new inventory tracking module within Quintessential Software Systems spearheaded by the COE. Response to Recommendation Number 2 CUHSD has implemented Recommendation 2 by reviewing Education Code 35168 with our Board of Trustees. The recommendation requires further analysis as pertains to the COE taking the lead in providing comprehensive training on inventory control, in conjunction with the release of the new inventory tracking module within Quintessential Software Systems. The CUHSD will work with the COE during the 2009-2010 school year to understand the COE's plan.

F3: All district superintendents, and district staff report incomplete inventory information to their boards. This results in lack of knowledge about the value and size of their inventory. Response to Finding Number 3 The District disagrees with Finding Number 3 in that CUHSD has inadequate information regarding other school districts. CUHSD further disagrees as the District is in compliance with Education code section 35168 and maintains an inventory of all items valued in excess of $500.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: All Boards of Trustees should require apresentation on the results of their districts' biennial inventory, including total value, variances resulting from reconciliation between past and current inventories and a proposed plan to resolve discrepancies. Response to Recommendation Number 3 CUHSD will implement Recommendation Number 3 prior to the end of school year 2009-2010.

F4: With the exception of Santa Clara Unified and Los Gatos Unified School Districts, all K 12districts fail to understand the need to reconcile inventories from previous years to the latest inventory update. Without reconciliation, the opportunity to: identify lost, missing or stolen items, take preventive measures, and obtain timely reimbursement may be lost. Response to Finding 4 CUHSD disagrees with Finding Number 4 as the District reconciles it's current inventory against prior year inventory.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: All K-12 school districts should reconcile the most current, full inventory with prior inventories, to identify missing items and potential losses/thefts. The results will enable districts to implement safeguards to prevent future losses. Response to Recommendation Number 4 CUHSD has implemented Recommendation Number 4.

F7: There is a potential for abuse in K-8 and K-12 districts when those who report to superintendents approve credit card transactions and purchase orders made by their superintendent. Response to Finding Number 7 The District agrees with Finding Number 7.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: To strengthen internal controls and ensure fiscal accountability, purchases made by K-8 and K-12 Superintendents should be approved by the Boards of Trustees prior to purchase. In the event an immediate purchase is required, post-approval by the Board would ensure no conflicts of interest or abuses occur. Expenditures should be presented separately from the Board's consent calendar to ensure proper scrutiny. Credit card statements and alisting of disbursements should be provided to the board for approval. Response to Recommendation Number 7. CUHSD will implement Recommendation Number 7by the end of school year 2009 2010. Sincerely, Patrick K. Gaffney Deputy Superintendent

August 20, 2009 — West VALlEY'MISSION Community College District John E.hendrickson, Chancellor PIli Saratoga, Ca 95070·5698 F

4 pages 6 findings 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 6 findings

F1: Boards of Trustees approve overly generous benefits to themselves which include the following: • Fully paid health benefits for trustees and their families (often exceeding those of teachers and/or with no payment ceiling) • Excessive travel and conference costs • Pension contribution District Response to Finding 1 Disagree. The Board of Trustees current monthly stipend of $400 has not changed for at least 10years. In addition, the Board isoffered fully paid health benefits, there are no pension contributions and travel and conference costs have been minimized.

F2: Boards of Trustees are approving overly generous benefits to Superintendents and Chancellors. District Response to Finding 2 Disagree. The District offers the same benefit package to the Chancellor asthe rest of its employees. In addition, the Chancellor is paid a monthly mileage stipend in lieu of claiming mileage expenses and housing allowance. The Board of Trustees has not increased the Chancellor's salary that was negotiated in July 2008. Board of Trnstees JACK lUCAS, Ed.D., President· CHRIS CONSTAl'-.'TIN,VicePresident· ADRIENNE GREY' ROBERT T.OWENS' BUCKPOLK' CHRISTOPHER STAMPOLIS•CHAD WALSH Building Silicon Valley's Future ... One Student at a Time. WEST VALLEY COllEGE, SARATOGA' MISSION COllEGE, SANTA CLARA

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Boards of Trustees should carefully review and renegotiate the SuperintendenVchancelior benefits listed in Finding 2for possible reduction and/or elimination. District Response to Recommendation 2 The recommendation hasbeen implemented. The new Chancellor's contract which started in August 2008 was negotiated and approved bythe Board. Many of the extra benefits identified in the report were not included in the new Chancellor's contract. No changes have been made to the Chancellor's contract.

F3: Superintendent salaries and increases appear to bear no relationship to the number of schools, students, and employees they oversee, nor their district's academic improvement. District Response to Finding 3 Disagree. The Chancellor's salary is comparable to community college districts of similar size and complexity.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The Board of Trustees should ensure that Superintendent/Chancellor salaries and increases take into account the number of schools, teachers, and students they oversee, and are tied to the district's students' progress and quantifiable metrics. District Response to Recommendation 3 The recommendation has been implemented, as the Chancellor's salary is comparable to community college districts of similar size and complexity.

F4: Boards of Trustees hires costly search firms to recruit successors for retiring or dismissed Superintendents/ ChanceIlors. District Response to Finding 4 Disagree. The District's last search for the Chancellor's position was done at a cost of $28,000. The District used afirm that specializes in community college administrative hiring.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: Boards of Trustees should conduct a preliminary search within the local area prior to hiring search firms. District Response to Recommendation 4 The recommendation will not be implemented, as the critical nature of the position of Chancellor requires a broader search. All Boards of Trustees should engage County Counsel whenever possible and leverage their buying power to negotiate lower fees with private law firms. District Response to Recommendation 5 The recommendation will not be implemented asthe District needs timely legal advice in dealing with many complex legal issues including personnel complaints, lawsuits, negotiations, and construction. The District issues a Request for Proposal every four years to minimize its legal costs and County counsel is invited to make aproposal.

F5: Boards of Trustees approve the hiring of multiple private attorneys, in some cases at a tremendous expense. District Response to Finding 5 Disagree. Every four years, the District solicits a Request for Proposal for legal services. The District uses one primary law firm to help the District deal with negotiations, personnel issues, student services and administrative matters.

F6: The operation of 34 K-12 school districts and four community college districts creates excessively high management and administrative costs. Five K-12 school districts have excessively high Superintendent costs per student which is reflective of the district's having only one or two schools. District Response to Finding 6 Disagree. The current structure of the District is appropriate to the size and complexity of a multi college district. A survey of other community colleges that are of similar size shows management and administrative costs within the median range. Boards of Trustees should carefully review the benefits listed in Finding 1and: • Eliminate health benefits for Board Members • Minimize travel and conference costs • Eliminate pension contributions District Response to Recommendation 1 The recommendation has been partially implemented. Some of the Board members continue to receive health benefits. The district reviews on an annual basisthe benefit plans offered for its employees and the Board of Trustees. The budget for travel and conference for the Board of Trustees isvery limited. Further, there are no pension contributions.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: A consolidation of districts should be considered to reduce the numbers and costs of Superintendents/Chancellors, Boards of Trustees, administrative staff and overhead. District Response to Recommendation 6 The recommendation will not be implemented asthe current structure of the District is appropriate to its mission and the level of support to students. The above responses were approved by the West Valley-Mission Community College District's Board of Trustees aLi>QAugust 20, 2009, meeting and are respectfully submitted. /tj

July 17, 2009 — West Valley'mission Community College District Fil John E.hendrickson, Chancellor D

3 pages 4 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 4 findings

F1: Prior to October, 2008, there did not exist astatewide standardized procedure for the accurate accounting and verification of HBAs. District Responseto Finding 1 Agree. General instructions have been developed and distributed bythe Office of the Chancellor, California Community College System (State Chancellor) for the reporting of enrollment for purposes of receipt of state apportionment income. OnJanuary 26,2009, the State Chancellor sent specific instructions for reporting Hours byArrangement. OnJune 10, 2009, asecond memorandum was sent. Those documents are attached. The District isfully compliant with instructions for reporting enrollment for purposes of receipt of state apportionment income. Finding2 At Mission College, there had not been consistent review of HBAsover time to ensure all faculty and staff were clear asto their implementation. West Valley conducted acomprehensive review of HBApractices and accounting in 2005, which resulted in its documentation of courses that carry HBAs. There were several different terms employed within the District to refer to HBAs,making it difficult to decipher the number of hours offered. Board ofTntstees JACK LUCAS,Ed.D" President· CHRISCONSTAr.'TIN, VicePresident· ADRIENNE GREY' ROBERTT.OWENS, BUCKPOLK' CHRISTOPHER STAMPOLIS' CHAD WALSH BUilding Silicon Va!lev's Future ... One Student at a Time. WEST VALLEYCOLLEGE, SARATOGA' MISSION COLLEGE, SANTA CLARA District Response to Finding 2 Agree. Inthe past, documentation of HBAenrollment reporting was inconsistent and in some casesnot done. These discrepancies have been corrected.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The West Valley-Mission Community College District should adhere to the terms outlined in the Resolution Agreement of December 5,2008. District Responseto Recommendation 1 The recommendation hasbeen implemented. The District hasadhered to the terms of the Resolution Agreement.

F3: The required yearly financial audits did not include anadequate inspection and evaluation of the district's system of internal control over its financial reporting with regard to reported enrollment in HBAsper class. The audit did not employ asufficiently rigorous examination of FTESaccounting used to calculate apportionment. The level of depth in the audit was insufficient to uncover the long-term and ongoing deficiencies in the method of determining HBAsand the FTESthat were claimed on the basis of that determination. District Response to Finding 3 Agree. The District contracts for an annual Financial Audit performed by an independent audit firm pursuant to requirements of state law and Audit Manual instructions promulgated bythe State Chancellor and State Department of Finance. Audit Manual instructions provide for asampling of enrollment reporting accuracy and documentation. PastAudits did not reveal aproblem with HBA enrollment reporting. The Resolution Agreement between the District and the State Chancellor obligated the District to perform special focused independent audits of HBA enrollment reporting. Special audits will bedone.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The yearly financial audit should focus in particular on the treatment of supplemental instructional hours and the FTESclaimed, beyond the time frame stated in the Resolution Agreement. Those charged with the audit should bethoroughly trained asto what their investigation should cover, what their

F4: Asa result of incomplete HBAdocumentation, the District isrequired to repay the state $5,644,227. District Response to Finding 4 Agree. The Resolution Agreement requires that the District repay the State in the amount of $5,644,227. The District has repaid $5,150,739 to date. The balance of $493,488 will be paid to the State over the next two years pursuant to terms of the Resolution Agreement.

F5: Asof the date of this report, Mission College haseliminated all unscheduled HBAs. West Valley College hascontinued offering supplemental hours of instruction utilizing procedures in compliance with Title 5 of the California Education Code. The West Valley-Mission Community College District now utilizes a multi-page form allfaculty must complete before making supplemental instructional hours part of their courses. The Grand Jury believes that the District isnow providing adequate documentation of supplemental hours, and careful accounting of FTES. District Responseto Finding5 Agree. The District isnow providing proper documentation of HBAenrollment.

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R2: The District should conduct ayearly review of its catalog, course outline, and syllabi to ensure information on supplemental hours of instruction isidentical. District Responseto Recommendation 2 The Recommendation hasbeen implemented. The District does perform annual and semi-annual reviews of college catalogs, course outlines, and syllabi to ensure that information on HBA isconsistent and correct.

June 24, 2009 — LOMAPRiETA I-joint- Union -school -district-i

5 pages 6 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 6 findings

F1: Boards of Trustees approve overly generous benefits to themselves, which include thefollowing: • Fully paid health benefits for trustees and theirfamilies (often exceeding those of teachers and/or with nopayment ceiling • Excessive travel and conference costs • Pension contribution Board of Trustees: Diane Matlock, President Rachelle Lapp, Vice-President Paula Lacey, Member Mario Montana, Member Tricia Rasmussen, Member The Lorna Prieta School District disagrees with the finding. The District does not provide medical benefits for Trustees or any compensation stipends.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Boards of Trustees should carefully review the benefits listed in Finding 1and; • Eliminate health benefits for Board Members • Minimize travel and conference costs • Eliminate pension contributions Response Two years ago, the District Board of Trustees has taken steps to minimize travel and conference costs. The District does not provide medical benefits for Trustees or pension contributions.

F2: Boards of Trustees are approving overly generous benefits to Superintendents and Chancellors, including thefollowing: • Auto allowances (auto leases/purchases, insurance, maintenance, etc.) to superintendents • Housing allowances • Million dollar housing loans at zero or below market interest rates • Guaranteed annual step and/or longevity increases • Signing bonuses • Contract Buyouts • Excessive performance bonuses • Per diem payments when out of the district • Personal technology • Professional memberships and subscription allowances • Excessive travel and entertainment expenses • Salary increases automatically triggered by increases in teacher's salaries which are in addition to other guaranteed salary increases • Pension allowances (in addition to regular STRS/PERS contributions) • Advanced degree stipends • Lifetime medical insurance benefits • Annual physicals Response The Lorna Prieta School District disagrees with the finding. Santa Clara County school districts face considerable challenges in attracting and maintaining qualified applicants for superintendent positions. The high cost of living inthe area, coupled with extreme demands and pressures of the position, have created a market in which compensation packages offering certain benefits are viewed as a necessity. In the vast majority of cases, the benefits are not "overly generous," but in line with the realities of market supply and demand.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Boards of Trustees should carefully review and renegotiate the Superintendent/Chancellor benefits listed in Finding #2for possible reduction and/or elimination. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. It is unrealistic to expect superintendents to renegotiate their benefits, and impractical to believe such a renegotiation would not hinder recruitment and retention in these crucial positions. Demand for qualified people who can fill these positions is very high. In the current market, incumbents who face reduced benefits can and will leave for similar positions in other district or states where the benefits are intact; or for positions inthe private sector, where compensation packages far exceed those in school districts. Response The Grand Jury's recommendation does serve as a reminder to all trustees to carefully scrutinize benefit packages offered to superintendents in future contracts.

F3: Superintendent salaries and increases appear to bear no relationship to the number of schools, students and employees they oversee, nor their district's academic improvement. Response Superintendent salaries often are related to the size of the district, but that is only one of a myriad of factors that determine compensation. Also, many superintendent evaluations do typically take student academic performance into consideration. Student's performance is a major evaluation area for our district.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The Board of Trustees should ensure that Superintendent/Chancellor salaries and increases take into account the number of schools, teachers, and students they oversee, and are tied to the district's students' progress and quantifiable metrics. Response The recommendation has been partially implemented, in that many superintendent evaluations do typically take student academic performance into consideration. The remainder of the recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. Tying superintendent salaries to district size would be a simplistic and counter productive approach to finding and retaining district leaders who are best suited for the particular characteristics and challenges of a given district. There are many other factors other than size that come into play when compensating leadership - a superintendent's tenure, the characteristics of the students served by the districts, the nature of the community, etc. Also, to a large extent the process of hiring a superintendent is tied to the circumstance of the time; a district, whether large, small or in-between, cannot choose to hire a superintendent when market conditions are favorable. Given the crucial nature of the position, districts try to fill the job with a highly qualified candidate as expeditiously as is reasonable.

F4: Boards of Trustees hire costly search firms to recruit successors for retiring or dismissed Superintendents/Chance Ilors. The price of hiring a search firm, weighed against the benefit of bringing in a strong pool of highly qualified candidates, does not seem "costly". The current superintendent is in his year of tenure in 6th the Lorna Prieta School District. The total cost for the hiring of our superintendent was six thousand dollars ($6,000).

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: Boards of Trustees should conduct a preliminary search within the local area prior to hiring search firms. Response The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The Board is not currently undertaking a superintendent search, but will consider this option when the time is appropriate.

F5: Boards of Trustees approve the hiring of multiple private attorneys, in some cases at a tremendous expense. Response School districts often are involved in complex legal issues that require legal expertise in sub-sections of the Education Code, requiring considerable specialized legal capacity, time and energy. Considering all the complex legal issues school districts are required to address, our attorney fees are minimal. Legal cost expenditures are a major area of responsibilities for superintendent.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: All Boards of Trustees should engage County Counsel whenever possible and leverage their buying power to negotiate lowerfees with private lawfirms. Response The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented by the District in the future.

F6: The operation of 31K-12 school districts andfour (4) community college districts creates excessively high management and administrative costs. Five K-12 school district have excessively high Superintendent costs per student which is reflective of the district's having only one or two schools. Response The Lorna Prieta School District partially agrees with the finding, in that the large number of districts does compound administrative costs. However, to draw cost-benefit conclusions on the basis of superintendent costs per student can be a highly misleading approach.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: A consolidation of districts should be considered to reduce the numbers and costs of Superintendents/Chancellors, Boards of Trustees, administrative staff and overhead. Local boards and trustees cannot implement the recommendation because under the California education code, consolidation of school districts isrelegated to the people who live in the school district. Should communities wish tojoin with other communities to create larger school or community college districts, the process is clearly spelled out in the Education Code, under which a vote of the electorate can change district organization. A final word: Today more than ever, Santa Clara County school districts are examining expenditures and procedures in order to be as efficient and thrifty as possible. The Grand Jury report is one more reminder of the necessity of that. Our district will be reviewing cost cutting recommendations made by the Grand Jury report throughout this year. Should you have any questions related to this matter please do not hesitate to contact me at (408) 353-1101. Henrffastaniada, Superintendent

June 11, 2009 — 2008-2009 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report Department of Correction/facilities and Fleet

12 pages 15 findings 15 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 15 findings

F1: 1a. FAF is invited but rarely attends the monthly meetings held by the Elmwood Captain at Elmwood, where Operations and Custody issues are discussed. Effective exchange of issues and concerns does not occur among all responsible agencies. 1b. The DOC Support Services Division Commander meets monthly with the FAF Executive Manager of Building Operations at Berger Drive. Problems expressed by staff do not appear to reach these individuals. 1c. Corrective Maintenance meetings are held every Thursday at 1 pm. on Berger Drive. They are attended by FAF Managers and the supervisors who answer to them. One or two high-ranking DOC Operations staff usually attend. Custody attends only when they have a problem. There is no agenda and no minutes are kept. These are informal meetings to air problems and give status reports on major projects. 1d. FAF states they have an appointed Facilities Manager at DOC. However, DOC staff state they do not know of any “Facilities Manager.”

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: DOC and FAF should schedule weekly meetings with mandatory attendance by DOC Operations Managers and FAF Maintenance Managers to discuss common problems and concerns, and to share project plans and updates. There should be a formal agenda and published minutes available to all staff of both facilities, including Custody administration. The DOC Facilities Manager should be formally identified and his responsibilities as liaison made explicit to all staff by the Support Services Division Commander. FAF should implement the formal customer feedback mechanism cited in its reply to the 2008 County Building Maintenance Report.

F2: DOC is limited to setting all service requests as “Priority Three” or below, though they phone in emergency Priority One and Two requests for immediate help. Work orders are prioritized by the MAXIMO Building Operations Monitor Systems Operator and responded to according to the urgency of the problem, defined as the “severity of the damage it can do and the disruption to the client’s operations”: 6 Priority 1 – Health and Safety – Immediate Response Priority 2 – Mission Critical – 24-hour Response Priority 3 – Painting, etc – 48-hour Response Priority 4 – Tenant request, non-urgent – ten-day Response Priority 5 – 30-day Response Priority Three response time is typically over one week. DOC states that problems such as a malfunctioning security camera may be assigned the same priority as a painting job.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The ability of DOC to set priority should be revisited during the mandatory meetings between FAF and DOC.

F3: The Elmwood Office Specialist’s primary job is to submit service requests to FAF. Other DOC personnel submit them as well, sometimes resulting in the same request being sent in multiple times, and duplicate work orders.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: DOC should assign one Office Specialist and one designated back-up to enter all service requests to avoid duplicates. It should be noted DOC is already working on this problem.

F4: DOC is not given advance notice of when jobs will begin, but require such notice if inmates must be moved.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: DOC service requests should indicate if inmates will need to be moved to allow FAF access. It should be noted that Custody administration has put itself on-call to be available any time for inmate moving to assist FAF in accessing areas. 7

F5: 5a. There are approximately 100 entries and exits per day by FAF personnel at Elmwood, 30 of which are not electronically recorded, and 70 of which are recorded by card swipe. 5b. With an average of 20 corrective maintenance service requests per day, DOC is unable to reconcile the large number of workers with the number of jobs, and the large numbers of entries and exits. DOC questions the need for so many FAF staff at Elmwood. 5c. DOC does not know which jobs are being done on any particular day. 5d. DOC is not informed of job progress. This is problematic when jobs involve more than one trade. Trades do not communicate and work stops until DOC realizes the first part of a job is done and it is time to schedule the next trade. 5e. DOC is not given notice of job completion and must personally check job areas for job status, which is time-consuming in a 62+ acre facility.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: 5a. FAF should track entries by work order number. This will identify any superfluous personnel at Elmwood, 5b. FAF should add an additional card reader at the West entrance off Thompson St. 5c. FAF should simultaneously fax duplicates of daily work orders to the OS desk. DOC would be able to spot-check work in progress, precluding the need to contact FAF. 5d. See Finding 5d and 5e. 5e. See Finding 5d and 5e.

F6: DOC has been unable to electronically monitor work status.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: FAF should provide DOC with training on how to access and utilize MAXIMO capabilities as they relate to DOC concerns. 8

F7: 7a. There is little or no supervision of FAF staff and DOC notices “idle” FAF staff. 7b. DOC Operations staff does not inspect or approve completed jobs done by eitherFAF or outside vendors/contractors. FAF workers sign off on their own jobs. 7c. The DOC Correctional Support Services Manager is not readily available at Elmwood. Custody personnel must liaise with FAF on big jobs, though Operations is not their responsibility. 7d. The DOC Assistant Operations Manager, though stationed at Elmwood, does not frequently leave the shop area to monitor the overall state of the facility, and to oversee and coordinate the efforts of Ops and FAF. This task is left to other Operations and Custody personnel who are then forced to neglect their specified duties.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: DOC should direct the DOC Correctional Support Services Manager to spend sufficient time at Elmwood to effectively supervise and monitor ongoing work. He should be accessible to his Ops staff so issues can be conveyed to FAF during meetings. DOC should ensure that the appropriate DOC personnel conduct spot visits to work areas and regular patrols of Elmwood with the Safety Officer, and be available to liaise with FAF on major projects.

F8: FAF deletes work orders that are not addressed within three months from the system without always first notifying the client.

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: FAF needs to check with DOC before deleting or closing inactive work orders, even though the deletions may seem to be “common sense” decisions.

F9: On average, there are four outside vendors/contractors working at Elmwood per day. They must be escorted by CSAs. If they arrive unexpectedly, CSAs may be on other assignments, and the vendors must wait until CSAs are available, wasting time and money. 9

Related Recommendations (1)

R9: FAF should inform DOC as far in advance as possible to arrange for escorts when multiple vendors are scheduled. FAF should advise DOC of where vendors are to work, and be prepared to escort the vendors if necessary.

F10: FAF work is frequently delayed when inmates are in areas FAF needs to access.

Related Recommendations (1)

R10: FAF should make every effort to let DOC know when FAF needs access to inmate occupied areas. It should be noted that Custody administration has put itself on-call to be available any time for inmate moving to assist FAF in accessing areas, and that FAF plans to assign one of its long-time Elmwood workers as onsite supervisor for the entire facility.

F11: DOC receives a non-itemized bill from FAF for accumulated corrective maintenance charges. In FY 2008, this bill totaled $3.364M.

Related Recommendations (1)

R11: FAF should provide to DOC an itemized quarterly statement so that the charges can be reconciled with the services provided to ensure accurate accounting.

F12: Several DOC personnel enter service requests to FAF (through the FAF web site or by e-mail). This at times results in duplicate requests, resulting in duplicate work orders. The duplicates show up on MAXIMO as incomplete jobs, requiring review several months later.

Related Recommendations (1)

R12: It should be noted DOC is already working on designating only one individual to enter all requests. 10

F13: FAF supervisors work at Berger Drive. They make brief and infrequent visits to Elmwood. As a result, FAF is unable to verify the hours their workers spend on the job.

Related Recommendations (1)

R13: FAF should designate a supervisor for Elmwood. It should be noted that FAF plans to assign one of their long-time Elmwood workers as onsite supervisor for the facility.

F14: FAF has not implemented the formal customer feedback process cited in its response to the 2007-2008 Civil Grand Jury Report County Building Maintenance: High Cost, Poor Customer Communication.

Related Recommendations (1)

R14: FAF should implement the formal customer feedback process cited in its response to the 2007-2008 Civil Grand Jury Report County Building Maintenance: High Cost, Poor Customer Communication.

F15: FAF Building Operations last received a county management audit in 1991 when it was known as GSA.

Related Recommendations (1)

R15: The County Board of Supervisors should order a management audit on FAF. This report was PASSED and ADOPTED with a concurrence of at least 12 grand jurors on this 21st day of May, 2009. Don Kawashima Foreperson June Nishimoto Foreperson pro tem 12

June 10, 2009 — 2008-2009 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report Los Lagos Golf Course – San Jose’s Financial

12 pages 6 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 6 findings

F1: The City decided to construct another municipal golf course at a time when six other golf courses were under construction and the surrounding communities already had municipal or public access courses. The expected total annual rounds of golf to be played have fallen short of the expectations contained in the original feasibility studies.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Prior to making critical decisions the City Manager must furnish the City Council with current feasibility studies. The information should include a City staff review of all assumptions made in the study for accuracy and conformance to existing City policy and procedures (e.g., living and prevailing wage rates, labor hours, cost-of-borrowing, etc).

F2: The cost of labor for operations and maintenance of the golf course was found to have been underestimated by the feasibility studies by about 33,000 labor hours resulting in $570,000 annually. The City Manager has failed to provide an explanation whether this was the fault of the original study, failure of verification by City staff, or lack of operational oversight.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The City Manager should investigate the reasons behind the increased labor costs of the project, which has had a significant impact on the structural deficit. The City Manager should change and apply policy to reflect any lessons learned.

F3: At the time the construction bids were opened, an unanticipated 31% increase in construction cost was revealed.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The City Manager should ensure that all departments develop and rigorously follow policies that require: • Project studies to be updated to reflect the impact of “scope creep” on cost • Additional approval cycle if cost increases exceed a predetermined percentage of the total 9

F4: At the time a decision was reached to approve the master plan, the feasibility study was one year old and had not been updated.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: Prior to making critical decisions the City Manager must furnish the City Council with current feasibility studies. The information should include a City staff review of all assumptions made in the study for accuracy and conformance to existing City policy and procedures (e.g., living and prevailing wage rates, labor hours, cost-of-borrowing, etc).

F5: Although there were significant increases of amenities and construction costs, the City Council and City Manager failed to readdress whether or not the golf course would be financially self-sustaining.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: The City Manager should ensure that all departments develop and rigorously follow policies that require: • Project studies to be updated to reflect the impact of “scope creep” on cost • Additional approval cycle if cost increases exceed a predetermined percentage of the total

F6: The City Council and City Manager have failed to identify any viable solutions to mitigate the ongoing golf course deficit.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: The City Manager should provide information to the public as to proposed alternatives or solutions to the golf course deficits at Los Lagos and Rancho del Pueblo.

June 09, 2009 — 2008-2009 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report Santa Clara County Schools Inventory Practices $300m+ Taxpayer

17 pages 11 findings 11 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 11 findings

F1: Community colleges and K-12 boards of trustees are responsible for inventory control. However, after interviewing ALL board of trustee presidents it was evident they were unaware of their obligations under the law. • All K-8 and K-12 and Community College Districts

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Trustees should review and be knowledgeable of Education Code §35168 for K–12 and Education Code §81600 for community colleges to ensure complete implementation. • All K-8 and K-12 and Community College District Boards of Trustees

F2: No trustees or superintendents/chancellors have been trained in inventory control. Inventory control training for board members and superintendents is not mandated by the State, resulting in a lack of familiarity and inconsistent application of inventory requirements by many districts. • All K-8 and K-12 and community college districts 5

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: All Santa Clara County school board trustees and superintendents/chancellors should be required to review and understand Education Code §35168 and §81600 and BAM requirements for inventory control. For K-12 districts, the COE should take the lead in providing comprehensive training on inventory control, in conjunction with the release of the new inventory tracking module within Quintessential Software Systems spearheaded by the COE. For community colleges, the CC Board should investigate additional training in the area of inventory control offered through organizations such as the American Association of Community Colleges and the Community College League of California. • All K-8 and K-12 and Community College District Boards of Trustees • COE Board of Trustees

F3: All district superintendents, chancellors and district staff report incomplete inventory information to their boards. This results in lack of knowledge about the value and size of their inventory. • All K-8 and K-12 and community college districts

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: All Boards of Trustees should require a presentation on the results of their districts’ biennial inventory, including total value, variances resulting from reconciliation between past and current inventories and a proposed plan to resolve discrepancies. • All K-8 and K-12 & Community College District Boards of Trustees

F4: With the exception of Santa Clara Unified and Los Gatos Unified School Districts, all K- 12 districts fail to understand the need to reconcile inventories from previous years to the latest inventory update. Without reconciliation, the opportunity to: identify lost, missing or stolen items, take preventive measures, and obtain timely reimbursement may be lost. • All K-8 and K-12 Boards of Trustees (except Santa Clara Unified and Los Gatos Unified) 6

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: All K-12 school districts should reconcile the most current, full inventory with prior inventories, to identify missing items and potential losses/thefts. The results will enable the districts to implement safeguards to prevent future losses. • All K-8 and K-12 Boards of Trustees (except Santa Clara Unified and Los Gatos Unified)

F5: Many K-12 Districts are not following requirements for inventory control as stated in Education Code §35168, and/or their own policies and procedures. A) The following districts do not have an inventory listing or the inventory list that they do have is extremely deficient: • Cambrian School District • Lakeside School District B) The following districts lack Board Policy or Administrative Regulations regarding inventory, and/or they failed to delegate inventory responsibility: • East Side Union High School District • Gilroy Unified School District • Los Altos Unified School District • Montebello School District • Mountain View Whisman School District • Palo Alto Unified School District • Saratoga Union School District C) The following districts are not tracking all items valued above $500 as required by Education Code §35168: • Cambrian School District • Gilroy School District • Los Altos School District • Palo Alto Unified School District 7 D) The following districts do not conduct Inventory on a biennial basis as required by Education Code: (Note: A rolling inventory is not considered a physical inventory as defined by code) • Cambrian School District • Cupertino Union School District • East Side Union School District • Evergreen School District • Fremont Union High School District • Gilroy School District • Los Altos School District • Los Gatos/Saratoga High School District • Morgan Hill Unified School District • Mountain View/Los Altos Union High School District • Palo Alto Unified School District

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: A) The Boards of Trustees for the districts listed in Finding 5A should conduct a full inventory or improve their existing inventory listing. B) Board Policies/Administrative Regulations should be implemented by the Boards of Trustees in all districts listed in Finding 5B, assigning inventory control responsibilities and training to the superintendent, business manager, or appropriate designee. All districts should ensure that their policies remain current and in compliance. CSBA provides a good template for Board Policies in the area of Inventory Control conforming to Education Code §35168. These districts should provide training for staff responsible for inventory. C) The Boards of Trustees for districts listed in Finding 5C should fully implement the tracking requirements for equipment with current market value above $500 for K-12. These districts should provide training for staff responsible for inventory. D) The Boards of Trustees for districts listed in Finding 5D should conduct inventory at least biennially and track all parameters as specified in Education Code §35168. These districts should provide training for staff responsible for inventory. 8

F6: Some school districts observed by the GJ had a demonstrated understanding of the need for inventory control. Best practices include documenting and following a process, conforming to the Education Code requirements, and performing reconciliation to prior inventories. The following districts are to be commended on their best practices: • Fremont Union School District • Los Gatos Unified School District • Moreland School District • Orchard School District • Santa Clara Unified School District

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: Design of final inventory reports There are three major stages in taking the physical inventory: the precount, the actual count, and the recount. TERMS Equipment (definition from the California Community College Budgeting and Accounting Manual) Equipment is defined as having a purchase price of $ 200 or more and a useful life of one year or longer. The threshold for maintaining inventory in a trace inventory system and for recording the asset in the General Fixed Assets Account Group is $ 1000 and a useful life of one year or longer. Equipment purchased with funds from categorical programs, grants or contracts (e.g. VTEA) may be subject to specific additional or conflicting requirements. Consult the specific grant or contract literature or compliance requirements. “By way of example, let us classify both a personal computer and a calculator. The computer is likely to last more than one year, and if it did break down, it is most likely to be repaired. The calculator may last more than one year, but in the event the calculator stopped working, it would be replaced, not repaired.” Thus it would be declared a supply rather than equipment for the purpose of inventory requirements. Inventory (definition from the California Community College Budgeting and Accounting Manual) “A detailed list showing quantities and description of property on hand at any given time. It may also include units of measure, unit prices, and values.” Federal Register July 2005 410-1 16 This report was PASSED and ADOPTED with a concurrence of at least 12 grand jurors on this 20th day of April, 2009. Don Kawashima Foreperson 17

F7: There is a potential for abuse in K-8 and K-12 districts when those who report to superintendents approve credit card transactions and purchase orders made by their superintendent. • All K-8 and K-12 School Districts

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: To strengthen internal controls and ensure fiscal accountability, purchases made by the K-8 and K-12 Superintendents should be approved by the Boards of Trustees prior to purchase. In the event an immediate purchase is required, post-approval by the Board would ensure no conflicts of interest or abuses occur. Expenditures should be presented separately from the Board’s consent calendar to ensure proper scrutiny. Credit card statements and a listing of disbursements should be provided to the Board for approval. • All K-8 and K-12 District Boards of Trustees 9 COMMUNITY COLLEGES

F8: All community college districts delegated the responsibilities for Inventory Control to the Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor or the College Presidents. Gavilan Joint Community College District does not have a Board Policy or Administrative Regulations addressing Inventory Control. • Gavilan Joint Community College District

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: The Board of Trustees for Gavilan Joint Community College District should ensure development and implementation of Board Policy and Administration Regulations addressing Inventory Control. Foothill/De Anza College has a Board Policy and Administrative Procedures that could be utilized as a template by Gavilan if they so choose. This district should ensure that their policies remain current and in compliance and provide training for staff responsible for inventory. • Gavilan Joint Community College District Board of Trustees

F9: Three (3) of four (4) community college districts failed to conduct inventory as is specified by CSAM 410 (California School Accounting Manual) Procedures and the California Community College Budget and Accounting Manual (BAM). Districts only included items at or above $5000 in their inventory, where the requirements in CSAM and the BAM state that any items greater than $1000 should be included. • Foothill/De Anza Community College District • Gavilan Joint Community College District • West Valley/Mission Community College District

Related Recommendations (1)

R9: The Board of Trustees for Foothill/De Anza, Gavilan, and West Valley/Mission College Districts should ensure compliance with the CSAM 410 procedures and BAM guidelines by tracking inventory items greater than $1000. These districts should provide training for staff responsible for inventory. • Foothill/De Anza Community College District Board of Trustees • Gavilan Joint Community College District Board of Trustees • West Valley/Mission Community College District Board of Trustees 10

F10: The following community college districts are not conducting inventories annually or reconciling to verify the existence, current utilization, and continued need for the equipment on a biennial basis, according to procedures specified in CSAM 410 (California School Accounting Manual). • Foothill/De Anza Community College District • Gavilan Joint Community College District

Related Recommendations (1)

R10: The Boards of Trustees for Foothill/De Anza and Gavilan Joint Community College Districts should ensure inventories are conducted as specified in CSAM 410. • Foothill/De Anza Community College Board of Trustees • Gavilan Joint Community College Board of Trustees

F11: Chancellors’ purchases (both credit card and purchase orders) are approved by subordinates, mainly direct reports. While the vast majority of these direct reports expressed that their chancellors are very conservative with regard to spending, there is a potential for abuse. • Foothill/De Anza Community College District • Gavilan Joint Community College District • San Jose/Evergreen Community College District • West Valley/Mission Community College District

Related Recommendations (1)

R11: To strengthen internal controls and ensure fiscal accountability, purchases made by chancellors should be approved by the Board of Trustees. In the event an immediate purchase is required, post-approval by the Board would ensure no conflicts of interest or abuses occur. Credit card statements and a listing of disbursements should be provided to the Board for approval. Expenditures should be presented separately from the Board’s consent calendar to ensure proper scrutiny. • Foothill/De Anza Community College District Board of Trustees • Gavilan Joint Community College District Board of Trustees • San Jose/Evergreen Community College District Board of Trustees • West Valley/Mission Community College District Board of Trustees

June 09, 2009 — Union School District

6 pages 7 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings

F1: Community colleges and K-12 board of trustees are responsible for inventory control. However, after interviewing all board of trustee presidents it was evident they were unaware of their obligations under the law. Although we are unable to respond regarding the awareness of all board presidents, we agree that they are responsible for inventory control.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Trustees should review and be knowledgeable of Education Code §35168 for K-12 and Education Code §81600 for community colleges to ensure complete implementation. The recommendation has been implemented with Union School District staff reporting at the December 8, 2008 meeting on asset inventory practices which included discussion on the findings and recommendations of the grand jury.

F2: No trustees or superintendents/chancellors have been trained in inventory control. Inventory control training for board members and superintendents is not mandated by the State, resulting in a lack of familiarity and inconsistent application of inventory requirements by many districts. We agree that training is not mandated by the State. We do not know if trustees or superintendents in other districts have been trained.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: All Santa Clara county school board trustees and superintendents/chancellors should be required to review and understand Education Code §35168 and §81600 and BAM requirements for inventory control. For K-12 districts, the COE should take the lead in providing comprehensive training on inventory control, in conjunction with the release of the new inventory tracing module within Quintessential Software Systems spearheaded by the COE. The recommendation has been implemented. The Union School District Board of Trustees discussed and approved the updated inventory policies at their December 8, 2008 and January 12, 2009 meetings. The updated policies are Board Policy 3270, Sale and Disposal of Books, Equipment and Supplies, and Board Policy 3440, Inventories, which are based on Education Code §35168. Beginning with the 2002-2003 school year Union School District has used the firm of California Property Records System to perform physical inventories every other year. The inventory records have been available on hard copy and disk. A year ago the fixed asset inventory was migrated to a dedicated web-based asset management system which has additional features for tracking and report writing. of 5 Inventory Practices

F3: All district superintendents, chancellors and district staff report incomplete inventory information to their boards. This results in lack of knowledge about the value and size of the inventory. Disagree. The Union School District Board of Trustees approves warrant lists for purchase of equipment and also approves the surplusing of equipment. Each year the Board approves the budgets, actual expenditures, and interim reports which include objects 4400, 6400 and 6500 defined as Non-capitalized Equipment, Equipment and Equipment Replacement. Two years of machinery and equipment capital asset totals are presented and compared in the annual District audit performed by an independent auditor.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: All Boards of Trustees should require a presentation on the results of their districts' biennial inventory, including total value, variances resulting from reconciliation between past and current inventories and a proposed plan to resolve discrepancies. The recommendation will be completely implemented when the 2008-09 audit is finished and presented to the Board in January 2010. Under the Management's Discussion and Analysis section, staff will include in the fixed assets section under Financial Highlights the information as noted above.

F4: With the exception of Santa Clara Unified and Los Gatos Unified School Districts, all K 12 districts fail to understand the need to reconcile inventories from previous years to the latest inventory update. Without reconciliation, the opportunity to: identify lost, missing or stolen items, take preventive measures, and obtain timely reimbursement may be lost. Disagree, since Union School District reconciles inventories from previous years to the latest inventory update.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: All K-12 school districts should reconcile the most current, full inventory with prior inventories, to identify missing items and potentiallosses/thefts. The results will enable the districts to implement safeguards to prevent future losses. Union School District has reconciled the most current inventory with prior inventories.

F5: Many K-12 districts are not following requirements for inventory control as stated in Education Code §35168 and/or their own policies and procedures. A) The following districts do not have an inventory listing or the inventory list that they do have is extremely deficient: • Cambrian School District Inventory Practices • Lakeside School District B) The following districts lack Board Policy or Administrative Regulations regarding inventory, and/or they failed to delegate inventory responsibility" • East Side Union High School District • Gilroy Unified School District • Los Altos Unified School District • Montebello School District • Mountain View Whisman School District • Palo Alto Unified School District • Saratoga Union School District C) The following districts are not tracking all items valued above $500 as required by Education Code §35168: • Cambrian School District • Gilroy Unified School District • Los Altos Unified School District • Palo Alto Unified School District 0) The following districts do not conduct inventory on a biennial basis as required by Education Code: (Note: A rolling inventory is not considered aphysical inventory as defined by code) • Cambrian School District • Cupertino Union School District • East Side Union High School District • Evergreen School District • Fremont Union High School District • Gilroy Unified School District • Los Altos Unified School District • Los Gatos/Saratoga High School District • Morgan Hill Unified School District • Mountain View/Los Altos Union High School District • Palo Alto Unified School District Not App/icab/e

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: A) The Boards of Trustees for the districts listed in Finding A should conduct a full inventory or improve their existing inventory listing. Not App/icable B) Board Policies/Administrative Regulations should be implemented by the Boards of Trustees in all districts listed in Finding 5B, assigning inventory control responsibilities and training to the superintendent, business manager, or appropriate designee. All districts should ensure that their policies remain current and in compliance. CSBA provides a good template for Board Policies in the area Inventory Practices of Inventory control conforming to Education Code §35168. These districts should provide training for staff responsible for inventory. Not Applicable C) The Boards of Trustees for districts listed in Finding 5C should fully implement the tracking requirements for equipment with current market value above $500 for K 12. These districts should provide training for staff responsible for inventory. Not Applicable D) The Boards of Trustees for districts listed in Finding 5D should conduct inventory at least biennially and track all parameters as specified in Education Code §35168. These districts should provide training for staff responsible for inventory. Not Applicable

F6: Some school districts observed by the GJ had a demonstrated understanding of the need for inventory control. Best practices include documenting and following a process, conforming to the Education Code requirements, and performing reconciliation to prior inventories. The following districts are to be commended on their best practices: • Fremont Union High School District • Los Gatos Unified School District • Moreland School District • Orchard School District • Santa Clara Unified School District

F7: There is a potential for abuse in K-8 and K-12 districts when those who report to superintendents approve credit card transactions and purchase orders made by their superintendent. Disagree. In Union School District all credit card transactions and purchase order approvals must follow the same stringent internal controls overseen by the Chief Financial Officer (CFO). The CFO's position is not part of the management agreement but has a separate employment agreement directly with the Board of Trustees. Inventory Practices

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: To strengthen internal controls and ensure fiscal accountability, purchases made by the K-8 and K-12 Superintendents should be approved by the Board of Trustees prior to purchase. Inthe event an immediate purchase is required, post-approval by the Board would ensure no conflicts of interest or abuses occur. Expenditures should be presented separately from the Board's consent calendar to ensure proper scrutiny. Credit card statements and a listing of disbursements should be provided to the Board for approval. This recommendation regarding pre-approval for purchases made by the superintendent will not be implemented since it is not warranted. Union School District has excellent internal controls in place. The business department is charged with ensuring that all expenditures including payroll, benefits, supplies, travel, services, equipment and construction, etc. follow stringent internal controls. The CFO has a separate contract with the Board. On ayearly basis, the external auditors test all areas of controls, examine in detail selected expenditures and review the credit card expenditures. The auditors report directly to the Board on the financial condition ofthe District and on any concerns they have with business procedures. The results ofthe annual audits indicate that the District's internal control processes are sufficiently rigorous to ensure against internal and external abuses. The recommendation regarding credit card statements will be partially implemented. Union School District has sufficient internal controls on the use ofits 1credit card which has an account limit of $5,900. One District office administrative assistant is custodian of the card and it is used judiciously for purchases that are difficult to make by purchase order. The credit card is used by all the departments; it is not the Superintendent's credit card. All charges must have an itemized bill/invoice with a required form which details information on the charge and 2 authorizing signatures. The CFO reviews all purchases and back-up documents for compliance and appropriateness. Beginning in September 2009, the Superintendent will review credit card purchases with the Board president on a monthly basis. Additionally, the Board of Trustees approves the credit card payments and individual purchase order payments on the warrant list each month.

June 03, 2009 — extra benefits

6 pages 1 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 1 findings

F4: - Boards hire costly search firms to recruit successor Chancellors. Response: Disaflree. Explanation: The District does not characterize the hiring of search firms as "costly", but rather as an appropriate expenditure to ensure the District does its best work to find and consider qualified candidates.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: - Boards should conduct a preliminary search within the local area prior to hiring search firms Response and Explanation: Will not be implemented. Search firms provide avaluable service in locating and encouraging qualified candidates to apply for senior level positions. Search firms typically have awider network of contacts outside of regular advertising methods and can be consistently more successful at improving the size and quality of applicant pool.

Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

R3: - Boards should ensure that Chancellor salaries and increases take into account the number of schools, teachers, and students they oversee, and are tied to the district's student progress and quantifiable metrics. Response and Explanation: Af!ree and further analvze. It may be appropriate to tie salaries in some manner to the size of an institution and its measure of success; such models are easier to implement to predict salary and benefits. However, each institution faces significant challenge in meeting the needs of its students with shrinking resources and increasing demand and the size of an institution does not always adequately predict the level or magnitude of challenge associated with bringing success. A smaller institution can often come with additional, or different, challenges as it addresses the need to provide services to its students without the benefit of flexibility from a larger staff and faculty. Regardless of the criteria and considerations included in considering the salary of a chancellor, chancellor tenure and continued employment should be tied to measures of success and regularly monitored. The District will review the proposed salary of its new chancellor and make a determination by December 2009. The District is currently in the process of recruiting for a chancellor and will conclude its review prior to making an offer of employment and salary to the successful candidate. Grand Jury Report Response of5 September 8,2009 ______________ ._. . . .. __. 0----------------- ----------- -~.--------

R5: - Boards of Trustees should engage County Counsel whenever possible and leverage their buying power to negotiate lower fees with private law firms. Response and Explanation - Alreadv implemented prior to Grand Jurv Report. The District has a long standing relationship with the Office of the County Counsel.

June 01, 2009 — 2008-2009 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Taking the Public for

27 pages 17 findings 25 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 17 findings

F1a: The term “watchdog” is a misnomer. The structure and composition of the CWC called for in 2000 Measure A, as well as how the CWC responsibilities are interpreted by VTA staff and the Board, prevents the CWC from performing its duties effectively.

F1b: Although arguably the CWC may have technically complied with the minimum functions specified in Measure A, the CWC is failing the public by not providing reliable information to make intelligent decisions regarding transit in the county.

F2: The CWC is not independent. CWC members are appointed or have their appointment approved by the VTA board, the very people they are charged with overseeing. In other transportation agencies in California, citizen oversight bodies are appointed and/or approved by independent third parties (See Appendix A).

Related Recommendations (4)

R2: CAC/CWC members are approved by the VTA Board, compromising independence of thought and action.

R2a: The Grand Jury recognizes that the assignment of members of the CAC as the CWC is part of existing law and cannot be changed without a new ballot measure. However, the Board is at liberty to change the CAC bylaws and hence change who approves membership in this combined committee. The Grand Jury recommends that the Board change the bylaws so that the selection process is conducted by, and selections approved by an independent third party.

R2b: Former elected officials should not be allowed to sit on the Citizens Advisory Committee to eliminate the possibility of bias from prior responsibilities. 16

R2c: The CWC should have its own staff, independent of VTA staff, to set meeting agendas, coordinate project investigations, write reports and do other tasks assigned to the CWC.

F3: The CWC is not in control of its own agenda. CWC bylaws do not explicitly allow members to participate in setting the agenda for their own meeting. Other VTA committees such as the Policy Advisory Committee have this explicit right. The CWC chairperson reviews the staff-proposed agenda in advance and can suggest changes. Other members only view the agenda when formally published.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The bylaws should be amended to allow the CWC to prepare and set their own agenda without involvement of VTA Staff. If VTA Staff wishes to place an agenda item, they should consult with the CWC Chairperson, not the other way around.

F4a: While meeting the minimum requirements, CWC reports to the public have not been comprehensive, timely, or complete. The CWC has published only two three-page status reports since its inception in July 2006. The financial audit for FY 2007 (June 2007) was conducted by an independent auditor retained by VTA staff, not an independent auditor retained by the CWC. In FY 2008, audits of 2000 Measure A expenditures will be conducted by BOTH an independent auditor retained by VTA and an independent auditor retained by the CWC. The CWC has failed to take the opportunity to file more frequent reports on Measure A 2000 expenditures, such as monthly or quarterly reports.

F4b: The CWC has failed to inform the public that the 2000 Measure A sales tax revenue is not sufficient to complete all of the Measure A programs, and federal and state funding has not been identified to fill the gap. This has been clear to VTA management for some time.

F5: The VTA staff has forced its own perspective on the CWC regarding committee roles and responsibilities. VTA staff dictates have stifled independent thinking on the part of CWC members.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: The Board should direct VTA staff to revise its training materials and memoranda to include best practices of other transit agency watchdog committees and encourage the CWC to establish its own priorities and responsibilities. See Appendix A.

F6: Board workplans and meeting agendas are developed primarily by VTA staff.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: The VTA Board should prepare its own agendas and workplans. The Chairperson of the Board should consult with Board members, standing and advisory committees and VTA staff to formulate the agenda.

F7: With the exception of members from San Jose and the County, Board members have inadequate staff support to fully participate in Board activities. The volume of information supplied to Board members can serve to obscure key issues that deserve focus.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: The VTA Board should have its own staff, independent of VTA staff, to set meeting agendas, do project investigations, write reports, publish minutes and do other tasks required by the Board. 18

F8: Both the Hay Report and the State Auditor Report recommended that the VTA Board make every effort to insure that new board members have transportation experience by appointing new members with previous transportation experience and reappointing members for multiple terms. Nevertheless the Mayor of San Jose recently appointed two new board members to represent San Jose who have no previous transportation experience.

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: New VTA Board members must have transit knowledge. The VTA Board should require at least one full year on the PAC or another VTA advisory committee prior to being appointed to the Board.

F9: VTA failed to provide an updated Measure A Revenue and Expenditure Plan per their published schedule. As a result, voters were deprived of critical information necessary to make an informed decision regarding 2008 Measure B, an additional 1/8 cent sales tax to fund operating costs for a BART extension to San Jose / Santa Clara. The VTA had sufficient time and information to complete this update and made a deliberate decision not to publish it prior to the election. As a result, voters were never told that full funding for the BART extension would jeopardize the completion of the other Measure A projects.

Related Recommendations (3)

R9: Other Funds 17,889 $ 18,172

R9a: The VTA Board should explain why these facts were withheld from the public.

R9b: In future elections, the VTA Board should ensure that VTA staff provides the public with a comprehensive explanation of the ramifications of each measure, including the impact on both capital and operating funds, projections and budgets, as well as the effect on other projects.

F10: VTA effectively suspended the shovel-ready light rail extension to Eastridge, without informing the VTA Board or the CWC in advance. Additionally, they used evasive language to prevent the Board and the public from understanding the true status (“reaffirming” support) of the project. The people of East Valley deserve better from the representatives of San Jose on the VTA Board. 19

Related Recommendations (3)

R10: Interest Earnings on Avg Bal (1.5%) 9,976 $ 15,523 Total Revenue $ 12,947,251 $ 21,921,028 In order to begin Measure A programs in advance of tax collection, VTA issued anticipation bonds. $445M in proceeds from bond sales, which has to be repaid from Measure A revenue, was already on the books before a single dollar of tax was collected. By June 30, 2008 Measure A long-term debt was still $371.8M. Debt service cost over the life of Measure A was projected to be in excess of $2B in the 2006 Revenue and Expenditure Plan. At its April, 2008, meeting, VTA General Manager Michael Burns introduced the proposed process and guidelines to update the 2000 Measure A Revenue and Expenditure Plan. Concurrently, the Board was in the process of making key decisions on the BART project, the Eastridge light rail extension, and the Caltrain double-track to Gilroy. Approval of the updated Revenue and Expenditure plan was tentatively set for September 4, 2008. In an April 28, 2008, San Jose Mercury News article, Mr. Burns advised that his agency relied on overly optimistic scenarios that it could fund the $20+ Billion in transit improvements. He conceded that the current expenditure plan does not work and that it was clear that all projects could not be afforded. At its June 11, 2008 meeting, the Downtown East Valley Policy Advisory Board was told by VTA staff that the Capitol Light Rail Extension to Eastridge had completed the design phase but was being suspended pending the updated Revenue and Expenditure plan. Particularly noteworthy was the fact that VTA staff suspended the project without prior Board authorization. In a memo to the Downtown East Valley Policy Advisory Board dated June 19, 2008, the General Manager reconfirmed the schedule of the planned update to the Revenue and Expenditure Plan. At the August 7, 2008 VTA Board meeting, several significant events occurred: • Mr. Burns advised that the Light-Rail Extension to Eastridge “has not been stopped but that there is not enough money to complete all of the Measure A projects. . .” The Board “reaffirmed” its support for the project and recommended continuation of planning and design activities. However, property acquisition, utility relocation construction and completion of bid documents for construction contracts were not authorized. • Measure B to increase sales tax by 1/8 cent to be used for BART operating costs was placed on the November ballot. • The staff presented a report to the Board supporting the sufficiency of the 1/8 cent tax proposal to cover the projected deficit in BART operating costs. The conclusion was based on a new 30-year sales tax revenue estimate. This report also provided sufficient information to update the revenue estimate in the new Revenue and Expenditure Plan. The September, 2008, scheduled presentation of the update to the Revenue and Expenditure Plan was not delivered and never rescheduled. The VTA Board made no effort to determine the status of the plan or if there would be significant disruption or cancellation of Measure A projects. As a consequence, the public was not informed of the 2000 Measure A 30-year financial situation before the November 2008 election. At a Board Workshop on December 4, 2008, approximately one month after the election, and in the face of sales tax revenue uncertainty, it was decided to forego a full 30-year plan for Measure A and to focus on a two-year capital expenditure plan. The two-year capital expenditure plan is to be made available in June 2009. It is expected to include capital expenditures for the BART extension and two other programs – BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) on the Alum Rock corridor and certain Caltrain enhancements in South County including double tracking to Gilroy. A notable exception in the preliminary documentation is the absence of any funding for the light rail to Eastridge program which appears to have become totally dependent on unidentified federal funding. Since that time the VTA staff has responded to pressure from the Board and agreed to provide a ten-year outlook. This plan has yet to be delivered. If the 30-year Revenue and Expenditure Plan had been updated as planned, it likely would have shown that if the BART extension were built as planned, the remaining 2000 Measure A projects would require massive additional investment by the state and federal government plus additional sales tax revenue from Santa Clara County. 2008 Measure B passed by approximately 700 votes above the 2/3 threshold required for passage. If the updated Revenue and Expenditure Plan had been readily available to the public, Measure B might not have passed. The VTA had sufficient time and information to complete this update and made a deliberate decision not to publish it prior to the election. The public deserves an explanation. Light Rail to Eastridge Project Status According to the Measure A Semi-Annual Report (internal) dated June, 2008, this project was to receive $276.8M of its $334.3M cost (83%) from Measure A tax revenue. Now that virtually all Measure A tax revenue is being reserved for the shortened BART extension project, the light rail to Eastridge project has been put on hold until other funding sources can be identified. The only work currently being done on the light rail to Eastridge project is to modify the completed EIR to meet federal standards in the hope of receiving federal stimulus or other transportation funding in 2010. Use of 2000 Measure A Funds for Non-Measure A Projects Puts Measure A Projects at Risk The VTA Board has approved the exchange (swap) of approximately $107M of Measure A funds for use on non-Measure A programs in exchange for a payback from anticipated State Transportation Improvement (STIP) funds at a future time. The payback from the state depends on state approval of two Measure A projects for state (STIP) funding, approval that is not guaranteed, especially in difficult budgetary times. In addition, these programs are low on the Measure A priority list and may never be built. Board approval of the swap was granted in two separate votes in February, 2007 and December, 2007. As of June, 2008, approximately $9M of Measure A sales tax revenue had been spent on non-Measure A programs. At the same time, the 2000 Measure A program was over $361M in debt, having issued bonds to pay for project development in advance of the receipt of sales tax revenue. There was no prior discussion or notification to the Citizen Watchdog Committee. The CWC was informed after the fact in a report from VTA staff. One key Citizen Watchdog Committee duty is to certify to the public that Measure A funds are only spent on Measure A projects. The CWC needs to make an informed decision about what constitutes spending on 2000 Measure A projects and determine whether the fund exchange meets the CWC’s definition of legitimate spending. Furthermore, the CWC is obligated to inform the public of the fund exchange and expenditures in its reports to the public. At its February 11, 2009 meeting, a discussion regarding the CWC’s responsibilities in this area was initiated by a CWC member and stifled by VTA staff in attendance by reminding the CWC members of the limitations in their responsibilities. The CWC did agree to ask their auditor to “assist the committee in its fiduciary role.” At and following this meeting two members of the CWC resigned, leaving a total of five vacancies. November 2008 Ballot Measures Several relevant facts should be noted with respect to the November, 2008 ballot measures: • VTP 2035 Transportation Plan was first presented to the public eight days after the November, 2008 Election. At the time of the election, the voters were voting to approve a plan that none of them had seen. The plan was formally published in January, 2009. • Measures C & D were approved for the ballot as part of the Consent Agenda. There was no debate or discussion regarding these Measures. • Measures C & D were not discussed at any Advisory Committee meetings prior to the vote of the VTA Board. • The Citizens Watchdog Committee was unaware that the VTA Board was proposing to add responsibility to review and approve the long-range transportation plan every six years. It should also be noted that the CWC ceases to exist on June 30, 2036. • The tax amount for Measure B (1/8%) was approved for the ballot on August 7, 2008, after selected Board members were briefed on a private poll conducted by Silicon Valley Leadership Group regarding opinions of the electorate with respect to additional tax for transportation purposes. The poll indicated that a ¼% tax would not pass while a 1/8% tax might pass. VTA contracted with a private firm (AECOM) to justify the 1/8% level as sufficient. The report was delivered to the Board on August 4,

R10a: The Board should amend the CAC/CWC bylaws to provide the CWC with the authority to review and make recommendations regarding any changes to the priority and status of all 2000 Measure A programs. This is a specific request over and above the responsibilities assigned by the 2000 Measure A ballot wording.

R10b: The staff should not make unilateral changes regarding Measure A projects without prior CWC review and Board approval. Specific procedures should be put into place to assure that the VTA Board has reviewed and approved all changes to the scope, funding and schedule of Measure A projects before VTA staff proceeds.

F11: The VTA Board approved Measure C and D to be placed on the November 2008 ballot as part of the consent agenda and without prior review by advisory committees. This occurred on the day prior to the deadline for the submittal of ballot measures for the November 2008 election.

Related Recommendations (1)

R11: The Board should ensure that ballot measures are submitted for Board approval on the regular agenda (never the consent agenda) after thorough review and discussion at both advisory and standing committee meetings.

F12: The Board put 2008 Measure D on the ballot, assigning the responsibility for citizen review of future VTA long-range strategic plans to the CWC, without notifying the CWC of its intent to do so. In addition, the CWC will cease to exist on June 30, 2036, leaving the subsequent responsibility for review of the long-range plan in limbo.

Related Recommendations (1)

R12: The hastily implemented Measure D needs to be rethought before 2036. The Board should assign the responsibility for reviewing the long-range strategic plan to an organization that will remain in existence permanently. 20

F13: The Board allowed Measure C to be placed on the November 2008 ballot asking voter approval of the VTP2035 plan when neither the Board nor the public had seen a draft of the full plan.

Related Recommendations (1)

R13: The Board should ensure that VTA’s long range strategic plans are thoroughly reviewed and vetted by the public prior to being offered for approval by whatever body is deemed responsible.

F14: Measure A funds were used on non-Measure A projects. The Measure A fund exchange violates the 2000 Measure A ballot requirement that 2000 Measure A revenue was to be spent only on 2000 Measure A programs. But VTA believes it is entitled to use these funds for other programs as long as repayment is certain. It appears that there is in fact repayment uncertainty. Even though the initial $50M swap was approved in February 2007, the CWC certified (over the chairperson’s signature) in the FY 2007 2000 Measure A Status Report that all Measure A revenue was spent only on Measure A programs. It is clear that the CWC does not fully understand its responsibility with respect to this requirement.

Related Recommendations (1)

R14: The Board should give the CWC the opportunity to review all 2000 Measure A fund transfers. The CWC should point out such usage of funds to the public in their reports. The CWC should make a public decision whether this usage of funds is consistent with the intention of the voters with respect to 2000 Measure A.

F15: Measure B on the 2008 Ballot approved a 1/8 cent sales tax for BART operations. Tax collection is slated to start when the BART project receives full federal and state funding. However, VTA intends to start collecting this tax when only the first 2.2 miles of the BART project are funded, not the complete project.

Related Recommendations (1)

R15: The Board should consider the intention of the voters as well as the specifics of the ballot measure when considering this issue. This tax should only be collected when funding for the full 16.1 mile BART extension is obtained from the state and federal government.

December 05, 2008 — 2008-2009 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report Community College Hours by Arrangement Money for Nothing?

5 pages 5 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 5 findings

F1: Prior to October 2008, there did not exist a statewide standardized procedure for the accurate accounting and verification of HBAs.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The West Valley-Mission Community College District should adhere to the terms outlined in the Resolution Agreement of December 5, 2008. 3

F2: At Mission College, there had not been consistent review of HBAs over time to ensure all faculty and staff were clear as to their implementation. West Valley conducted a comprehensive review of HBA practices and accounting in 2005, which resulted in its documentation of courses that carry HBAs. There were several different terms employed within the District to refer to HBAs, making it difficult to decipher the number of hours offered. .

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The District should conduct a yearly review of its catalog, course outline, and syllabi to ensure information on supplemental hours of instruction is identical.

F3: The required yearly financial audits did not include an adequate inspection and evaluation of the district's system of internal control over its financial reporting with regard to reported enrollment in HBAs per class. The audit did not employ a sufficiently rigorous examination of FTES accounting used to calculate apportionment. The level of depth in the audit was insufficient to uncover the long-term and ongoing deficiencies in the method of determining HBAs and the FTES that were claimed on the basis of that determination.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The yearly financial audit should focus in particular on the treatment of supplemental instructional hours and the FTES claimed, beyond the time frame stated in the Resolution Agreement. Those charged with the audit should be thoroughly trained as to what their investigation should cover, what their findings should include, and the response they are required by Code to demand from the District.

F4: As a result of incomplete HBA documentation, the District is required to repay the state $5,644,227.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: No recommendation. 4

F5: As of the date of this report, Mission College has eliminated all unscheduled HBAs. West Valley Community College has continued offering supplemental hours of instruction utilizing procedures in compliance with Title 5 of the California Education Code. The West Valley-Mission Community College District now utilizes a multi-page form all faculty must complete before making supplemental instructional hours part of their courses. The Grand Jury believes that the District is now providing adequate documentation of supplemental hours, and careful accounting of FTES.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: No recommendation. PASSED and ADOPTED by the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury on this 26th day of March, 2009. Don Kawashima Foreperson Mary Nassau Secretary 5

December 02, 2008 — 2008-2009 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report City of San Jose Hosed by Iaff Local 230 Executives Issue Should

33 pages 18 findings 9 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 18 findings

F1a: Union executives are charged with a dual role as both firefighters and union leaders. Given the number of hours they spend on UTO, the President and Executive Vice President of Local 230 only nominally serve their firefighter role.

F1b: In addition to the City-paid UTO, Local 230 Executive Board members receive additional pay from Local 230. A Local 230 Board member can receive up to $39,295 for service on the Local 230 Board.

F2: Under the MOA, UTO may be used for any purpose the Local 230 sees fit. The result is that the City is supporting Local 230 political activities and bargaining tactics by paying: • Local 230 executives to be trained in tactics to win at the bargaining table. • Local 230 representatives to attend events where they foster political support for Local 230 positions. • At least in part, for the Local 230’s Executive Vice President to run the Local 230’s political action committee.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The City should negotiate a revision to the MOA to shift the cost burden of the union activities noted in Finding 2 from taxpayers to Local 230. 13

F3a: The appropriate use of UTO is not adequately defined in the Memorandum of Agreement. The last attempt by the City to correct the situation was thwarted in arbitration in 2008.

F3b: The top three Local 230 executives have taken more than 10,000 hours of UTO over five years (an average of 39.6 hours per week) during their on-duty work time with no accounting for their whereabouts.

F4a: There is no oversight of UTO, which leaves it open to abuse. A Local 230 representative does not have to explain the reason for the absence beyond claiming it was UTO. Even the supervisor would not know their location on UTO during work hours or the specific purpose of their leave under the current UTO policy. 14

F4b: During UTO the City is liable for any injuries or property damage caused by the Local 230 representative or any injuries suffered by the Local 230 representative, yet the City has no control over what the Local 230 representative is doing or their location.

F5a: As long as no more than three Local 230 representatives are out on UTO at any one time, under the current MOA, a Local 230 representative may take UTO during work hours up to 12 hours during a shift.

F5b: When a firefighter is on UTO or training, the assigned station runs one person short. Often the firefighter on UTO is a higher ranking officer and is therefore not present to direct the fire fighting team during an emergency call. A less experienced firefighter would be required to step up.

F5c: If a firefighter is absent due to UTO or training, his position is not back filled. Article 33, Section 33.2.6 of the MOA allows for minimum staffing per company to drop by one fire fighter for these purposes. If the minimum staffing level per company is truly minimal, the public safety could be jeopardized. Alternatively, if this level of risk is low, it would appear that the minimum staffing level per company could be reduced or backfill could be required. 15

F6: San Jose firefighters may accumulate sick leave and cash out at their highest salary rate upon retirement. Recently, a retired Deputy Fire Chief received a check in the sum of $251,870.11 for his accumulated sick leave.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: The City should negotiate with the Local 230 to revise the MOA to add a reasonable cap on sick leave accrual. Firefighters should not be encouraged to come to work ill by the incentive of a large payout upon retirement.

F7a: The desire of Local 230 Executives to be in control of operational decisions causes delay while disputes are being resolved through the grievance process.

F7b: The number of open grievances, lawsuits and arbitrations filed by Local 230 far exceeds the number filed by all other unions in the City combined.

F8a: Local 230 has refused to participate in an international labor relations workshop sponsored by Labor Management Initiative (LMI). 16

F8b: Local 230 executives have refused to participate in the quarterly labor relations meetings and have refused to allow the labor relations officer to facilitate and resolve concerns to mutual satisfaction as required by the MOA.

F8c: There appears to be a pervasive lack of trust between Local 230 executives and City management.

F9a: Local 230 has refused to discuss ground rules for negotiation as requested by the City of San Jose.

F9b: Negotiation for the current MOA, covering 2004-2009, started in January 2003 and was not completed until December 2008. This resulted in the City and Local 230 operating without a signed agreement for approximately five years.

September 22, 2008 — 2008-2009 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report Santa Clara Valley Water District – Part 2 New Water Quality

14 pages 12 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 12 findings

F1: Building costs for the Water Quality Lab were initially estimated at $8.1 million. When the bids were submitted by contractors in February 2004, the low bid was $11,344,921. The District reported that the Water Quality Lab Building was completed November 2008 at a cost of $ 17,895,000. When the cost figures for the District Labor Design Phase, Consultant Design Fees and Consultant Engineering Support during Construction and the actual lab construction contract costs are factored in, the total cost for the Water Quality Lab Building is $ 21,195,666. The building was paid for through water sales and ground water replenishment taxes.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: Final Board approval before a project is put out for bidding must be based upon current independent cost justification.

R2: Retain the services of a qualified consultant to assess the proposed plans for any future major capital investments including, but not limited to, Rinconada Water Treatment Plant, to ensure they are necessary and are not over-designed. Solicit and follow the advice of independent experts regarding the costs and benefits of all substantial capital expenditures.

F2: The Rinconada Water Treatment Plant short-term and long-term plans call for improvements amounting to $81,816,000 (through 2013) and $195,438,000 (through 2019), respectively, totaling $ 277, 254,000.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Retain the services of a qualified consultant to assess the proposed plans for any future major capital investments including, but not limited to, Rinconada Water Treatment Plant, to ensure they are necessary and are not over-designed. Solicit and follow the advice of independent experts regarding the costs and benefits of all substantial capital expenditures.

F3a: The Water Quality Lab occupies the entire building but actually utilizes about half its square footage. 6

F3b: District interviewees have stated that due to its current layout, the excess lab office space could not be leased out to another county agency or governmental group. However, in the view of the Grand Jury, the office area, composed primarily of cubicles formed by movable partitions could easily be converted to other uses. Laboratory space is sufficiently large to accommodate individual staff offices.

F3c: Several members of the Board of Directors who were asked about the building were not able to justify the size of building and did not know that the building was constructed as an essential facility. The Board was remiss in its duty to oversee the scope and cost of the project.

F4: Most testing in the Water Quality Lab is for drinking water from water treatment plants. It occasionally provides free ground water testing to private well owners. The Water Quality Lab does not sample or test river, stream or creek waters which are subject to urban water contamination problems, particularly nitrates and mercury.

F5: The Water Quality Lab has well documented processes and is audited regularly by the State of California. It has received positive comments in recent ISO assessments.

F6: The Water Quality Lab is not operating at full capacity and is looking at the possibility of using its spare capacity by analyzing samples from various other sources to generate extra revenue. While the subject is still under discussion, District officials have noted that they may only be able to sell services to municipal retailers. The estimated additional revenue is in the range of $500K-$720K.

F7: Water Quality Lab staff acknowledged that salaries at the District may be too high to be price-competitive against private labs, and they believe that their quality level justifies it.

F8a: The new Water Quality Lab Building was constructed as an “essential facility” with extensive seismic reinforcements, including a failsafe power system for total uninterrupted power.

F8b: The District justifies building the Water Quality Lab Building as an essential facility by saying that “it is consistent with the design of water treatment plants and facilities that support their operation. The basis is that water facilities need to operate reliably on a continuous basis and need to be designed to withstand loss of power, earthquakes, and other hazards.”

F8c: The Water Quality Lab building is not required by statute to be an essential service facility within the meaning of California Seismic Health and Safety Code §16007: "Essential services building" means any building, including buildings designed and constructed, for public agencies used, or designed to be used, or any building a portion of which is used or designed to be used, as a fire station, police station, emergency operations center, California Highway Patrol office, sheriff's office, or emergency communication dispatch center.”

Additional Recommendations 3

Not linked to specific findings.

R5: No recommendation. 7

R8b: No recommendation. 8

R8c: No recommendation. APPENDIX A Water Quality Lab Building History Date Event Cost Laboratory Needs Study; 1987 Recommended 7,000 sq. ft. Lab. Needs study updated – additional 1990 space beyond Rinconada WTP would be needed Initially proposed as part of 1993 Headquarters Facility Master Plan Presentation to BOD – required size of Lab to be 12,000 sq. ft. for core services, plus 3000 sq. ft. for Mar.17, 1998 services such as MTBE monitoring, and analysis for private water companies and well owners. BOD approves agreement with Montgomery Watson for planning, design, construction management Feb. 6, 2001 services. Includes requirement for Essential Facility. BOD removes limit of 15,000 sq. ft. amid concerns about lack of space. BOD authorizes location on Sep.18 2001 Almaden Campus. Engineers report recommends 16,500 sq. ft. to meet needs of Lab for at least 10 yrs. With projected staffing of 23, Lab design to Engineer’s estimate Dec. 4 and 18, include solar collectors. Document $8,100,000. 2001 cites previous estimate of $6,000,000.and increase due to increased floor space. “Scheduled to be fully functional by April 2004.” 10 APPENDIX A Water Quality Lab Building History Date Event Cost Put out for bids. Expanded to Low Bid Received 18,400 sq ft. (per BOD Consent February 2004 $11,344,921 calendar 12/16/03) Engineer’s estimate $9.6M. March 16, 2004 Staff recommends rejecting all bids. Board rejects all bids. FY05-06 Budget includes $13,500,000 for the building. Budget is in formal Budget review with County Board of Supervisors. BOD approves publicizing bids that May 30, 2006 have “improvements” suggested by staff. Projected cost is $14M- $17M. Board approves lowest bidder, Aug 22, 2006 Zovich construction. Gets budget $17,540,329 adjustment of $4.490M. Money to come from WUE Fund reserves. Reported Lab ‘finalized” Sep 16, 2008 construction $17,802,255 Final Labor Construction Contract Lab Declared COMPLETE Other Costs as reported by CFO SCVWD Labor Design phase $1,570,519 Nov.12, 2008 Consultant Design Fee 1,140,084 Lab Construction Contract 17,895.003 Consultant engineer support 590,060 TBD SCVWD Labor construction phase $21,195,666 TOTAL 11 APPENDIX B Santa Clara County Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) Fields of Testing 12 ygoloiborciM yrtsimehC cinagronI stnemelE lacimehC cixoT yrtsimehC cinagrO elitaloV cinagrO elitaloV-imeS yrtsimehC Lab Type Lab Name City Drinking Water Field of Test PALO ALTO REGIONAL City WATER QUALITY PALO ALTO x x x x CONTROL LABORATORY ACCUTEST Commercial LABORATORIES - SANTA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA CLARA x ACCUTEST Commercial LABORATORIES - SANTA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA CLARA x ANACON TESTING MOUNTAIN Commercial LABORATORIES, INC. VIEW x x x SANTA Commercial AQUALAB INCORPORATED CLARA Commercial CM ANALYTICAL, INC. GILROY x x Commercial DATALAB SAN JOSE SAN Commercial EMSL ANALYTICAL, INC. LEANDRO x x Commercial MACS LAB, INC. HAYWARD x TESTAMERICA MORGAN Commercial LABORATORIES, INC. HILL x x x x TESTAMERICA MORGAN Commercial LABORATORIES, INC. HILL TORRENT LABORATORY, Commercial INC. MILPITAS x x SANTA CLARA COUNTY County PUBLIC HEALTH LAB SAN JOSE x Public Water System CITY OF SUNNYVALE SUNNYVALE x x x x Public Water SANTA CLARA VALLEY System WATER DISTRICT LOS GATOS x x x x x APPENDIX C Recently Built Water Quality Laboratories in California Orange County Water District Lab • 20 chemists and lab technicians, 10 water-quality monitoring personnel • 350,000 analyses of 18,000 water samples each year • 39,000 sq ft • $24M • Completion Spring 2009 • Environmentally efficient (Labs 21 laboratory spec) Alameda Water Quality Laboratory • 60,000 analyses/year • 10 people • Size: 7195 SF • Cost: $3.3 million • Completion: July 2005 Marin Municipal Water District Water Quality Lab • 5300 sq feet • 120,000 water quality tests/yr • Completed 2004 MWH Labs, Monrovia, CA • This is the lab used by SCVWD when it sends out samples for testing • $3M in “State-of-the-art” instrumentation • Staff is > 90 • 34,000 sq. ft., including 24,000 sq ft of lab space • $6M lab building • Moved in Jan 2003 Metropolitan Water Quality Lab, La Verne, CA • 58,000 square feet facility • Serves 18 million Southern Californians • Staff = 120 • 320,000 analytical tests on more than 50,000 samples per year 13 This report was PASSED and ADOPTED with a concurrence of at least 12 grand jurors on this 13th day of April, 2009. Don Kawashima Foreperson June Nishimoto Foreperson pro tem 14

Page 9

June 30, 2008 — 2008-2009 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report Board of Trustees of Luther Burbank School District (lbsd) Gets an

33 pages 13 findings 13 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 13 findings

F1: The Board individually and collectively has failed its obligation to the public. Specifically, the Board: a. Has failed to self-police individual Board members to ensure that each member follows Board Policy and acts in a professional and responsible manner b. Has assumed, for the most part, a passive role at open Board meetings by generally not discussing alternative actions or questioning the recommendations of the Board President or interim Superintendent c. Has failed to adequately inform the public during Board meetings of the background, financial implications, options and potential consequences of Board actions d. Has failed to openly and actively encourage public participation at Board meetings e. Is not adequately serving the District’s best interests Specifically, individual Board members: f. Have failed in their independent responsibilities as a Board member g. Have failed to provide contact information on the LBSD website to enable the public to contact Board members 4

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Board should: a. Ensure that each member of the Board understands and complies with Board Policy and CSBA guidelines and take action as appropriate b. Actively welcome and reach out to the LBSD community to increase attendance and engage participation at all Board meetings c. Actively participate in Board meetings by encouraging discussion within the Board that informs the public of the background, options, and financial implications of Board actions d. Actively foster open communication and participation with school organizations including, School Site Council (SSC), Parent Teacher Organization (PTO), and Padres con Poder (Parents with Power) to inform them of Board meetings and school operations/issues e. Actively utilize the SSC as an advisory body f. Utilize resources and training from SCCOE and CSBA g. Resign #2 – Board President Conduct (“F”) Background – The Board Code of Ethics (Board Policy §9271) states that “each Board member shall consider his/her position on the Board as a public trust and not use it for private advantage or personal gain.” In addition, Board Policy (§9200) states that Board members “should not subordinate the education of children and youth to any partisan principle, group interest, or the member’s own personal interest.” Board Policy is clear on the Board’s governing responsibility, and limits their role in day- to-day operations at LBSD (Board Policy §4000, §5000, §6000). The CSBA further encourages Trustees to be cautious about encroaching on the learning environment, and to ensure that a positive working climate exists. Given the seriousness of the complaints and the importance of developing a balanced opinion, members of the Grand Jury interviewed both proponents and opponents of the Board President (Antonio Perez) and the former Superintendent. While the Grand Jury recognizes that there is not always a consensus and that various factions may seek to undermine a divergent opinion, it is essential that the Board President use good judgment, be even-handed and seek to find common ground with all members of the District and community. There was a recognized long-term and often publically combative relationship fostered by both the Board President and the former Superintendent, as confirmed by opponents and proponents of both. While both actively cultivated supporters, the Grand Jury found that the Board President also sought to intimidate those aligned with the former Superintendent. During the former Superintendent’s tenure, the Board President sought to engage various LBSD staff and teachers to discover surreptitiously who supported whom, even to the point of contacting at least one (1) individual at home during the evening. During the November 2008 Election, the Board President also actively sought to discourage a candidate (Candidate A) from running against an incumbent Board member who was aligned with the Board President. Specific examples of this included: • Indicating to Candidate A that she was “making waves” by running for a specific seat for which he wanted someone else • Discouraging Candidate A by stating the Board would not support the candidate if elected • Pledging to appoint Candidate A to a future open Board seat, if Candidate A withdrew from the race. Insinuating that a Board seat would be open soon, as another Board member’s residency was suspect • Instructing Candidate A that if elected, the candidate should “stay silent, listen and learn” • Failing to discourage another candidate (Candidate B) from following Candidate A to determine Candidate’s A residency • Condoning Candidate B’s behavior and then endorsing Candidate B even after learning of the inappropriate behavior • Making derogatory comments about an existing Board member as well as Luther Burbank School Candidate A was elected on November 4, 2008. As a result of the election, the Board President could no longer be assured of having the four (4) votes necessary to remove Superintendent Richard Rodriguez after Candidate A would assume office in December. On November 5, the Board President discussed his desire to remove the Superintendent at a meeting with another Board member and the District lawyer. The Board President made the decision to call a special meeting on November 7 to remove the Superintendent. The timing of the November 7 special Board meeting was a direct outcome of the November 4 election results. There was widespread speculation and conversation within the LBSD community about the possible removal of the Superintendent in advance of the special meeting. This resulted in the attendance of an unusually large number of District staff, teachers, and community members at the special meeting. Most of those in attendance were there in support of Superintendent Richard Rodriguez. On November 7 the special Board meeting was called to order. Board members went into closed session after members of the public offered cautionary advice to the Board on any upcoming action they might take. Upon returning from the closed session, the District lawyer announced that the Superintendent was being removed, and that Dr. Fernando Elizondo would become interim Superintendent effective immediately. The now former Superintendent Rodriguez spoke to those in attendance, wishing them well and asked them to continue the efforts to improve student test scores. The announcement sparked heated discussion and questions from those in attendance. Without addressing the attendees’ questions or concerns, the Board quickly adjourned the meeting. After adjournment, the Board President tried to avoid speaking with District staff and teachers, even though they were clearly upset by the Board’s action. This culminated in a heated altercation between an LBSD teacher and the Board President. The Board President was described as verbally and physically threatening by a number of those still left in attendance. On the following day (November 8), a Board member warned the Board President that the former Superintendent might be on the LBSD site. He proceeded to the site, obtained keys from the former Superintendent, and eventually escorted him off site. During that time, the Board President also had another run-in with the same teacher he had the altercation with the previous night. He reported that he attempted to apologize to the teacher but the teacher refused the apology. The Board President then called the County Sheriff’s Office and reported that he was performing a “lockdown” of the school for the weekend and needed an “escort” to clear the site. Dispatch records also indicate that he told the Sheriff’s Office that one of the teachers on site was “hostile.” Before this action, no direct request was made to the teacher or other District personnel to leave the site. An officer arrived and escorted the teacher off site without incident, while the Board President and another Board member observed. The locksmith changed the District office locks that day. After the departure of the former Superintendent, the Board President had the opportunity to positively reach out to the supporters of the former Superintendent. Instead he refused to engage them in discussion. Months after the departure of the former Superintendent it appears his intent is to remove or demote LBSD staff that had actively supported the former Superintendent. Under the guise of budget constraints a number of positions have been eliminated or targeted for action. It is disturbing that many of the affected individuals had been supporters of the former superintendent. In fact, the Curriculum Director, school secretary, school clerk, and HR/District Secretary all have received notification that their current positions may either see a reduction in hours, undergo re-designation, and/or possible elimination. These individuals have been with LBSD for many years. Mr. Perez recently started his third consecutive term as Board President contrary to Board Policy (§9320), which states that officers should be rotated (i.e., not serve consecutive terms). Furthermore, he started his third term as Board President after proclamation by the interim Superintendent and without a vote of the Board.

F2: The Board President has cultivated a hostile authoritarian environment characterized by disrespect, intimidation, and the appearance of retaliation. The Board President has also inserted himself and his influence into the day-to-day operations of Luther Burbank Elementary School contrary to Board Policy (§4000, §5000, §6000). Specifically the Board President: As it pertains to Board presidency: a. Continues to serve as Board President for a third term of office despite not being duly elected by the Board b. Intimidated a LBSD teacher after a Board meeting and retaliated by requesting removal of said teacher from school premises by a county sheriff officer the following day c. Applied an overly aggressive approach to changing the locks on the District office, by calling for a complete “lock down” of school premises, disturbing teachers’ routine work practices As it pertains to Board meetings: d. Orchestrated the timing of the November 7, 2008 special Board meeting because he was unsure that there would be adequate votes to buy out the former Superintendent’s contract after Ms. Ortiz (the incumbent) was defeated in the November 2008, Election. e. Failed to recuse himself from discussion and the resulting vote related to the buy- out of the Superintendent’s contract despite their recognized mutual long-term animosity and public conflict f. Used his position as Board President to recommend and influence the hiring of the interim Superintendent immediately upon release of the former Superintendent without meeting the requirements of Education Code (§45125 (c),(g)) The Grand Jury makes no finding as to the merits of the decision to buy out the former Superintendent’s contract. As it pertains to LBSD Staff: g. Has created a repressive environment and adversely affected the morale of teachers and staff by: (i) Removing a teacher from campus (ii) Contacting various District employees to surreptitiously obtain inappropriate information about District staff (iii) Aggressively confronting District staff (iv) Surprising staff by attending a classified staff meeting unannounced where potential layoffs were being discussed h. Circumvented the Superintendent in a personnel matter involving a school janitor by directing a member of the LBSD administrative staff to provide him with access to the employee’s LBSD confidential personnel file and attempting to obtain the employee’s fingerprint results from the Santa Clara County Office of Education (SCCOE) i. Failed to display leadership by publicly and privately fostering the long term mutual animosity between himself and the former Superintendent j. Appears to have orchestrated actions against LBSD staff who had been supporters of the previous superintendent by eliminating certain positions, cutting hours, or demoting specific staff members. As it pertains to November 2008 Board Election: k. Endorsed Candidate B with the knowledge that Candidate B had been following Candidate A’s movements on several occasions l. Actively sought to discourage Candidate A from running against another member of the Board in a recent election m. Unilaterally promised to appoint Candidate A to a future open Board seat, if Candidate A withdrew from the race.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Mr. Perez should: a. Resign as Board President The Board should: b. Conduct an immediate election for Board President, whereby the president is duly elected by the majority of the Board and conduct said election in full compliance with Board Policy (§9320) 9 The Board President should: c. Comply with the recommendations of the CSBA to govern in a dignified and professional manner, treat everyone with civility and respect, not encroach on the learning environment, and ensure that a positive working climate exists d. Comply with Board Policy §9271 (Code of Ethics), Board Policy §9200 (Conflict of Interest obligations), and Board Policy §4000, §5000, and §6000 (Governance Role) #3 – Board President Conflict of Interest (“F”) Background – LBSD Board Policy §9270, The Political Reform Act (Government Code §87100 et. seq., §87500 et. seq., Government Code (§1090 et. seq.), establish the importance of avoiding real or perceived conflict of interest. In addition, Board Policy §9271 states that “each Board member shall consider his/her position on the Board as a public trust and not use it for private advantage or personal gain.” Furthermore, because LBSD has adopted a conflict of interest policy §9270, Government Code §87300 holds that this policy has the force of law. Board member Perez owns Perez Woodworking (PWW). He also has an ongoing personal relationship with the Chief Estimator at BCC. PWW entered into a business relationship (unrelated to LBSD) with BCC in August 2003. Two (2) more times during Mr. Perez’ tenure as a member of the LBSD Board (July 2006 and March 2007), PWW was a subcontractor for or worked under the direction of BCC for two (2) additional construction projects unrelated to LBSD. The total value of the three (3) contracts with PWW was $192,615 (see chart below). The business relationship between PWW and BCC created an apparent conflict of interest as early as 2004. In September 2004, Board member Perez recommended that a Construction Manager be hired to oversee the Modernization Project at LBSD against the recommendation of the architect. Over a period of several months the Board discussed, considered and ultimately hired BCC as the Construction Manager in January 2005. As mentioned above, in March 2007, PWW entered into a contract with CW (not related to LBSD) at the recommendation of and under the direction of BCC. The total revenue received by PWW was $114,216 for this construction project. Four (4) months later, in July 2007, now Board President Perez made the motion to engage BCC for a LBSD construction project for $924,543. The Board approved the motion made by Board President Perez. During the period of time that Board member Perez recommended that a construction manager be hired for the LBSD modernization project, and until the present time, Board member Perez never disclosed his business relationship with BCC, despite having numerous opportunities to do so (Appendix A). Board minutes confirm that Board 10 member Perez discussed the selection of BCC, voted on and even made and seconded motions to approve contracts with BCC. Contracts between PWW and BCC and Partial List of Actions Taken by Mr. Perez as LBSD Board Member PWW BCC Non- LBSD Date Contract LBSD Projects Projects (partial list) 8/03 to $ 60,378 8/04 Perez Woodworking Contract #1 (BCC) Mr. Perez makes motion to hire a 9/14/04 construction manager for the modernization project First mention of BCC as possible candidate 11/9/04 for construction manager position in Board minutes First contract approved by the Board with 1/11/05 $315,000 BCC (construction manager) Mr. Perez makes motion to approve contract 3/14/06 $ 36,210 with BCC 7/20/06 Perez Woodworking Contract #2 (BCC) $ 18,021 3/13/07 Perez Woodworking Contract #3 (CW/BCC) $114,216 Mr. Perez makes motion to approve contract 7/17/07 $924,543 with BCC Mr. Perez seconds motion to approve 6/10/08 $471,746 contract with BCC Mr. Perez has undisclosed dinner with 6/10/08 executive of BCC Total PWW Revenue through January 2009 from BCC $192,615 Board member Perez’s relationship with BBC and his position as a Board member created conflict of interest under state law and Board policy. Under certain conflict of interest provisions, he cannot cure the conflict of interest by disclosing his interest and recusing himself. Under other conflict of interest provisions, he can avoid the conflict by disclosing his business relationship and recusing himself. Regardless, Board member Perez never disclosed his relationship with BBC at any time. Even though the contracts mentioned above involve BCC and CW, it is Board member Perez, as an elected official, who is subject to conflict of interest laws. Thus, it is Board member Perez who is obligated under the law to avoid conflict of interests. The Civil Grand Jury makes no findings and does not intend to imply that there was any misconduct by BCC or CW. 11

F3: Board member Antonio Perez has failed to fulfill his ethical and legal obligations in the discharge of his duties as it relates to the avoidance of real or perceived conflict of interest, and the use of his Board position for personal gain. Specifically, Board member Perez, for Modernization and Measure A projects: a. Made the motion to approve a contract with BCC for $924,543 four (4) months after Perez Woodworking entered into a six-figure contract with an existing BCC client and under the direction of BCC. b. Voted on the selection of BCC and construction-related issues on at least thirty (30) occasions. c. Failed to disclose to the Board and the public his personal relationship with BCC’s Chief Estimator and his business relationship with BCC on at least thirty (30) occasions where LBSD construction projects were on the Board agenda. d. Failed to recuse himself from discussion and the resulting vote on at least eleven (11) occasions related to the hiring of BCC, and subsequent BCC project construction decisions at LBSD.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The Grand Jury recommends that: a. The Board President should immediately comply with Board Policy (§9270 Conflict of Interest), §9271(Personal Gain), and the Political Reform Act. b. The Board President should determine if his business relationships through PWW create an incurable conflict with his Board member obligations. c. The Board President should disclose all perceived or actual conflicts of interest on matters before the Board, and recuse himself from discussion and voting on these matters. #4 – Form 700 Obligations (“D-”) Background – It is important that elected officials perform their duties with a high degree of transparency, and avoid real or perceived conflict of interest in the performance of their duties. To this end, the Political Reform Act requires that Board members disqualify themselves from participating in decisions which may affect their personal economic interests. Statement of Economic Interest (Form 700) is used to disclose personal assets, income, and gifts in compliance with the Political Reform Act. The Political Reform Act, Board Policy (§9270), and SCCOE policy all require that board members and superintendents file a Form 700 with the County Clerk of the Board within 30 days of taking office and annually thereafter by April 1 of each year they hold office. Furthermore, Board Policy (§9270) also affirms that Form 700 should be filed pursuant to Government Code (§87500). 12

F4: The Board and the interim Superintendent have not fulfilled their obligation to submit a Form 700 annually and/or have submitted a factually deficient Form 700. Specifically: a. The Board President failed to disclose: (i) His business (PWW) and the name of each reportable source of gross income greater than $10,000, including but possibly not limited to income from BCC (ii) Interest in real property held by him or in trust and where he holds greater than a 10% interest (iii) Gifts (dinners) in excess of $50 from BCC b. The interim Superintendent failed to disclose gifts (golf and meals) in excess of $50 from BCC c. Prior to April 2009, Board members (with the exception of two (2) members) failed to submit a Form 700 as required by the Political Reform Act 1st Elected or Latest Form 700 Appointed on file Lizandro Carrasco February 2005 nothing on record Blanca Diaz November 1993 prior to Pamela Ortiz May 2008 (1st appointment) April 1, 2009 Lorraine Garza November 2004 submitted Antonio Perez November 2002 annually Fernando Elizondo, Ph.D. November 7, 2008 April 1, 2009

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The Board and the Superintendent should: a. File a complete and accurate Form 700 by April 1 of each year b. Ensure that the Board, District administration, and designated employees complete ethics training regarding the roles and responsibilities of public officials as related to the Political Reform Act including conflicts of interest and accurate completion of Form 700 In addition: c. The Board President should immediately amend all Form 700s to accurately reflect his business, real property, income and gifts as required by law d. The interim Superintendent should immediately amend his Form 700 to accurately reflect gifts received as required by law 13 #5 – Brown Act Compliance (“F”) Background – The Ralph M. Brown Act (“Brown Act”) provides for a balance between the public’s interest in open debate and disclosure, and the government’s interest in confidentiality. It is the intent of the Brown Act (with limited exceptions) that all Board discussions and actions occur in a public forum at a properly noticed date and time. (Gov. Code §54950 et. seq.). If a majority of the Board gathers outside of a publicly noticed meeting and discusses a matter under their jurisdiction, this is a violation of the Brown Act. These gatherings can include after-Board meeting dinners, social gatherings, and even professional meetings if LBSD business is discussed. The Board should be vigilant and must always publicly notice a Board gathering (even an informal meeting) where matters under its jurisdiction are discussed, even if this is occurs outside of a regular or special Board meeting. The Brown Act prohibits Board members from developing a collective agreement on matters under their jurisdiction (e.g., buy out of the Superintendent’s contract) if this agreement occurs outside of a publicly noticed meeting, and if this is a result of serial communications between two (2) or more Board members (Gov. Code §54952.2 – 54956.5). Serial communications can include: one-on-one meetings, telephone calls, and emails. For example, there was widespread speculation on the details of the “employee matter” on the agenda for the closed session at the Board meeting of November 7, 2008. Witnesses reported that members of the public (outside the LBSD community) knew and informed LBSD staff that the superintendent was going to be “let go”. There appears to be two (2) failures: (i) more than two (2) members of the Board had discussed and predetermined the outcome of the Superintendent’s employment in advance of the closed session and (ii) further publicly disclosed this improperly reached decision in advance of the Board meeting where the item was on the agenda.

F5: The Board appears to have failed to meet its legal obligations under the Brown Act. Specific examples include but are not limited to: a. Discussing and/or taking action on topics not on the agenda of closed and open sessions of the Board agenda, including but not limited to: (i) Release of Superintendent and appointment of the interim Superintendent (ii) Potential impact of state budget cuts on LBSD (iii) Status of superintendent search 14 b. Discussing outside publicly noticed board meetings, including communications by individual Board members to develop a collective concurrence to buy out the former Superintendent’s contract at an upcoming board meeting c. Disclosing to members of the public the predetermined Board action to buy out the Superintendent’s contract before the Board meeting d. Publicly disclosing confidential employee information and decisions intended to be discussed at a future Board closed session e. Speaking Spanish at open and closed session board meetings, even though at least one board member does not speak Spanish

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: The Board should: a. Discuss and/or take action only on topics that appear on the publicly noticed Board agenda (Board Policy §9320) b. Comply with all obligations under the Brown Act, including but not limited to, refraining from consensus building discussions outside of publicly noticed board meetings and disclosing confidential information (Gov. Code §54950 et. seq.) c. Receive education and training on the Brown Act from an independent third party recommended by the SCCOE d. In any open or closed session board meeting, deliberations and discussions among board members should be in English #6 – Hiring of Interim Superintendent (“F”) Background – An interim Superintendent was appointed by the Board on November 7, 2008. Education Code (§45125 (c),(g)) requires that “the governing board of a school district shall not employ a person until the Department of Justice (DOJ) completes its check of the state criminal history file” and that this “applies to substitute and temporary employees regardless of (the) length of employment.” The Board hired the interim Superintendent at the sole recommendation of the Board President and without consideration of other options. In addition, the Board did not request or receive a resume, check references, obtain necessary DOJ clearance, obtain tuberculosis screening results, or discuss compensation before hiring the interim Superintendent on November 7, 2008. 15

F6: The Board failed at numerous levels in the hiring of the interim Superintendent. Specifically, the Board: a. Failed to follow Education Code (§45125 (c),(g)) as required. This resulted in the interim Superintendent working on school premises and having contact with students before the required DOJ background check was completed. Fingerprints for the DOJ check were not obtained until more than three (3) months after the interim Superintendent was hired. b. Failed to follow Santa Clara County Tuberculosis (TB) Screening Guidelines. This resulted in the interim Superintendent working on school premises and having contact with students before TB screening was obtained. c. Failed to interview, obtain a resume, and check references before appointing the Interim Superintendent in November 2008. Several Board members were informed about negative allegations surrounding the interim Superintendent’s tenure as Superintendent of Salinas Union High School District, but failed to investigate these allegations or conduct a thorough background check before his contract was signed in December 2008. d. Failed to fulfill their fiscal obligation by hiring the interim Superintendent prior to determining his compensation package.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: The Board should: a. Comply with Education Code (§45125 (c),(g)) which requires that the governing board of a school district shall not employ a person until the DOJ completes its check of the state criminal history file. b. Comply with Santa Clara County (TB) Screening Guidelines before hiring an employee under the Board’s jurisdiction. c. Hire staff under their jurisdiction only after: (i) Comprehensive interviews by the Board, Superintendent, principal and other key stakeholders. (ii) References, fingerprinting and background checks are satisfactorily completed. d. Hire staff only after an employment agreement has been signed. 16 #7 – Board Appointments (“F”) Background – The resignation of newly elected Board member Doreen Hassan was announced at the December 9, 2008, LBSD board meeting. The oath of office was also administered to re-elected Board members Blanca Diaz and Lorraine Garza at the same meeting. Pamela Ortiz was both publicly interviewed and provisionally appointed at the Board meeting on January 8, 2009, to the position vacated by Ms. Hassan. Education Code §5091, §5092 applies to governing board members who are appointed rather than elected to office. These provisions include, but are not limited to: (i) Notice to the public announcing the provisional Trustees appointee (ii) Notice to the public that they have the right to object to said provisional appointee by gathering sufficient signatures to request a special election within 30 days of the provisional appointment (iii) Public notice in three locations and publication in a local newspaper announcing the public’s rights.. The notice of the Board vacancy created by the resignation of Ms. Hassan was handled differently than previous Board vacancies. As an example, when a Board vacancy occurred in January 2005, a note was sent to all parents notifying them of the Board vacancy and the notice appeared at various locations. In addition and at the insistence of Board member Perez, the notice was posted at the Burbank Lion’s Club, and on the LBSD marquee. In the instance of the Hassen vacancy, public notice consisted of a posting at LBSD during a time when school was not in session and a small notice in the Post Record. Notices were not sent home to parents, not posted on the school marquee and not posted at locations off LBSD property as done in the past. The deviation from the previous LBSD practice and the timing deprived the public of the opportunity to apply for appointment or otherwise participate in the process of filling the Board vacancy. Of equal concern is that the Board President was seeking to appoint Ms. Ortiz because she was strongly aligned with him. After the appointment of Ms. Ortiz in January 2009, the Board failed to meet the requirement of Education Code §5092 by not notifying the public of their right to request a special election within 30 days of Ms. Ortiz’ provisional appointment. In March 2009 the Grand Jury questioned Board members about compliance with the notice procedures followed for Ms. Ortiz’ appointment. It was only after these interviews that a notice appeared in the San Jose Mercury News in April. Unfortunately, this belated notice deprived the public of their rights as the April notice indicated that the public’s right to seek a special election had expired on February 9, 2009, (two months prior to the notice and thirty days after Ms. Ortiz’ provisional appointment). 17

F7: The Board failed to fulfill their obligation to the public as it relates to the provisional appointment of Ms. Ortiz (Education Code §5091, §5092). Specifically, the Board: a. Limited the public’s opportunity to seek appointment by posting three (3) notices announcing the vacancy on the Board on LBSD property during the period of time when school was not in session (December 13, 2008 – January 4, 2008 holiday break). b. Deprived the public of their rights (as required by the Education Code) in January 2009 by: (i) Failing to adequately notify the public of their right to request a special election within 30 days of Ms. Ortiz’ provisional appointment. (ii) Failing to notify the public through an announcement in a local newspaper. (iii) Failing to post the notice in the three (3) locations where the public is accustomed to seeing notices about LBSD. c. Continued to deprive the public of their rights (as required by Education Code) in April 2009 by: (i) Publishing a notice three (3) months late. (ii) Setting a deadline that had already passed, which deprived the public the opportunity to request a special election.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: In the spirit of open government the Board should: a. Provide the public an opportunity to seek a special election within thirty (30) days of a new notice. Notices should be: (i) Sent to all LBSD parents. (ii) Posted in a public place frequented by the LBSD community. (iii) Posted at the Burbank Lion’s Club. (iv) Posted on LBSD property. (v) Published in the San Jose Mercury News. b. Hold a forum at an open Board meeting concerning the provisional appointment process and encourage dialogue on the topic. c. Certify Ms. Ortiz’ appointment only if the public does not request a special election within thirty (30) days of public notice. d. Comply with the Education Code (Education Code §5091, §5092) for future Board appointees. 18 #8 – Board Meetings (“F”) Background – Given the seriousness of the allegations, members of the Grand Jury attended Board meetings to witness how the meetings are conducted and to verify the testimony of numerous witnesses. The Grand Jury is very concerned about what they witnessed at each of the meetings they attended. The Board publishes agendas before meetings. However, no substantive information (Board Packets) is made available to the public before the meeting. In addition, the Board only recently provided an opportunity for the audience to comment on matters on the agenda. The Board moves very quickly through each item with little or no discussion and no public input. An item is read, a motion is made and the vote is taken. Meetings appear to be scripted with decisions made before the meeting. It is not surprising, therefore, that Board meetings are poorly attended and those attending appear to be disengaged. On one occasion, a Grand Juror was treated more like an intruder than a welcomed interested citizen. The interim Superintendent was overly interested in the identity of the Grand Juror and the Board was clearly uncomfortable with the Grand Juror’s presence. The interim Superintendent requested on at least three (3) occasions that the Grand Juror sign the roster (which is not required by Code), then intimated that a security camera was taking a picture and gestured to the camera. He said: “How about a picture, how about fingerprints?” This conduct is not in keeping with an open meeting environment. At another recent Board Meeting in May, an unusually large contingent of teachers and community members (many of whom spoke little, if any, English) attended. They attended out of concerns regarding the recent elimination of key educational and support staff positions (teachers, aides, administrative staff), and a closed session item on the agenda suggesting further actions. Many expressed fears that it would impact the children and their progress. A number of teachers and members of the community raised their hands and wanted to speak to the upcoming closed session topic. One person made a request for a translator. The Board President sternly told them “I am not going to answer questions. I am just letting you know how things are going to work.” He then proceeded to assign numbers to individuals raising their hands wanting to speak and explained how the speakers’ process was going to work. He said again “I will not answer questions.” There was no comment from any of the other Board members. Teachers spoke during a public comment opportunity prior to the closed session. Among the concerns mentioned were: • We are concerned about the communications within the school. Staff is not kept informed and “anxiety is up” as a result. “The lack of support will not allow us to continue to aim for 800.” 19 • “The morale of staff at school is greatly deteriorating. The decisions affecting morale should be addressed.” • “We have been told that we will not get our increase of health benefits. Board members and their families receive full health benefits (for free). Teachers pay …for medical. Some teachers cannot afford this. This is bad for morale. Please consider if you really deserve this benefit.” Various parents and community members had comments and suggestions. Here are just a few: • Concerned about the loss of bilingual staff. Volunteers are nice but there are confidentiality concerns with volunteers. Please reconsider your staff reductions carefully. • “I want to invite the Board to have a formal and informal dialogue with the community. Lack of communication makes everyone uneasy. Start communicating with staff and parents and have an open dialogue.” • “The Board stated they are open for input, but have not seen them.” During the meeting, the new Business Manager (who was never introduced to the public), went into the audience and tried to translate at the same time as teachers and members of the public spoke. This appeared to be more disruptive to the speakers and confusing to non-English speakers than an effective translation. In addition, the substance of the translation to the public was inaccurate. Based upon interviews and attendance at Board meetings, the Grand Jury is extremely concerned about the interim Superintendent and the Board’s lack of professionalism and openness with the public.

F8: The Board violates their obligations under the Government Code §54950 by failing to provide the public with access to information and limiting public scrutiny of their actions. The Board fails to make it convenient for the public to attend and participate at Board meetings. Specifically, the Board: a. Limits the likelihood of public scrutiny by holding increasingly numerous “special meetings,” which require only 24 hours public notice. Regular Special Meetings Meetings 2005 12 2 2006 11 5 2007 11 3 2008 11 10 1/1 – 5/12/09 5 6 20 b. Discontinued the practice (Board Policy §9322) of posting regular and special meeting notices at public places (not on LBSD property) where they may be viewed by the members of the public. c. Further limits public participation, by inconsistent start times for regular (Board Policy §9320) and special meetings, and meetings that last late into the night which precludes most parents’ full attendance. d. Asks the public to sign in at Board meetings and is antagonistic towards those who do not sign in in violation of Government Code section 54953.3. e. Fails to provide Board meeting materials for public inspection at Board meetings (Government Code §54957.5). f. Fails to provide a qualified translator at Board meetings even though the LBSD community is predominately Spanish speaking. g. Often fails to allow the public to address the Board on items on the agenda. h. Discontinued the practice of providing comprehensive minutes of Board meetings. i. Fails to approve minutes in a timely manner, resulting in the release of minutes to the public typically two (2) or more months after a Board meeting.

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: The Board should: a. Minimize special meetings, and not use these meetings to conduct routine LBSD business. b. Notice all regular and special Board meetings in a clearly visible place on the school’s bulletin board, in the District Office and at a public place typically frequented by LBSD parents (not on LBSD property). c. Publish all regular and special Board meeting notices and agendas in English and Spanish, including written instructions on how the public can address the Board on agenda items and request a translator. d. Conduct meetings at a consistent time and ensure public access to the facility before the start of all Board meetings. e. Announce availability and provide at least one (1) Board Packet (Board meeting materials) for public use at all Board meetings. f. Publicly announce availability of and provide translations for those attending Board meetings as a routine practice, not just upon request during the meeting. g. Provide the public the opportunity to comment on items on the agenda before the Board takes action on the item. h. Take comprehensive minutes to foster openness and full disclosure of Board discussions and actions. i. Approve Board minutes at the next scheduled Board meeting. 21 j. Include the following on the LBSD website: (i) Calendar of regular and special Board meetings (ii) Minutes of Board meetings (iii) Contact information for the Board (iv) Any other information that will cultivate an environment of openness with the public #9 – School Bond Obligations (“F”) Background – Measure A was approved by the voters in September 2006: “to acquire, improve and construct school facilities, improve health and safety including handicapped accessibility, construct a multipurpose room/cafeteria for school and community use, replace outdated portable classrooms with permanent classrooms to relieve overcrowding, qualify the District for joint use funding and state grants, by issuing $9,500,000, at interest rates below legal limits with a citizens' oversight committee and no money for administrator salaries.” Of the $9.5M approved by the voters, three bonds have been issued for a total of approximately $7.5M. Construction commenced in 2007 and is still ongoing. Series Issued Principal A 3/20/07 $3,339,962 B 1/10/08 $ 39,999 C 1/10/08 $4,099,994 Total $7,479,955 As it relates to school bonds, it is the intent of the California Legislature that: (i) “Vigorous efforts are undertaken to ensure that the expenditure of bond measures … are in strict conformity with the law.” (ii) “Taxpayers directly participate in the oversight of bond expenditures.” (iii) “Members of oversight committees … promptly alert the public to any waste or improper expenditure of school construction bond money.” (iv) “Unauthorized expenditures of school construction bond revenues are vigorously investigated, prosecuted, and that the courts act swiftly to restrain any improper expenditures” (Education Code §15264). To this end, the State Legislature requires that an independent citizen’s oversight committee be appointed within sixty (60) days (Education Code §15274) and consist of a minimum seven (7) members (Education Code §15278) comprised of at least: • Three (3) members with one (1) coming from each of the following: business organization representing the business community located within the district, senior citizen’s organization, and a bona fide taxpayers’ organization • Two (2) members from the school community, with one (1) coming from each of the following: parent or guardian of a child enrolled in the district, and parent or guardian of a child enrolled in the district who is an active member in a district parent-teacher organization Employees or officials of the district, and vendors, contractors, or consultants to the district, are specifically excluded from participation on citizen’s oversight committees (Education Code §15282). The Board is further obligated to provide citizen’s oversight committees with the necessary assistance and resources to fulfill their obligations and to enable them to publicize their conclusions (Education Code §15280). Citizen’s oversight committees are also charged with (Education Code §15280): • Holding open meetings which bear the same obligation as Board meetings for public notice • Issuing minutes from their meetings • Issuing regular reports on the results of their activities at least once yearly • Publishing on the district website all minutes, reports and documents related to their activities Members of the Board were: • Unaware of the need for or the role of a citizen’s oversight committee • Under the impression that the parent teacher organization (PTO) was the oversight committee or that individual Board members provided the oversight

F9: The Board has not met their legal requirements for the issuance of Measure A bonds. Specifically, the Board: a. Failed to certify the September 2006 Election results authorizing the issuance of Measure A bonds as required by statute (Education Code §15274) b. Failed to appoint a citizen’s oversight committee (Education Code §15278 et. seq.) as of April 2009 (more than 2.5 years after Measure A was approved by voters) 23 c. Failed to provide citizen oversight before: (i) Authorizing and spending in excess of $7.0 million of Measure A bond proceeds since January 2005 (ii) Authorizing the sale of $1.96M GO Bond Anticipation notes in January 2009 d. Failed to engage a third party to conduct independent annual financial and performance audits as required by statute (Education Code §15280, §15282 and California Constitution Article XXXIA, Section 1, (3) (b-c)) since the issuance of the first Measure A bond in March 2007

Related Recommendations (1)

R9: The Board should: a. Immediately appoint an independent citizen’s oversight committee (in full conformity with Education Code §15282) that will not be unduly influenced by the Board or any individual member b. Fully brief the citizen’s oversight committee within fourteen (14) days after their appointment on all past and proposed expenditures, project plans and other issues necessary for the committee to perform their function c. Cooperate with and provide the citizen’s oversight committee with the documentation and necessary resources for them to fulfill their obligations (Education Code §15280) d. Engage an independent third party to conduct financial and performance audits as required by Education Code §15280, §15282 and California Constitution Article XXXIA, Section 1, (3) (b-c) e. In the spirit of full disclosure and openness, inform the public of Board actions related to Measure A by documenting in Board minutes all discussion and votes including but not limited to: (i) Contracts approved (ii) Expenditures approved (iii) Budget versus actual expenditures (iv) Detailed status of project activities (v) Identification by name of contractors and other project staff presenting to or available for questions/discussion at Board meetings f. Include the following on the LBSD website: (i) Calendar of citizen’s oversight committee meetings (ii) Roster of citizen’s oversight committee members (iii) Minutes of citizen’s oversight committee meetings 24 (iv) Reports from citizen’s oversight committee (v) Documents made available to the citizen’s oversight committee (vi) Independent financial and performance audits related to Measure A projects #10 – LBSD Financial Management and Oversight (“I”) Background – There are concerns about the financial management of LBSD based upon, but not limited to: • Newspaper articles and television publicity alleging financial improprieties • Ongoing conflict between the former Superintendent and former business manager concerning financial issues • The June 30, 2008, annual financial audit which revealed issues related to internal controls and financial management • The February 2009 special audit commissioned by the SCCOE that exposed additional financial deficiencies While neither audit found evidence of fraud, the special audit clearly pointed out that the lack of financial control could facilitate fraud. This is troubling because the current LBSD leadership is spending significant operating funds on: • Construction • Compensation for both the former and interim Superintendents, and the buy out of the former business manager • Legal fees • Board and interim Superintendent travel and education expenses The special audit noted that “internal control serves as a defense in safeguarding assets and in preventing and detecting errors, fraud, violations of laws, regulations, and provisions of contracts and grant agreement, or abuse”. Special Audit

F10: The special audit raised significant questions about internal controls at LBSD and the failure of the Board to follow Board Policy.

Related Recommendations (1)

R10: LBSD Board should respond to the special audit findings by: a. Immediately addressing the issues raised b. Developing a timetable for and monitoring the progress/completion against the audit recommendations c. Reporting compliance with the audit recommendations at least once quarterly at an open session Board meeting #11 – Volunteers: Protecting Students from Sexual Predators and Communicable Disease (“F”) Background – The state recognizes the importance of protecting students from sexual predators. To this end, Education Code (§35021) requires that a sex offender shall not serve as a nonteaching volunteer. Santa Clara County Public Health Department has published guidelines for tuberculosis (TB) screening of volunteers. These guidelines require that volunteers who work on school premises at least once monthly must be screened for TB no more than sixty (60) days before volunteering starts. In addition, schools should maintain a file containing an up-to-date TB certificate for each volunteer. In the event of a TB outbreak, there are significant penalties and/or fines for failure to follow the guidelines.

F11: LBSD Board Policies do not include any requirement for volunteers to be fingerprinted nor to provide a negative TB screen before contact with students. The LBSD does not currently require testing for TB or fingerprinting of volunteers. 26

Related Recommendations (1)

R11: LBSD Board should: a. Fingerprint potential volunteers and obtain the results from the DOJ before any volunteer has contact with students b. Require prospective volunteers to provide evidence of a negative TB test before contact with students c. Establish Board Policies requiring TB testing and fingerprinting of volunteers. #12 – Commitment to the Superior Court Background – The 2007-2008 Civil Grand Jury issued a report that found that “Gustavo De La Cruz was not a resident of LBSD and that he improperly failed to resign from the LBSD Board upon moving out of his residence in the District.” The 2007-2008 Grand Jury recommended that “LBSD pursue legal means to recover all compensation, with interest, that was paid to Mr. De La Cruz during the time that he no longer resided within the District but continued to serve on the LBSD Board of Trustees.” The Board issued its official response by letter dated August 19, 2008, to Honorable Judge Catherine Gallagher, Superior Court Presiding Judge, indicating that “at the Board of Trustees meeting of August 19, 2008, the Board will direct its General Counsel to review the pertinent facts, to initiate a discussion with former trustee De La Cruz on behalf of the Board, to negotiate a written agreement for proper reimbursement to LBSD and to report back to the Board at its September monthly Board meeting. The Board will expect to have in effect a legally enforceable written agreement by its October 2008, board meeting.”

F12: As of May 2009, it appears that there is no enforceable written agreement between LBSD and Mr. De La Cruz, contrary to their October 2008 commitment to the Court.

Related Recommendations (1)

R12: This Grand Jury supports the recommendation of the 2007-2008 Grand Jury. The Board should provide evidence of a legally enforceable written agreement with Mr. De La Cruz to reimburse LBSD for monies he received while a member of the Board and living outside the District. 27 #13 – Report Card Highlights

F13: Based upon its investigation, the Grand Jury concludes that the Board has not fulfilled its legal, ethical and financial obligations to the Luther Burbank School District (Findings 1 – 12). Specifically the Board: a. Fails to openly and actively provide the public with the opportunity to participate and have a voice in Board actions b. Fails to adequately inform the public of the background, financial implications, options and potential consequences of Board actions c. Seeks to exclude public oversight of Measure A expenditures d. Deprives the public of their right to seek appointment to the Board e. Fails to self-police Board members to ensure that each member acts in a professional and responsible manner f. Abdicates their Board responsibilities to the Board President g. Fails to avoid conflict of interest h. Places its personal interests and agendas before the needs of LBSD i. Continues to repeatedly ignore multiple policies and laws that govern their conduct. This includes, but is not limited to: o Board Policy (§4000, §5000, §6000, §9200, §9270, §9271, §9272, §9320, §9322) o Education Code (§5091, §5092, §15264, §15274, §15278, §15280, §15282, §35021, §41402, §45125(c),(g)) o California Government Code (§1090, §87500) o California Constitution Article, XXXIA, Section 1, (3) (b-c) o The Brown Act (§54952.2 – 54956.5(a), §54957.5) o The Political Reform Act (§87100, §87103, §87105) o CSBA Guidelines

Related Recommendations (1)

R13: LBSD is a small one-school district that may be incapable of making the needed changes to eliminate the systemic problems that plague the Board. The SCCOE Board of Trustees should: a. Closely monitor the LBSD Board to ensure implementation and compliance with the special audit. 28 b. Closely monitor the LBSD Board to ensure implementation of the Grand Jury recommendations. c. Strongly encourage an amicable organization (merger) of LBSD with an adjacent school district.

June 24, 2008 — 2008-2009 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report Santa Clara Valley Water District - Part 4 Gold Street Education

8 pages 5 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 5 findings

F1: The Gold Street Education Center will not improve watersheds, streams or the natural resources therein. It is not an Environmental Enhancement as described in Board Policy E-3.2.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Educational efforts should no longer be masqueraded as Environmental Enhancements. Irrespective of educational goals, the District should communicate with the public as to its full purpose and mission beyond water supply.

F2a: None of the Directors interviewed had knowledge of the effectiveness or use of the Coyote Creek Outdoor classroom. It was originally expected to be used 20 times per year, but is only used an average of six times a year. The Morley Park outdoor classroom is used as a classroom five times a year. 4

F2b: No estimates have been published as to how often the Gold Street Education Center would be used as a classroom.

F3: The majority of Directors interviewed was unsure whether the Gold Street Education Center had been approved, and none knew the source of funding.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The District should not expend further funds or resources on the Gold Street Education Center project.

F4: The GSEC site is at the entrance to the Summerset Mobile Estates, a mobile home park that has been owned for many years by the family of the Board member from District 3. In June, 2006, the same Board member recused himself, upon advice of District Counsel, from participating in any manner on the GSEC because his family owns property near the site. He had failed to recuse himself from voting on the GSEC at earlier Board meetings.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: No recommendation. Appendix A Map of Gold Street Education Center Proposed Site (including County Marina and Don Edwards). Appendix B District Act - Section 4 Purposes and Intent § 4. Purposes and intent Sec. 4. (a) The purposes of this act are to authorize the district to provide comprehensive water management for all beneficial uses and protection from flooding within Santa Clara County. (b) It is the intent of the Legislature that the district work collaboratively with other appropriate entities in Santa Clara County in carrying out the purposes of this act. (c) The district may take action to do all of the following: (1) Protect Santa Clara County from floodwater and stormwater of the district, including tidal floodwater and the floodwater and stormwater of streams that have their sources outside the district, but flow into the district. (2) Protect from that floodwater or stormwater the public highways, life and property in the district, and the watercourses and watersheds of streams flowing within the district. (3) Provide for the conservation and management of floodwater, stormwater, or recycled water, or other water from any sources within or outside the watershed in which the district is located for beneficial and useful purposes, including spreading, storing, retaining, and causing the waters to percolate into the soil within the district. (4) Protect, save, store, recycle, distribute, transfer, exchange, manage, and conserve in any manner any of the waters. (5) Increase and prevent the waste or diminution of the water supply in the district. (6) Obtain, retain, protect, and recycle drainage, stormwater, floodwater, or treated wastewater, or other water from any sources, within or outside the watershed in which the district is located for any beneficial uses within the district. (7) Enhance, protect, and restore streams, riparian corridors, and natural resources in connection with carrying out the purposes set forth in this section. (8) Preserve open space in Santa Clara County and support the county park system in a manner that is consistent with carrying out the powers granted by this section. This report was PASSED and ADOPTED with a concurrence of at least 12 grand jurors on this 16th day of April, 2009. Don Kawashima Foreperson June Nishimoto Foreperson pro tem 8

2008-2009 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report Santa Clara Valley Water District

22 pages 16 findings 19 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 16 findings

F1: Directors shall be exempt from seeking employment with the District for one year following the completion of their service.

Related Recommendations (3)

R1: Directors shall be exempt from seeking employment with the District for one year following the completion of their service.

R1a: Create an independent Public Review Committee (PRC), appointed by an independent body to review and report annually to the public on any and all issues it feels necessary. Issues should be accepted from any citizen, public agency or District employee. The PRC needs to have access to District staff and documents, along with the District’s administrative support. The Board should provide written responses to the committee as requested. 14

R1c: The PRC should direct the Board Auditor as to the scope of audits.

F1a: While many operational activities, such as water quality and environmental impact reviews, are highly regulated by government agencies, the Board of Directors is solely responsible for District financial management, including capital programs, water rates and pump taxes.

F1b: The County Board of Supervisors gave only a perfunctory review of the District budget until they ordered a budget review in 2005. They subsequently relinquished any oversight of the District.

F1c: The Board of Directors has hired an auditor (Board Auditor) on a two-year trial basis. It has yet to be determined what the goals of the auditor will be.

F2: The Board of Directors has complete discretion, unfettered by consistent policy, guidelines, or priorities, on spending 1% ad valorem property taxes and reimbursements for flood control projects from the California Department of Water Resources Flood Subvention Program (Subventions).

Related Recommendations (3)

R2: Staff memos are to be made available to the public for a minimum of 10 days prior to being heard by the Board of Directors.

R2a: The Board of Directors should articulate a policy on how property taxes and Subventions will be spent.

R2b: The PRC should evaluate use of the District’s 1% ad valorem taxes for the Clean Safe Creeks Program.

F3: The District does not justify spending and staffing to the public and does not have a comprehensive long-term Master Plan that enables the public to understand use of funds, planned services, and service charges.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: At least 90 days before the 2010 elections, the District should publish a comprehensive 15-year Master Plan including strategies, associated project plans, anticipated funding and costs, services, staffing, and revenue generation. It should be updated every five years. Any future proposal for the follow-on to the Clean Safe Creeks Program, should be based on the flood control portions of the Master Plan. 15

F4: A written summary of closed session disclosures shall be made available when the minutes from the corresponding session are approved

Related Recommendations (3)

R4: A written summary of closed session disclosures shall be made available when the minutes from the corresponding session are approved

R4a: The District should publish similar annual reports for all District divisions, particularly for flood control and watersheds. The reports should include performance metrics and quality of service indicators.

R4b: The Board of Directors should publish a detailed report annually on their strategies, plans, priorities, and issues as well as Board member compensation, benefits, travel, and other expenditures. The District should present financing and flood control information annually to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and city councils in the County.

F4a: While the legislation establishing the District requires an annual report on “the protection and augmentation of water supplies,” none is required for watershed and flood control.

F4b: The District provides the Water Utility Enterprise Report, now called the Report on the Protection and Augmentation of Water Supplies. It also publishes a detailed business plan and other reports from the Water Utility portion of the District.

F5: The District uniformly states that protection of life and property is the number one priority. However, some projects have waited years. Example: The Upper Llagas Creek Flood Protection project, has waited 40 years and is still not completed.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: The District needs to evaluate root causes of delays of essential projects and their impact on public safety. It should establish a “fast-track” process to complete critical projects, including specific performance goals and continuing assessments to improve speed of execution.

F6: The District reduced the FY08-09 budget by $11M by reducing staff, overtime, consulting and travel expenses. 16

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: The District should continue to look into other avenues where it can reduce excess spending. The costs of outsourcing rather than in house staffing should be reviewed.

F7: Prior to FY07-08 the District has not reviewed budgets in detail with managers.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: The Board of Directors should create a process and policy to ensure that the budget is reviewed and tracked regularly, at least quarterly, to monitor income and expense. The Board of Directors should re-evaluate all over-budget or delayed projects, against the original justification, to ensure that they remain cost effective.

F8: The Board of Directors does not make cost savings and financial reform a priority.

Related Recommendations (3)

R8: Directors shall not revise draft staff reports without full disclosure.

R8a: The Board of Directors should enlist the help of outside consultants to implement a plan for cost-effective operation of the district.

R8b: Board of Directors should ensure that future CEOs continue top-down cost control and support greater efficiency at lower levels in the organization. It should ensure actual expenses do not exceed budgeted expenses The next CEO should bring a mindset of reform and restructuring for accountability to the public

F9: The Assemblymember from District 23 has negotiated legislation (AB466) with the District to implement 11 policy recommendations. {See Appendix A). AB 466 does not include term limits.

Related Recommendations (1)

R9: If AB466 is not passed, the Board should include its policies in Board policy. 17

F10: The average tenure on the Board of Directors is 15 years, with the longest Director having served 29 years.

Related Recommendations (1)

R10: Term limits should be included in AB 466 or implemented by the Board of Directors.

F11: In the case of voluntary separation of employment by any Board appointed executive or officer of the district, the executive or officer will be ineligible to receive a severance package. APPENDIX B News Release Fair Political Practices Commission August 17, 2004 NEWS RELEASE For Immediate Release: Contact: Sigrid Bathen August 17 , 2004 (916) 322-7761 Commission, Creeks Committee agree to $24,000 civil settlement Failed to file reports disclosing $190,000 in contributions The Fair Political Practices Commission has reached a $24,000 civil settlement with the Committee for Clean Safe Creeks, and its treasurers, Susan A. Pino and Rick L. Callender, regarding campaign disclosure violations in connection with their successful effort to win passage of Measure B, the “Clean, Safe Creeks and Flood Protection Plan,” in the Nov. 7, 2000, Santa Clara County general election. The FPPC alleged in its suit that before the election, the Creeks committee failed to timely file a pre- election campaign report disclosing $170,995 in contributions and $65,668 in expenditures and failed to file five late contribution reports disclosing an additional $20,000 in contributions. In addition, when the committee later filed the pre-election report, well after the election, it did not disclose required information about how $49,795 in contributions was spent. The committee also was not properly described in its campaign filings as a committee that was primarily formed to win passage of Measure B. The civil lawsuit was filed by the FPPC in Santa Clara County Superior Court on Aug. 4, 2004. The final judgment, based on a stipulation signed by the FPPC, Pino, and Callender, was approved Aug. 13 by Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Socrates P. Manoukian. Copies of the complaint, stipulation and judgment are available on the FPPC Web site at www.fppc.ca.gov. “This was a significant matter for the voters of Santa Clara County,” said Steven Russo, chief of the FPPC’s Enforcement Division. “Due to the disclosure violations, the voters were deprived of important information regarding the conduct of the Measure B campaign and who supported it.” He noted that the measure passed by a very slim margin, receiving only 66.9% of the votes cast, with 66.6% needed for passage. According to documents filed in the case, the Creeks committee received 29 contributions totaling $170,995, approximately two-thirds of the total contributions received by the committee during the second pre-election reporting period before the November 2000 election. They also made $65,668 in expenditures. They failed to report this activity on their pre-election campaign statement by Oct. 26, 2000, as required by law. APPENDIX B - continued During the next 16 days immediately preceeding the election, the Creeks committee then received five additional contributions of $1,000 or more totaling $20,000. Any contributions received within the last 16 days prior to an election are required to be reported as “late contributions” within 24 hours. The Creeks committee failed to satisfy that reporting obligation. After the November election, on Dec. 26, 2000, the committee belatedly filed the preelection campaign statement that had been due on Oct. 26. However, the committee failed to disclose required information about how $49,795 had been spent by the committee. Finally, in the committee’s first campaign filing -- a statement of organization filed on July 25, 2000 -- the committee failed to disclose its purpose as a committee primarily formed to support the passage of Measure B, as required by law. The committee was incorrectly described as a general purpose committee whose purpose was to support more than just the one ballot measure. This failure to correctly describe the true nature of the committee was then reflected in all of the committee’s subsequent campaign filings. This case was handled as a civil lawsuit, rather than as an administrative action, and the terms of the settlement were brought before the members of the commission for approval during an earlier closed- session discussion of pending litigation. Because of the large amount of unreported contributions, particularly in the second pre-election statement, the case was handled as a civil action to allow for the possibility of a higher fine. An administrative action is the FPPC’s more common method of prosecuting enforcement matters. For the 2000 election, the maximum possible administrative penalty was $2,000 per violation (since raised to $5,000 with the passage of Proposition 34). Senior Commission Counsel Deanne Canar and Investigator III Daniel Schek handled the case for the FPPC. ### 21 This report was PASSED and ADOPTED with a concurrence of at least 12 grand jurors on this 9th day of April, 2009. Don Kawashima Foreperson June Nishimoto Foreperson pro tem 22

Related Recommendations (1)

R11: In the case of voluntary separation of employment by any Board appointed executive or officer of the district, the executive or officer will be ineligible to receive a severance package. 19

2008-2009 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report Santa Clara Valley Water District – Part 3

25 pages 18 findings 9 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 18 findings

F1a: Environmental Enhancement projects are selected at the discretion of the Board. Board End policy E-3.2 “to improve watersheds, streams, and the natural resources therein.” The Alviso Slough Restoration Project is not an Environmental Enhancement project because it clearly does not improve watersheds, streams, and the natural resources therein. 8

F1b: The Alviso Slough Restoration Project is intended to restore to artificial pre-1983 conditions and as such, is not an appropriate project for the District.

F2: Vegetation removal results in ~3200c.y. per acre

F2a: Under the recommended Alternative 5 they expect to dredge approximately 10 feet below the existing level. Approximately 200,000 cubic yards of sediment would be removed, plus 25 acres of vegetation across a 0.6 mile stretch. It will take 300 days of trucking to landfills.

F2b: Heavy metal, particularly mercury, contamination would occur due to the nature of the proposed work and result in damage to the environment. State and Federal protected endangered species would be impacted by the environmental changes brought about upon completion of the project.

F2c: Deepening and widening the channel would make some boating feasible. However, it will be severely limited and access to and from the Bay may be limited to high tide.

F2d: The Alviso Slough Restoration Project proposes major changes in the drainage channel that could alter the present geometry of the tidal prism which in turn could expose the area to tidal flooding.

F2e: The South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Program, will slowly bring in salt water and use natural “scouring” to restore the slough to something closer to its original state. No dredging is involved in this project. It will take more time to achieve the Slough project objectives but with minimal environmental risk. 9

F3: Construction duration assumes 0.5 acre per day vegetation removal per Aquamog, and 230c.y. dredged material per Aquamog.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: When a project is sent to staff for planning and investigation, a maximum budget should be set and staff instructed to return if it appears the budget will be exceeded by more than 10% or its schedule will be delayed more than six months, or its scope changes significantly.

F3a: The District has already spent $2.5M for the initial planning that was originally budgeted for the full project.

F3b: Alviso Slough Restoration Project costs are estimated to be over $22 million, which would be followed by yearly maintenance costs of around $3.6 million for many decades.

F4: Hauling duration assumes an average of 80 round-trips per day (80 for vegetation plus 80 for sediment), 5 days a week, using 12c.y. haul trucks. The hauling during for sediment also assumes that sediment cannot be hauled offsite until it has completed a 10 day drying period.

Related Recommendations (2)

R4a: The District should provide a comprehensive plan covering flood control, water supply, environmental enhancement, and ongoing operations,. This plan should cover funding and prioritization between these areas.

R4b: The SCVWD should cease funding the Alviso Slough Restoration Project and instead ensure that areas with obvious potential flood damage are addressed first.

F4a: In general, Board policy is to give higher priority to projects where there is potential for major loss of property or life. Major property loss has occurred and has potential to recur in several unfunded flood projects such as the Upper Llagas, Canoas Creek, Ross Creek, San Francisquito Creek.

F4b: The Upper Llagas Project, initially approved in 1954, is the oldest and most under- funded project in the district, and may still face a funding shortfall. Morgan Hill and San Martin have had repetitive flooding and damage since 1954. 10

F4c: The District has just completed the Lower Guadalupe project providing fluvial flood protection for Alviso and other areas of San Jose at a cost of $83M.

F5: The Alviso Slough Restoration Project is supported largely by the Alviso community and related government agencies, such as the City of San Jose and Santa Clara County, who will not be paying for it.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: The Board should establish a policy to ensure that politics and local interests do not interfere with project prioritization.

F6: Staging areas for drying sediment are assumed to be 2 feet high and a maximum of 6 feet high for stockpiling of sediment. Vegetation stockpiling is assumed to be up to 9 feet high initially then less as it dries.

F7: Duration of Alternatives 4 and 5 require at minimum 2 years because all vegetation removal + dredging cannot be completed in a single allowable construction window to avoid species breeding seasons, etc., and could take as many as 3 or 4 years. APPENDIX B Summary Description of Alternatives from DEIR Alt. Alt. Vegetation Vegetation and Root Alt. 5 and Root Mass Vegetation/ Alt. Alt. Mass Removal Root Mass Vegetation Vegetation Removal and Dredge Removal (15.3 and Root and Root and Dredge to 16-foot acres) and Mass Mass to 8foot Depth (6.2 Dredge to 10- Alt. Project Removal (2.6 Removal (7.0 Depth (3.7 acres) foot Depth (9.7 No Elements acres) acres) acres) acres) Project3 Vegetation 8,320 22,400 11,840 19,840 80,000 0 removed, c.y. Sediment Removed (wet), 0 0 48,000 160,000 157,000 0 c.y. Length of slough affected by 1,400 3,400 2,300 2,200 3,300 0 project work (feet) Current average width of slough between Gold 50 50 50 50 50 50 Street and County Marina (feet)1 Resultant average width of slough between Gold 803 130 100 110 160 503 Street and County Marina (feet)2 Notes: 1 Average width of slough before and after implementation of alternatives was determined based on approximately 10 equi- distant transects between Gold Street and the County Marina. The current average width of open water between Gold Street and County Marina was field measured on February 1, 2007. The resultant width of the slough after construction does not imply adequate depth for all boats at all tides. The widths do not include changes associated with the SBSP Phase 1 actions (see footnote 3) 3 The Alternative 1 and No Project values of 80 and 50, respectively, do not consider the SBSP Phase 1 actions. The SBSP Phase 1 notch at Pond A8 is predicted to increase the average width of slough between Gold Street and County Marina by 50 to 90 feet, or to an estimated slough width of 100-140 feet, and resultant average width of 120 feet. Such action could potentially increase the resultant widths of Alternatives 1 and 6 as shown in the table. The other alternatives are predicted to attain a channel width as shown in table with or without the SBSP Phase 1 action. APPENDIX C Extracts from Public Comments Made in Response to Draft Environmental Impact Report Audubon Society • Sensitive Species: Breeding of salt marsh Common Yellow Throat & Alameda Song Sparrow if any construction work shifts outside of September 1st. to February 28th. construction window. Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge • Lowering the levee weirs allows flood waters to escape the slough channel onto the Refuge location known as Pond A-8, through it, onto Refuge Ponds A- 5, A- 7 and possibly A –6. • SCVWD cannot have the right to alter the weir at will. The Refuge acquired ponds … in 2003, and current weir was an existing easement and condition that had been negotiated by the District (SCVWD) with the prior landowner. The DEIR proposes to alter those conditions in all but the no project alternative. Thus, any alteration of the weir involving impact on the Refuge must reassess District rights to do so and US FWS responsibility under NWRSAA. • The project effects downstream topping of levees A-12 and A-11. A potential outcome mitigated by lowering the weir, would also introduce greater flow of flood waters onto Refuge Lands and increase the potential of harm to wildlife and habitats. Thus, with or without lowering the weir, Alternatives 1 through 5 involve the NWRSAA,( National Wildlife Refuge System Administrative Act. 1966) • Adverse biological impact introduced by the altered hydrological and pollutant (Hg) conditions to the Refuge. • The project also has adverse effects on the South Bay Salt pond Restoration Project (SBSPRP). • The South Bay Shoreline Study a project that will have a major impact on the Alviso Project has been omitted in the report. • “District staff has stated that this is not a flood control project. But such statements are contradicted by actions proposed by Alternatives 1-5. Each proposes action that creates new flood dangers that must be mitigated in new flood control actions. Making matters worse, the proposed flood control actions dramatically increase Project costs and divert funds that could be used otherwise e.g. for watershed projects that may be alternatives that reduce flood potential without aggravating existing flood conditions.” (Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge.) 14 APPENDIX C - continued California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region • ASRP Project is not a Restoration Project. The Saltwater Pond Restoration Project returns shoreline to its original condition before the salt ponds were installed and back to salt water marshes and tidal flats • Widening and deepening only one portion of the slough introduces unstable conditions in the current dimensions of the slough. • Alteration of channel needs follow up maintenance work yearly. The Water Board considers the impacts resulting from the project to be essentially permanent. • Threat to fish & wildlife. Steelhead cannot get out of Pond A-8, once the fish gets in. • There will be a marked increase in sediments due to disturbances. Increased turbidity which screens may not adequately control. Other concerns are, mercury Hg contamination, reduction in water quality, habitat disturbance and conversion of wetland/ marsh habitat to open water. • Proposed mitigation measures is currently inadequate to support issuance of permits for this Project by the Water Board. Department of Fish & Game • Vegetation and root removal shall result in only a one foot deepening of the slough bottom.” This assumption is false according to DF&G findings. This work will lower the existing grade of the slough bottom by 4feet. • Lowering the level of Pond A-8 involved too much collateral damages to the surrounding slough environment, to the downstream localities and other ponds. • Dredging could bring bio-accumulative effects, which could be transferred up the food chain to terrestrial species. • Many Special Status and Federal Threatened species are endangered. • Four federal and state threatened and protected species of fish are involved. o Chinook Salmon ( Species of Special concern CA.)) o Central CA Coast Steelhead ( Federally Threatened Species. ) o Green Sturgeon ( Federally Threatened Species. ) o Long fin Smelt ( State of CA.) • All alternatives 1 thru 5 impacted these 4 species of threatened aquatic wildlife. The threats will result due to elimination of food sources, increases in turbidity, disturbed habitat which are all permanent impacts from the proposed project. APPENDIX C – continued • Some of the other wildlife threatened are: o Salt Marsh Wandering Shrew. o Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse ( Federal endangered Species.) o California Black Rails ( State threatened and protected species.) o California Clapper Rails ( State & Federal endangered and protected species.) • There is an omission in the DEIR regarding mercury. It did not discuss the potential for conveyance of mercury nor other pollutants including trash onto the Refuge during storm events. 'When acquiring Pond A8 and nearby former salt ponds, the Refuge recognized that there were know of, historical deposits of mercury within pond boundaries. That status became a factor of significant importance in restoration planning and implementation. Given that fact, Refuge planning must include avoidance of any increase in mercury deposition. The DEIR discussion of mercury pollution (p. 3.2-5) states that discharge of mercury into the watershed is episodic i.e. mostly occurring during high-flow storm events. It does not correlate such events \with a lowered weir nor the impact of altered input onto the Refuge. It is anticipated that implementation the Guadalupe River Watershed TMDL [Total Maximum Daily Load] will eventually reduce the watershed dispersion of mercury to insignificant levels. It is expected that that outcome is some years in the future, possibly decades. Thus the intervening years have the potential for significant mercury deposition onto the Refuge during high-water storm events. It is a concern that the DEIR, in discussing methyl mercury production and bioaccumulation (pp 3.221, 3.2- 22), can conclude as a summary of all Alternatives that the Project would have "Less than Significant" impacts on this pollutant issue. In the same section the DEIR acknowledges that bringing deeper sediments to the surface could increase the reactive mercury in those sediments and that "It is not known for certain that this increase in reactive mercury would result in an increase in the methylation rate." With such an unknown, a less than significant impact is fully inappropriate. We can only conclude that Alternatives 1-5 will increase the extent of mercury pollution possible on the Refuge, through a lowered weir, and possibly downstream of the Project site. Doing so would increase risks to the food web and impacted species above and beyond risk levels that already exist. This is an unacceptable change and must be addressed in the FEIR. APPENDIX C - continued Shoreline Watch for San Jose • Suspension and Mobilization of Contaminated Sediment: The document acknowledges that dredging would expose potentially mercury-contaminated deep sediments, but the District would not expect those sediments to be transported out of the immediate Project area. DFG requests additional information as to how this conclusion was drawn. DFG respectfully points out that even if those exposed sediments do not get transported out of the immediate area, there may still be substantial impacts to aquatic species present in the area, the bioaccumulation effects of which could be transferred up the food chain to terrestrial species. • San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex • Habitat mitigation. We suggest coordinating with the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project for potential mitigation areas in the South Bay. • Impacts to Refuge Infrastructure and Ponds. We are concerned about the project's indirect impacts to refuge-managed ponds along Alviso Slough during flood events. Removal of marsh vegetation could result in levee erosion. The widening and deepening of the Slough by the project could have unanticipated consequences to lands and levees downstream of the Slough by forcing higher volumes of water down the remaining narrower portions of the Slough. Levees along the ponds could potentially overtop refuge levees causing flooding of the Alviso community. The combined effects of the planned A8 restoration project and this project should be thoroughly evaluated prior to construction. • Lowering of A8 Weir. We do not support the lowering of the weir on A8 as increased flood waters spilling into pond A8 will cause increased contaminants levels, particularly in regard to mercury. We are also not clear what property rights exist that allow the lowering of this weir and the increased flooding that would likely result. APPENDIX D Short Chronology of Alviso Slough Restoration Project An apparent inequity in the LGRP plan is noted by the Director representing Alviso: The banks of the Guadalupe above the UPRR were being developed with 35 foot wide overflow banks that improved flow capacity and maintenance; whereas below Some time in 2002 the UPRR, the river banks did not have such improvements. In response, the District staff proposed removal under of 60% of the vegetation (4 out of 7 acres) at a cost of less than $1M using a similar approach to that of the upstream portions and would provide improved maintenance. As the LGRP was reaching the final stages of approval, the BOD requested staff to make recommendations for environmental November 2002 enhancements related to the LGRP. Among the

Additional Recommendations 3

Not linked to specific findings.

R4: Hauling duration assumes an average of 80 round-trips per day (80 for vegetation plus 80 for sediment), 5 days a week, using 12c.y. haul trucks. The hauling during for sediment also assumes that sediment cannot be hauled offsite until it has completed a 10 day drying period.

R6: Staging areas for drying sediment are assumed to be 2 feet high and a maximum of 6 feet high for stockpiling of sediment. Vegetation stockpiling is assumed to be up to 9 feet high initially then less as it dries.

R7: Duration of Alternatives 4 and 5 require at minimum 2 years because all vegetation removal + dredging cannot be completed in a single allowable construction window to avoid species breeding seasons, etc., and could take as many as 3 or 4 years. 12