Santa Clara County 2008-2009 - California Grand Jury Reports

September 13, 2010 — Saratoga Union School District Consolidation Report

3 páginas 1 hallazgos

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 1 hallazgos

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

March 23, 2010 — Orchard School District

2 páginas 6 hallazgos 6 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 6 hallazgos

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

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

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

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

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

R5: Not applicable to Orchard School-not listed

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

Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)

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

October 01, 2009 — Districtresponsetothe F_

6 páginas 5 hallazgos 6 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 5 hallazgos

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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones adicionales 1

No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.

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 Response to Grand Jury Report

5 páginas 5 hallazgos 6 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 5 hallazgos

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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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

Recomendaciones adicionales 1

No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.

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 21, 2009 — Orchard School District Benefits and Superintendent Contract

2 páginas 6 hallazgos 5 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 6 hallazgos

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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

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

5 páginas 6 hallazgos 6 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 6 hallazgos

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

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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 páginas 7 hallazgos 6 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 7 hallazgos

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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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:

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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 11, 2009 — Board of Education

4 páginas 5 hallazgos 5 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 5 hallazgos

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

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones adicionales 1

No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.

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 10, 2009 — Los Altos School District Inventory Practices

4 páginas 7 hallazgos 7 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 7 hallazgos

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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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 Inventory Practices

2 páginas 6 hallazgos

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 6 hallazgos

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 08, 2009 — Gavilan College Inventory Practices and Purchases

8 páginas 7 hallazgos 7 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 7 hallazgos

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

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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 — Board of Trustees Superintendent

4 páginas 7 hallazgos 6 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 7 hallazgos

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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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 páginas 6 hallazgos

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 6 hallazgos

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

22 páginas 6 hallazgos 6 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 6 hallazgos

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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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).

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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 — Department of Correction/Facilities and Fleet: A Broken Relationship in Need of Repair

24 páginas 16 hallazgos 15 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 16 hallazgos

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."

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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

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

5 páginas 6 hallazgos 6 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 6 hallazgos

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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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).

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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 — Department of Correction Facilities and Fleet

12 páginas 15 hallazgos 15 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 15 hallazgos

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.”

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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 — Los Lagos Golf Course Financial Sand Trap

12 páginas 6 hallazgos 6 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 6 hallazgos

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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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 — Mountain View Whisman School District Inventory Practices

4 páginas 6 hallazgos 6 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 6 hallazgos

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.

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.

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.

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.

F6: Some school districts observed by the Grand Jury had a demonstrated understanding of the need for inventory control. Best practices include documenting and fol/owing a process, conforming to the Education Code requirements, and performing reconciliation to prior inventories. The fol/owing 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-B 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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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. Mountain View Whisman School District Response #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 of time. Expenditures should be presented separately from the Board's consent calendar to ensure proper scrutiny. Response to Grand Ju ry Fina l Re p ort, date d June 9, 2009 Mountain View Whism an Scho ol 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 be provided to the Board for approval. Mountain View Whisman School District Response: This recommendation has already been partially implemented. (Please see response to Finding #7.) The recommendation with respect to a listing of disbursements to the Superintendent will be implemented immediately by requiring the President of the Board of Trustees to review all reimbursement requests made by the Superintendent prior to the payment of such requests. This will be done in addition to the current practice of having the Chief Financial Officer review all such requests. Si"ftpDP~ Philip Palmer President, Board of Trustees

Recomendaciones adicionales 5

No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.

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 . .•..

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. 750-A San Pierre Way· Mountain View· CA ·94043 I T:[650] 526-3500 I F:[650] 964-8907 •• Responseto GrandJury FinalR ep ort,dated June9, 200 9 Mountain View Whism an Scho ol Distr i ct Respo nse: This re comme ndation will be im plement ed. The Board of T rust ee s will be g iven a co py of Ed uc a tion Code 3516 8 bef ore the next b oar d meeting. For K-12 Districts/ the COEshoul d take the l ead in pro vidin g comprehe nsive training o n invento ry 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 Fiscal Year 2009-10 and will offer training for interested districts.

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 samolina basis is acceotable .... (CSAM Procedure 410)

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. Response to Grand Ju ry Fina l Re port, date d June 9, 2009 Mountain View Wh isman Sc hool D ist rict respo nse: Plea se see respon ses to recom men dations 1 and 3. #5:

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

June 09, 2009 — Santa Clara County Schools Inventory Practices Report

17 páginas 11 hallazgos 11 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 11 hallazgos

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

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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 01, 2009 — Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Taking the Public for a Ride

27 páginas 17 hallazgos 25 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 17 hallazgos

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).

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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 páginas 5 hallazgos 5 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 5 hallazgos

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

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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. .

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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 — City of San Jose Hosed by Iaff Local 230 Executives

33 páginas 18 hallazgos 9 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 18 hallazgos

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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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 — Santa Clara Valley Water District New Water Quality Lab

14 páginas 12 hallazgos 6 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 12 hallazgos

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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.”

Recomendaciones adicionales 3

No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.

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

Página 9

June 30, 2008 — Luther Burbank School District

33 páginas 13 hallazgos 13 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 13 hallazgos

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

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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 — Santa Clara Valley Water District Gold Street Education Center

8 páginas 5 hallazgos 5 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 5 hallazgos

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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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 páginas 16 hallazgos 19 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 16 hallazgos

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

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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).

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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 páginas 18 hallazgos 9 recomendaciones

Vista rápida Detalles completos →

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 18 hallazgos

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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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.

Recomendaciones relacionadas (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

Recomendaciones adicionales 3

No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.

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