Santa Clara County Grand Jury
2009-2010
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F2:
We partially agree with these findings and will study the possibility of putting together an interview review team. However, the ability to teach a lesson is only one factor to be taken into consideration. We believe that the ability of the candidate to relate to our community and students is of up most importance. In addition the candidate's ability to work with his grade level team and the rest of his colleagues at the school site are important. This will be brought to the table with the Bargaining groups at the next opportunity which will not be until we sunshine for negotiations for the 2013 academic year. BoardofEducation Dustin DeRoilo • John Undner • KeithNguyen • George Sanchez • Buu 'ilia!
F3:
This recommendation will not be implemented at this time. We feel it is unreasonable. We will give this finding further analysis. The District has not had any issues concerning the hiring of relatives or with candidates being a relative of the Board members. We have never allowed relatives to supervise one another at any level. This finding will be brought back to the Board after the November elections for further consideration.
F5:
This recommendation will not be implemented at this time. Our BP 4112.8 is designed specifically to promote confidence in the District hiring practice. It also prohibits the appointment of any person to a position where there will be a supervisory relationship among relatives. Even though this policy allows the Superintendent some latitude on a case by case basis, the Superintendent cannot override any district policy without the approval of the Board.
F6:
We partially disagree with this finding. We believe that employees with familial relationships cannot be placed in direct reporting lines of supervision. We do not have a method by which to gather familial information. Tracking and updating familial relationships would be very time consuming and expensive (in time). This is an expense that is not reasonable in our current budget climate. Findina 7: We partially disagree with finding seven in that we currently use the Ed- Join application exclusively. The Ed-Join application does not ask the question as to whether any relatives are working with the District. We cannot comply with this recommendation at the present time. As responded in finding six the people time cost to obtain and track this information is not doable in our present budget climate. In addition how do you verify during the application process that a candidate properly discloses all relationships? What if a candidate is unaware that a relative works in the District? We will open discussions with Ed-Join to see if a question regarding "relatives working in the district"; can be added as a first step in gathering such information. Rudolph V. Herrera Deputy Superintendent, Human Resources
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Perthe Districts' current CBAs,internal applicants are given priority over external applicants who may be better qualified for the job. MVLA Response: The respondent disagrees with the finding. There is no language in our current CBAthat requires hiring internal candidates over external applicants. Selection of the best qualified applicant isthe only consideration for the MVLA District.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Each Board should revisit this subject in future CBAnegotiations to ensure that competency is the determinant factor in the job candidate selection process. MVLA Action: The recommendation will not be implemented because it isnot warranted. Neither our classified nor certificated CBA'scontain any language that prescribes priority selection of internal candidates over external applicants for any position.
F2:
The PAUSDutilizes aprocess that requires teacher job applicants to teach demonstration lessons which are subsequently scored by aqualified review team. The scores are utilized as significant factors in hiring decisions. MVLA Response: The respondent agrees with the finding aswe assume that the grand jury finding isbased upon factual evidence. liP 1299 Bry~nt Avenue, Mountain View, California 94040-4599 Phone: (650) 940-4650 Fax: (650) 961-1346 All Districts should consider adopting interview practices like PAUSDwhich provide opportunities for applicants to demonstrate their teaching abilities. MVLA Action: The recommendation requires further analysis. The MVLA district currently implements this practice when practicable. Timing of vacancies and availability of staff preclude requiring this practice at all times. MVLA will review when and how it iscurrently implemented and determine what adjustments might need to be made.
F3:
Twenty-two of the 32 Districts have policies covering the hiring of employee and Board member relatives. MVLA Response: The respondent agrees with the finding aswe assume that the grand jury finding isbased upon factual evidence.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
All Boards should formulate and implement policies covering the hiring of relatives, including disclosure of any familial relationships to the Board, to avoid the appearance of bias or favoritism in the recruitment and job assignment process. MVLA Action: The recommendation will not be implementing a new policy because it isnot warranted. The MVLA Board adopted BP4112.8 on October 9, 2006, and revised the policy on May 12, 2008. This Board policy covers the hiring of relatives and includes a requirement for disclosure of any familial relationships to Board members prior to hiring.
F4:
Twenty-two of the 32 Districts do not permit employees to be placed in direct reporting relationships to their relatives. The following 10 Districts stated that they do not have awritten policy regarding the direct supervisory relationship of related employees. Berryessa Union, Cambrian, Cupertino Union, Evergreen, Luther Burbank, Milpitas Unified, Morgan Hill Unified, Mount Pleasant, Mountain View-Whisman, Union. MVLA Response: The respondent agrees with the finding asit assumes that the grand jury 21 The Board of the District listed in Finding 4 should formulate and implement apolicy prohibiting direct employee supervision of spouses and other relatives. MVLA Action: The recommendation will not be implemented because a new policy isnot warranted. The MVLA District isnot one of the districts listed in Finding 4 and does have a policy that addresses supervisory relationships of related employees.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
All Boards should formulate and implement policies covering the hiring of relatives, including disclosure of any familial relationships to the Board, to avoid the appearance of bias or favoritism in the recruitment and job assignment process. MVLA Action: The recommendation will not be implementing a new policy because it isnot warranted. The MVLA Board adopted BP4112.8 on October 9, 2006, and revised the policy on May 12, 2008. This Board policy covers the hiring of relatives and includes a requirement for disclosure of any familial relationships to Board members prior to hiring.
F5:
The following 18 Districts allow the Superintendent to override the policy of not permitting relatives to be placed in direct reporting relationships to current employees, on acase-by-case basis: Alum Rock Union, Campbell Union, Campbell Union High School, EastSide Union, Franklin McKinley, Loma Prieta Joint Union, LosAltos, LosGatos-Saratoga Joint Union, LosGatos Union, Moreland, Mountain View-Los Altos, Oak Grove, Orchard, Palo Alto Unified, SanJoseUnified, Saratoga Union, Sunnyvale, and Santa Clara County Office of Education. MVLA Response: The respondent agrees with the finding asit assumes that the grand jury finding isbased upon factual evidence.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Boards should adopt a policy of reviewing all Superintendent decisions that override the policy that pertains to the placement of related employees in direct reporting positions. MVLA Action: The Superintendent will always inform the Board of Trustees prior to any decision to override the policy before implementation. We will also review our processes and regulations.
F6:
Fourteen of the 32 Districts are aware of and/or document the number and names of related employees. The following Districts do not document this information: Alum RockUnion, Berryessa Union, Campbell Union, Cupertino Union, EastSide Union, Franklin McKinley, Fremont Union, Gilroy Unified, Loma Prieta Joint Union, Moreland, Morgan Hill Unified, Mount Pleasant, Mountain View-Los Altos, Oak Grove, PaloAlto Unified, SanJoseUnified, Santa Clara Unified, and Santa Clara County Office of Education. The Board of the Districts listed in Finding 6 should implement a policy of identifying familial relationships and tracking such data. MVLA Action: We have policies concerning the supervising of relatives. The MVLA District is concerned that identifying such relationships could be the source of adverse discrimination in the district and would have no constructive usefor the information. Forthese reasons, the District declines to implement this recommendation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
All Boards should implement measures to identify familial relationships during the hiring process. MVLA Action: All interviewing and hiring recommendations are based upon the use of an interview committee consisting of varied stakeholders. All recommendations for hiring are reviewed by the Personnel department. Knowledge of familial relations during the application and interviewing process could interfere with the objective identification of the most qualified individual. The MVLA District isconcerned that hiring decisions be made on the basisof selecting the best qualified candidate. The issueof defining specific familial relationships that must be disclosed isalso somewhat problematic in today's society. Before the school board takes action to hire, the district does have a list ofthe applicant's immediate family. itchner, Board President ntain View LosAltos Union High School District 41
F7:
Only LosGatos-Saratoga Joint Union and the PaloAlto Unified Districts responded that they ask about familial relationships on their job applications. MVLA Response: The respondent agrees with the finding asit assumes that the grand jury finding isbased upon factual evidence.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
All Boards should implement measures to identify familial relationships during the hiring process. MVLA Action: All interviewing and hiring recommendations are based upon the use of an interview committee consisting of varied stakeholders. All recommendations for hiring are reviewed by the Personnel department. Knowledge of familial relations during the application and interviewing process could interfere with the objective identification of the most qualified individual. The MVLA District isconcerned that hiring decisions be made on the basisof selecting the best qualified candidate. The issueof defining specific familial relationships that must be disclosed isalso somewhat problematic in today's society. Before the school board takes action to hire, the district does have a list ofthe applicant's immediate family. itchner, Board President ntain View LosAltos Union High School District 41
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Per the Districts' current CBAs, internal applicants are given priority over external applicants who may be better qualified for thejob. Response: The respondent disagrees partially with the finding as internal applicants are given "consideration" over external applicants. If they are not qualified to perform the duties of the position, we seek better qualified candidates.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Each Board should revisit this subject in future CBA negotiations to ensure that competency is the determinant factor in thejob candidate selections process. Response: The recommendation requires further analysis, and Moreland School District is willing to revisit this subject in future sessions of collective bargaining negotiations.
F2:
The PAUSD utilizes aprocess that requires teacher job applicants to teach demonstration lessons which are subsequently scored by a qualified review team. The scores are utilized as significant factors in hiring decisions. Response: Moreland School District agrees with the finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
All Districts should consider adopting interview practices like PAUSD which provide opportunities for applicants to demonstrate their teaching skills. Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable. Applicants have demonstrated their teaching skills in student teaching or previous teaching assignments. Qualified judges of their performance are called for reference checks to verify their skills. Student teachers have the opportunity to demonstrate their teaching skills to co-teachers and principals in our District. Implementing this recommendation would require additional staffing, slow the process of hiring and may cause exemplary candidates to go elsewhere.
F3:
Twenty-two of the 32 Districts havepolicies covering the hiring of employee and Board member relatives. Response: Moreland School District agrees with the finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
All Boards should formulate and implement policies covering the hiring of relatives, including the disclosure of any familial relationships to the Board, to avoid the appearance of bias or favoritism in the recruitment andjob assignment processes. Response: The Moreland School District will consider revising Board Policies to include the disclosure of familial relationships to the Board to avoid the appearance of bias or favoritism in the recruitment and job assignment processes.
F5:
Thefollowing 18District allow the Superintendent to override thepolicy of notpermitting relatives to beplaced in direct reporting relationships to current employees, on a case-by-case basis. (Moreland included) Response: Moreland School District agrees with the finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Boards should adopt apolicy of reviewing all Superintendent decisions that override the policy that pertains to the placement of related employees in direct reporting positions. Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but Moreland School District will consider revising board policies to include the disclosure should there be a direct relationship of an employee with the superintendent.
F6:
Fourteen of the 32 Districts are aware of and/or document the number and names of related employees. Thefollowing Districts do not document this information: (Moreland included) Response: Moreland School District agrees with the finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Boards of the Districts listed in Finding 6 should implement apolicy of identifying familial relationships and tracking such data. Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but Moreland School District will formulate apolicy of identifying familial relationships and tracking such data during the 201012011 school year.
F7:
Only Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union and the Palo Alto Unified Districts responded that they ask about familial relationships on theirjob applications. Response: Moreland School District agrees with the finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
All Boards should implement measures to identify familial relationships during the hiring process. Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but Moreland School District will work with the EdJoin team to determine the possibility of future implementation.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
Education andfinancial benefits can be achieved by consolidation and unification of certain county school districts. Luther Burbank School District (LBSD) partially agrees with this finding. The District would need to see research and data before issuing a statement of support or opposition to this finding. While there may be some research to support the financial benefit to consolidation of some districts, there is no research to substantiate that there is an educational benefit to consolidation and unification.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1A:
The Boards of Trustees should unify Cambrian School District, Campbell Union School District, Moreland School District, Union School district, and Luther Burbank School District with Campbell Union High School district. This recommendation requires further analysis. There has been no attempt to unify the five partner districts with Campbell Union High School District in the past 20+ years. In 1999 Moreland voters voted to remain in separate elementary and high school districts. There is no indication that an attempt to unify the districts would gamer community Board of Trustees Lizandro Carrasco • Blanca Diaz • Lorraine Garza • Pam Ortiz • Antonio R. Perez 4 Wabash Avenue. San Jose, California 95128-1931 District 408-295-2450 •School 408-295-1814 •Fax 408-295-3168 • Child Development 408-295-1731 support. It is unknown, given the limited resources ofthe District as to when such an investigation will be undertaken. Recommendations IB The Boards of Trustees should unifYLakeside Joint School District, Lorna Prieta Joint Union School District, Los Gatos Union School District and Saratoga Union School District with Los Gatos-Saratoga High School District. LBSD will not implement this recommendation because it is not reasonable. The Board of Education of the Luther Burbank School District has nojurisdiction over these districts.
R1C:
The Boards of Trustees should unifY Cupertino Union School District and Sunnyvale School District with Fremont Union High School District. LBSD will not implement this recommendation because it is not reasonable. The Board of Education of the Luther Burbank School District has nojurisdiction over these districts. Recommendation ID The Boards of Trustees should unifYLos Altos School district and Mountain View Whisman School district with Mountain View-Los Altos High School District. LBSD will not implement this recommendation because it is not reasonable. The Board of Education of the Luther Burbank School District has nojurisdiction over these districts. Recommendation IE The Boards of Trustees should consolidate Alum Rock Union School district and Mount Pleasant School District toform a new elementary/middle school district. LBSD will not implement this recommendation because it is not reasonable The Board of Education of the Luther Burbank School District has nojurisdiction over these districts. Recommendation IF The Boards of Trustees should consolidate Berryessa Union School district and Orchard School District toform a new elementary/middle school district. LBSD will not implement this recommendation because it is not reasonable. The Board of Education of the Luther Burbank School District has nojurisdiction over these districts. Please contact us with any further questions. resident- Board of Trustees Luther Burbank School District
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
Education andfinancial benefits can be achieved by consolidation and unification of certain county school districts. Response: The Moreland School District disagrees in whole with Finding 1.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
A study was completed in 2005 looking into the possibility of a possible unification between Campbell Union School District and Moreland School District. Findings include: - Too large of a timeline - Not significant financial savings (only loss of a small number of District Office positions)
R1a:
The Boards of Trustees should unify Cambrian School District, Campbell Union School District, Moreland School District, Union School District, and Luther Burbank School District with Campbell Union High School District. Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. Explanation: 1. A study was completed in 2005 looking into the possibility of a possible unification between Campbell Union School District and Moreland School District. Findings include: - Too large of a timeline - Not significant financial savings (only loss of a small number of District Office positions) 2. The Superintendents of Cambrian School District, Campbell Union School District, Luther Burbank School District, Moreland School District, Campbell Union School District, and Campbell Union High School District met to discuss this Final Report. The Superintendents of the above named Districts are in agreement that this consolidation would not be beneficial or productive to the community, the schools, and the instructional and business support ofthe districts at this time. 3. Moreland School District believes this is a community decision. There has been no attempt to unify the five partner districts with Campbell Union High School District in the past 20 + years. In 1999, Moreland voters voted against leaving Campbell Union High School District to form a combined unified district, and voted to remain in separate elementary and high school districts. At the current time, there has been no interest presented to either the Moreland School District or the Campbell Union High School District by their respective communities. Recommendation Ib: The Boards of Trustees should unify Lakeside Joint School District, Lorna Prieta Joint Union School District, Los Gatos Union School District and Saratoga Union School District with Los Gatos-Saratoga High School District. Response: This recommendation does not apply to the Moreland School District. Recommendation Ic: The Boards of Trustees should unify Cupertino Union School District and Sunnyvale School District with Fremont Union High School District. Response: This recommendation does not apply to the Moreland School District.
R1d:
The Boards of Trustees should unify Los Altos School District and Mountain View Whisman School District with Mountain View-Los Altos High School District. Response: This recommendation does not apply to the Moreland School District. Recommendation Ie: The Boards of Trustees should consolidate Alum Rock Union School District and Mount Pleasant School District to form a new elementary/middle school district. Response: This recommendation does not apply to the Moreland School District. Recommendation If: The Boards of Trustees should consolidate Berryessa Union School District and Orchard School District to form a new elementary/middle school district. Response: This recommendation does not apply to the Moreland School District.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
The Superintendents of Cambrian School District, Campbell Union School District, Luther Burbank School District, Moreland School District, Campbell Union School District, and Campbell Union High School District met to discuss this Final Report. The Superintendents of the above named Districts are in agreement that this consolidation would not be beneficial or productive to the community, the schools, and the instructional and business support ofthe districts at this time.
R3:
Moreland School District believes this is a community decision. There has been no attempt to unify the five partner districts with Campbell Union High School District in the past 20 + years. In 1999, Moreland voters voted against leaving Campbell Union High School District to form a combined unified district, and voted to remain in separate elementary and high school districts. At the current time, there has been no interest presented to either the Moreland School District or the Campbell Union High School District by their respective communities. Recommendation Ib: The Boards of Trustees should unify Lakeside Joint School District, Lorna Prieta Joint Union School District, Los Gatos Union School District and Saratoga Union School District with Los Gatos-Saratoga High School District. Response: This recommendation does not apply to the Moreland School District. Recommendation Ic: The Boards of Trustees should unify Cupertino Union School District and Sunnyvale School District with Fremont Union High School District. Response: This recommendation does not apply to the Moreland School District. Recommendation 1d: The Boards of Trustees should unify Los Altos School District and Mountain View Whisman School District with Mountain View-Los Altos High School District. Response: This recommendation does not apply to the Moreland School District. Recommendation Ie: The Boards of Trustees should consolidate Alum Rock Union School District and Mount Pleasant School District to form a new elementary/middle school district. Response: This recommendation does not apply to the Moreland School District. Recommendation If: The Boards of Trustees should consolidate Berryessa Union School District and Orchard School District to form a new elementary/middle school district. Response: This recommendation does not apply to the Moreland School District.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Per the Districts' current CBAs, internal applicants are given priority over external applicants who may be better qualifiedfor the job.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Each Board should revisit this subject infuture CBA negotiations to ensure that competency is the determinant factor in thejob candidate selection process. Response: Not applicable. Neither Evergreen CBA accord any priority to any candidate. 2. Finding 2: The PAUSD utilizes aprocess that requires teacher job applicants to teach demonstration lessons which are subsequently scored by a qualified review team. Ttze scores are utilized as significant factors in hiring decisions.
F2:
The PAUSD utilizes a process that requires teacher job applicants to teach demonstration lessons which are subsequently scored by a qualified review team. Ttze scores are utilized as significant factors in hiring decisions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
All District should consider adopting interview practices like PAUSD which provide opportunities for applicants to demonstrate their teaching skills. Response: Please clarify the Grand Jury's definition of "significant" and how this factor is weighted along with reference checks, past performance evaluations, years of experience, a lesson demonstration with a classroom of students as opposed to a demonstration with an eVClluatlOnteam, etc. Utiiization of the results of a demons'~ration lesson appears to more suited to screening applicants for an applicant pool. 3. Finding 3: Twenty-two of the 32 Districts havepolicies covering the hiring of employee and Board member relatives.
F3:
Twenty-two of the 32 Districts have policies covering the hiring of employee and Board member relatives.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
All Boards shouldformulate and implement policies covering the hiring of relatives, including the disclosure of anyfamilial relationships to the Buard, to avoid the appearance of bias orfavoritism in the recruitment andjob assignment processes. Response: Agree. District Administration Office Superintendent: CHfBlack 3188Quimby Road Governing Board: JeffFischer SanJose, California 95148 Merrilee Claverie Phone: (408)270-6800 Sylvia Alvarez Fax: (408)274-3894 VinceSongcayawon Carolyn Clark 4. Finding 4: Twenty-two of the 32 Districts do notpermit employees to beplaced in direct reporting relationships to their relatives. Thefollowing 10 Districts stated they do not have a written policy regarding the direct supervisory relationship of related employees.
F4:
Twenty-two of the 32 Districts do not permit employees to be placed in direct reporting relationships to their relatives. The following 10 Districts stated they do not have a written policy regarding the direct supervisory relationship of related employees.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Board of the Districts listed inFinding 4should formulate and implement apolicy prohibiting direct employee supervision of spouses and other relatives. Response: Agree. 5. Finding 7: Only Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union and the Palo Alto Unified Districts responded that they ask about familial relationships on theirjob applications.
F7:
Only Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union and the Palo Alto Unified Districts responded that they ask about familial relationships on their job applications.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
All Boards should implement measures to identify familial relationships during the hiring process. Response: Agree.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Education and financial benefits can be achieved by consolidation and unification of certain county school districts.
Related Recommendations (7)
R1:
Initiation of Proposals for Unification (EC 35700) a. Petition signed by the owner(s) of uninhabited territory; or, b. Petition signed by at least 25 percent of the registered voters in the inhabited territory proposed to be reorganized (if the territory proposed for reorganization is located within two or more school districts, the signatures of at least 25 percent of the registered voters from that territory in each school district are required); or, c. Petition signed by a majority of the members of the governing boards of all
R1a:
The Boards of Trustees should unify Cambrian School District, Campbell Union School District, Moreland School District, Union School District, and Luther Burbank School District with Campbell Union High School District.
R1b:
The Boards of Trustees should unify Lakeside Joint School District, Loma Prieta Joint Union School District, Los Gatos Union School District and Saratoga Union School District with Los Gatos-Saratoga High School District.
R1c:
The Boards of Trustees should unify Cupertino Union School District and Sunnyvale School District with Fremont Union High School District.
R1d:
The Boards of Trustees should unify Los Altos School District and Mountain View Whisman School District with Mountain View-Los Altos High School District.
R1e:
The Boards of Trustees should consolidate Alum Rock Union School District and Mount Pleasant School District to form a new elementary/middle school district.
R1f:
The Boards of Trustees should consolidate Berryessa Union School District and Orchard School District to form a new elementary/middle school district.
F2:
Determination of Sufficiency and Transmittal of Petition Within 30 days of Receipt (EC 35704) a. County superintendent must determine sufficiency of petition within 30 days. b. A 25 percent or 8 percent petition must be verified by the county department of elections. c. The county committee and the State Board of Education must be apprised of a sufficient petition.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Determination of Sufficiency and Transmittal of Petition Within 30 days of Receipt (EC 35704) a. County superintendent must determine sufficiency of petition within 30 days. b. A 25 percent or 8 percent petition must be verified by the county department of elections. c. The county committee and the State Board of Education must be apprised of a sufficient petition.
F3:
Public Hearings (EC 35705, 35705.5). A public hearing in each affected district must be held by the county committee within 60 days of receipt of the petition.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Public Hearings (EC 35705, 35705.5). A public hearing in each affected district must be held by the county committee within 60 days of receipt of the petition.
F4:
Notice to Local Agency Formation Commission (EC 35700.5). Before initiating proceedings to consider any reorganization plan, the county committee on school district organization shall provide written notice of the proposed action to the local agency formation commission for the affected area.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Notice to Local Agency Formation Commission (EC 35700.5). Before initiating proceedings to consider any reorganization plan, the county committee on school district organization shall provide written notice of the proposed action to the local agency formation commission for the affected area.
F5:
County Committee Study of the Unification (EC 35753). The county committee must determine the impact of the unification on the conditions listed in Education Code Section 35753. Appendix B – continued
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
County Committee Study of the Unification (EC 35753). The county committee must determine the impact of the unification on the conditions listed in Education Code Section 35753. 13
F6:
Approval Process (EC 35706, 35707, 35752 through 35755) a. Within 120 days of the first public hearing, the county committee must make a
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Approval Process (EC 35706, 35707, 35752 through 35755) a. Within 120 days of the first public hearing, the county committee must make a recommendation to approve or disapprove the petition. b. The county committee may make a recommendation regarding the area of election. c. The county committee transmits the petition, report, and recommendations to the State Board of Education. d. The State Board of Education holds public hearings on CEQA and the unification proposal. e. The State Board of Education approves or disapproves the petition. f. If approval is given, the county superintendent calls an election in an area determined by the State Board of Education. 14
F7:
Approval Process (EC 35722, 35752 through 35755) a. Within 120 days of the first public hearing, the county committee shall make a final recommendation to approve or disapprove the petition. b. The county committee may make a recommendation regarding the area of election. c. The county committee transmits reports and recommendations to the State Board of Education. d. The State Board of Education holds public hearings on CEQA and the unification proposal. e. The State Board of Education approves or disapproves the petition. f. If approval is given, the county superintendent calls an election in an area determined by the State Board of Education. Appendix B - continued COUNTY COMMITTEE PLANS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REORGANIZATION
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Approval Process (EC 35722, 35752 through 35755) a. Within 120 days of the first public hearing, the county committee shall make a final recommendation to approve or disapprove the petition. b. The county committee may make a recommendation regarding the area of election. c. The county committee transmits reports and recommendations to the State Board of Education. d. The State Board of Education holds public hearings on CEQA and the unification proposal. e. The State Board of Education approves or disapproves the petition. f. If approval is given, the county superintendent calls an election in an area determined by the State Board of Education. 16
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Per the Districts current CBA's, internal applicants are given priority over external applicants who may be better qualified for the job.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Each Board should revisit this subject in future CBA negotiations to ensure that competency is the determinant factor in thejob candidate selection process. Agree. Findin22 The PAUSD utilizes a process that requires teacher job applicants to teach demonstration lessons which are subsequently scored by a qualified review team. The scores are utilized as significant factors in hiring decisions.
F2:
The PAUSD utilizes a process that requires teacher job applicants to teach demonstration lessons which are subsequently scored by a qualified review team. The scores are utilized as significant factors in hiring decisions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
All Districts should consider adopting interview practices like PAUSD which provide opportunities for applicants to demonstrate their teaching skills. Disagree. Many Districts, including CUHSD have an extensive screening and interview process that may or may not already include providing candidates with various opportunities to demonstrate skills. Findin23 Twenty-two of the 32 Districts have polices covering the hiring of employee and board member relatives.
F3:
Twenty-two of the 32 Districts have polices covering the hiring of employee and board member relatives.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
All Boards should formulate and implement policies covering the hiring of relatives, including the disclosure of any familial relationships to the board, to avoid the appearance of bias or favoritism in the recruitment andjob assignment processes. Agree. Findin25 The following 18districts allow the Superintendent to override the policy of not permitting relatives to be placed in direct reporting relationships to current employees, on a case by case basis.
F5:
The following 18 districts allow the Superintendent to override the policy of not permitting relatives to be placed in direct reporting relationships to current employees, on a case by case basis.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Boards should adopt a policy of reviewing all Superintendents' decisions that override the policy that pertains to the placement of related employees in direct reporting positions. Agree. Findin27 Only Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union and Palo Alto Unified Districts responded that they ask about familial relationships on their job applications.
F7:
Only Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union and Palo Alto Unified Districts responded that they ask about familial relationships on their job applications.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
All Boards should implement measures to identify familial relationships during the hiring process. Agree. Should you have any questions related to this matter please do not hesitate to contact me at (408) 371-0960. ~-- bc..~~ ~rely, ./ Diane Gordon CUHSD Board President
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Per the Districts’ current CBAs, internal applicants are given priority over external applicants who may be better qualified for the job.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Each Board should revisit this subject in future CBA negotiations to ensure that competency is the determinant factor in the job candidate selection process.
F2:
The PAUSD utilizes a process that requires teacher job applicants to teach demonstration lessons which are subsequently scored by a qualified review team. The scores are utilized as significant factors in hiring decisions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
All Districts should consider adopting interview practices like PAUSD which provide opportunities for applicants to demonstrate their teaching skills.
F3:
Twenty-two of the 32 Districts have policies covering the hiring of employee and Board member relatives.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
All Boards should formulate and implement policies covering the hiring of relatives, including the disclosure of any familial relationships to the Board, to avoid the appearance of bias or favoritism in the recruitment and job assignment processes. 5
F4:
Twenty-two of the 32 Districts do not permit employees to be placed in direct reporting relationships to their relatives. The following 10 Districts stated they do not have a written policy regarding the direct supervisory relationship of related employees. • Berryessa Union • Cambrian • Cupertino Union • Evergreen • Luther Burbank • Milpitas Unified • Morgan Hill Unified • Mount Pleasant • Mountain View Whisman • Union
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Boards of the Districts listed in Finding 4 should formulate and implement a policy prohibiting direct employee supervision of spouses and other relatives.
F5:
The following 18 Districts allow the Superintendent to override the policy of not permitting relatives to be placed in direct reporting relationships to current employees, on a case-by-case basis: • Alum Rock Union • Campbell Union • Campbell Union High School • East Side Union • Franklin McKinley • Loma Prieta Joint Union • Los Altos • Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union • Los Gatos Union • Moreland • Mountain View-Los Altos • Oak Grove 6 • Orchard • Palo Alto Unified • San Jose Unified • Saratoga Union • Sunnyvale • Santa Clara County Office of Education
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Boards should adopt a policy of reviewing all Superintendent decisions that override the policy that pertains to the placement of related employees in direct reporting positions.
F6:
Fourteen of the 32 Districts are aware of and/or document the number and names of related employees. The following Districts do not document this information: • Alum Rock Union • Berryessa Union • Campbell Union • Cupertino Union • Eastside Union • Franklin McKinley • Fremont Union • Gilroy Unified • Loma Prieta Joint Union • Moreland • Morgan Hill Unified • Mount Pleasant • Mountain View-Los Altos Union • Oak Grove • Palo Alto Unified • San Jose Unified • Santa Clara Unified • Santa Clara County Office of Education
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Boards of the Districts listed in Finding 6 should implement a policy of identifying familial relationships and tracking such data. 7
F7:
Only Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union and the Palo Alto Unified Districts responded that they ask about familial relationships on their job applications.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
All Boards should implement measures to identify familial relationships during the hiring process.
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Each Board should revisit this subject in future CBA negotiations to ensure that competency is the determinant factor in the job candidate selection process. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the spring 2011 when the District will be negotiating with the classified and certificated bargaining units.
R2:
All districts should consider adopting interview practices like PAUSD which provide opportunities for applicants to demonstrate their teaching skills. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable because the District's current interview and background reference check processes are sufficient to ensure the District's knowledge of an applicant's teaching skills.
R3:
All Boards should formulate and implement policies covering the hiring of relatives, including the disclosure of any familial relationships to the Board, to avoid the appearance of bias or favoritism in the recruitment and job assignment process. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be presented to the Board for consideration next month as new Board Policy 4112.8 – Employment of Relatives. Response to Grand Jury – Hiring Practices September 27, 2010
R4:
The Boards of the Districts listed in Finding 4 should formulate and implement policy prohibiting direct employee supervision of spouses and other relatives. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be presented to the Board for consideration next month as new Board Policy 4112.8 -Employment of Relatives.
R5:
Boards should adopt a policy of reviewing all Superintendent decisions that override the policy that pertains to the placement of related employees in direct reporting positions. The District is not required to respond per the June 18, 2010 letter.
R6:
The Boards of the Districts listed in Finding 6 should implement a policy of identifying familial relationships and tracking such data. The recommendation has been implemented and the District has a current list of all familial relationships and will maintain and update said list in the Human Resources Department.
R7:
All Boards should implement measures to identify familial relationships during the hiring process. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be presented to the Board for consideration next month as new Board Policy 4112.8 - Employment of Relatives . .Sincerely, ~ _ ~ President Board of Trustees cc: Dr. Wesley Smith, Superintendent
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
Per the Districts' current CBAs, internal applicants are given priority over external applicants who may be better qualified for thejob. Partially agree - The Saratoga Union School District is not familiar enough with other school district's CBA's to make a statement of full agreement. We agree that our district gives a certain amount of priority to internal candidates who apply for an open position.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Each Board should revisit this subject infuture CBA negotiations to ensure that competency is the determinant factor in thejob candidate selection process. Response: (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. We believe we have a CBA and process which ensures that competency is a top determinant factor in the job selection process. The PAUSD utilizes a process that requires teacher job applicants to teach demonstration lessons which are subsequently scored by a qualified review team. The scores are utilized as significant factors in hiring decisions. Agree.
F3:
Twenty-two of the 32 Districts have policies covering the hiring of employee and Board member relatives. Partially agree - The Saratoga Union School District is not familiar enough with other school districts' policies to make a statement of full agreement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
All Boards should formulate and implement policies covering the hiring of relatives, including the disclosure of any familial relationships to the Board, to avoid the appearance of bias or favoritism in the recruitment andjob assignment processes. Response: (1) The recommendation has been implemented. Saratoga Union School District has policies and practices in place aligned with this recommendation. The following 18 Districts allow the Superintendent to override the policy of not permitting relatives to be placed in direct reporting relationships to current employees, on a case-by-case basis: • Alum Rock Union • Campbell Union • Campbell Union High School • East Side Union • Franklin McKinley • Loma Prieta Joint Union • Los Altos • Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union • Los Gatos Union • Moreland • Mountain View-Los Altos • Oak Grove • Orchard • Palo Alto Unified • San Jose Unified • Saratoga Union • Sunnyvale • Santa Clara County Office of Education Agree
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
All Districts should consider adopting interview practices like PAUSD which provide opportunities for applicants to demonstrate their teaching skills. Response: (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. - We believe our current hiring process ensures candidates are well qualified and competent to teach in the Saratoga Union School District.
R5:
Boards should adopt apolicy of reviewing all Superintendent decisions that override the policy thatpertains to theplacement of related employees in direct reporting positions. Response (3) The recommendation requires further analysis. The SUSD board will review the appropriate policies currently in place within the next six months. After analysis and advice from legal counsel, the board will take action on any policy changes/modifications deemed appropriate and necessary. Only Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union and the Palo Alto Unified Districts responded that they ask about familial relationships on theirjob applications. Partial agreement - The Saratoga Union School District does not have knowledge of the content of other school district's job applications. We have knowledge of our applications and agree that our current application does not ask about familial relationships.
R7:
All Boards should implement measures to identify familial relationships during the hiring process. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis. -The SUSD board will review the current measures in place within the next six months. After analysis and advice from legal counsel, the board will take action on any policy changes/modifications or modifications to the hiring process deemed appropriate and necessary. ane Weiss, Superintendent Saratoga Union School District
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
The SCVWD plans to build an additional outdoor education center (Gold Street Education Center) at a cost of between $1.1 million and $1.3 million in Alviso. The attendance data provided by SCVWD for the existing education centers do not support the need for another education center.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
In lieu of building the Gold Street Education Center, the SCVWD should consider less costly methods of satisfying stated education goals like the addition of strategically placed interpretive signage on hiking and biking trails bordering the Alviso Slough, and Bay and/or at the Marina, detailing history and current conditions of water issues related to Alviso.
F2:
The SCVWD provided this Grand Jury with a summary of their outdoor classroom program attendance. After repeated requests, the Grand Jury was told that the data verifying the summary figures do not exist.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The SCVWD should maintain accurate records that verify the outdoor classroom program attendance to properly evaluate the need for any additional education centers.
F3:
The Gold Street Education Center site is located directly adjacent to Director Santos’ mobile home park. Director Santos should have properly recused himself from all aspects of voting, decision making and influencing the project. His failure to recuse himself may have been a violation of conflict-of-interest laws.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Director Santos should fully and consistently recuse himself and refrain from otherwise influencing any aspect of the Gold Street Education Center project. Director Santos should adhere to all conflict-of-interest laws and policies to which he is subject. 18
F4:
SCVWD directors were aware that Director Santos advocated for the Gold Street site location for the education center. SCVWD directors were also aware that Director Santos had a personal financial interest in the adjacent mobile home park and that Director Santos did not recuse himself from voting on Gold Street Education Center consistently or otherwise refrain from influencing the decision making regarding the project. The directors failed in their fiduciary responsibility to the SCVWD and their constituents by acquiescing to Director Santos’ promotion of the Gold Street Education Center project at considerable expense to rate payers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The SCVWD Board should re-evaluate its commitment to the Gold Street project given Director Santos’ conduct and Board members’ acquiescence to Director Santos’ inappropriate involvement in the project.
F5:
Director Santos has significant property interests in Alviso that greatly limit his ability to ethically participate in SCVWD projects in Alviso. Under Board governance policies, the Board commits itself and its members to ethical, businesslike, and lawful conduct including that members must have loyalty to the SCVWD unconflicted by personal interests. Director Santos’ conduct with respect to Alviso-based projects does not adhere to Board policies.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
If Director Santos cannot conform to Board governance policies because his conflicts of interest are too pervasive, he should either divest himself of his property interests or resign from the SCVWD Board.
F6:
Director Santos has been attending the Alviso and Lower Guadalupe Collaborative meetings, Alviso Water Task Force meetings, and other community meetings. At these meetings, he has berated SCVWD staff, and advanced personal or other interests without explicit SCVWD Board authorization, which is a violation of the SCVWD Board’s code of conduct, per Board Governance Policy 6.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
At these meetings, Director Santos should adhere to the conduct required of him by SCVWD Board Governance Policy 6. 19
F7:
On June 6, 2006, the SCVWD Board minutes reflect that Director Santos abstained from voting on portions of the budget related to the Alviso Slough Restoration Project. Later, on Oct. 14, 2008, SCVWD Board minutes reflect that Director Santos voted in favor of the SCVWD’s Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) that included funding for improvements to the Alviso Slough, even though he had abstained from that vote in 2006. On Nov. 10, 2009, Director Santos voted to approve the specific ASRP plan, after having abstained in 2006.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Director Santos should fully and consistently recuse himself and refrain from otherwise influencing any aspect of a project in which he has declared a conflict of interest, such as the ASRP.
F8:
Director Santos is a long-time member and staunch advocate of the South Bay Yacht Club, a nonprofit organization. As a member of the SCVWD Board, he has advocated that the Board fund improvements to the SBYC and its clubhouse at both SCVWD Board and community meetings. His unconflicted loyalty is owed to the SCVWD (Board Policy 6.1), but his demonstrated allegiance has been to the SBYC.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Director Santos should adhere to SCVWD Board Governance Policy 6.1 that requires him to be unconflicted by loyalties to other organizations. In order to abide by this policy, he should recuse himself from discussing, voting, or influencing the SCVWD regarding the SBYC to avoid the actual or appearance of ethical impropriety.
F9:
The SCVWD Board did not adhere to its own good governance policies when it acquiesced to Director Santos’ promotion of projects where it was apparent he had personal and/or financial interests.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
The SCVWD Board should consistently adhere to its own governance policies.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Only 25% of the total Measure J bond funding was spent from 2004 to 2009. The current schedule states that the remaining 75% is scheduled to be spent by early 2014. Given past performance, it seems unlikely this deadline will be met.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1a:
The Board should periodically require performance versus plan data on Measure J to ensure schedules are on track.
R1b:
The Board should ensure that adequate resources are available to complete the remaining Measure J projects on schedule.
F2:
The TMAP Board of Directors failed to effectively oversee the program.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The TMAP Board of Directors should continue to meet regularly to oversee the program, in conjunction with District Board meetings. 5
F3:
In 2005, TMAP’s first Program Director, who was not a teacher, awarded himself a TMAP loan, with the consent of the District Superintendent. In 2009, the new District Superintendent required repayment and removed the Program Director.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The TMAP Board should adhere to the intent of the program and limit approval of loans to qualified teachers in accordance with the charter.
F4:
Loan delinquencies are high and effective follow-up is lacking. Currently, 35% of the 48 outstanding loans are in arrears and 12 hardship requests asking for reduced payments have been received by the Board.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The TMAP Board should aggressively renegotiate outstanding loans with delinquent borrowers, and secure the loans with deeds of trust and secure legally binding new repayment schedules. This report was PASSED and ADOPTED with a concurrence of at least 12 grand jurors on this 25th day of May, 2010. Angie M. Cardoza Foreperson Judy B. Shaw Foreperson pro tem 7
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
Register their contact information at www.alertSCC.com; and
F2:
Participate in their local CERT programs. CERT contact information can be found in the appendix. 4
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The City has subsidized substantially higher than anticipated operating losses.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The current contract has a Termination for Convenience clause starting July 1, 2012. The City should make use of that clause to re-establish revenue and operating loss targets for TSJ. This will encourage cost control by TSJ in managing the Facilities. 9
F2:
A significant portion of TSJ’s operating losses is attributable to the costs of the salaries and benefits of Shared Employees and overhead paid to the City for the use of those employees in TSJ’s operation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The City should reassign the Shared Employees currently working for TSJ and allow TSJ to replace those employees with private sector equivalents in order to reduce TSJ’s operating loss.
F3:
The incentive fee in the current contract is based on revenues and contains no incentive for TSJ to rein in costs which continue to escalate. TSJ continues to receive an incentive fee while the City pays for its mounting costs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The current contract has a Termination for Convenience clause starting July 1, 2012. The City should make use of that clause to negotiate an incentive fee based on TSJ’s operating profit.
F4:
The budget for salaries and benefits paid to TSJ’s employees (excluding the Shared Employees) has increased by 65% in the first year of the new contract with additional funding for TSJ’s executive team.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The City should insure that the increased employee compensation costs are justified by a higher level of Facilities usage and higher revenues.
F5:
Although the City agreed in the TSJ contracts to transfer 25% of the estimated TOT revenues to Fund 536 to cover TSJ’s operating losses, the City has consistently paid more than 25% of TOT revenues into Fund 536 to ensure that TSJ’s losses are adequately covered, no matter how high they are. Overfunding Fund 536 has the effect of masking TSJ’s losses and covering up its underperformance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The City should adhere to the terms of the contract and transfer only 25% or less of the TOT revenues to Fund 536.
Findings & Recommendations
27 findings
F1:
The costs of total compensation for employees have grown substantially in the past decade and now threaten the cities’ fiscal stability.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
All of the cities in the County need to implement measures that will control employee costs. As a starting point, each city should determine the percentage of savings required from the total compensation package to reach budget stability, and provide choices of wages and benefits in collective bargaining sessions for the unions to choose to achieve that percentage goal. 19
F2:
Salary and wage increases do not reflect changes in economic conditions; e.g. even with minimal inflation, yearly COLAs are granted with little bearing on the actual increase in cost of living or market conditions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Cities should not increase salaries and wages that are not supported by planned revenue increases. Cities should tie COLA increases to clear indicators and retain the ability to adjust or withhold based on current economic data.
F3:
Step increases are arbitrary and do not adequately represent an employee’s added value to a city. Combined with COLAs, new employees’ wages increase quickly and are not necessarily reflective of improved knowledge and skills.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Cities should negotiate step progressions from the current three and a half years to seven years. Employees should not receive COLA increases while in step progression.
F4:
Medical insurance costs for active employees are growing year after year at rates that exceed most cities’ revenue growth, while the employee contribution to medical care is minimal.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Cities should negotiate that employees assume some of these increased costs for their medical benefits. To contain medical costs cities should consider the following: A. Split monthly premiums between the city and the employee and increase the employee’s share, if already cost splitting, and remove any employee caps. B. Establish reasonable co-pays for doctors’ visits, prescription drugs, and in- patient and out-patient hospital care. C. Prohibit an employee from being covered by both city-provided medical benefits and as a dependent of another city employee. D. Reduce cash-in-lieu payments. E. Introduce a new lower premium, high-deductible medical plan. 20
F5:
Pension formula changes instituted in the past decade, stock market losses, the aging “baby boomer” work force, and the growing unfunded pension and OPEB liability all contribute to making retiree pension and health care costs the most problematic and unsustainable expense the cities are facing. The city contribution to pension plans and OPEBs far exceeds the employee contribution.
Related Recommendations (4)
R5:
How many FTE were in the Police department in 2000/01.? _______ Now ________
R5a:
Cities should: 1) Renegotiate and make provisions for increasing the employees’ contribution for current pension plans. 2) Renegotiate to stop paying the employees’ contribution amount to pension plans. 3) Renegotiate to implement a contribution amount for employees to OPEB; this contribution should provide for a reasonable split of costs between a city and the employee for retiree medical and dental benefits.
R5b:
Cities should thoroughly investigate reverting to prior pension formulas that were less costly.
R5c:
To provide a meaningful, long-term solution, the cities should negotiate agreements to: 1) Institute a two-tier system for pension and retiree health care for new hires. 2) Increase the retirement age from 50 or 55 to 60 or 65. 3) Calculate pensions on the last three to five years of salary. 4) Replace current post-employment health care plans with health savings plans.
F6:
Public sector employees are granted a generous number of holidays, personal days, vacation days and sick leave annually. Rules and limits on accrual vary by city and union, but vacation days and sick leave can be accumulated and converted to cash or calculated into the pension benefit within those limits. 21
Related Recommendations (3)
R6:
How many FTE were in the Fire department in 2000/01? ________ Now ________
R6a:
Cities should renegotiate with the bargaining units to 1) reduce vacation time; 2) reduce the number of holidays and/or personal days; 3) cap sick leave and eliminate the practice of converting accumulated sick leave to cash or adding into their years of service for inclusion in their retirement benefit.
R6b:
Cities should negotiate to substitute paid days off for unpaid days instead of imposing furloughs. For example, reduce paid holidays to major holidays only, consistent with private industry; and convert minor holidays to unpaid. Therefore, the public is not impacted by fewer services caused by furloughs, and the city saves the employee cost.
F7:
Cities traditionally determine their compensation packages by surveying the wages and benefits of other public sector employees in the same geographic area. There is major resistance to comparing themselves or mirroring trends with the private sector. This has allowed wages and benefits to become artificially high and out of sync with market trends.
Related Recommendations (3)
R7:
What was your Total Revenue in fiscal year 2000/01 __________
R7a:
Cities should research competitive hiring practices and alter the approach to determine fair wages and benefits for each city by using public and private sector data.
R7b:
Cities should renegotiate salaries and wages using valid market comparisons and not only the current wage index. Cities should utilize more market-oriented compensation practices so that salaries can adjust as competition for labor changes. Cities should reduce entry-level compensation for positions for which there are many qualified applicants.
F8:
All cities perform certain core functions to run smoothly and provide services to their residents. To reduce employee costs and streamline operations, the cities are in various stages of contracting services to private industry or partnering with other cities, special districts or the County to deliver services. 22
Related Recommendations (3)
R8:
What is your Total Budgeted Revenue for 2009/10? __________
R8a:
Cities should explore outsourcing some functions and services to private industry. Cities should discuss the prospect with cities that are successfully doing this to determine best practices and areas for success. Cities should develop contracts with measurable objectives, performance goals, and timelines.
R8b:
Cities should create partnerships with other cities, special districts and/or the County for services, such as payroll, human resources, animal control, police and fire. Cities should investigate sharing the cost of new information technology systems.
F9:
Cities can gain operational efficiencies and effectiveness with lower employee costs by making sure they are staffed with the correct numbers of people in the appropriate job classification in all departments and work groups.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
Cities should analyze the functions performed by all job classifications and make adjustments in the work force. Consolidate functions within the same group or a similar group. Reassign appropriate work to lower paid job classifications. Eliminate unnecessary functions.
F10:
The San Jose City Auditor identified 88 positions currently being performed by public safety employees that can be performed by civilian employees at lower costs. The safety employees could be moved to positions that require their expertise and training. The auditor estimated this could be accomplished in less than 90 days and save approximately $5 million annually.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
San Jose should negotiate this suggested transfer with the San Jose Police Officers’ Association and set realistic timeframes to move these safety positions to civilian positions. 23
F11:
In many cities, the contract negotiation process is completed by placing the negotiated collective bargaining agreements on the consent calendar for approval, which is acted on quickly at the start of council meetings by a single motion and vote of the council.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
Cities should consider holding well-publicized public hearings about the cities’ goals of negotiations before negotiations begin, and again at the end of negotiations to report to citizens clearly what changes have been made in contracts.
F12:
Current contracts were negotiated in good faith by representatives of the cities and the bargaining units; they were approved by the city councils. Promises made to employees were made by elected officials, past and present. Responsibility for formulating and approving solutions to restore the cities’ financial stability resides squarely with our elected officials. The economic downturn has placed additional pressure on the situation.
Related Recommendations (5)
R12:
What is the non-safety Retirement cost for 2009/10? ______________ What is the Police/Fire Retirement cost for 2009/10? ______________
R12a:
City council members and mayors should become better informed about the fiscal realities in their cities, long-term costs and commitments, and be cognizant of potential issues in labor agreements.
R12b:
City councils and mayors should direct city administrators to (re)negotiate collective bargaining agreements that reverse the escalation of employee costs through concessions, cost sharing, and a second tier for new employees.
R12c:
City councils and mayors should meet with the bargaining units to clearly outline the cities’ financial health and show how employee costs are impacting the budget.
R12d:
City councils and mayors should inform citizens of their plans for controlling unsustainable employee costs and remove politics from the equation. 24
F13:
Binding arbitration is not open to the public and results in an adversarial process between the city and employee groups. Binding arbitration limits the ability of city leaders to craft solutions that work for the city’s budget. The process has resulted in wage and benefit decisions that have been greater than the growth in basic revenue sources.
Related Recommendations (3)
R13:
How much did the City pay for Health/Dental Benefits in 2000/01? _________
R13a:
San Jose City Council should make binding arbitration open to the public.
R13b:
San Jose City Council should prepare a ballot measure asking voters to repeal Section 1111 of the City Charter that addresses binding arbitration.
F14:
What is the 2009/10 City cost for Health/Dental Benefits? _____________
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
What is the 2009/10 City cost for Health/Dental Benefits? _____________
F15:
What was the average monthly premium the City paid for employee Health/Dental Care in 2000? Individual ____________ Family ___________
Related Recommendations (1)
R15:
What was the average monthly premium the City paid for employee Health/Dental Care in 2000? Individual ____________ Family ___________
F16:
What are the current average premiums for Health/Dental Care? Individual ___________ Family ___________
Related Recommendations (1)
R16:
What are the current average premiums for Health/Dental Care? Individual ___________ Family ___________
F17:
What was the median salary for non-safety employees without benefits in 2000? _________ With benefits _______ 18. 2009/2010 median salary without benefits __________ With benefits ____________
Related Recommendations (1)
R17:
What was the median salary for non-safety employees without benefits in 2000? _________ With benefits _______
F19:
What was the median salary for police employees without benefits in 2000/01? __________ With benefits __________
Related Recommendations (1)
R19:
What was the median salary for police employees without benefits in 2000/01? __________ With benefits __________
F20:
Current median salary without benefits __________ With benefits ____________
Related Recommendations (1)
R20:
Current median salary without benefits __________ With benefits ____________
F21:
What was the median salary for fire employees without benefits in 2000? _________ With benefits _______
Related Recommendations (1)
R21:
What was the median salary for fire employees without benefits in 2000? _________ With benefits _______
F22:
Current median salary without benefits __________ With benefits ____________ 28 Appendix C - continued City Information – continued
Related Recommendations (1)
R22:
Current median salary without benefits __________ With benefits ____________ 28
F23:
What is the average number of years for your non-safety employees? ________ What is the average number of years for police? _________ What is the average number of years for fire employees? __________
Related Recommendations (1)
R23:
What is the average number of years for your non-safety employees? ________ What is the average number of years for police? _________ What is the average number of years for fire employees? __________
F24:
How many vacation days, floating days, holidays, personnel leave days and sick days are employees entitled to annually?
Related Recommendations (1)
R24:
How many vacation days, floating days, holidays, personnel leave days and sick days are employees entitled to annually?
F25:
What are the vacation and sick leave accrual and buy out policies?
Related Recommendations (1)
R25:
What are the vacation and sick leave accrual and buy out policies?
F26:
Did you impose any furlough days this year? Y N If yes, which work groups? How many people are affected? How often?
Related Recommendations (1)
R26:
Did you impose any furlough days this year? Y N If yes, which work groups? How many people are affected? How often?
F27:
Prior to entering into each of your current agreements with organized labor, did your city Council, as part of regular business, encourage public comment in regard to the salaries or benefits being negotiated? Y N
Related Recommendations (1)
R27:
Prior to entering into each of your current agreements with organized labor, did your city Council, as part of regular business, encourage public comment in regard to the salaries or benefits being negotiated? Y N
F28:
Are the MOU’s resulting from contract negotiations typically on the consent calendar when coming to the City Council for approval? Y N 29 Appendix D Santa Clara County/Cities Managers’ Association Policy Statement on Retirement Benefits 30 Appendix D - continued 31 APPENDIX D - continued 32 This report was PASSED and ADOPTED with a concurrence of at least 12 grand jurors on this 13th day of May, 2010. Angie M. Cardoza Foreperson Judy B. Shaw Foreperson pro tem Mary Nassau Secretary 33
Related Recommendations (1)
R28:
Are the MOU’s resulting from contract negotiations typically on the consent calendar when coming to the City Council for approval? Y N 29
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R18:
2009/2010 median salary without benefits __________ With benefits ____________
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
To ease the structural budget deficit, after extensive opportunity for public input on city budget priorities from citizens, employee and business groups, and city staff, the City decided to assess the management and possible alternative uses of City properties. The list of properties to be reviewed in the Asset Management Program (AMP) includes the Mansion.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The City should continue the AMP, focusing on those properties that present the biggest drain on City finances, such as the Mansion. 5
F2:
The AMP study of the Mansion is behind schedule. Deadlines have been set and subsequently extended.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The City Council should require adherence to City staff’s currently estimated 2010 study completion date.
F3:
Since the City initiated the AMP and its study of the Mansion, the financial condition of the City has gone from bad to worse. In November 2008 the projected deficit for 2010 - 11 was $109.7 million. Now that projected deficit has increased to $116.2 million.
F4:
The City Council will have extensive information and an opportunity to act on the Mansion when the study of the Mansion is complete.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The City Council should either sell the Mansion or articulate for the public what the more important values are that offset the significant long standing and continuing financial drain of the Mansion on the City’s budget. This report was PASSED and ADOPTED with a concurrence of at least 12 grand jurors on this 15th day of April, 2010. Angie M. Cardoza Foreperson Judy B. Shaw Foreperson pro tem Mary Nassau Secretary 7
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The County’s oversight of CBO contracting for new programs and performance audits has been determined to be consistent with good practice.
F2:
Once a contract is awarded, renewing it without going through the process of competitive bidding is widespread. 4
Related Recommendations (2)
R2a:
The County should establish a defined, documented plan to put all no-bid contracts through the rebidding process. This initial rebidding should be accomplished within the next five years, with a set number of contracts evaluated each year. This change should be communicated to the CBOs in a timely manner.
R2b:
After this initial rebidding is accomplished, RFPs should be required every other contract period, or at a minimum, every five years for contract renewal or continuation of service. This report was PASSED and ADOPTED with a concurrence of at least 12 grand jurors on this 15th day of April, 2010. Angie M. Cardoza Foreperson Judy B. Shaw Foreperson pro tem 5
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The City of Sunnyvale lacks a written process that is open and transparent for appointing an interim councilmember.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Council should establish a clear written process to appoint future interim Council replacements.
F2:
Council’s Dec. 16, 2008, agenda item #9, RTC 08-377, failed to reasonably inform interested members of the public that a predetermined interim councilmember would be appointed at this meeting. 6
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Council needs to properly notice the public, by ensuring that the published agenda clearly describes the items to be considered.
F3:
The city’s fiscal impact report was incomplete, in that, it did not provide the Council or the public with the complete cost of the interim appointment to the Council.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Council should direct city staff to provide comprehensive information in their report, so the public has complete information about the cost of an interim appointment.
F4:
The Council gave a benefit option to a councilmember that is not available to other city employees.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Council must follow protocols to ensure that it provides no greater benefits to councilmembers than it provides to employees. This report was PASSED and ADOPTED with a concurrence of at least 12 grand jurors on this 27th day of May, 2010. Angie M. Cardoza Foreperson Judy B. Shaw Foreperson pro tem 8