Gran Jurado del Condado de Shasta
2012-2013
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
4 hallazgos
F1:
Additional members added to the Board of Directors would allow for a greater diversity of opinion in the operation of the district and would reduce difficulties in setting up subcommittees due to constraints imposed by the Brown Act.
F2:
Marketing the availability of the resources of the WSRCD to the public on selected “fee for service” projects would both promote resource conservation and assist the District in meeting its financial obligations.
F3:
Inmate labor from the Sugar Pine Conservation Camp is the most economical way for the WSRCD to obtain experienced and qualified labor at minimal cost while working on selected projects.
F4:
The WSRCD website is out-of-date and fails to provide the public with necessary information.
Recomendaciones adicionales
4
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the WSRCD seek out interested citizens in order to nominate them to the Shasta County Board of Supervisors for appointment to the board. This should be accomplished within the next three months.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that the WSRCD review its practice of not marketing “fee for service” contracts with a view toward performing such services for private landowners who would not otherwise avail themselves of conservation work on their property. This review should be undertaken as soon as possible following the addition of new members to the Board.
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the WSRCD continues to utilize (through Cal-Fire) inmate labor from the Sugar Pine Conservation Camp as a means of obtaining experienced and qualified labor while at the same time keeping down the cost of services provided.
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the WSRCD review and update its website for the specific purpose of providing the public with accurate, relevant and timely information concerning its activities and the dates, times and agendas of the WSRCD Board meetings. The review and update of the website should be completed within three months (the committee feels that 3 months is adequate.). REQUESTED RESPONSES Pursuant to California Penal Code section 933.05 the Grand Jury requests that: The Board of the WSRCD is requested to respond to Findings F1, F2, F3 and F4 as well as to Recommendations R1, R2, R3 and R4 within 90 days.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
5 hallazgos
F1:
There has been a lack of communication between SUHSD’s Special Education Department and the parents/guardians of special needs high school students regarding graduation options (Diploma vs. Certificate of Completion pathways).
F2:
There is no adequate forum for groups of parents/guardians to communicate with the special education staff on a regular and ongoing basis.
F3:
The Adult Transition Program Parents’ Club funds were not managed according to district policy; however, this has since been rectified.
F4:
The SUHSD Board of Trustees was responsive to several of the parents’ concerns, for example reinstating the use of a van and resuming recycling.
F5:
Based on the ratio of staff to students of 1:2, the SUHSD Adult Transition Program is staffed appropriately when compared to other local school districts.
Recomendaciones adicionales
2
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that by September 1, 2013 the SUHSD Board of Trustees finalize the Course of Study Decisions document. It should contain a clear explanation of the outcomes of choosing the educational pathway leading to a diploma versus the pathway leading to a certificate of completion. The district should provide it to parents/guardians in a timely fashion
R2:
Jury recommends that SUHSD schedule regular meetings between parents/guardians and the special education staff to address and discuss general concerns beginning at the start of the next semester.