Sonoma County 2006-2007 - California Grand Jury Reports

From the annual report

The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.

📑 Year-End Report

The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.

Individual reports (29)

March 24, 2008 — Cotati-rohnert Igrand Jury Unified School District Sep 1 1 2007 Received Responses to the Sonoma County Grand Jury*

3 pages 12 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 12

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Each public school district in Sonoma County should have at least one employee who is trained and authorized to access DOJ website within an official and specified schedule. This employee should fully understand the way in which information is to be communicated. Further in the absence of this employee, a suitable alternate person or system should be in place to responsibly retrieve valuable information as it is posted. This system should also cover notices from the DOJ sent via U.S. Mail. The Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District had the system described in this recommendation in place since the Department of Justice introduced its website. Prior to the implementation of live scan service and electronic notification, the District had at least one employee responsible for sending employees for fingerprinting and receipt of notification via facsimile or U.S. Mail.

R5: School districts should amend their policies, if needed, to allow for volunteers names to be public information and readily available so that a greater scrutiny is provided. All volunteers are required to sign in at the school office before they are permitted to enter the campus. Sign in logs are records maintained by the District in the conduct of its business, and as such, meet the definition of public records under the California Public Records Act. The logs would likely be subject to release if the District received a records request under the Act.

R6: Schools should routinely check out names of adult volunteers on Megan's Law website (a public positing of sexual predators) even if fingerprinting is scheduled, and always do so it if no fingerprinting is scheduled for that volunteer. School site administrators in the Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District have done this in the past when they have had concerns about an individual. District staff will continue to encourage this practice.

R7: School districts should request criminal activity record from the Sonoma County Superior Courts Records Division on any adult wanting to volunteer with students. This service is available at no cost to a district. This recommendation does not appear to be necessary given the procedures for volunteers in the Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District. Volunteers who are alone with children are fingerprinted through the Department of Justice. This includes chaperones on over-night field trips, volunteers who oversee tutorial centers or extra- curricular activities, and all athletic coaches.

R8: School districts should, individually or collectively, request that the DOJ implement a system to confirm school district receipt of Notices of Subsequent Arrest. A system that would require the DOJ to follow up if no confirmation was received and would at least give school districts some assurance that information trusted to the U.S. Mail or electronic mail servers is actually being received. The school district receives subsequent arrest notices for any individual previously fingerprinted using live-scan. The District has no reason to believe the Department of Justice has failed to provide such notices at any time. If, however, the County Superintendent of Schools were to request the District cooperate in making such a request of the Department of Justice, we would do so.

R10: volunteer) involved in athletic programs, overnight field trips, off-campus field trips, and any school sponsored student activity that occurs outside of the normal school day or hours. The Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District requires Department of Justice clearances for all athletic coaches, paid and volunteer. All volunteers who supervise an extra-curricular activity without a District employee present are required to be fingerprinted. Both of these practices have been in place since at least 1995. Effective spring 2007, the District requires chaperones on over-night field trips to be fingerprinted. The District's field trip policy states that if a parent cannot transport more than one child in his/her vehicle for a field trip where private automobiles are used, the child who rides in that vehicle must be the driver's own child.

R11: School districts should implement provisions of Ed. Code Section 33193 and 45125.2 requiring that certain independent contractors and employees of contractors undergo fingerprinting and background checks. The Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District has implemented the provisions of these sections of the California Education Code.

R13: School districts should not allow new employees to begin work until all pre- employment requirements are met. Most specifically, this means all fingerprinting and criminal history responses that are required must have been completed and properly evaluated. This has been the practice of the Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District.

R15: School districts should require all volunteers to sign an agreement that outlines behavior do's and don'ts and consequences if agreement terms are broken. The Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District provides volunteers with a written guide that outlines expectations for volunteers. School site administrators have the authority to remove a volunteer from his/her school for any reason, and volunteers are informed that it is a privilege, not a right, to volunteer in a school. For these reasons, the District does not believe a written agreement is necessary. Prepared By: 7 September 2007 Barbara Vrankovich, EdD Superintendent

March 24, 2008 — Dunham School*

4 pages 12 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 12

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Each public school district in Sonoma County should have at least one employee who is trained and authorized to access DOJ website within an official and specified schedule. This employee should fully understand the way in which information is to be communicated. Further, in the absence of this employee, a suitable alternate person or system should be in place to responsibly retrieve valuable information as it is posted. This system should also cover notices from the DOJ sent via U.S. Mail. Response: Our District Office Manager is designated as the person responsible for accessing all fingerprint information, and is trained in all aspects of the process. The Superintendent is the alternate.

R5: School districts should amend their policies, if needed, to allow for volunteers names to be public information and readily available so that a greater scrutiny is provided. Response: All volunteers are required to sign in each time they work in a classroom. This log sheet is visible by my secretary and is available for any public scrutiny.

R7: School districts should request criminal activity record from the Sonoma County Superior Court Records Division on any adult wanting to volunteer with students. This service is available at no cost to a district. Response: Our district was not aware of this service. We will meet and discuss this at our next Board meeting.

R8: School districts should, individually or cjollectively, request that the DOJ implement a system to confirm school district receipt Notices of Subsequent Arrest. A system that would require the DOJ to follow up if no confirmation was received would at least give school districts some assurance that information trusted to the U.S. Mail or electronic mail servers is actually being received. Response: If the request is to be a collective one then it seems that this response should come from the County Superintendent.

R9: School districts should request FBI responses on all classified employees and volunteers that they a DOJ response regardless of the time they have lived in California. The relatively small fee of $24 to get prior criminal activity from a national database seems justifiable, reasonable, and the right action to take. Response: We will take this under advisement.

R13: School districts should not allow new employees to begin work until all pre- employment requirements are met. Most specifically, this means that all fingerprinting and • criminal history responses that are required must have been completed and properly evaluated. Response: We already do this. The S.O. should make available to all school districts information on how to

R14: access services available to them through the S.O. that would aid districts in determining if individuals should be approved to serve as volunteers in our schools and at school sponsored activities. Response: As this is a recommendation for the Sheriff's Office it does not seem appropriate for me to respond to this. If it were available we would certainly use the information.

R15: School districts should require all volunteers to sign an agreement that outlines behavior do's and don'ts and consequences if agreement terms are broken. Response: Thank you for the input. Our Board will take it under advisement.

March 24, 2008 — Kashia Elementary School District*

2 pages 12 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 12

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Each public school district ...should have at least one employee who is trained and authorized to access DOJ website within an official and specified schedule...In the absence of this employee, a suitable alternate person...should be in place to responsibly retrieve valuable information as it is posted. Kashia School District agrees with this recommendation and already has this recommendation in place.

R5: Districts should amend their policies...to allow for volunteers' names to be public information and readily available so that a greater scrutiny is provided. Kashia does not have a policy prohibiting volunteers' names from being made public. The District will treat volunteer's names as public information and will notify with a notice home to parents/guardians in order to provide greater scrutiny of volunteers. A list of volunteers' names will be submitted to the District's Board of Trustees at the beginning of each semester.

R6: Schools should routinely check out names of adult volunteers on Megan's Law website...even if fingerprinting is schedules, and always do so if no fingerprinting is scheduled for that volunteer. The Lead Teacher or Superintendent checks Megan's Law website before approving an adult volunteer.

R8: Districts...should request that the DOJ implement a system to confirm school district receipt of Notices of Subsequent Arrest. Kashia School agrees to request that the DOJ implement a system to confirm the school district receipt of Notices of Subsequent Arrest.

R9: Districts should request FBI responses on all classified employees and volunteers (for whom) they do a DOJ response regardless of the time they have lived in California. Kashia School agrees that a request to the FBI for a check on criminal activity by use of the national database can be justifiable and appropriate. The District contends that the State should provide funding for this endeavor.

R10: Districts should require fingerprinting for all adults (paid and volunteer) involved in athletic programs, overnight field trips, off-campus field trips, and any school sponsored student activity that occurs outside of the normal school day or hours. Kashia School will require fingerprint checks for all adult volunteers who will have ongoing contact with students, including athletic programs and overnight field trips. The District does not agree that all volunteers who participate in off-campus field trips should be fingerprinted. Volunteers for one-time events who are under line-of-sight supervision by a school employee will not require fingerprinting. Districts should implement provisions of Education Code Sections 33193 and

R11: 45125.2 requiring that certain independent contractors and employees of contractors undergo fingerprinting and background checks. Kashia School already implements provisions of Education Code Sections 33193 and 45125.2 requiring that certain independent contractors and employees of contractors undergo fingerprinting and background checks.

R13: Districts should not allow new employees to begin work until all pre- employment requirements are met. Most specifically, this means that all fingerprinting and criminal history responses that are required must have been completed and properly evaluated. All fingerprint and required criminal history checks are completed and evaluated before new employees begin work.

R14: The S.O. should make available to all school districts information on how to access services available to them through the S.O. that would aid districts in determining if individuals should be approved to serve as volunteers in our schools and at school sponsored activities. The District agrees with this recommendation.

R15: District should require all volunteers to sign an agreement that outlines behavior dos and don'ts and consequences if agreement terms are broken. The District is in agreement with this recommendation and will implement it as soon as possible. The above response to the Grand Jury recommendations was adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on August 24, 1007. Nancy Watton, Superintendent

March 24, 2008 — Grand Jury Aug 3 0 2007 Monte Rio Union School District*

3 pages 12 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 12

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Each public school district... should have at least one employee who is trained and authorized to access DOJ website within an official and specified schedule... In the absence of this employee, a suitable alternate person... should be in place to responsibly retrieve valuable information as it is posted. The District is in total agreement with this recommendation and already has this recommendation in place.

R4: Districts should consider changing their policies to require successful employee applicants to pay for their own fingerprinting and background responses from DOJ and FBI. .... As costs are shifted to paid employees, districts could use savings to fund costs of volunteers. The District agrees in part with this recommendation. The mandate for fingerprinting comes from the State. The State should provide the necessary funding for the fingerprinting mandate, allowing districts to use the savings to fund the cost of fingerprinting volunteers. The District agrees that the cost for fingerprint clearances is an enormous burden, but obtaining fingerprint clearances also gives the district a degree of security for our students' safety.

R6: Schools should routinely check out names of adult volunteers on Megan's Law website ....even if fingerprinting is scheduled, and always do so if no fingerprinting is scheduled for that volunteer. The District agrees that adult volunteers should be routinely checked on the Megan's Law website; however, the reality is that we have such a large number of parent volunteers that this would require additional employee time and district expense. The bottom line is that we would "take away" funds that should be spent on our children, in the classroom.

R7: Districts should request criminal activity records from the Sonoma County Superior Court Records Division on any adult wanting to volunteer with students. The District agrees with this recommendation, especially since this information is available at no cost to the District. However, the District would like to also make note that we are looking only for individuals that may have "criminal activity" that would prevent them from working with children. An individual that has a "victimless" crime on his/her record may not be a reason to keep an individual from volunteering to read to students, decorate a classroom bulletin board, make instructional materials for a teacher, etc. MONTE RIO UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT 20700 Foothill Drive, Monte Rio, CA 95462 · 707/865-2266 · 707/865-9356 FAX

R8: Districts ... should request that the DOJ implement a system to confirm school district receipt of Notices of subsequent Arrest. The District agrees with this recommendation. It is the District's recommendation that ONLY electronic information be disseminated by DOJ, and that no district should rely upon mail. It is easy to implement a "receipt notice" when email has been opened and read by the District, thus verifying receipt by a district.

R9: Districts should request FBI responses on all classified employees and volunteers (for whom) they do a DOJ response regardless of the time they have lived in California. The relatively small fee of $24 to get prior criminal activity from a national database seems justifiable, reasonable and the right action to take. The District agrees that obtaining an FBI response for an individual with whom you are already doing a DOJ request, is appropriate. The District also contends that the State should provide funding for this endeavor.

R10: Districts should require fingerprinting for all adults (paid and volunteer) involved in athletic programs, overnight field trips, off-campus field trips, and any school sponsored student activity that occurs outside of the normal school day or hours. The District agrees that fingerprinting should be done for all adults involved in athletic programs and for overnight field trips. The district does not agree that all volunteers who participate in off-campus field trips should be fingerprinted. If this were the case, we would be fingerprinting almost every parent of a kindergarten and 1st-grade student!

R11: Districts should implement provisions of Education Code Sections 33193 and 45125.2 requiring that certain independent contractors and employees of contractors undergo fingerprinting and background checks. The District is in agreement with this recommendation and is presently implementing the requirement.

R13: Districts should not allow new employees to begin work until all pre-employment requirements are met. Most specifically, this means that all fingerprinting and criminal history responses that are required must have been completed and properly evaluated. The District is in total agreement with this recommendation and has already implemented this employment practice.

R15: Districts should require all volunteers to sign an agreement that outlines behavior do's and don'ts and consequences if agreement terms are broken. The District is in agreement with the recommendation. . MONTE RIO UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT 20700 Foothill Drive, Monte Rio, CA 95462 · 707/865-2266 · 707/865-9356 FAX The above response to Grand Jury recommendations was adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on August 16, 2007. Diane Ögden, Ed. D. Superintendent

February 01, 2008 — Forestville Union School District 6321 Highway 116*

6 pages 13 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 13

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: have at least one employee who is trained and authorized to access DOJ website within an official and specified schedule. This employee should fully understand the way in which information is to be communicates. Further, in the absence of this employee, a suitable alternate person should be in place to responsibly retrieve valuable information as it is posted. This system should also cover notices from the DOJ sent via U.S. Mail. The Forestville School District (FSD) has two employees RESPONSE: who are trained and authorized to access the Department of Justice (DOJ) website (The District Administrative Secretary and Chief Business Official (CBO)), and both understand the way in which information is to be communicated. Generally, the website is accessed for subsequent arrest notifications once a week. Initial responses, and all subsequent arrest reports, are shared with either the CBO or the District Superintendent, and after review are destroyed within 30 days. School districts should consider changing their policies to

R4: require successful employee applicants to pay for their own fingerprinting and background responses from DOJ and FBI. There is at least $65,000 in 06-07 school district budgets for fingerprinting. As costs are shifted to paid employees, districts could use savings to fund costs for volunteers. The FSD, through its policy study and adoption process, RESPONSE: will consider this recommendation as a possible amendment to current policy. School districts should amend their policies, if needed, to

R5: allow for volunteers names to be public information and readily available so that a greater scrutiny is provided. The FSD, through its policy study and adoption process, RESPONSE: will consider this recommendation as a possible amendment to current policy. Schools should routinely check out names of adult

R6: volunteers on Megan's Law website (a public posting of sexual predators) even if fingerprinting is scheduled for that volunteer. The FSD, through its policy study and adoption process, RESPONSE: will consider this recommendation as a possible amendment to current policy. School districts should request criminal activity record

R7: from the Sonoma County Superior Court Records Division on any adult wanting to volunteer with students. The service is available at no cost to a district. The FSD, through its policy study and adoption process, RESPONSE: will consider this recommendation as a possible amendment to current policy. School districts should, individually or collectively,

R8: request that the DOJ implement a system to confirm school district receipt of Notices of Subsequent Arrest. A system that would require the DOJ to follow up if no confirmation was received would at least give school districts some assurance that information trusted to the U.S. Mail or electronic mail servers is actually being received. The FSD, guided by the policies and procedures included RESPONSE: in their Policies and Procedures Manual, will consider this recommendation. School districts should request FBI responses on all

R9: classified employees and volunteers that they do a DOJ response regardless of the time they have lived in California. The relatively small fee of $24 to get prior criminal activity from a national database seems justifiable, reasonable and the right action to take. The FSD, through its policy study and adoption process, RESPONSE: will consider this recommendation as a possible amendment to current policy. School districts should require fingerprinting for all

R10: adults (paid and volunteer) involved in athletic programs, overnight field trips, off-campus field trips, and any school sponsored student activity that occurs outside of the normal school day or hours. The FSD routinely, and as a matter of policy, requires a RESPONSE: fingerprint and background clearance for all adults involved in athletic programs. The FSD, through its policy study and adoption process, will consider the recommendations about overnight field trips, off-campus field trips, and other school sponsored student activities as a possible amendment to current policy. School districts should implement provisions of

R11: Education Code Sections 33193 and 45125.2 requiring that certain independent contractors and employees of contractors undergo fingerprinting and background checks. The FSD has implemented, currently implements, and RESPONSE: will continue to implement the provisions of Education Code Sections 33193 and 45125.2, requiring independent contractors and their employees to undergo fingerprinting and background checks. The FSD provides a formal, written notice to all venders of goods and services of this requirement, and mandates written acknowledgement and a certification that they will comply with these requirements as a condition of approving contracts with the District. School districts should not allow new employees to begin

R13: work until all pre-employment requirements are met. Most specifically, this means that all fingerprinting and criminal history responses that are required must have been completed and properly evaluated. The FSD does not allow new employees to begin work RESPONSE: until all pre-employment requirements are met, including but not limited to a review of the DOJ report resulting from the required fingerprint submission. All DOJ reports are reviewed by staff that know and understand the provisions of law related to this employment requirement. Under no circumstances are potential new employees allowed to be with students at any time without direct, line of sight supervision by an employee hired through the fingerprint/background clearance provisions of the FSD policies and procedures. The S.O. should make available to all school districts

R14: information on how to access services available to them through the S.O. that would aid districts in determining if individuals should be approved to serve as volunteers in our schools and at school sponsored activities. The FSD cannot respond to this recommendation. RESPONSE: School districts should require all volunteers to sign an

R15: agreement that outlines behavior do's and don'ts and consequences if agreement terms are broken. The FSD, through its policy study and adoption process, RESPONSE: will consider this recommendation as a possible amendment to current policy. determining if individuals should be approved to serve as volunteers in our schools and at school sponsored activities. Fort Ross School agrees with this recommendation.

R06-07: school district budgets for fingerprinting. As costs are shifted to paid employees, districts could use savings to fund costs for volunteers. The FSD, through its policy study and adoption process, RESPONSE: will consider this recommendation as a possible amendment to current policy. School districts should amend their policies, if needed, to R5: allow for volunteers names to be public information and readily available so that a greater scrutiny is provided. The FSD, through its policy study and adoption process, RESPONSE: will consider this recommendation as a possible amendment to current policy. Schools should routinely check out names of adult R6: volunteers on Megan's Law website (a public posting of sexual predators) even if fingerprinting is scheduled for that volunteer. The FSD, through its policy study and adoption process, RESPONSE: will consider this recommendation as a possible amendment to current policy. School districts should request criminal activity record R7: from the Sonoma County Superior Court Records Division on any adult wanting to volunteer with students. The service is available at no cost to a district. The FSD, through its policy study and adoption process, RESPONSE: will consider this recommendation as a possible amendment to current policy. School districts should, individually or collectively, R8: request that the DOJ implement a system to confirm school district receipt of Notices of Subsequent Arrest. A system that would require the DOJ to follow up if no confirmation was received would at least give school districts some assurance that information trusted to the U.S. Mail or electronic mail servers is actually being received. The FSD, guided by the policies and procedures included RESPONSE: in their Policies and Procedures Manual, will consider this recommendation. School districts should request FBI responses on all R9: classified employees and volunteers that they do a DOJ response regardless of the time they have lived in California. The relatively small fee of $24 to get prior criminal activity from a national database seems justifiable, reasonable and the right action to take. The FSD, through its policy study and adoption process, RESPONSE: will consider this recommendation as a possible amendment to current policy. School districts should require fingerprinting for all R10: adults (paid and volunteer) involved in athletic programs, overnight field trips, off-campus field trips, and any school sponsored student activity that occurs outside of the normal school day or hours. The FSD routinely, and as a matter of policy, requires a RESPONSE: fingerprint and background clearance for all adults involved in athletic programs. The FSD, through its policy study and adoption process, will consider the recommendations about overnight field trips, off-campus field trips, and other school sponsored student activities as a possible amendment to current policy. School districts should implement provisions of R11: Education Code Sections 33193 and 45125.2 requiring that certain independent contractors and employees of contractors undergo fingerprinting and background checks. The FSD has implemented, currently implements, and RESPONSE: will continue to implement the provisions of Education Code Sections 33193 and 45125.2, requiring independent contractors and their employees to undergo fingerprinting and background checks. The FSD provides a formal, written notice to all venders of goods and services of this requirement, and mandates written acknowledgement and a certification that they will comply with these requirements as a condition of approving contracts with the District. School districts should not allow new employees to begin R13: work until all pre-employment requirements are met. Most specifically, this means that all fingerprinting and criminal history responses that are required must have been completed and properly evaluated. The FSD does not allow new employees to begin work RESPONSE: until all pre-employment requirements are met, including but not limited to a review of the DOJ report resulting from the required fingerprint submission. All DOJ reports are reviewed by staff that know and understand the provisions of law related to this employment requirement. Under no circumstances are potential new employees allowed to be with students at any time without direct, line of sight supervision by an employee hired through the fingerprint/background clearance provisions of the FSD policies and procedures. The S.O. should make available to all school districts R14: information on how to access services available to them through the S.O. that would aid districts in determining if individuals should be approved to serve as volunteers in our schools and at school sponsored activities. The FSD cannot respond to this recommendation. RESPONSE: School districts should require all volunteers to sign an R15: agreement that outlines behavior do's and don'ts and consequences if agreement terms are broken. The FSD, through its policy study and adoption process, RESPONSE: will consider this recommendation as a possible amendment to current policy. determining if individuals should be approved to serve as volunteers in our schools and at school sponsored activities. Fort Ross School agrees with this recommendation. R15. School districts should require all volunteers to sign an agreement that outlines behavior do's and don'ts and consequences if agreement terms are broken. Fort Ross School agrees with this recommendation and will develop an agreement form for use in the district. The above response to the Grand Jury recommendation was adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on September 5, 2007 Robert E. Noll Robert E. Noll Superintendent/Principal

December 10, 2007 — Fort Ross School District*

4 pages 11 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 11

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Each public school district in Sonoma County should have at least one employee who is trained and authorized to access DOJ website within an official and specified schedule..... Fort Ross School agrees with this recommendation and will implement it during the first trimester of the current school year.

R4: School districts should consider changing their policies to require successful employee applicants to pay for their own fingerprinting and background responses from DOJ and FBI. The district will continue to pay for the fingerprinting of volunteers. The district will follow the guidelines proposed by the Sonoma County Office of Education.

R5: School districts should amend their policies, if needed, to allow for volunteers names to be public information and readily available so that a greater scrutiny is provided. Fort Ross School agrees with this recommendation. Fort Ross School does not have a policy prohibiting volunteers' names from being made public. The superintendent/principal will submit a list of volunteers' names to the Board of Trustees during each trimester.

R6: Schools should routinely check out names of adult volunteers on Megan's Law website..... Fort Ross School agrees with this recommendation and will implement it during the first trimester of the current school year.

R7: School districts should request criminal activity record from the Sonoma County Superior Courts Records Division on any adult wanting to volunteer with students. This service is available at not cost to a district. Fort Ross School agrees with this recommendation and will implement it during the first trimester of the current school year.

R8: School districts should, individually or collectively, request that the DOJ implement a system to confirm school district receipt of Notices of Subsequent Arrest. Fort Ross School agrees to request that the DOJ implement a system to confirm the school district's receipt of the Notices.

R9: School districts should request FBI responses on all classified employees and volunteers that they do a DOJ response regardless of the time they have lived in California. Fort Ross School agrees with this recommendation. However, the district contends that the State should provide funding for this process.

R10: School districts should require fingerprinting for all adults (paid and volunteer) involved in athletic programs, overnight field trips, off-campus field trips, and any school sponsored student activity that occurs outside of the normal school day or hours. The district has drafted both a policy and administrative regulations that are aligned to the recommendations of the Sonoma County Office of Education. These regulations have . been on the agenda and discussed at the October, November and December Board meetings. The Board will adopt these regulations following further input from the School Site Council and the Parents Club. A copy of the proposed regulations is included with this letter. Sincerely, Robert E. Will Robert E, Noll Superintendent/Principal . Fort Ross Elementary District 30600 Seaview Road GRAND JURY Cazadero, CA 95421 September 11, 2007 DEC 2 1 2007 Sonoma County Grand Jury RECEIVED PO Box 5109 Santa Rosa, CA 95402 Dear Grand Jury Members: I am responding to the recommendations contained in the Final Report of the Sonoma County Grand Jury, 2006-2007. Sonoma County Grand Jury Final Report (June 28, 2007) Responses to Recommendations:

R11: School districts should implement provisions of Education Code Sections 33193 and 45125.2 requiring that certain independent contractors and employees of contractors undergo fingerprinting and background checks. Fort Ross School agrees with this recommendation. The Board of Trustees will discuss the policy during the first trimester of the current school year and update its policy in this regard.

R13: School districts should not allow new employees to begin work until all pre- employment requirements are met. Fort Ross School agrees with this recommendation. This has been the practice of the school for many years.

R14: The S.O. should make available to all school districts information on how to access services available to them through the S.O. that would aid districts in

September 27, 2007 — Two Rock Union School District*

4 pages 11 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 11

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Each public school district in Sonoma County should have at least one employee who is trained and authorized to access the DOJ website within and official and specified schedule. This employee should fully understand the way in which information is to be communicated. Further, in the absence of this employee, a suitable alternate person or system should be in place to responsibly retrieve valuable information as it is posted. This system should also cover notices from the DOJ sent via U. S. Mail. Response to R.1: Our District Business Manager is the designee responsible for accessing all fingerprint information, and is trained in all aspects of the processes involved. The District Superintendent is trained as an alternate.

R4: School districts should consider changing their policies to require successful employee applicants to pay for their own fingerprinting and background responses from DOJ and FBI. There is at least $65,000 in 06- 07 school district budgets for fingerprinting. As costs are shifted to paid employees, districts could use the savings to fund costs for volunteers. Response to R.4: Your input is appreciated. This has been a discussion item in the past and will be brought to the School Board for consideration. R.5: School districts should amend their policies, if needed, to allow for volunteer names to be public information and readily available so that a greater scrutiny is provided. Response to R.5: A sign-in of all visitors, including volunteers, is a requirement in place at Two Rock School. The sign-in sheets are located on the front counter of the school office and allow for public scrutiny. R.6 Schools should routinely check out names of adult volunteers on Megan's Law website (a public posting of sexual predators) even if fingerprinting is scheduled, and always do so if no fingerprinting is scheduled for that volunteer. Response to R.6: This is a practice we will put in place as a matter of routine in screening all volunteers including those, such as parents of our students, who are not routinely fingerprinted.

R5: School districts should amend their policies, if needed, to allow for volunteer names to be public information and readily available so that a greater scrutiny is provided. Response to R.5: A sign-in of all visitors, including volunteers, is a requirement in place at Two Rock School. The sign-in sheets are located on the front counter of the school office and allow for public scrutiny.

R6: Schools should routinely check out names of adult volunteers on Megan's Law website (a public posting of sexual predators) even if fingerprinting is scheduled, and always do so if no fingerprinting is scheduled for that volunteer. Response to R.6: This is a practice we will put in place as a matter of routine in screening all volunteers including those, such as parents of our students, who are not routinely fingerprinted. R7. School district should request criminal activity records from the Sonoma County Superior Court Records Division of any adult wanting to volunteer with students. This service is available at no cost to the district. Response to R.7: This is a valuable recommendation and a service of which we had not previously been aware. We will build this into our process of ensuring the safety of all students.

R7: School district should request criminal activity records from the Sonoma County Superior Court Records Division of any adult wanting to volunteer with students. This service is available at no cost to the district. Response to R.7: This is a valuable recommendation and a service of which we had not previously been aware. We will build this into our process of ensuring the safety of all students. R.8 School districts should, individually or collectively, request that the DOJ implement a system to confirm district receipt of Notices of Subsequent Arrest. A system that would require the DOJ to follow up if no confirmation was received would at least give school districts some assurance that information trusted to the U.S. Mail or electronic mail servers is actually being received. Response to R.8: This recommendation is appreciated. As one of the smaller districts serving Sonoma County, it will be our recommendation that the county superintendent investigate and pursue this recommendation. R.9 School districts should request FBI responses on all classified employees and volunteers that they do a DOJ response regardless of the time they have lived in California. The relatively small fee of $24 to get prior criminal activity from a national database seems justifiable, reasonable, and the right action to take. Response to R.9: This recommendation is appreciated and will be brought to the Board for consideration.

R8: School districts should, individually or collectively, request that the DOJ implement a system to confirm district receipt of Notices of Subsequent Arrest. A system that would require the DOJ to follow up if no confirmation was received would at least give school districts some assurance that information trusted to the U.S. Mail or electronic mail servers is actually being received. Response to R.8: This recommendation is appreciated. As one of the smaller districts serving Sonoma County, it will be our recommendation that the county superintendent investigate and pursue this recommendation.

R9: School districts should request FBI responses on all classified employees and volunteers that they do a DOJ response regardless of the time they have lived in California. The relatively small fee of $24 to get prior criminal activity from a national database seems justifiable, reasonable, and the right action to take. Response to R.9: This recommendation is appreciated and will be brought to the Board for consideration. R10. School districts should require fingerprinting for all adults (paid and volunteer) involved in athletic programs, overnight field trips, off-campus field trips, and any school-sponsored student activity that occurs outside of the normal school day or hours. Response to R10: This practice is in place. R11. School districts should implement provisions of Education Code Sections 33193 and 45125.2 requiring that certain independent contractors and employees of contractors undergo fingerprinting and background checks. Response to R11: This recommendation is appreciated and will be brought to the Board for consideration. R13. School districts should not allow new employees to begin work until all pre-employment requirements are met. Most specifically, this means that all fingerprinting and criminal history responses that are required have been completed and properly evaluated. Response to R13: This practice is in place in the district. R15. School district should require all volunteers to sign an agreement that outlines behavior do's and don'ts and consequences if agreement terms are broken. Response to R15: This recommendation is appreciated and will be brought to the Board for consideration.

R11: School districts should implement provisions of Education Code Sections 33193 and 45125.2 requiring that certain independent contractors and employees of contractors undergo fingerprinting and background checks. Response to R11: This recommendation is appreciated and will be brought to the Board for consideration.

R15: School district should require all volunteers to sign an agreement that outlines behavior do's and don'ts and consequences if agreement terms are broken. Response to R15: This recommendation is appreciated and will be brought to the Board for consideration.

September 27, 2007 — West Sonoma County Union High School District*

5 pages 12 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 12

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Each public school district in Sonoma County should have at least one employee who is trained and authorized to access the DOJ website within an official and specified schedule. This employee should fully understand the way in which information is to be communicated. Further, in the absence of this employee, a suitable alternate person or system should be in place to responsibly retrieve valuable information as it is posted. This system should also cover notices from the DOJ sent via U.S. Mail. WSCUHSD Response: The WSCUHSD has two employees, the District Human Resources Director and the Human Resources Secretary, trained and authorized to access the DOJ website in an official capacity. These individuals understand the information from the DOJ website and DOJ notices sent by U.S. Mail; and are able to communicate the appropriate information in a timely and accurate manner to school and district administrators, while maintaining appropriate levels of confidentiality as required by law.

R5: School districts should amend their policies, if needed, to allow for volunteers' names to be public information and readily available so that a greater scrutiny is provided. WSCUHSD Response: The names of all school volunteers who serve as volunteer athletic coaches and volunteer chaperones for school trips, and volunteer drivers for school trips and other situations in which the volunteer may be working with students without the direct supervision of a school employee are made public and become a matter of public record when these volunteers are approved to serve in a volunteer capacity at a public meeting of the District Board of Trustees. The district believes that it would be unreasonably burdensome to publicly display the names of all volunteers who are limited to serving under the direct supervision of a credentialed school employee, such as classroom volunteers or dance chaperones.

R6: Schools should routinely check out names of adult volunteers on Megan's Law website (a public posting of sexual predators) even if fingerprinting is scheduled, and always do so if no fingerprinting is scheduled for that volunteer. WSCUHSD Response: The WSCUHSD respectfully disagrees with this recommendation. Megan's Law websites are less comprehensive than DOJ and FBI fingerprinting and background checks. Megan's Law websites rely on the compliance of individuals required to register as sex offenders with law enforcement agencies. Individuals who are required to register, but do not comply, are still identified as registered sex offenders in a DOJ and FBI background check. The WSCUHSD does not allow volunteers to work with students unless they are under the direct supervision of a school employee, even if their fingerprints have been taken and their DOJ clearance is scheduled or being processed. As in Recommendation R5, WSCUHSD believes that it would be unreasonably burdensome to routinely search Megan's Law websites for the names of all volunteers for whom fingerprinting and a DOJ background check is not required, because these volunteers are limited to serving under the direct supervision of a credentialed school employee at all times.

R7: Schools should request criminal activity record from the Sonoma County Superior Court Records Division on any adult wanting to volunteer with students. This service is available at no cost to a district. WSCUHSD Response: The WSCUHSD respectfully disagrees with this recommendation. While this recommendation is clearly made with the intent to protect children, the recommendation is intrusive and does not protect the "innocent until proven guilty" assumption that is well established in our society. A criminal activity record from the Sonoma County Superior Court would not be required of employees of the school district who works directly with students. The interest of WSCUHSD students is better served by current policy and practice that does not allow volunteers to work unsupervised with students unless fingerprinting and a DOJ background check has been successfully passed.

R8: School districts should, individually or collectively, request the DOJ implement a system to confirm school district receipt of Notices of Subsequent Arrest. A system that would require the DOJ to follow up if no confirmation was received would at least give school districts some assurance that information trusted to the U.S. Main or electronic mail servers is actually being received. WSCUHSD Response: While it is unlikely that the Federal DOJ will change its practice at the request of a single school district or group of Sonoma County school districts, the WSCUHSD is considering whether to submit a request to the DOJ in keeping with this recommendation.

R10: Schools should require fingerprinting for all adults (paid and volunteer) involved in athletic programs, overnight field trips, off-campus field trips, and any school sponsored student activity that occurs outside of the normal school day or hours. WSCUHSD Response: The WSCUHSD requires fingerprinting for all paid and volunteer athletic coaches. The district requires fingerprinting of designated chaperones for overnight field trips; but does not require fingerprinting for volunteers who are with students only under the direct supervision of a school employee. The district will consider changing district policy and regulations to require all individuals accompanying students on an overnight trip to be fingerprinted.

R11: School district should implement provisions of Education Code Sections 33193 and 45125.2 requiring that certain independent contractors and employees of contractors undergo fingerprinting and background checks. WSCUHSD Response: The WSCUHSD requires independent contractors and employees of contractors to undergo fingerprinting and background checks when they are appropriate and necessary because the contractor or contractor's employee will be working in proximity of students.

R13: School districts should not allow new employees to begin work until all pre-employment requirements are met. Most specifically, this means that all fingerprinting and criminal history responses that are required must have been completed and properly evaluated. WSCUHSD Response: With specific exceptions, the WSCUHSD already complies with this recommendation. In the event that an employee's fingerprints have not cleared and the employee's services are essential to the business of the district (i.e. teaching), employees have been allowed to begin work under the direct supervision of a substitute teacher, administrator, or other certificated employee who has passed fingerprint clearance.

R14: The Sonoma County Sheriff's Office (S.O. should make available to all school districts information on how to access services available to them through the S.O. that would aid districts in determining if individuals should be approved to serve as volunteers in our schools and at school sponsored activities. WSCUHSD Response: This recommendation is directed at the Sonoma County Sheriff's Office. The WSCUHSD welcomes information from the Sheriff's Office regarding services that would aid our district in determining if individuals should be approved as school volunteers.

R15: School districts should require all volunteers to sign an agreement that outlines behavior do's and don'ts and consequences if agreement terms are broken. WSCUHSD Response: In the WSCUHSD, athletic volunteers sign a code of ethics, but the code does not state the consequences if broken. It is implied that the individual will be removed, as a volunteer if the code of ethics is not followed. The district does not believe it is necessary or beneficial to require other volunteers to sign an agreement that outlines expected behavior and consequences, as volunteers serve under the direct supervision or general supervision of district employees.

September 24, 2007 — SEP 2 7 2007 Old Adobe Diane P. Zimmerman, Ph.D. Superintendent Union School District*

3 pages 12 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 12

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Each public school district in Sonoma County should have at least one employee who is trained and authorized to access DOJ website within an official and specified schedule. This employee should fully understand the way in which information is to be communicated. Further, in the absence of this employee, a suitable alternate person or system should be in place to responsibly retrieve valuable information as it is posted. This system should also cover notices from the DOJ sent via U.S. Mail. Response: The Confidential Classified Personnel Technician is designated as the person responsible for accessing all fingerprint information, and has been trained in the requirement of confidentiality. The superintendent serves as the chief Personnel Officer and reviews all active fingerprint records to make a determination about employment.

R5: School districts should amend their policies, if needed, to allow for volunteers names to be public information and readily available so that a greater scrutiny is provided. Response: All volunteers at our schools are required to sign in each time they visit a school. The sign in sheets are available for public scrutiny.

R6: Schools should routinely check out names of adult volunteers on Megan's Law website (a public posting of sexual predators) even if fingerprinting is scheduled, and always do so if no fingerprinting is scheduled for that volunteer. Response: Thank you for your input. Most of our volunteers are parents and are always under teacher's physical and visual supervision. Any interns or mentors working directly with children without supervision are fingerprinted.

R8: School districts should, individually or collectively, request that the DOJ implement a system à to confirm school district receipt of Notices of Subsequent Arrest. A system that would require the DOJ to follow up if no confirmation was received would at least give school districts some assurance that information trusted to the U.S. Mail or electronic mail servers is actually being received. Response: Thank you for the input. In the interest of efficiency, and so as to not duplicate efforts, we will request that our county superintendent look into this.

R11: 45125.2 requiring that certain independent contractors and employees of contractors undergo fingerprinting and background checks. Response: We already do this

R14: services available to them through the S.O. that would aid districts in determining if individuals should be approved to serve as volunteers in our schools and at school sponsored activities. We are always willing to work with public agencies to assure the safety of our Response: children.

September 24, 2007 — Grand Jury Twin Hills Union School District Sep 2 7 2007 Received 700 Water Trough Road ♦ Sebastopol, Ca 95472*

2 pages 12 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 12

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The Twin Hills Union School District has an employee whose task is to communicate with the Department of Justice and is authorized to access the DOJ website.

R4: Most of the classified employees of the school district are part-time and take home less than $500 per month in wages. At this point in time, the District pays for their fingerprinting. Given the small number of employees in this small District and the large numbers of parent volunteers, shifting the costs to the employees would not create sufficient funds in the budget for fingerprinting the volunteers. The Board of Trustees agrees to look at the policy.

R5: The Board of Trustees agrees to look at this policy. We await guidelines being developed by the Sonoma County Office of Education regarding the screening of volunteers.

R6: The Board of Trustees agrees to authorize the administration to routinely check the Megan's Law website for the names of volunteers.

R7: The Board of Trustees will take this suggestion under advisement when developing the guidelines for volunteers with the Sonoma County Office of Education.

R8: The District would be happy to request this service from the Department of Justice.

R9: Currently, the District requests FBI clearance for individuals who have lived in California for less than 12 months. We will consider this alternative when we developed guidelines along with the Sonoma County Office of Education. The District will review the draft guidelines for fingerprinting from the Sonoma

R10: County Office of Education and will be revising our policies accordingly. Currently, we do require fingerprinting of all coaches.

R11: All outside contractors that come in contact with students in our school are fingerprinted.

R13: School employees do not start work until their fingerprints are cleared.

R14: The District would welcome any assistance from the Sonoma County Sheriff's Department.

R15: The District will take under advisement this suggestion when drafting our volunteer guidelines. The District will be working closely with the County Office of Education in coming months to further ensure the safety of our students. The District thanks the Grand Jury for its concern for our students. Sincerely, Donald F. Armstrong, Ed.D. Superintendent

September 21, 2007 — SEP 2 5 2007 Wilmar Union School District*

3 pages 10 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 10

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Each public school district in Sonoma County should have at least one employee who is trained and authorized to access DOJ website within an official and specified schedule. This employee should fully understand the way in which information is to be communicated. Further, in the absence of this employee, a suitable alternate person or system should be in place to responsibly retrieve valuable information as it is posted. This system should also cover notices from the DOJ sent via U.S. Mail. Response: Our school finance clerk is designated as the person responsible for accessing all fingerprint information, and is trained in all aspects of the processes involved. The district seuperintendent/principal is trained as an alternate.

R8: Schools should routinely check out names of adult volunteers on Megan's Law website (a public posting of sexual predators) even if fingerprinting is scheduled, and always do so if no fingerprinting is scheduled for that volunteer. Response: This is a suggestion that we will institute as routine procedure.

September 18, 2007 — Grand Jury Horicon School District Sep 3 5 2007*

3 pages 12 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 12

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Each public school district in Sonoma County should have at least one employee who is trained and authorized to access DOJ website within an official and specified schedule. This employee should fully understand the way in which information is to be communicated. Further in the absence of this employee, a suitable alternate person or system should be in place to responsibly retrieve valuable information as it is posted. This system should also cover notices from the DOJ sent via U.S. Mail. Horicon Elementary School District agrees with the finding and has one employee, the School Secretary, who is trained and authorized to access DOJ website; the Superintendent/Principal is the alternate person responsible.

R4: School districts should consider changing their policies to require successful employee applicants to pay for their own fingerprinting and background responses from DOJ and FBI. There is at least $65,000 in 06-07 school district budgets for fingerprinting. As costs are shifted to paid employees, districts could use savings to fund costs for volunteers. Horicon Elementary School District partially disagrees with the finding. It is already difficult to find highly qualified employees in certain categories; we do not wish to make the application process more costly or cumbersome to potential applicants than it is already. Additionally, employment costs are negotiable conditions of employment (Public Employees Relations Board—PERB). Currently, the district funds the costs of required background checks, TB clearance, and pre- employment physicals as required for employees and TB Clearance and fingerprinting for volunteers that we do not have long time knowledge about .

R5: School districts should amend their policies, if needed, to allow for volunteers names to be public information and readily available so that a greater scrutiny is provided. Horicon Elementary School District feels that this may be a Public Records Act issue. We do not provide address or telephone information to the general public.

R6: School should routinely check out names of adult volunteers on Megan's Law website (a public positing of sexual predators) even if fingerprinting is scheduled, and always do so it if no fingerprinting is scheduled for that volunteer. Horicon Elementary School District partially agrees with this finding. The School Secretary uses the website and we encourage our parents to check the Megan's Law website. Beginning this school year, we add a reminder and encouragement to check the Megan's Law website in the school newsletter.

R7: School districts should request criminal activity record from the Sonoma County Superior Courts Records Division on any adult wanting to volunteer with students. This service is available at no cost to a district. Horicon Elementary School District partially disagrees with this finding. This is a small, isolated, rural community school with long term employees and families. We have only 85 students. I taught some of our students' parents and know their grandparents and entire families. Volunteers are supervised by district employees so for most volunteers, this recommendation would be unnecessary. We agree with and have implemented the recommendation for volunteers that we do not know.

R8: School districts should, individual and collectively, request that the DOJ implement a system to confirm school district receipt of Notices of Subsequent Arrest. A system that would require the DOJ to follow up if no confirmation was received and would at least give school districts some assurance that information trusted to the U.S. Mail or electronic mail services is actually being received. Horicon Elementary School District agrees with this finding and agrees to assist the County Superintendent, Dr. Wong, in writing such a letter to the DOJ on behalf of all districts. Currently, we do get notices of subsequent arrest. SCOE also provides us with subsequent arrest notices on substitute teachers that work in our district.

R10: School districts should require fingerprinting for all adults (paid and volunteer) involved in athletic programs, overnight field trips, off-campus field trips, and any school sponsored student activity that occurs outside of the normal school day or hours. Horicon Elementary School District partially agrees with this finding and has already implemented it for volunteers that we do not know. All programs that are school sponsored have staff members in attendance. Tutoring program(s), dances, and overnight field trips are all well chaperoned. As an example of the caliber of our volunteers--our flag football coach is a past Board President of 15 years (now on the Board of the High School district), his wife currently works for the district, and he has been involved with the district since 1975. We did not ask for fingerprinting on this man.

R11: School districts should implement provisions of Ed. Code Section 33193 and 45125.2 requiring that certain independent contractors and employees of contractors undergo fingerprinting and background checks. Horicon School District agrees with this finding and requires any contractors to confirm that their employees have undergone background checks and they are supervised by district employees while students are on campus.

R13: School districts should not allow new employees to begin work until all pre-employment requirements are met. Most specifically, this means all fingerprinting and criminal history responses that are required must have been completed and properly evaluated. Horicon Elementary School District agrees with this finding and has been doing this for several years now.

R14: The Sheriff's Office should make available to all school districts information on how to access services available to them through the Sheriff's Office that would aid districts in determining if individuals should be approved to serve as volunteers in our schools and at school sponsored activities. Horicon Elementary School District does not disagree with this finding but does not understand what services would be available. We have a close relationship with our local sheriff who serves an area of 65 miles of coastline. The Sheriff's Office is in Santa Rosa two hours travel away. The Sheriff can and does have information on people who would not be good to have at the school site. This information is usually given verbally. If there are other ways that the Sheriff's Office can help then we would welcome that help.

R15: School districts should require all volunteers to sign an agreement that outlines behavior do's and don'ts and consequences if agreement terms are broken. Horicon does give its school volunteers copies of the school rules and discipline procedures. The Village tutoring center has its own rules and extensive year long training as it is under a school employee but held in a different location. Those who drive on field trips are given an inservice by the teacher in charge and provide drivers licenses, proof of insurance, TB clearance.

September 12, 2007 — SEP 2 8 2007 Gravenstein Union School District Linda J. LaMarre, Superintendent Board of Trustees*

3 pages 12 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 12

Not linked to specific findings.

R4: School districts should consider changing their policies to require successful employee applicants to pay for their own fingerprinting and background responses from DOJ and FBI. There is at least $65,000 in 06-07 school district budgets for fingerprinting. As costs are shifted to paid employees, districts could use savings to fund costs for volunteers. Currently, the GUSD funds the costs of required background checks and pre-employment physicals as required for employees. We are planning to fingerprint volunteer coaches and volunteers chaperoning on overnight field trips. Employment costs are negotiable conditions of employment. Employees are unlikely to voluntarily shoulder this proposed additional cost. It is difficult to find highly qualified employees in certain categories, and we do not wish to make the application process more costly or cumbersome to potential applicants. Response to 2007 Grand Jury Report 9/12/2007 ٤

R6: School should routinely check out names of adult volunteers on Megan's Law website (a public positing of sexual predators) even if fingerprinting is scheduled, and always do so if no fingerprinting is scheduled for that volunteer. The GUSD will encourage principals and teachers to check for the names of their volunteers on the website whenever they have any suspicion about a potential volunteer and, in other cases, when time permits. We also encourage our parents to check the Megan's Law website.

R7: School districts should request criminal activity record from the Sonoma County Superior Courts Records Division on any adult wanting to volunteer with students. This service is available at no cost to a district. The GUSD plans to implement this recommendation for volunteer coaches and those chaperoning overnight field trips. However, we believe this recommendation is unnecessary and impractical for all volunteers. We have approximately 300 parents and grandparents volunteering in various capacities. Our volunteers are routinely supervised by district employees.

R8: School districts should, individual and collectively, request that the DOJ implement a system to confirm school district receipt of Notices of Subsequent Arrest. A system that would require the DOJ to follow up if no confirmation was received and would at least give school districts some assurance that information trusted to the U.S. Mail or electronic mail services is actually being received. The GUSD agrees to assist the County Superintendent in writing such a letter to the DOJ on behalf of all districts. Currently, we believe we get notices of subsequent arrest. SCOE also provides us with subsequent arrest notices on substitute teachers that work in our district.

R11: School districts should implement provisions of Ed. Code Section 33193 and 45125.2 requiring that certain independent contractors and employees of contractors undergo fingerprinting and background checks. The GUSD believes it complies with Education Code section 45125.2. Section 33193 does not appear to be applicable.

R13: School districts should not allow new employees to begin work until all pre- employment requirements are met. Most specifically, this means all fingerprinting and criminal history responses that are required must have been completed and properly evaluated. The GUSD does not allow new employees to begin work until all pre-employment requirements are met.

R15: School districts should require all volunteers to sign an agreement that outlines behavior do's and don'ts and consequences if agreement terms are broken. The GUSD will consider this recommendation. Please contact me if you have questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Jim/Horn President, Board of Trustees, Gravenstein Union Elementary School District Response to 2007 Grand Jury Report 9/12/2007

August 28, 2007 — SEP 2 5 2007 Grand Jury SEP 2.7 2007 Excellence in Education Received Union School District August 28, 2007 The*

6 pages 12 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 12

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Each public school district in Sonoma County should have at least one employee who is trained and authorized to access DOJ website within an official and specified schedule. This employee should fully understand the way in which information is to be communicated. Further, in the absence of this employee, a suitable alternate person or system should be in place to responsibly retrieve valuable information as it is posted. This system should also cover notices from the DOJ sent via U.S. Mail. Response: The Rincon Valley Union School District agrees with this finding. Debbie Takeda, Human Resources Officer, is trained and authorized to access the DOJ website. In her absence, Roxanne Gilpatric, Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum, will have authority to access the website and receive any U.S. Mail that arrives.

R4: School districts should consider changing their policies to require successful employee applicants to pay for their own fingerprinting and background responses from DOJ and FBI. There is at least $65,000 in 06- 07 school district budgets for fingerprinting. As costs are shifted to paid employees, districts could use savings to fund costs for volunteers. Response: Currently, RVUSD funds the cost of all fingerprinting and background services through the DOJ and FBI, including volunteers. The only volunteers that currently go through the process are ones that will be going on an overnight field trip. SCOE offers a half price discount once a week for volunteers. This discount runs from October 2007 through May 2008. In response to requiring applicants to pay for their own fingerprinting, this is not an avenue RVUSD would agree with. The reasons behind this decision are: efficiency, financial hardship of many applicants, and systemic control over the process.

R5: School districts should amend their policies, if needed, to allow for volunteers names to be public information and readily available so that a greater scrutiny is provided. Response: RVUSD believes that this recommendation needs further study to determine what the recommendation entails. School volunteers' names are regularly published in school newsletters. All volunteers sign in and out at the school office each time they volunteer. Beginning with the 2007-2008 school year, the District will request a list of all volunteers from each school. If there were a specific request for information on a volunteer, the Superintendent would meet with the party to determine what information to provide. The majority of volunteers in our schools are parents, grandparents or guardians of students attending school in the RVUSD.

R7: School districts should request criminal activity record from the Sonoma County Superior Court Records Division on any adult wanting to volunteer with students. This service is available at no cost to a district. Response: RVUSD will pilot the use of Sonoma County Superior Court Records to determine the amount of time involved in accessing information and whether it is warranted due to so few non-parent volunteers. In addition, the district will use the Sonoma County Superior Court Records to check for the parent volunteers chaperoning overnight field trips.

R8: School districts should, individually or collectively, request that the DOJ implement a system to confirm school district receipt of Notices of Subsequent Arrest. A system that would require the DOJ to follow up if no confirmation was received would at least give school districts some assurance that information trusted to the U.S. Mail or electronic mail servers is actually being received. Response: RVUSD agrees with this finding and will support the County Superintendent, Carl Wong, in writing such a letter to the DOJ on behalf of all districts. Debbie Takeda, Human Resources Officer, has received fewer than five (5) subsequent arrest notices in four years. These have been received after the employee has left employment.

R11: School districts should implement provisions of Education Code Sections 33193 and 45125.2 requiring that certain independent contractors and employees of contractors undergo fingerprinting and background checks. Response: All NPA (Non Public Agencies) and NPS (Non Public Schools) require fingerprinting of employees. Therefore, any of these employees would have previously undergone the fingerprint and background check prior to working with RVUSD. During our construction project, all contractors were fingerprinted by their agency prior to working on a school site. Any independent contractor used for any purpose other than educational, would only work when children are not present, or under the supervision of district employees while students are on campus.

R14: The S. O. should make available to all school districts information on how to access services available to them through the S. O. that would aid districts in determining if individuals should be approved to serve as volunteers in our schools and at school sponsored activities. Response: RVUSD would welcome any assistance from the Sheriff's Office that they are able to provide.

R15: School districts should require all volunteers to sign an agreement that outlines behavior dos and don'ts and consequences if agreement terms are broken. Response: The RVUSD agrees with this finding. To date implementation has been left to individual schools. The district is in the process of developing a standard volunteer agreement, which all volunteers will be required to sign. In addition, the Annual Parent Notification outlining volunteer policies is sent out to all parents at the beginning of the school year.

August 24, 2007 — AUG 28 2007 County Water Gency File: zn/0-0-1 Grand Jury August 24, 2007 Grand Jury SEP 3 7 2007 The Honorable Robert*

5 pages 1 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R8: from the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) and R1, R5, and R6 from all Sanitation Districts. Report Title: "Wastewater: Money Down the Drain?" Recommendation R1 ( ) Begin the creation of a master plan that includes ground water, surface water, and waste water. The recommendation requires further analysis. Response: SCWA will review the possible scope and content of a county-wide master plan, and perform an analysis of the benefits of moving forward with such a plan, and report to the Board of Directors by December 28, 2007. Many ongoing SCWA efforts could lay the foundation for such master planning if such an effort is able to be initiated in the future. For example, acting as the SCWA Board of Directors, the Board of Supervisors approved the Urban Water Management Plan. The UWMP lays the foundation for master planning by identifying the extent to which entities in SCWA's service area are expected to use those four sources through 2030. SCWA has also worked with the USGS and other stakeholders to complete groundwater basin studies for the Alexander Valley Basin and the Sonoma Valley Basin and is currently working with the County, USGS, and all other municipal groundwater users to complete a five-year comprehensive basin study of the Santa Rosa Plain Groundwater Basin. These analyses and studies are discussed in SWCA's Urban Water Management Plan, available for review at http://www.scwa.ca.gov/ pdf/2005 uwmp report.pdf or by contacting SCWA. The SCWA is P.O. Box 11628 - Santa Rosa, CA 95406 - 404 Aviation Boulevard - Santa Rosa, CA 95403 - (707) 526-5370 - Fax (707) 544-6123 also supporting and actively participating in the development of a non-regulatory groundwater management plan in the Sonoma Valley that is scheduled for completion this year, and will go a long way towards securing the Valley's overall water supply for future generations. However, the SCWA currently does not have the authority to direct, initiate, or control a "master plan that includes ground water, surface water, and waste water" for the entire county. Nonetheless, with the Board's direction, the SCWA will evaluate the grand jury's recommendation and report back to the Board by the end of 2007. Report Title: "Wastewater: Money Down the Drain?" Recommendation R2 ( ) The SCWA and the BPU should contact other counties that have created a central separate water board to examine its feasibility and adaptability to Sonoma County. Response: The recommendation will be implemented. SCWA recognizes the benefits that regional consolidations may provide ratepayers and taxpayers through cost saving opportunities. This has been demonstrated through various consolidation efforts in previous years. For example, as a result of the research conducted in 1997, a Recycled Water Workshop staff report was prepared and a workshop was held on September 23, 1997, by SCWA's Board. At that time, the Board directed SCWA staff to (1) conduct a feasibility study to consider options regarding consolidation between the City's Sub- regional Wastewater System and the Agency, (2) work with the Town of Windsor and City of Healdsburg regarding participation in the Sonoma County Recycled Water Distribution System, and (3) work with the City of Petaluma and City of Santa Rosa and Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District to link reclamation systems together. The Board's reason for the consolidation and linkages was to make more treated wastewater available "for wetlands restoration, agricultural irrigation, and other options if CALFED funding or other outside funding sources become available." Other consolidation possibilities were not recommended or explored further at that time. Since 1997, Santa Rosa and SCWA have reached agreement on consolidation of South Park Sanitation into the City's system. In addition, the Town of Windsor and the Airport-Larkfield- Wikiup Sanitation Zone, run by SCWA, have established linkages for storage and distribution of recycled water, and local projects for recycling water have been implemented in Sonoma Valley. SCWA will report to the Board of Directors the findings of this review within nine months. Report Title: "Wastewater: Money Down the Drain?" Recommendation R3 ( ) The cities and county should consider creation of a common fund, pooling grants and a percentage of user fees to cover capital improvements. Response: The recommendation requires further analysis. The recommendation requires further analysis. While pooling grants and a percentage of user fees in order to fund capital improvements may produce the ability to fund large-scale projects and leverage resources, there may be legal restrictions in place regarding the use of user fees originating in one jurisdiction to fund capital improvements in another jurisdiction. Moreover, there may be policy and operational restrictions in place within SCWA and the cities that prevent such pooling of funds. SCWA will report to the Board of Directors on these potential restrictions by December 28, 2007. Common funds already exist to some extent. For example, the Restructured Agreement between SCWA and the districts and cities, which are SCWA contractors, sets up common funding for capital projects as well as other common purposes related to potable water supply. Water Conservation, Water Reuse, Common Facilities, Storage Facilities, and various aqueduct facilities all have capital projects and each has its own identified funding paid for by the water contractors through the water rates. The funds, rates charged, budgets, and project priorities are reviewed annually by the Water Contractors' Water Advisory Committee. A copy of the Restructured Agreement can be obtained by contacting SCWA. Report Title: "Wastewater: Money Down the Drain?" Recommendation R5 ( ) Determine how much, realistically, should be set (a)side for capital improvements. This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is Response: not reasonable. While determining how much funding is needed for capital improvements county-wide may produce a benefit to SCWA and the various independent jurisdictions within Sonoma County, SCWA has no authority to direct the manner in which independent jurisdictions budget for capital improvements. The same legal obstacles that hinder developing a "masterplan" as referenced in Recommendation 1 also play out here. As such, SCWA believes that it cannot reasonably determine how much should be set aside for capital improvements by other independent jurisdictions. In the event that a separate, central water board is developed pursuant to recommendation R2 above, that body should be charged with developing capital improvement funding set asides. However, SCWA does determine the funding needed for capital improvements which the Agency oversees. The Agency documents this through its Capital Projects Plan. At that time, SCWA updates its long-range financial plans with the latest estimates of cost and timing for the various projects. Each of the water and wastewater treatment entities, as well as flood zones, for which the Agency is responsible, has a capital improvement plan. Report Title: "Wastewater: Money Down the Drain?" Recommendation R6 ( ) Reopen the examination of consolidation of smaller facilities and continue consolidation efforts. Response: The recommendation will be implemented. There are efforts underway to explore the possibility of transferring the Sea Ranch Sanitation Zone into a Community Services District with local ownership and governance. In addition, SCWA is considering the possible connection of the Occidental County Sanitation District to the Russian River County Sanitation System treatment plant in Guerneville. The South Park County Sanitation District and the City of Santa Rosa have an agreement in place whereby the City, which already treats the District's waste water and maintains the collection system, will take over full ownership of the District in 2011. In addition, Penngrove sends its wastewater to Petaluma; Rohnert Park, Cotati, Sebastopol, and South Park utilize the City's Sub-Regional Treatment Plant; and the Town of Windsor and the Airport-Larkfield-Wikiup Sanitation Zone share interconnections which provide operational flexibility for the operation of treated water storage and reclamation. Each potential consolidation has its own unique set of considerations and timeframes that are both unpredictable and influenced by opportunities and other external events. In order to implement this recommendation, SCWA will report on the status of potential consolidations to the Board of Directors in the annual capital project planning and budgeting processes. Report Title: "Wastewater: Money Down the Drain?" Recommendation R7 ( ) Develop a plan to increase the quantity of water that can be discharged from Lake Sonoma. The recommendation will be implemented. Response: SCWA is working to complete an EIR on the Water Supply, Transmission, and Reliability Project. This project is part of an overall effort to obtain increased water rights from the Russian River and from water stored in Lake Sonoma and to increase the capacity of the water supply and transmission system. A major part of this project is the examination of the alternatives for making water in Lake Sonoma available, including changes to in-stream flows. Another key milestone necessary for developing a plan for getting additional water from Lake Sonoma is the National Marine Fishery Service's (NMFS) Draft Biological Opinion concerning endangered salmon and steelhead in the Russian River. SCWA is working with NMFS to develop reasonable and prudent alternatives, which will be in the Draft Biological Opinion, for flows in the upper Russian River and in Dry Creek. The anticipated project time frame for deciding on the alternative solutions and obtaining additional water rights is within the next ten years. Report Title: "Wastewater: Money Down the Drain?" Recommendation R8 ( ) Continue and expand the study of the aquifers to better determine their health and capacity. Response: The recommendation will be implemented. As discussed above and more fully in SCWA's Urban Water Management Plan, studies of ground water have been completed for the Alexander Valley and Sonoma Valley. As a result of the Sonoma Valley study, SCWA is leading the effort to draft a non-regulatory ground water management plan to comply with AB3030 by the end of 2007. Additionally, SCWA is expanding its efforts by leading a five-year comprehensive basin study for the Santa Rosa Plain Groundwater Basin. It is anticipated that this study will be complete in 2010. This $1,975,000 study is funded by SCWA, the Cities of Santa Rosa, Cotati, Rohnert Park, and Sebastopol, the Town of Windsor, County of Sonoma, California American Water Company, and the US Geological Survey. For a thorough description of the objectives of this study, see the Urban Water Management Plan at http://www.scwa.ca.gov/ pdf/2005 uwmp report.pdf. Sincerely, June Bader Spencer Bader Water Agency Division Manager Administrative Services Board of Supervisors cc: Court Executive Officer County Administrator County Clerk EP:\\fileserver\data\CL\PINKS\week082007\Water - Department Response V2.DOC

August 22, 2007 — AUG 2 8 2007 To The Honorable Robert S. Boyd Presiding Judge Sonoma County Superior Court Pygrand Jury Hall of Justice*

3 pages 12 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 12

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Each public school district in Sonoma County should have at least one employee who is trained and authorized to access DOJ website within an official and specified schedule. This employee should fully understand the way in which information is to be communicated. Further in the absence of this employee, a suitable alternate person or system should be in place to responsibly retrieve valuable information as it is posted. This system should also cover notices from the DOJ sent via U.S. Mail. The Harmony Union School District agrees with the finding. The recommendation has been fully implemented using the Chief Business Officer, but the District is in the process of having a alternative person who can access the system. The Superintendent/Principal will be trained for this assignment.

R4: School districts should consider changing their policies to require successful employee applicants to pay for their own fingerprinting and background responses from DOJ and FBI. There are at least $65,000 in 06-07 school district budgets for fingerprinting. As costs are shifted to paid employees, districts could use savings to fund costs for volunteers. The Harmony Union School District partially disagrees with the finding. Additionally, employment costs are negotiable conditions of employment (Public Employees Relations Board—PERB). The District currently funds the costs of required background checks, TB clearance, and pre-employment physicals as required for employees and TB Clearance for all volunteers, and fingerprinting for volunteers chaperoning on overnight field trips. Classroom volunteers are supervised by credential employees while on- campus. The district is in the process of implementing a policy that will require fingerprinting of participants when using private cars, and is encouraging the use of school buses for fieldtrips, which will result in volunteer chaperones being fully supervised by District personnel.

R5: School districts should amend their policies, if needed, to allow for volunteers names to be public information and readily available so that a greater scrutiny is provided. The Harmony Union School District feels that this recommendation requires further analysis to determine what, exactly, the recommendation entails with relation to the California Public Records Act. The District would not be providing address or telephone information to the public. The District does provide on occasion a district phone directory that is made for our current district parents, which is usually used within specific classrooms or for emergency purposes. Our volunteers are the parents of current students, grandparents of current students, and Volunteer Center volunteers. Volunteer Center Volunteers undergo fingerprinting and DOJ background checks prior to being assigned to schools through the Volunteer Center or a Private Contractor who provides the District written assurance the center or agency has done thorough background and fingerprinting checks.

R6: School should routinely check out names of adult volunteers on Megan's Law website (a public positing of sexual predators) even if fingerprinting is scheduled, and always do so it if no fingerprinting is scheduled for that volunteer. The Harmony Union School District partially agrees with this finding and will encourage principals and teachers to check for the names of their volunteers on the website, if they have any suspicions about a potential volunteer. Additionally, we encourage our parents to check the Megan's Law website.

R7: School districts should request criminal activity record from the Sonoma County Superior Courts Records Division on any adult wanting to volunteer with students. This service is available at no cost to a district. The Harmony Union School District partially disagrees with this finding. District employees supervise volunteers so for most volunteers, this recommendation would be unnecessary. We agree with and have implemented the recommendation for those chaperoning overnight field trips. In addition we will work with the Sonoma County Office of Education in this area to coordinate with all agencies.

R8: School districts should, individual and collectively, request that the DOJ implement a system to confirm school district receipt of Notices of Subsequent Arrest. A system that would require the DOJ to follow up if no confirmation was received and would at least give school districts some assurance that information trusted to the U.S. Mail or electronic mail services is actually being received. The Harmony Union School District agrees with this finding and agrees to assist the County Superintendent, Dr. Wong, in writing such a letter to the DOJ on behalf of all districts. SCOE also provides us with subsequent arrest notices on substitute teachers that work in our district, as well as the Sebastapool Police Department.

R11: School districts should implement provisions of Ed. Code Section 33193 and 45125.2 requiring that certain independent contractors and employees of contractors undergo fingerprinting and background checks. The Harmony Union School District agrees with this finding and requires contractors to confirm that their employees have undergone background checks and they are supervised by district employees while students are on campus.

R13: School districts should not allow new employees to begin work until all pre-employment requirements are met. Most specifically, this means all fingerprinting and criminal history responses that are required must have been completed and properly evaluated. The Harmony Union School District agrees to this finding and has already implemented the recommendation.

R15: School districts should require all volunteers to sign an agreement that outlines behavior do's and don'ts and consequences if agreement terms are broken. The Harmony Union School District agrees to this finding. Currently, all parents receive the policy and rules on volunteering in the beginning of the year packet and this information is also contained within the Parent Annual Notification document that outlines behavior expectations, consequences, etc. Drivers on field trips sign such forms and provide drivers licenses, proof of insurance, and TB clearance. In addition, the District inspects the safety, seatbelts and seating capacity of parent vehicles. Some volunteers, such as Art Docents, go through an extensive training. This is a good idea for all volunteers that we will implement this school year. 8/24/07 David Miller Ed.D, Superintendent/Principal

August 14, 2007 — AUG 2 2 2007 Geyserville Elementary School*

3 pages 12 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 12

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The GUSD presently does have a person trained as suggested by this recommendation. Cross training will take place during the school year.

R4: As a practical matter, requiring newly hired employees to pay the cost of fingerprinting would greatly reduce the applicants for classified positions which are typically lower paying positions.

R5: GUSD currently makes the names of volunteers available upon request.

R6: GUSD will amend the job description of the Human Resources Officer to include checking volunteers against Megan's Law website.

R7: GUSD is a very small school district with very limited administrative staff. The time involved, and time delay would mitigate against volunteer use. The practice at GUSD is for volunteers to work under the direct supervision of staff that has a DOJ clearance.

R8: The Sonoma County Superintendent of Schools will be asked to make this request on behalf of all Sonoma County Districts.

R9: While this recommendation seems reasonable, many small districts in Sonoma County are struggling financially. Given the number of staff and volunteers, this could become a very significant drain on an already strained school budget.

R10: The GUSD requires all activities in these areas to be supervised by staffs that are fingerprinted. Volunteers are not to be left unsupervised with students. * .

R11: GUSD already makes this requirement.

R13: GUSD already makes this requirement.

R14: This would be a welcome addition if the SO has the ability to provide this service.

R15: The district presently does this with its "walk on coaches." It will consider expanding this to all volunteers. 200

August 14, 2007 — Guerneville School District Grand Jury 14630 Armstrong Woods Road*

3 pages 12 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 12

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Each public school district... should have at least one employee who is trained and authorized to access DOJ website within an official and specified schedule... In the absence of this employee, a suitable alternate person... should be in place to responsibly retrieve valuable information as it is posted. The District is in total agreement with this recommendation and already has this recommendation in place.

R10: Districts should require fingerprinting for all adults (paid and volunteer) involved in athletic programs, overnight field trips, off-campus field trips, and any school sponsored student activity that occurs outside of the normal school day or hours. The District agrees that fingerprinting should be done for all adults involved in athletic programs and for overnight field trips. The district does not agree that all volunteers who participate in off-campus field trips should be fingerprinted. If this were the case, we would be fingerprinting almost every parent of a kindergarten and 1st-grade student!

R13: Districts should not allow new employees to begin work until all pre-employment requirements are met. Most specifically, this means that all fingerprinting and criminal history responses that are required must have been completed and properly evaluated. The District is in total agreement with this recommendation and has already implemented this employment practice.

R15: Districts should require all volunteers to sign an agreement that outlines behavior do's and don'ts and consequences if agreement terms are broken. The District is in agreement with the recommendation. The above response to Grand Jury recommendations was adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on August 14, 2007. Diane Ogden, Ed. D. Superintendent

August 13, 2007 — AUG 2 1 2007 Montgomery School District*

3 pages 12 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 12

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Each public school district... should have at least one employee who is trained and authorized to access DOJ website within an official and specified schedule... In the absence of this employee, a suitable alternate person... should be in place to responsibly retrieve valuable information as it is posted. The District is in total agreement with this recommendation and already has this recommendation in place.

R4: Districts should consider changing their policies to require successful employee applicants to pay for their own fingerprinting and background responses from DOJ and FBI. ..... As costs are shifted to paid employees, districts could use savings to fund costs of volunteers. The District agrees in part with this recommendation. The mandate for fingerprinting comes from the State. The State should provide the necessary funding for the fingerprinting mandate, allowing districts to use the savings to fund the cost of fingerprinting volunteers. The District agrees that the cost for fingerprint clearances is an enormous burden, but obtaining fingerprint clearances also gives the district a degree of security for our students' safety.

R5: Districts should amend their policies... to allow for volunteers' names to be public information and readily available so that a greater scrutiny is provided. The District does not have a policy prohibiting volunteers' names from being made public. Perhaps each district should submit a list of volunteers' names to the board at the beginning of each year, thus making the list "public." Board of Trustees Kim Gluch, President Raymond Barrio Mayria Ausick, Clerk Montgomery School District 18620 Fort Ross Road P.O. Box 286 Cazadero, CA 95421 (707) 632-5221 Dr. Diane Ogden Superintendent Principal

R10: Districts should require fingerprinting for all adults (paid and volunteer) involved in athletic programs, overnight field trips, off-campus field trips, and any school sponsored student activity that occurs outside of the normal school day or hours. The District agrees that fingerprinting should be done for all adults involved in athletic programs and for overnight field trips. The district does not agree that all volunteers who participate in off-campus field trips should be fingerprinted. If this were the case, we would be fingerprinting almost every parent of a kindergarten and 1st-grade student!

R13: Districts should not allow new employees to begin work until all pre-employment requirements are met. Most specifically, this means that all fingerprinting and criminal history responses that are required must have been completed and properly evaluated. The District is in total agreement with this recommendation and has already implemented this employment practice.

R15: Districts should require all volunteers to sign an agreement that outlines behavior do's and don'ts and consequences if agreement terms are broken. The District is in agreement with the recommendation. The above responses were adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on August 13, 2007. Diane Ogden, Ed. D. Superintendent Board of Trustees Kim Gluch, President Raymond Barrio Mayria Ausick, Clerk

July 30, 2007 — AUG - 9 2007 Waugh School District*

3 pages 10 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 10

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Each public school district in Sonoma County should have at least one employee who is trained and authorized to access DOJ website within an official and specified schedule. This employee should fully understand the way in which information is to be communicated. Further, in the absence of this employee, a suitable alternate person or system should be in place to responsibly retrieve valuable information as it is posted. This system should also cover notices from the DOJ sent via U.S. Mail. Response: Our District Business Manager is designated as the person responsible for accessing all fingerprint information, and is completely trained in all aspects of the processes involved. The District Superintendent is trained as an alternate.

R5: School districts should amend their policies, if needed, to allow for volunteers names to be public information and readily available so that a greater scrutiny is provided. Response: All volunteers at both of our schools are required to sign in each time they visit a school. The sign in sheets are available for public scrutiny.

R8: Schools should routinely check out names of adult volunteers on Megan's Law website (a public posting of sexual predators) even if fingerprinting is scheduled, and always do so if no fingerprinting is scheduled for that volunteer. Response: Our principals routinely check out not only volunteer names but employee names as well on the Megan's Law Website.

July 30, 2007 — Ver 150 (Lears Grand Jury*

4 pages 12 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 12

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Each public school district in Sonoma County should have at least one employee who is trained and authorized to access DOJ website within an official and specified schedule. This employee should fully understand the way in which information is to be communicated. Further in the absence of this employee, a suitable alternate person or system should be in place to responsibly retrieve valuable information as it is posted. This system should also cover notices from the DOJ sent via U.S. Mail. The Windsor Unified School District agrees with the finding. The recommendation is currently in practice. The Confidential Personnel Analyst and the Assistant Superintendent are trained in this practice.

R4: School districts should consider changing their policies to require successful employee applicants to pay for their own fingerprinting and background responses from DOJ and FBI. There is at least $65,000 in 06-07 school district budgets for fingerprinting. As costs are shifted to paid employees, districts could use savings to fund costs for volunteers. The Windsor Unified School District disagrees with the finding. It is already difficult to find highly qualified employees in certain categories; we do not wish to make the application process more costly or cumbersome to potential applicants than it is already. Secondly, employment costs are negotiable conditions of employment (Public Employees Relations Board – PERB). The District currently funds the costs of required background checks, TB clearances, and pre-employment physicals for employees. Fingerprinting for volunteers who chaperone on overnight field trips is absorbed into the cost of the fieldtrip. The District funds the cost of fingerprinting other volunteers such as volunteer coaches.

R5: School districts should amend their policies, if needed, to allow for volunteers names to be public information and readily available so that a greater scrutiny is provided. The Windsor Unified School District disagrees with this finding and refers the County Grand Jury to the Public Records Act. Parents generally know who are the classroom volunteers in their child's classes.

R6: Schools should routinely check out names of adult volunteers on Megan's Law website (a public posting of sexual predators) even if fingerprinting is scheduled, and always do so it if no fingerprinting is scheduled for that volunteer. The Windsor Unified School District partially agrees with this finding. Staff will be encouraged to check the Megan's Law website when practical and feasible, or whenever they have a reasonable suspicion about a volunteer, in accordance with Penal Code 11166 relating to child abuse reporting.

R7: School districts should request criminal activity record from the Sonoma County Superior Courts Records Division on any adult wanting to volunteer with students. This service is available at no cost to a district. The Windsor Unified School District partially disagrees with this finding. This recommendation seems somewhat impractical to implement with all volunteers as we have approximately 1000 parents volunteering in various capacities. Volunteers are supervised by district employees when they are working with students so for most volunteers, this recommendation would be unnecessary. We agree with and have previously implemented the recommendation of fingerprinting those volunteers chaperoning overnight field trips.

R8: School districts should, individual and collectively, request that the DOJ implement a system to confirm school district receipt of Notices of Subsequent Arrest. A system that would require the DOJ to follow up if no confirmation was received and would at least give school districts some assurance that information trusted to the U.S. Mail or electronic mail services is actually being received. The Windsor Unified School District agrees with this finding and agrees to assist the County Superintendent, Dr. Wong, in writing such a letter to the DOJ on behalf of all districts. Currently, the District receives regular subsequent arrest notifications. SCOE also provides us with subsequent arrest notices on substitute teachers that work with our students.

R11: School districts should implement provisions of Ed. Code Section 33193 and 45125.2 requiring that certain independent contractors and employees of contractors undergo fingerprinting and background checks. The Windsor Unified School District agrees with this finding and has implemented it in that we require contractors to annually confirm that their employees have undergone background checks. The District's vendor contract requires fingerprinting of contracted employees.

R13: School districts should not allow new employees to begin work until all pre-employment requirements are met. Most specifically, this means all fingerprinting and criminal history responses that are required must have been completed and properly evaluated. The Windsor Unified School District agrees to this finding and has been standard practice with all new employees.

R14: The Sheriff's Office should make available to all school districts information on how to access services available to them through the Sheriff's Office that would aid districts in determining if individuals should be approved to serve as volunteers in our schools and at school sponsored activities. The Windsor Unified School District agrees to this finding and, if the Police Department agrees, would disseminate such information to all District employees. The Windsor Police Chief and the Superintendent have regular public safety meetings and this request will be forwarded.

R15: School districts should require all volunteers to sign an agreement that outlines behavior do's and don'ts and consequences if agreement terms are broken. The Windsor Unified School District agrees to this finding. The District currently employs six (6) Volunteer Coordinators to service each of the major school sites. These Coordinators serve as liaisons to the 1000 volunteers and provide them with information and expectations appropriate to each school site and the specific needs of students at that grade level. Volunteers who violate school expectations will be excluded from volunteering in the future. . .

July 23, 2007 — Sonoma County Office of Education*

36 pages 12 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 12

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Schools (Superintendent) as its agent for the purpose of fulfilling the following functions and responsibilities as set forth in Education Code sections 35021.1, 35021.2, 44830.1, 44830.2, and 45125.01. Transmitting fingerprints to the Department of Justice. Receiving reports of convictions of the serious and violent felonies as ٠ defined in Education Code sections 44830.1(c)(1) and 45122.1(c)(1); sex offenses as defined in Education Code section 44010; controlled substances offenses as defined in Section 44011, or any other offenses specified in Education Code section 44424. Reviewing criminal history records. Subscribing to the subsequent arrest notification service from the California Department of Justice as provided under Penal Code section 11105.2. Reviewing reports of subsequent arrests from the Department of Justice. Maintaining list(s) of persons eligible and ineligible for employment.

R2: The Sonoma County Office of Education, on behalf of county school districts, should determine when a school district must actually initiate an FBI level response on a new certificated employee applicant who is fully credentialed and clearly communicate that to all school districts. SCOE Response: The Sonoma County Office of Education (SCOE) and the majority of the public school districts in our county are member clients of the School and College Legal Services of California (S&CLS), a Joint Powers Authority with a staff of 17 attorneys that provide counsel on legal matters. Each year, S&CLS provides workshops on a range of topics related to California Education Code, legislative updates and new legal mandates. In response to recommendation R2, SCOE will request that S&CLS provide a legal analysis of the criteria to initiate an FBI-level response and distribute this information to all districts. In addition, SCOE will work with School and College Legal Services to issue an update on previous legal memos addressing fingerprinting and criminal background checks on employees, prospective employees and employees of school district vendors. Per this Grand Jury recommendation, the legal update will include:

R3: The Sonoma County Office of Education should modify its fingerprint rolling fee of $28-34 to school districts in order to bring it more in line with other fees in the county for comparable service. A higher fee for an applicant who must also have FBI response does not seem justifiable as the work required from SCOE is not more than for a DOJ response. SCOE Response: California Education Code Section 45125 f (1) prohibits public agencies from collecting fees that exceed the cost of providing fingerprinting via Live Scan Services. At the same time, SCOE has a fiscal responsibility to ensure that its programs and services operate within their revenue receipts. With its current fee schedule, the income realized from Live Scan fingerprinting does not fully cover the staff and operating costs of this service. SCOE carefully monitors the cost of the Live Scan program annually and is currently budgeting about $29,000 from a general fund account to subsidize this service. The general fund subsidy is needed to maintain the rolling fee of $28 for school districts, which is lower than the rolling fee of $33 charged to the general public. During the 2006-07 school year, SCOE implemented a pilot program lowering the fingerprinting charge to half-price one day per week for school district volunteers. Discount days were scheduled throughout April and May, 2007 and were very popular. In 2007-08, SCOE will expand the once-a-week half-price days to extend from October through May. This discounted service is a strategy for containing district costs. In response to other findings associated with this recommendation, SCOE will work with local districts and other county offices of education to identify local legislators with an interest in sponsoring legislation to waive the DOJ rolling fee for school volunteers. This would be similar to the current protocol for volunteers working with non-profit agencies. SCOE staff will also explore additional options for a protocol that results in FBI clearance for all Sonoma County Office of Education employees. Staff will work with local school districts to amend and update current job applications so that they reflect questions about prior convictions and provide information about length of residency in California.

R4: The parties acknowledge they may not hire or retain a credentialed or certificated employee who has been convicted of a serious or violent crime as defined in Penal Code sections 667.5 or 1192.7 and/or for a sex or controlled substance offense as set forth in Education Code section 44836. The parties may also not allow an individual to volunteer as a non-teaching volunteer aide who is required to register as a sex offender pursuant to Penal Code section 290.

R5: The parties acknowledge that a criminal record summary may contain information regarding an arrest or conviction that does not automatically prohibit the hiring or retaining of an employee or volunteer as described in 4, above. The individuals employed by the Superintendent responsible for performing the

R6: functions and carrying out the responsibilities described in 1, above, are the persons occupying the position of Classified and Certificated Directors of Personnel Services.

R7: In regards to substitute and/or temporary classified and certificated employees who may be employed in more than one Sonoma County school district or by the County Superintendent of Schools and one or more Sonoma County school districts, no party to this agreement shall share criminal record summary information with any other party to this agreement or with any non-party, except that upon receipt of a criminal record summary, the Superintendent's appropriate Director of Personnel Services shall take the following action(s): If the information received from the California Department of Justice ٠ reveals that an employee or applicant is prohibited from being employed, as described in 4, above, the appropriate Director of Personnel Services shall immediately notify the employing party of this fact and the reason therefore. The Superintendent shall maintain a list of all individuals who have been determined to be ineligible for employment. If the information received from the California Department of Justice reveals that the employee or applicant is not prohibited from being employed, the appropriate Director of Personnel Services shall place the employee's name on a list of eligible employees and shall issue a Certificate of Employability to any party employing the individual. This certificate shall state that the Superintendent has received the criminal record summary of the employee or applicant in question, the date of receipt of that summary, that the information contained therein does not prohibit the individual from being employed, and that the Superintendent has not received any subsequent arrest or conviction information which would prohibit employment. The parties acknowledge, as described in 5, above, that the applicant or employee may have a record of criminal arrest or conviction that does not automatically prohibit the hiring or continued employment of the individual. The parties further acknowledge that the fact that an applicant or employee is not prohibited from being employed based upon information received from the California Department of Justice does not mean a school district is required to employ such person. The Superintendent's appropriate Director of Personnel Services shall send a notice to the school district Superintendent or designee of each party informing him/her that the criminal record summary is available for inspection at the office of the Director of Personnel Services by the school district Superintendent or designee on a confidential basis for a period of 30 days following receipt of the notice after which time the Superintendent will destroy that information as required by law. Each school district party acknowledges sole responsibility for viewing the criminal record summary after receiving notice within 30 days as the information will be destroyed after the 30 day period elapses. The Superintendent shall maintain a record of all persons who have inspected the criminal record summary information.

R8: In regards to substitute and/or temporary classified and certificated employees who may be employed in more than one Sonoma County school district or by the County Superintendent of Schools and one or more Sonoma County school districts, no party to this agreement shall share subsequent arrest or conviction information with any non-party, except that upon receipt of subsequent arrest or conviction information the appropriate Director of Personnel Services shall take the following action(s): If the information received from the California Department of Justice ٠ reveals that an employee or applicant is prohibited from being employed, then the appropriate Director of Personnel Services shall immediately notify the employing party of this fact, the reason(s) therefore, and remove the employee from the Superintendent's eligible for employment list and place the employee on the ineligible for employment list. If the information received from the California Department of Justice available for inspection at the office of the appropriate Director of Personnel Services by the school district Superintendent or designee on a confidential basis for a period of 30 days following receipt of the notice, after which time the Superintendent will destroy the information as required by law. Each school district party acknowledges sole responsibility for viewing the criminal record summary after receiving notice within 30 days as the information will be destroyed after the 30 day period elapses. The parties acknowledge that the fact that an applicant or employee is not ٠ prohibited from being employed based upon information received from the California Department of Justice does not mean a school district is required to employ such person. The Superintendent shall maintain a record of all persons who have ٠ inspected the subsequent arrest or conviction information.

R9: In regards to volunteers who may choose to volunteer in one or more Sonoma County school district and/or who may choose to volunteer for the Sonoma County Office of Education, no party to this agreement shall share criminal record summary information with any other party to this agreement or with any non- party, except that upon receipt of a criminal record summary, either the Superintendent's Certificated or Classified Director of Personnel Services shall take the following action(s): If the information received from the California Department of Justice ٠ reveals that a volunteer is prohibited from volunteering, as described in 4, above, either the Superintendent's Certificated or Classified Director of Personnel Services shall immediately notify the party(s) that the volunteer expressed interest in volunteering for of this fact and the reason therefore. The Superintendent shall maintain a list of all volunteers who have been determined to be ineligible for volunteering. If the information received from the California Department of Justice reveals that the volunteer is not prohibited from volunteering because the volunteer is not a registered sex offender as described in Penal Code section 290 and has not been convicted of a sex offense as described in Education Code section 44010, then either the Certificated or Classified Director of Personnel Services shall inform the school district Superintendent or designee of each party that the volunteer is eligible to volunteer within the party school district. The parties acknowledge, as described in 5, above, that the volunteer may have a record of criminal arrest or conviction that does not automatically prohibit the individual from volunteering. The parties further acknowledge that the fact that an individual is not prohibited from volunteering based upon information received from the California Department of Justice does not mean a school district is required to allow the individual to volunteer at a school district. Each party shall be sent a notice, by either the Superintendent's Certificated or Classified Director of Personnel Services, informing the school district Superintendent or designee of each party that the criminal record summary is available for inspection at the office of the Director of Personnel Services by the school district Superintendent or designee on a confidential basis for a period of 30 days following receipt of the notice after which time the Superintendent will destroy that information as required by law. Each school district party acknowledges sole responsibility for viewing the criminal record summary after receiving notice within 30 days as the information will be destroyed after the 30 day period elapses. The Superintendent shall maintain a record of all persons who have inspected the criminal record summary information.

R10: In regards to volunteers who may choose to volunteer in one or more Sonoma County school district and/or who may choose to volunteer for the Sonoma County Office of Education, no party to this agreement shall share subsequent arrest or conviction information with any non-party, except that upon receipt of subsequent arrest or conviction information the Superintendent's Certificated or Classified Director of Personnel Services shall take the following action(s): If the information received from the California Department of Justice ٠ reveals that a volunteer is prohibited from volunteering either the Superintendent's Certificated or Classified Director of Personnel Services shall immediately notify the party(s) that the volunteer expressed interest in volunteering for of this fact and the reason therefore. The Superintendent shall maintain a list of all volunteers who have been determined to be ineligible for volunteering. If the information received from the California Department of Justice ٠ reveals that the volunteer is not prohibited from volunteering, then the Superintendent's Certificated or Classified Director of Personnel Services shall send a notice to the school district Superintendent or designee of each party informing him/her that the subsequent arrest or conviction notification is available for inspection at the office of the Director of Personnel Services by the school district Superintendent or designee on a confidential basis for a period of 30 days following receipt of the notice, after which time the Superintendent will destroy the information as required by law. Each school district party acknowledges sole responsibility for viewing the criminal record summary after receiving notice within 30 days as the information will be destroyed after the 30 day period elapses. The parties acknowledge that the fact that an individual is not prohibited ٠ from volunteering based upon information received from the California Department of Justice does not mean a school district is required to allow the individual to volunteer at a school district. The Superintendent shall maintain a record of all persons who have inspected the subsequent arrest or conviction information. (Enter superintendent's name) Dr. Carl Wong Superintendent of Schools (Enter name of School District) SCOE CENTRAL VOLUNTEER DOJ CLEARANCE PROGRAM Request for Live Scan Services _____, plan to volunteer with one or more local

R11: Students should be encouraged to report individuals on campus whom they don't recognize and who are not properly identified, to the staff. Volunteer Code of Conduct: (see attachment # 5) As a volunteer, I agree to abide by the following code of volunteer conduct: Immediately upon arrival, I will sign in at the principal's office or the

R12: The Sonoma County Sheriff's Office (S.O.) shall provide training to fingerprint technicians at SCOE in how to detect a fraudulent ID. If they cannot provide training, they should be able to refer SCOE to another agency for that training. SCOE Response: The County Superintendent and SCOE Human Resource Director will contact the Sonoma County Sheriff's Office with a formal request for staff training on identifying fraudulent identification documents. This training will be offered to human resources staff in all local school districts. It will be scheduled before the end of the first semester of the 2007-08 school year and will include how to access local court records and the Megan's Law list. Sonoma County Office of Education 5340 Skylane Boulevard Santa Rosa, CA 95403-8246 (707) 524-2600 ■ www.scoe.org October 24, 2007 GRAND JURY The Honorable Robert S. Boyd NOV 9 6 2007 Presiding Judge Sonoma County Superior Court RECEIVED Hall of Justice 600 Administration Drive Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Dear Judge Boyd: As Director of Human Resources for the Sonoma County Office of Education (SCOE), I am writing to apprise you of the procedures that were recently implemented pursuant to the requirements of California Penal Code section 933 c, in response to the 2006-07 Final Report of the Sonoma County Grand Jury. I have enclosed documentation that outlines SCOE's offer to all local school districts in Sonoma County to enter into a "Memorandum of Agreement" that allows SCOE to operate as the Central Volunteer DOJ Clearance" program which includes fingerprinting services available through Livescan. This program is in line with suggestions included in the subdivision (b) of Section 933 Grand Jury Report of Findings and we are pleased to continue to make school campus safety and security a top priority of our office. Furthermore, we have also conducted workshops in conjunction with the Sonoma County Sheriff's Department and the California Department of Motor Vehicles on how to detect a fraudulent I.D. This training was provided not only for the fingerprint technicians at SCOE, but also for designated employees from all local school districts in Sonoma County. This training specifically addresses recommendation R12 of the Grand Jury's

∼ June 30, 2007 — Sonoma County Sheriff's Department

Quick View Full Details →

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

June 26, 2007 — Appendices*

15 pages 3 findings

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 3 findings

F1: 2.3. Craigslist Hispanic Outlook La Voz El Mensajero 4.

F4: 5. Sonoma County Grand Jury Citizen Response Form We Want to Hear from You! Mail to: Grand Jury, P.O. Box 5109, Santa Rosa, CA 95402 (707-565-6330) To Our Residents: Please give us your confidential comments for future Grand Jury consideration. This Final Report is a change from the previous booklet format and is a cost saving effort while still aiming to reach as many residents as possible. This Report may also be viewed at public libraries. Individual copies are available by phone, mail or at: www.sonomasuperiorcourt.com/pages/gjury_info.php. ______ What do you think of this new report format? Any comments on individual reports? Suggestions for subject of future reports? (See also Citizen Complaint Form) Name/Address/Phone: (optional here) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ****** Please send me: ____ Application to Serve on Grand Jury Citizen Complaint Form Name/Address/Phone: (required here) Thank you! 78 2006-2007 Sonoma Grand Jury Citizen Complaint and Investigation Status Committee Date Subject Disposition From Prior Jury Measure O Law & Justice Case Closed SR Sign Permits Cities Case Closed From Prior Jury From Prior Jury County Case Closed County Purchasing Law & Justice Case Closed From Prior Jury Correctional Officer Overtime Case Closed Rohnert Park Gen Plan Complaints Cities From Prior Jury Case Closed Law & Justice From Prior Jury Cloverdale Police Department Cities Case Closed From Prior Jury Rohnert Park Gen Plan Complaints Human Services Case Closed From Prior Jury Child Protective Services Child Removal June 2006 Fatal Incident Protocol - Welch Law & Justice REPORT Law & Justice June 2006 Fatal Incident Protocol - Thurston To next jury Rohnert Park Gen Plan Cities July 2006 Case Closed Law & Justice REPORT July 2006 Correctional Officer Overtime July 2006 Schools Consolidation Human Services Case Closed Monte Rio Wastewater Case Closed July 2006 County Case Closed July 2006 Unlicensed Drivers Law & Justice July 2006 Human Services Case Closed Risk Management July 2006 9-1-1 Calls Law & Justice Case Closed July 2006 Adult Care Concerns Human Services Case Closed Law & Justice Case Closed July 2006 Conflict of Interest - SRPD Case Closed Private Use of Public Property Cities August 2006 REPORT Fatal Incident Protocol - DeCosta Law & Justice August 2006 Unfair Labor Practices Cities Case Closed August 2006 Cotati Police Misconduct Law & Justice Case Closed August 2006 Case Closed August 2006 Open Space District Practices County August 2006 Law & Justice Case Closed County Inmate Complaint Case Closed August 2006 County Conflict of Interest County Case Closed August 2006 Cities Sebastopol Housing September 2006 County Case Closed Permit & Resources Mgmt General Plan Case Closed September 2006 Sheriff Recording Devices Law & Justice Self Generated School Background Checks Human Services REPORT September 2006 Lack of Representation Law & Justice Case Closed October 2006 Law & Justice Case Closed District Attorney Misconduct Cities REPORT Self Generated Signs of The Times Human Services Case Closed October 2006 Creekside Nurses October 2006 Case Closed Open Space District Funds Use County October 2006 Human Services REPORT Santa Rosa Junior College Employment November 2006 Sheriff Brutality Law & Justice Case Closed Case Closed November 2006 Winery Approval County November 2006 Trespass / Theft Law & Justice Case Closed November 2006 County Case Closed Big Springs Cleanup November 2006 Fatal Incident Protocol - McDowell Law & Justice To next jury November 2006 Farmers Markets County Case Closed Cities Case Closed November 2006 Santa Rosa Code Harassment November 2006 Wage Dispute Human Services Case Closed Fatal Incident Protocol - Tolosko REPORT December 2006 Law & Justice Self Generated REPORT Emergency Preparedness County January 2007 Sheriff Assault Law & Justice Case Closed January 2007 Child Protective Services Child Abuse Human Services Case Closed Cities REPORT Self Generated Wastewater January 2007 Child Support Law & Justice Case Closed January 2007 Use of Force Law & Justice Case Closed REPORT Self Generated Open Space District County February 2007 Fatal Incident Protocol - Chass Law & Justice To next jury February 2007 Child Support Human Services To next jury February 2007 Fatal Incident Protocol - Nace Law & Justice REPORT March 2007 Chass Fatal Shooting Complaint 1 Law & Justice Case Closed March 2007 Chass Fatal Shooting Complaint 2 Law & Justice Case Closed March 2007 IMPACT Fee Collection Cities To next jury March 2007 Inmate Rights Law & Justice Case Closed March 2007 Wage Dispute Law & Justice Case Closed April 2007 Development Issues County To next jury April 2007 Inmate Right to Privacy Law & Justice Case Closed County April 2007 Russian River Sanitation - Misuse of Funds Case Closed April 2007 Law & Justice Case Closed Public Defender Dispute County Case Closed April 2007 Russian River Redevelopment Agency April 2007 Fatal Incident Protocol - Heller Law & Justice To next jury County April 2007 Schools Emergency Preparedness To next jury April 2007 Sebastopol Hospital Tax Cities To next jury April 2007 Child Support Human Services To next jury Sonoma County Grand Jury Response Requirements RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS Following are pertinent excerpts from the California Penal Code concerning responses to Civil Grand Jury reports. "Section 933(b) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. "A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor, when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in control of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall remain for a minimum of five years." Copies of the Responses to the 2006-2007 Sonoma County Grand Jury Final Report will be evaluated by the 2007-2008 grand jury and will be available in the Family Law division, Room 101-J of the Sonoma County Superior Court. This report will also be available for review at all branches of the county library, by gjury@sonoma-county emailing the grand jury at .org online or http://www.sonomasuperiorcourt.com or by mailing a request to Sonoma County Superior Court, 600 Administration Dr. Room 107-J, Santa Rosa. "Section 933.05 (a) For purposes of the subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) the respondent agrees with the finding; (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. "Section 933.05 (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury

F5: Sonoma County Grand Jury Citizen Response Form We Want to Hear from You! Mail to: Grand Jury, P.O. Box 5109, Santa Rosa, CA 95402 (707-565-6330) To Our Residents: Please give us your confidential comments for future Grand Jury consideration. This Final Report is a change from the previous booklet format and is a cost saving effort while still aiming to reach as many residents as possible. This Report may also be viewed at public libraries. Individual copies are available by phone, mail or at: www.sonomasuperiorcourt.com/pages/gjury_info.php. ______ What do you think of this new report format? Any comments on individual reports? Suggestions for subject of future reports? (See also Citizen Complaint Form) Name/Address/Phone: (optional here) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ****** Please send me: ____ Application to Serve on Grand Jury Citizen Complaint Form Name/Address/Phone: (required here) Thank you! 78 2006-2007 Sonoma Grand Jury Citizen Complaint and Investigation Status Committee Date Subject Disposition From Prior Jury Measure O Law & Justice Case Closed SR Sign Permits Cities Case Closed From Prior Jury From Prior Jury County Case Closed County Purchasing Law & Justice Case Closed From Prior Jury Correctional Officer Overtime Case Closed Rohnert Park Gen Plan Complaints Cities From Prior Jury Case Closed Law & Justice From Prior Jury Cloverdale Police Department Cities Case Closed From Prior Jury Rohnert Park Gen Plan Complaints Human Services Case Closed From Prior Jury Child Protective Services Child Removal June 2006 Fatal Incident Protocol - Welch Law & Justice REPORT Law & Justice June 2006 Fatal Incident Protocol - Thurston To next jury Rohnert Park Gen Plan Cities July 2006 Case Closed Law & Justice REPORT July 2006 Correctional Officer Overtime July 2006 Schools Consolidation Human Services Case Closed Monte Rio Wastewater Case Closed July 2006 County Case Closed July 2006 Unlicensed Drivers Law & Justice July 2006 Human Services Case Closed Risk Management July 2006 9-1-1 Calls Law & Justice Case Closed July 2006 Adult Care Concerns Human Services Case Closed Law & Justice Case Closed July 2006 Conflict of Interest - SRPD Case Closed Private Use of Public Property Cities August 2006 REPORT Fatal Incident Protocol - DeCosta Law & Justice August 2006 Unfair Labor Practices Cities Case Closed August 2006 Cotati Police Misconduct Law & Justice Case Closed August 2006 Case Closed August 2006 Open Space District Practices County August 2006 Law & Justice Case Closed County Inmate Complaint Case Closed August 2006 County Conflict of Interest County Case Closed August 2006 Cities Sebastopol Housing September 2006 County Case Closed Permit & Resources Mgmt General Plan Case Closed September 2006 Sheriff Recording Devices Law & Justice Self Generated School Background Checks Human Services REPORT September 2006 Lack of Representation Law & Justice Case Closed October 2006 Law & Justice Case Closed District Attorney Misconduct Cities REPORT Self Generated Signs of The Times Human Services Case Closed October 2006 Creekside Nurses October 2006 Case Closed Open Space District Funds Use County October 2006 Human Services REPORT Santa Rosa Junior College Employment November 2006 Sheriff Brutality Law & Justice Case Closed Case Closed November 2006 Winery Approval County November 2006 Trespass / Theft Law & Justice Case Closed November 2006 County Case Closed Big Springs Cleanup November 2006 Fatal Incident Protocol - McDowell Law & Justice To next jury November 2006 Farmers Markets County Case Closed Cities Case Closed November 2006 Santa Rosa Code Harassment November 2006 Wage Dispute Human Services Case Closed Fatal Incident Protocol - Tolosko REPORT December 2006 Law & Justice Self Generated REPORT Emergency Preparedness County January 2007 Sheriff Assault Law & Justice Case Closed January 2007 Child Protective Services Child Abuse Human Services Case Closed Cities REPORT Self Generated Wastewater January 2007 Child Support Law & Justice Case Closed January 2007 Use of Force Law & Justice Case Closed REPORT Self Generated Open Space District County February 2007 Fatal Incident Protocol - Chass Law & Justice To next jury February 2007 Child Support Human Services To next jury February 2007 Fatal Incident Protocol - Nace Law & Justice REPORT March 2007 Chass Fatal Shooting Complaint 1 Law & Justice Case Closed March 2007 Chass Fatal Shooting Complaint 2 Law & Justice Case Closed March 2007 IMPACT Fee Collection Cities To next jury March 2007 Inmate Rights Law & Justice Case Closed March 2007 Wage Dispute Law & Justice Case Closed April 2007 Development Issues County To next jury April 2007 Inmate Right to Privacy Law & Justice Case Closed County April 2007 Russian River Sanitation - Misuse of Funds Case Closed April 2007 Law & Justice Case Closed Public Defender Dispute County Case Closed April 2007 Russian River Redevelopment Agency April 2007 Fatal Incident Protocol - Heller Law & Justice To next jury County April 2007 Schools Emergency Preparedness To next jury April 2007 Sebastopol Hospital Tax Cities To next jury April 2007 Child Support Human Services To next jury Sonoma County Grand Jury Response Requirements RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS Following are pertinent excerpts from the California Penal Code concerning responses to Civil Grand Jury reports. "Section 933(b) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. "A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor, when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in control of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall remain for a minimum of five years." Copies of the Responses to the 2006-2007 Sonoma County Grand Jury Final Report will be evaluated by the 2007-2008 grand jury and will be available in the Family Law division, Room 101-J of the Sonoma County Superior Court. This report will also be available for review at all branches of the county library, by gjury@sonoma-county emailing the grand jury at .org online or http://www.sonomasuperiorcourt.com or by mailing a request to Sonoma County Superior Court, 600 Administration Dr. Room 107-J, Santa Rosa. "Section 933.05 (a) For purposes of the subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) the respondent agrees with the finding; (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. "Section 933.05 (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury

June 26, 2007 — Correctional Deputies Overtime*

6 pages 7 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings

F1: During its investigation, the grand jury determined that there were two significant aspects affecting the issue of mandatory overtime: (1) the issue of recruitment and retention of correctional deputies, and (2) the Detention Division's Safety and Loss Prevention efforts.

F2: As with many law enforcement recruitment efforts, the recruitment of qualified applicants remains a daunting task. Recent newspaper articles state that the County of Mendocino is short approximately 30% of its authorized patrol staff, and that the California Department of Corrections is close to 4000 officers short of being fully staffed in state prisons.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The grand jury recommends that the Sheriff's Department continue its efforts to hire additional correctional deputies as vacancies occur.

F3: From 2001 through 2006, the Sheriff's Department Detention Division hired 129 correctional deputies and lost 137 correctional deputies. There were several reasons for the decline in the number of correctional deputies, including the hiring of correctional deputies by other law enforcement departments (33 in the past 5 years), the termination of Deputies (8 in the last 5 years), the promotion of deputies (21 in the past 5 years), and the retirement of 36 deputies. Additionally, a number of deputies have left the Department for unspecified "personal reasons" (see Figure 1). However, since neither the Sheriff's Department, nor the correctional deputies' union conduct exit interviews, the specific reasons for their decision to leave the department remain unknown.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The grand jury recommends that the Sheriff's Department continue its efforts to hire additional correctional deputies as vacancies occur.

F4: In the past year, the Sheriff's Department has added additional personnel to assist in the processing of employment applications, including permanent personnel and the use of extra help, light duty deputies and correctional deputies. This effort has substantially reduced the time required to conduct background checks and other post-offer, pre- placement screening.

F5: The safety and loss prevention efforts of the Sheriff's Department and the Risk Management Division of the County Human Resource's Department have been significant factors in the reduction of Industrial Injury claims and have greatly aided in reducing the number of overtime hours in the Corrections Division.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The Risk Management Division of Human Resources should continue its very effective management of industrial injury claims through its Disability Management Unit. Required responses to Findings None Required responses to Recommendations Sonoma County Sheriff, R1 Sonoma County Risk Manager, R2 Requested responses to Recommendations None Correctional Officers 40 36 35 32 31 29 29 30 -27 25 24 25 23 20 18 15 3 12 10 9 10 8 8 18 66 6 6 5 5 5 3 3 3 2,1 2 0000000 0 O 0 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2007 Year ■ Hired ■ Lost □ Promotion □ Transfer ■ Personal Reason ■ Demoted ■ Retired □ Terminated Figure 1 2004 MONTHLY OT HOURS PER OFFICER 40 35 30 30 28 27 26 26 26 25 25 24 25 21 21 20 19 20 17 17 17 16 16 15 15 12 11 10 5 0 `4° MADF= NCDF= □ April ■ MAY ■ January ■ February □ March ■ June ■ July □ August ■ September □ November ■ October □ December Figure 2 30 2005 MONTHLY OT HOURS PER OFFICER 30 28 Ę 26 25 23 22 20 19 20 19 18 17 17 14 14 13 13 11 11 10 10 9 E. \hat{p_{i,j}} 5 5 2 0 MADF= NCDF= 大声 33 ■ January ■ February □ April □ June □ March ■ MAY ■ July □ August ■ September ■ October □ November □ December Figure 3 2006 MONTHLY OT HOURS PER OFFICER 50 45 45 42 41 40 40 39 40 38 36 34 35 33 32 32 31 31 30 29 30 28 27 25 25 25 23 19 20 18 16 15 10 5 0 Ĉ. MADF= NCDF= ALTERNA 31. RH tijn, ps. Y ■ January ■ February □ March □ April ■ MAY ■ June □ August ■ July ■ September ■ October □ November □ December Figure 4

F6: Another substantial reason for the decrease of the number of overtime hours required has been the significant decline in the number of hours lost. The number of industrial injury indemnity claims (claims resulting in time lost from work), has declined from 168 claims in 2001-2002 to 78 claims in 2006-2007. From 2004 to 2006, the number of days lost due to indemnity claims has declined from 1742 in 2004 to 793 in 2005, and has further declined in 2006 to 411 days. As each day lost results in additional days of required overtime, this significant reduction in days lost results in an equal reduction in the number of required overtime hours.

Related Recommendations (1)

F7: In reviewing the number of overtime hours in recent years, the grand jury discovered the following factors: In 2004, the average number of overtime hours mandated for MADF was 26.0 • hours per month. The number of hours for NCDF was 18.0 hours (see Figure 2) In 2005, the number of hours was 6.0 for MADF and 9.0 hours for NCDF (see ٠ Figure 3) In 2006, mandatory overtime hours for MADF were 28 hours per month and 17.0 • hours for NCDF (see Figure 4) In 2007, MADF averaged 13.0 mandatory overtime hours per month and NCDF • averaged 4.0 hours per month. The grand jury sees this as a significant improvement. Conclusion The Sheriff's Department, together with the Risk Management Division of the Human Resources Department, has made great strides toward reducing the number of mandatory overtime hours. The County Sheriff's stated goal of reducing all mandatory overtime to a point where overtime is voluntary may well be realized in the near future. Commendations The Sheriff's Department and the Risk Management Division of Human Resources are to be commended for their extraordinary efforts in reducing the number of industrial injury claims, which has had a direct impact on reducing the number of required overtime hours.

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R31: RH tijn, ps. Y ■ January ■ February □ March □ April ■ MAY ■ June □ August ■ July ■ September ■ October □ November □ December Figure 4

June 26, 2007 — See Dick. See Jane. See Dick and Jane Go to School. Are They Safe?*

15 pages 51 findings 16 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 51 findings

F1: A SCOE Fingerprint Technician compares a picture I.D. to the applicant but has not been trained in how to detect a fraudulent I.D. Requests to local law enforcement for training have not been successful.

Related Recommendations (1)

R12: The Sonoma County Sheriff's Office (S.O.) shall provide training to fingerprint technicians at the SCOE in how to detect a fraudulent I.D. If they cannot provide the training, they should be able to refer SCOE to another agency for that training.

F2: A SCOE Fingerprint Technician does not actually ask applicants how long they have lived in California. Three signs in that office tell the applicant to say if they have lived in California for less than six (6) months.

F3: The LiveScan request form also does not ask about length of residence in California. Of the 36 district employment application forms sent in with surveys, only 10 included a question about length of time in California. One district reported that the DOJ knows how long someone has lived in California and the DOJ is responsible.

F4: The SCOE Fingerprint processing fee, charged to school districts, is the highest fee in the county. The SCOE fee of $28-34 is high compared to fees as low as $18 for AmeriPrints and $20 for the Sebastopol Police Dept.

Related Recommendations (1)

F5: A SCOE Fingerprint technician was asked to prepare a draft document of a Volunteers Guideline and did so utilizing San Diego County guideline already in place. This draft was sent out to school districts sometime in December, 2006.

F6: On surveys, some districts (13 out of 40) included on their surveys a reference to the length of time applicant has lived in California as a determination of whether FBI response is required. Of the 36 districts that sent in copies of their employment applications, only 10 included a question of the length of time applicant has lived in California.

F7: On surveys, not one district responded with the law requiring an FBI response if a person has lived in California less than seven years, more than one year, and has a sex offense conviction on record.

F8: On surveys, almost all (36 out of 40) districts knew of a contract with the DOJ for notification of any subsequent arrests. In interviews, the jury learned that school officials have widely different understandings of this process, including how the information should be sent and received, and what the district should do after receiving such a notice. One district had never even heard of an electronic response from the DOJ.

F9: According to the surveys, some districts fingerprint all volunteers, some print some volunteers, and some do not print any volunteers. From interviews the jury learned that factors in this decision include whether the volunteer is a parent, a parent of a child in the school where they are volunteering, the frequency and/or the duration of the volunteer's service.

F10: Whether or not a volunteer has been printed and is therefore eligible to be alone with a student is not general knowledge at the school site. Usually the principal and/or school office staff, and sometimes the teachers know. Only one district, which prints some but not all, responded that they assume all volunteers are not printed.

Related Recommendations (4)

R5: School districts should amend their policies, if needed, to allow for volunteers names to be public information and readily available so that a greater scrutiny is provided.

F11: School districts also have very different practices about fingerprinting requirements for contractors including vendors, assemblies, construction, etc.

Related Recommendations (1)

F12: All school districts interviewed were emphatic that school personnel are empowered to ask strangers on campus who they are and what they are doing.

F13: Districts depend to a large extent on volunteers, vendors, private contractors, etc. to not be alone with students at any time. Common terms are "line of sight" and "under direct supervision." The meaning of these terms varies with some districts using them to describe the volunteer as being kept in line of sight and others using them to describe the students as always in line of sight. Because we were not able to speak directly with volunteers, the grand jury investigation does not know what an individual volunteer understands this to mean.

Related Recommendations (1)

R15: School districts should require all volunteers to sign an agreement that outlines behavior do's and don'ts and consequences if agreement terms are broken. Requested responses to Recommendations State of California, Department of Justice: R8 Required responses to Recommendations Superintendents of All Sonoma County Public School Districts (individually): Alexander Valley Union School District Bellevue Union School District Bennett Valley Union School District Cinnabar School District Cloverdale Unified School District Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District Dunham School District Forestville Union School District Fort Ross School District Geyserville Unified School District Gravenstein Union School District Guerneville School District Harmony Union School District Healdsburg Unified School District Horicon School District Kashia School District Kenwood School District Liberty School District Mark West Union School District Monte Rio Union School District Montgomery School District Oak Grove Union School District Old Adobe Union School District Petaluma City School District and Petaluma Joint Union High School District Piner-Olivet Union School District Rincon Valley Union School District Roseland School District Santa Rosa City School District and Santa Rosa City High School District Sebastopol Union School District Sonoma Valley Unified School District Twin Hills Union School District Two Rock Union School District Waugh School District West Side Union School District West Sonoma County Union High School District Wilmar Union School District Windsor Unified School District Wright School District:

F14: On surveys, eight (8) out of 40 districts reported that they would allow a newly hired employee to begin work before all pre-employment requirements were completed, under certain circumstances such as: the district had unofficial copies of credential; if the new employee would be under direct supervision of another district employee; if the new employee would not have contact with students; • if the work would be done when students are not present (i.e. summer). This is • prohibited under law.

Related Recommendations (1)

F15: The DOJ does not provide clearances. The DOJ provides Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI), responses based on prints provided. It is up to the hiring agency to clear or not. Many districts refer to the report from the DOJ as the "clearance" and say this means that the employee is cleared to go to work. The DOJ prefers that agencies use the word "response" when referring to the information they send.

F16: Although the Ed Code requires that the DOJ respond within 72 hours, often a DOJ response is received within hours. Others may take in excess of 30 days. Reasons for delays vary and can be due to unclear prints, missing court dispositions, or because the response requires manual handling.

F17: A DOJ response will never include criminal activity from outside the state of California. The DOJ used to combine criminal activity from outside California on the DOJ response but that stopped in early 1980's. Most districts that the jury spoke with about the 12-month rule they follow for requesting FBI responses, indicated that they were told that DOJ would have all criminal activity on an individual once they had lived in California for at least 12 months. In other words, that criminal activity outside of California would have caught up with them by the time they had lived here for a year.

Related Recommendations (1)

F18: The DOJ does not know how long someone has lived in California.

Related Recommendations (1)

F19: The DOJ does not automatically launch an FBI response. According to the DOJ, school districts must know when to request an FBI response in addition to the DOJ response. More than one district reported to the jury that it is their understanding that it is up to the DOJ to decide whether or not to launch an FBI response.

Related Recommendations (1)

F20: Although Ed Code Section 45125 requires an FBI response for persons who have lived in California for more than one year but not more than seven (7) years and who have a sex offense conviction, the DOJ was unable to explain how this Ed Code section could be followed. When asked how a school district would know this in order to request the FBI response, the DOJ responded that the school district must determine this. It is not up to the DOJ. The jury found that districts are not aware of this requirement.

Related Recommendations (1)

F21: If the DOJ is unable to get a disposition from the court on an arrest, it is suppressed. There are many reasons why a disposition may be unavailable including that there is still action pending. For older arrests, court records may have been purged. The DOJ has no control over this. It is frustrating for them as well. The need to contact courts for dispositions is often the reason for a 30 day delay.

F22: The DOJ reports that applicants can often speed up the delay process by contacting the court directly and requesting the information be forwarded to the DOJ. In order for the DOJ to use this information, it must come from the courts, not from the applicant.

F23: The DOJ processes subsequent arrest data from law enforcement agencies daily, Monday through Friday. Subsequent arrest notifications are on those individuals whose prints have already been processed.

F24: When the subsequent arrest is of an individual linked to a retainable agency (e.g. school district), the DOJ notifies the retainable agency immediately. Notification is done via electronic notice to the DOJ's secured website or by U.S. mail. The DOJ never telephones an agency although the Ed Code allows for it. One district reported that all of their subsequent arrest notifications came via fax. Over half of the districts the jury interviewed reported that the notices come to them via the U.S. Mail.

F25: California is a closed state, meaning it has a privacy clause which protects against the irresponsible dissemination of criminal history information. Florida is an open state meaning that criminal history is openly available to anyone, at any time, for any reason. There is no federal level privacy clause. The closed state status adds to the complexity of the entire fingerprint response process.

F26: Agencies with electronic mail code must check the DOJ's secured website in order to receive notification of subsequent arrests. Agencies like school districts must have a process in place to check for these notices on regular basis. Some districts have a practice in place that provides for daily access to the website. Some check weekly and others are not even aware of the website. It varies from district to district with some having only one employee authorized to check the website. Some districts reported that when the authorized person is out of office, even for vacation, there is no provision for checking the DOJ website for notices of subsequent arrest.

Related Recommendations (1)

F27: There is no follow up process on notices of subsequent arrest to make sure that they have been received. The DOJ does not require agencies to confirm receipt nor does the DOJ send a second notice. If sent via U.S. Mail, it is not certified or registered. Nothing further is sent from the DOJ once the subsequent arrest notice is sent. The DOJ assumes that if it is sent, it is received. Districts responded that they do not in fact have assurance that all notices sent by the DOJ have actually been received.

Related Recommendations (2)

F28: One district reported that the DOJ denied the district's request for a listing of those individuals for whom the DOJ had that district as the retainable district. The DOJ responded that they could not provide that information.

F29: A subsequent arrest occurring outside of California would not generate a notice to school districts. Arrests must be in California for the DOJ to be notified.

F30: California law provides for a no-cost DOJ response for certain non-profits for them to process their volunteers. Public school districts are excluded and must pay the DOJ fee of $32 for their volunteers.

F31: Although LiveScan has been used since 1998, the DOJ still receives some hard cards. The DOJ scans these prints. Old hard card submissions get U.S. mail notices of subsequent arrests. LiveScan submissions would trigger electronic notifications of subsequent arrests.

F32: The DOJ maintains that school districts cannot request an FBI response on certificated, credentialed individuals. FBI responses on these individuals only go to the Commission on Teacher Credentialing as part of the credentialing process. Yet districts routinely reported on the surveys that they request an FBI response for certificated employees based on time lived in California. Of the 19 districts interviewed, 5 districts reported that they never request an FBI response on any employees and 6 other districts reported that they didn't know if or when an FBI response is required.

Related Recommendations (1)

F33: Separate agencies, such as the Commission on Teacher Credentialing and any public school district, are prohibited by law from sharing criminal activity information (CORI) with each other.

F34: Based on interviews with school district officials, it is commonly believed that criminal history from the FBI database is combined into the DOJ California database by the time an individual has lived in California for 12 months. One district specifies a 24 month period and one district specifies a 6 month period. One district specifies an FBI response if applicant has ever lived outside California. The understanding is that when the district requests a DOJ response and the individual has been in California for a year or longer, it is expected (erroneously) that the DOJ response will include all criminal activity whether it was in California or somewhere else.

Related Recommendations (1)

F35: Many districts (13 out of 18 interviewed) sponsor after school athletic programs. Of those 13, only 8 require fingerprinting for all adult volunteers participating in after school athletic programs.

Related Recommendations (1)

F36: Most districts (15 out of 18 interviewed) allow overnight field trips with adult chaperones/adult participation. Of those 15, only 5 require fingerprinting for all adult volunteers participating on overnight field trips.

Related Recommendations (1)

F37: Most districts (16 of the 18 interviewed) allow parent driven field trips. Of those 16, only 1 requires fingerprinting for all adult volunteers participating in parent driven field trips.

Related Recommendations (1)

F38: No district currently requires fingerprinting employees of field trip destinations.

F39: Two districts that the jury interviewed require employee applicants to pay the cost of their own fingerprinting and the DOJ response. One district requires that volunteers bear this cost. In other districts, these costs are borne by the school districts budgets.

Related Recommendations (1)

F40: Districts reports of what the fees are vary but range as follows: cost to roll prints via LiveScan: $18 - $32; DOJ response: $32-50; FBI response: $0-56. However, the DOJ reported that their fee is always $32 and that the FBI fee is always $24. An FBI response is always run through the DOJ. SCOE reported that their fee ranges $28-32 and most districts indicated that they pay SCOE a fee of $28, with the higher fee due when an FBI response is also requested. Districts using AmeriPrints pay $18 for that same service. The Sebastopol Police Department charges $20.

F41: Most schools require visitors and/or volunteers to sign in at the school office. Many issue badges or stickers. Some collect these at the end of the visit when visitor or volunteer signs out. Some schools escort visitors while they are on campus, but usually only for the first time. Vendors, service, or repair people, while they are on campus, may be placed under supervision of a school employee

F42: A few school districts maintain databases that record which volunteers have been fingerprinted and are therefore allowed to be alone with students.

F43: Some districts rely on the SCOE to notify them of criminal activity including subsequent arrests of district employees.

F44: The SCOE is the responsible agency for certificated substitutes (substitute teachers) throughout the county as far as fingerprinting and credential verification. This is allowed under the Ed Code as it eliminates the need for an individual substitute teacher to have to undergo a fingerprinting process for each individual school district.

F45: One district reported hearing that the SCOE may offer a program of reduced fee (1/2 off) for districts to have their volunteers printed on certain days.

F46: Of the 18 school districts the jury interviewed, 5 reported that they had used the SCOE template mailed to them in November 2006 to complete the survey they returned to the grand jury.

F47: Of the forty (40) surveys sent to private schools in the county, the jury received twenty (20) back. They showed that all but one school require a fingerprinting background check of all new employees.

F48: Many private schools use the SCOE department for their fingerprinting requirements.

F49: Not one of these 20 private schools ever allows an employee to work before all pre- employment requirements are met.

F50: Fourteen (14) of the 20 private schools require fingerprinting of at least some of their school volunteers, six (6) of whom require printing of adults involved in field trips.

F51: Three (3) private schools reported that they require their vendors to be printed. Conclusions School districts in Sonoma County appear to have implemented, for the most part, the education code with regard to background responses prior to employment. The authenticity of each district's separate response to the grand jury survey may have been compromised however by the mailing sent out by the SCOE which included language for answers to questions posed in the survey. School districts paid out at least $60,000 in 05-06 for fingerprinting, DOJ and FBI fees, and budgets for 2006-07 are in excess of $65,000. It appears that some districts may be requesting FBI responses based on length of time living in California but without regard to whether the individual is credentialed or not. Others are not aware of any requirements at all to do an FBI level search. All districts were asked to indicate any other safeguards they may use. No school district reported that they accessed the Megan's Law website or in any way used this website as a resource for determining whether an individual who is not being fingerprinted should be allowed to volunteer around children. No district responded that they contact local law enforcement or the Sonoma County court system to check on prospective volunteers, although the Sheriff's Office and court records are both available with information at no cost. An individual without any prior criminal activity is allowed to work and/or volunteer in our schools. This supports the purpose and expense of a background check to the extent of what it can tell us about an individual. The sad truth is that individuals arrested for molesting children may have been given access to them because they had no prior criminal activity. Even the most assiduously applied fingerprint policy would not have eliminated them. An individual with prior criminal activity that does not preclude their being hired may be cleared to work in our schools. This provision starts to muddy the waters a bit as it leaves it up to the school district to interpret the severity of the offenses, how old the offenses are, how many, etc, and it also assumes that the offenses have not been suppressed by the DOJ. Common responses from school districts indicate that criminal records are mostly "just DUIs" and one district reports that DUIs are not the district's business. The jury thinks they are of interest. The Ed Code includes a provision that an individual with prior criminal activity that would preclude their being employed (even a violent or serious felony) shall not be denied employment if the person has obtained a certificate of rehabilitation and pardon. Although no one we spoke with had ever seen such a certificate, this provision of law seems not to be in the best interest of our children. The Ed Code also provides that an individual convicted of a serious felony that is not also a violent felony shall not be denied employment if that person can prove to the sentencing court of that offense that he or she has been rehabilitated for the purposes of school employment for at least one year. Here again, this provision of law appears to give the applicant more consideration and protection than it does our children. Given these existing laws and statutes, a school district is very dependent on our judicial system to adequately identify and successfully prosecute individuals in order that criminal activity may be disclosed. Schools and school districts have a difficult challenge in exercising their protective oversight responsibilities. Circumstances, such as the following, can occur. Even in the high profile arrest of John Mark Karr in connection with the molestation and murder of young JonBenet Ramsey in Colorado, his lack of recorded criminal activity had allowed him to obtain a substitute teachers credential and thereby access to many young students in our county. An article appearing in the local Press Democrat issue of February 5, 2007 detailed how • a man, convicted of two felony sexual batteries involving a 3 yr old, and listed on California's sex offender registry, obtained a ruling from a Los Angeles Superior Court commissioner giving him permission to volunteer in an elementary school. The school allowed him to be in the classroom. The school thought they were doing the right thing. And yes, he is a parent, often excluded from fingerprint process. In the Press Democrat issue of March 3, 2007 it was reported that the mayor of Los • Angeles, who had endorsed legislation (AB 1804) while he was an assemblyman, was taking issue with that same legislation when applied to him. AB 1804 requires volunteers who want to mentor students to undergo fingerprinting, an FBI check, a TB check, and an interview with the school principal. Now wanting to mentor someone himself, he was frustrated by these same requirements not being waived for him. He lashed out at the school district saying "It's another example of a school district that does everything it can to refuse the assistance it needs to make our schools good." He likened it to "losing the forest for the trees." School districts rely heavily on volunteers. Parents and non parents whether they are in the classroom, out on the playing fields, helping in the libraries, or chaperoning special events contribute to the richness of the education and the educational experiences we want for our children. They are not the mainstay of the educational program, and certainly the educational program would continue even if all volunteers were banned tomorrow. However, with a general ban on volunteers not desirable or very likely to happen, school districts must continue to accept responsibility for those adults they allow to have access to our children. This responsibility should not include confidential lists of volunteer names and addresses. Trustworthy adults volunteering in our schools do not have an entitlement to confidentiality. How does such confidentiality serve our children? In addition, schools must ensure that their prevailing culture allows for students to question adult behavior when it "feels wrong." Schools must ensure that all reports of questionable adult behavior are taken seriously and that those who report it are not harassed because of it. When students who are harassed, taunted, teased, or ostracized for having "told" on someone, this retaliatory behavior must be addressed and not left to simply die out. In today's society there are great ranges of thinking on what is acceptable behavior. It is incumbent on our public agencies, especially those who serve our children, to always strive for a balance so that one extreme is not catered to at the expense of the other extreme. It is difficult to avoid stepping on toes in today's world. Clear cut policies and consistent follow through are key contributors to making sure that everyone knows what will not be tolerated and the consequences if it happens. Adults (parents and non-parents alike), who are unwilling to undergo a background check and/or read and sign a code of conduct with regard to acceptable behavior around young children which includes immediate consequences, if broken, should not be allowed access to our children. Maybe years ago, but not today. Everyone needs to be vigilant and aware in order that children are not victimized. No one should worry that their concern will be ridiculed or that they will suffer retaliation if they bring it forward. The appearance of being tolerant is not more important than our children's safety and well-being. Commendations The grand jury commends school districts that have taken steps to more adequately assure the safety and well-being of their students by instituting fingerprinting requirements for their adult volunteers, especially those involved with athletic programs, overnight field trips, and parent driven field trips. The grand jury commends SCOE for preparing the draft of the Volunteer Guideline in that it offers good suggestions and valuable information such as how to access the California Megan's Law Sex Offender Locator site where one can search by name for a specific volunteer. The grand jury commends the effort being made by the SCOE to provide low-cost fingerprinting clinics for school volunteers. The grand jury commends those who spoke with the jury who were not defensive, who were willing to step forward, who were not locked into their bureaucracy, and who spoke honestly and courageously to help make our schools a safer place to educate our society's greatest asset.

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R06-07: over just five years ago. In the interview with DOJ the jury sought to understand the process once DOJ receives the fingerprints. These fingerprints are most commonly transmitted via LiveScan, a digital image in real time, but can still be sent in on hard cards (a manual rolling of prints). The jury looked into the typical responses agencies might encounter, how they were notified, the time frames for responses, glitches or problems in the system, what DOJ does and does not do, and the subsequent arrest notification system. The interview with Commission on Teacher Credentialing focused on laws and regulations for required background checks on individuals seeking a credential for the first time or renewing a credential. The Volunteer Center has contracts with approximately ten school districts in the county and also the Sonoma County Office of Education to provide volunteers that have been screened and for whom appropriate background responses have been obtained. The fingerprint technician at SCOE is the initial contact a prospective employee or volunteer meets with in order to get his/her fingerprints forwarded to the DOJ. The technician meets with the applicant personally and verifies identification with photo I.D. Although most of the school districts contacted use the SCOE service, some use other agencies in the county depending mostly for the convenience of the person to be printed. Interviews were held with 18 school districts and the Sonoma County Office of Education. For the most part these interviews were with the individuals named on the survey sent in by the district. These interviews looked for a greater understanding of the district's policies and procedures as reported on the survey, as well as some insight into the staff's understanding of how and why certain processes are carried out. Districts responded to our requests for interviews quickly and in most cases interviews were easily accommodated. Only one district shared that they were waiting for our report and that they appreciated the work we were doing. That district also said they were aware of the challenges presented in not discouraging volunteers but also needing to keep all students safe. A different response received was that our survey gave school leaders the impression that they don't have enough common sense, concern or education to keep kids safe - that there have only been 1 or 2 incidents in the county and it was insulting to suggest that they don't place student safety #1. Findings F1. A SCOE Fingerprint Technician compares a picture I.D. to the applicant but has not been trained in how to detect a fraudulent I.D. Requests to local law enforcement for training have not been successful. F2. A SCOE Fingerprint Technician does not actually ask applicants how long they have lived in California. Three signs in that office tell the applicant to say if they have lived in California for less than six (6) months. F3. The LiveScan request form also does not ask about length of residence in California. Of the 36 district employment application forms sent in with surveys, only 10 included a question about length of time in California. One district reported that the DOJ knows how long someone has lived in California and the DOJ is responsible. F4. The SCOE Fingerprint processing fee, charged to school districts, is the highest fee in the county. The SCOE fee of $28-34 is high compared to fees as low as $18 for AmeriPrints and $20 for the Sebastopol Police Dept. F5. A SCOE Fingerprint technician was asked to prepare a draft document of a Volunteers Guideline and did so utilizing San Diego County guideline already in place. This draft was sent out to school districts sometime in December, 2006. F6. On surveys, some districts (13 out of 40) included on their surveys a reference to the length of time applicant has lived in California as a determination of whether FBI response is required. Of the 36 districts that sent in copies of their employment applications, only 10 included a question of the length of time applicant has lived in California. F7. On surveys, not one district responded with the law requiring an FBI response if a person has lived in California less than seven years, more than one year, and has a sex offense conviction on record. F8. On surveys, almost all (36 out of 40) districts knew of a contract with the DOJ for notification of any subsequent arrests. In interviews, the jury learned that school officials have widely different understandings of this process, including how the information should be sent and received, and what the district should do after receiving such a notice. One district had never even heard of an electronic response from the DOJ. F9. According to the surveys, some districts fingerprint all volunteers, some print some volunteers, and some do not print any volunteers. From interviews the jury learned that factors in this decision include whether the volunteer is a parent, a parent of a child in the school where they are volunteering, the frequency and/or the duration of the volunteer's service. F10. Whether or not a volunteer has been printed and is therefore eligible to be alone with a student is not general knowledge at the school site. Usually the principal and/or school office staff, and sometimes the teachers know. Only one district, which prints some but not all, responded that they assume all volunteers are not printed. F11. School districts also have very different practices about fingerprinting requirements for contractors including vendors, assemblies, construction, etc. F12. All school districts interviewed were emphatic that school personnel are empowered to ask strangers on campus who they are and what they are doing. F13. Districts depend to a large extent on volunteers, vendors, private contractors, etc. to not be alone with students at any time. Common terms are "line of sight" and "under direct supervision." The meaning of these terms varies with some districts using them to describe the volunteer as being kept in line of sight and others using them to describe the students as always in line of sight. Because we were not able to speak directly with volunteers, the grand jury investigation does not know what an individual volunteer understands this to mean. F14. On surveys, eight (8) out of 40 districts reported that they would allow a newly hired employee to begin work before all pre-employment requirements were completed, under certain circumstances such as:

📋June 26, 2007 — Signs of the Times*

5 pages 9 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 9 findings

F1: Audit and inventories are conducted only once every four years.

F2: Form 571 L or a change in ownership resulting in a request for a new permit are the only ways the tax assessor has to learn there is an opportunity for reappraisal.

F3: In 2004 the California Assessors Association recommended that when valuing a billboard, the current Caltrans method should be used.

F4: Although billboard ownership is a matter of public record, there is no realistic way for the public to access those records.

F5: There is no easily accessed way to learn of changes in ownership

F6: There is little or no exchange of information between government entities regarding billboards.

F7: No official agency monitors the content or safety of each billboard.

F8: No agency is determining whether each billboard is legally situated in conformance with zoning regulations.

F9: No official entity is determining whether each sign conforms to the standards of the Home Builders Association. Conclusions Billboards generate taxes for the county and for that purpose the county should know exactly where they are located and the responsible party. Illegal billboards should be removed. Building permits, assessors parcel numbers and use permits should be easily available so that permit infractions can be readily dealt with. The county is losing revenues as a result of incomplete, inaccurate and unaudited systems and processes. Commendations The grand jury commends the administration of the Town of Windsor for the accuracy of their records regarding billboards and their cooperation in presenting the information.

Additional Recommendations 6

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The county tax assessor should complete billboard inventories annually.

R2: The county tax assessor should require the inclusion of a mandatory itemized listing of the billboards on form 571 L.

R3: All information regarding billboards in the county should be available in a central location: assessors parcel number and address, property owner, location on property, billboard owner, advertising agency, permits.

R4: County tax assessor should compare current cost value method with the Caltrans process recommended by the California Assessors Association to see which is the most beneficial to the county.

R5: The tax assessor should be the central repository for information regarding billboards.

R6: The legality of all billboards in the county should be examined and any illegal billboards should be removed. Required responses to Recommendations Sonoma County Tax Assessor: R1, R2, R3, R4, R5 County of Sonoma, Permit and Resource Management Department: R6 Permit departments of the cities of Cloverdale, Cotati, Healdsburg, Petaluma, Rohnert Park, Santa Rosa, Sebastopol, Sonoma and the town of Windsor: R6 17

June 26, 2007 — Srjc's Commitment to Diversity: Post Proposition 209 Racial Racial Preferences Discrimination*

10 pages 38 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 38 findings

F1: The jury found many inconsistencies in the understanding of how a hiring committee is formed, including the composition of the committee.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The SRJC should provide sufficient direction and oversight at all levels of administrative supervision to ensure that SRJC practices equal opportunity employment with absolutely no employment p

F2: The jury found that recent changes in the composition of hiring committees may have impacted final candidate selection.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The SRJC should provide sufficient direction and oversight at all levels of administrative supervision to ensure that SRJC practices equal opportunity employment with absolutely no employment p

F3: There was a breach of confidentiality in a 2003 faculty hiring process.

F4: The job announcement for a recent permanent Spanish teacher, under preferred requirements for the position specified a demonstrated ability or potential to succeed in teaching Spanish to heritage speakers and developing curriculum in that area. The term heritage speaker has been defined to the jury by persons interviewed as: 1. A student whose first language is not English and who is enrolled in a course teaching that student's native language; 2. A person (student or teacher) who grew up in a non-English speaking country; 3. A teacher who has lived for an extended time in a country where the language being taught is spoken. Official SRJC documents, including this job announcement, use definition #1.

F5: SRJC administrators verified that it is not only legal but essential to give preference to a candidate who has taught heritage speakers. It was explained that one can't teach a language without having spent significant time in a country where that language is spoken.

F6: The jury, in reviewing recent job announcements for language instructors noted that the preference as listed in F5 above was included for Spanish instructors but not for a French instructor.

F7: According to testimony, having a stated preference for candidates who have taught heritage speakers may be, in fact, viable and legal ranking criteria. It may not then be used to give preference for scoring purposes to a candidate who happens to be a heritage speaker (definition #2 in F4) as they are not the same thing at all. In one case the students are heritage speakers and in the other case, the candidate would benefit by being a heritage speaker.

F8: Only criteria identified in published job announcements may be used for scoring or ranking candidates.

F9: SRJC administrators stated that at no time in a hiring process has a candidate been pre- selected.

F10: Ranking candidates based on race, gender or ethnicity is prohibited and the DCO was not aware of any hiring committee having used race or gender as a criteria. It was further reported that no official guidelines have been made available, nor should they be made available, to help any hiring committee select a candidate of a certain ethnicity.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The SRJC should review all governing documents and its web sites to remove all language that is contrary to Proposition 209.

F11: A 13 step hiring process was described to the jury. The process starts with the chairperson of the hiring department writing a job announcement (using mostly "boiler plate" language), forming a hiring committee and ending with a final, selected candidate being approved by the president. [Note: The process is not actually complete until the Board of Trustees acts on it.] As listed in the Hiring Procedure and the Chairperson Job Description, the chairpersons are allowed to use their best judgment in choosing whom to recruit for the hiring committee. The Human Resources department trains committee members and the DCO sits in on all meetings, not as a voting member, but to assure compliance with law and procedures.

F12: After establishing the hiring committee, the job announcement is created. This can and usually is based on prior announcements for the same position. The jury found that the announcements for Spanish instructors have been significantly altered to include the following preferences for candidates who have: Demonstrated ability or potential to succeed in teaching Spanish to heritage speakers and developing curriculum in that area Ability to speak Spanish with native or near native proficiency Prior study, travel and residence in Spanish speaking communities.

F13: According to testimony, these preferences, once included in the job announcement may then be used as criteria in ranking individual applicants. They may even be weighted, meaning they may be worth more than other preferences when candidates are scored. Additional points may be given for a candidate having these specific attributes. This creates ranking systems that can yield preference to underrepresented minorities.

F14: The jury found that the use of the words diverse and diversity in goals, policies and procedures, when vaguely defined, introduce uncertainty while Proposition 209 is specifically worded to bring clarity and certainty. This then introduces a semantics problem that the California Constitution avoids. California is somewhat unique in clearly forbidding preferential actions - a protection over and above previous legal measures and a constitutional level of protection greater than in all but one other state, Michigan. Michigan voters passed the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative in November 2006, mirroring Proposition 209.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: The SRJC should review all governing documents and its web sites to remove all language that is contrary to Proposition 209.

R2: The SRJC should include clear definitions, in the context of their use, of terms such as "diversity" and "heritage speaker" that are critical to the meaning of goals, policies, procedures and job announcements.

F15: An article in the Press Democrat (2/24/07) titled "Wal-Mart wants more diversity among suppliers" spoke in terms of women and minorities as the "diversity" it sought among its suppliers. This is a more commonly understood usage of the word.

F16: The Faculty Staffing Request for a recent Spanish instructor position clearly demonstrates that the goal of this search was to hire a faculty member "with expertise in teaching Spanish to heritage speakers, thereby contributing to the institutional goal of increasing the ethnic diversity of our faculty." Here, diversity is clearly used to mean "ethnic diversity", setting the wheels in motion for a potential violation of Proposition 209.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The SRJC should review all governing documents and its web sites to remove all language that is contrary to Proposition 209.

F17: The Faculty Staffing Request for a recent Spanish instructor position included the following language: "Although there is no guarantee that our new faculty member will be from an underrepresented group, with our priority on hiring faculty with experience teaching Spanish for Heritage Speakers, there is much greater probability that the outstanding candidate will be representative of the Latino community." This language does not even try to avoid references to ethnicity, much less an exact ethnicity.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The SRJC should review all governing documents and its web sites to remove all language that is contrary to Proposition 209.

F18: SRJC follows a policy/practice whereby the word Staff is used in the Schedule of Classes when the name of the instructor is not known at the time the schedule is published. This policy/practice was not followed in the Fall 2006 Schedule of Classes. That schedule included the name of an instructor who had not yet been hired.

F19: One administrator reported to the jury that, given two equally qualified candidates, selection between the two could be based on race or ethnicity. This violates Proposition 209 in that the final selection is based on race or ethnicity – a clear violation.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The SRJC should provide sufficient direction and oversight at all levels of administrative supervision to ensure that SRJC practices equal opportunity employment with absolutely no employment p

F20: SRJC management reported that any employee should feel free to express concern or criticism about any subject, including the administration, without fear of retribution.

F21: Some SRJC employees shared their fears of retribution for having spoken with the jury.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The Board of Trustees of SRJC should provide all employees access to an independent ombudsman (not an SRJC employee) so that employees can express concerns without fear of retribution.

F22: The SRJC hiring policy 4.3.2P as posted on the SRJC web site, has not been updated since April 10, 2001. It still contains references to "affirmative action policy" as part of the hiring procedures.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The SRJC should review all governing documents and its web sites to remove all language that is contrary to Proposition 209.

F23: New employment laws are integrated into operating procedures and policies as the director of human resources (DHR) receives information from sources such as the college attorneys, professional organizations, Chancellor's office, etc. Equal opportunity issues are the responsibility of the district compliance officer (DCO).

F24: Testimony was given that SRJC "assiduously" adheres to Proposition 209, that all policies were reviewed intending to bring them into full compliance with Proposition 209. Changes to the hiring procedure went to the Board of Trustees in December of 2006. As of March 2007 it had still not been revised. Proposition 209 became law over 10 years ago.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The SRJC should review all governing documents and its web sites to remove all language that is contrary to Proposition 209.

F25: A review of the SRJC hiring policy 4.3.2.P raised concerns regarding certain provisions of the hiring process that put SRJC at potential risk of costly litigation, a waste of scarce resources for higher education. Proposition 209 pertains to the entire hiring process, not just to the final decision making. To prove a violation of Proposition 209, something official in writing, such as a policy or regulation, is usually needed. Those provisions of the hiring process referred to in the written policy, included: Composition of Search Committee as the policy states: "Each search committee should include members of underrepresented groups (i.e., ethnic/racial minorities, women, and people with disabilities) who are knowledgeable about District action goals." This provision gives preference based on immutable characteristics. Possible suspension of the hiring process as the policy states that the "DCO is to assist in determining whether the applicant pool is sufficiently diverse", and the policy also gives the DCO the power to "recommend a suspension of the hiring process at any time a question of non-compliance is raised." This language could be used to suspend hiring process if the applicant pool is judged to be not sufficiently diverse. This provision gives preference based on immutable characteristics. On-going training in affirmative action procedures tied to district goals when goals are not clearly specified as the policy states: "All [hiring committee] participants in the process are given regularly updated, appropriate training in affirmative action procedures and District goals and timetables to ensure success in reaching the goals." What goals? If members should include those of historically underrepresented groups, this gives preference to these individuals. This appears to be a violation of Proposition 209."

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: The SRJC should review all governing documents and its web sites to remove all language that is contrary to Proposition 209.

R3: The SRJC should provide sufficient direction and oversight at all levels of administrative supervision to ensure that SRJC practices equal opportunity employment with absolutely no employment p

F26: Violations of Proposition 209 could result in civil liability, including punitive damages risking scarce resources available for public education.

F27: One document reviewed by the jury was called White Paper: Increasing Faculty Diversity at Santa Rosa Junior College.

F28: The White Paper was described to the jury in different ways. They included: A document with an aura of secrecy about it - not openly distributed • A document that is widely circulated and readily available A document meant to educate and promote discussion · A document that hasn't been used by anybody for anything An end-run around proposition 209 A document that to whatever extent it is being used, is being used in a manner such as to circumvent Proposition 209.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The SRJC should review all governing documents and its web sites to remove all language that is contrary to Proposition 209.

F29: The White Paper outlined strategies that could be used to create an increased potential that successful candidates will be from underrepresented races/ethnicities, referred to as the "lack of diversity in SRJC faculty."

F30: One such strategy outlined is the careful crafting of job announcements "particularly in states where state law forbids considering race and ethnicity in hiring". The advice for the job announcement concludes with the direction that "if the institution has expressed diversity as a part of the definition of academic excellence, it can give positive consideration to candidates' agendas that enhance the understanding of race, ethnicity, gender, multiculturalism, etc." The jury saw this type of language inserted in the 2006 job announcement for a Spanish instructor. No such language was inserted in the job announcement for a French instructor.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The SRJC should review all governing documents and its web sites to remove all language that is contrary to Proposition 209.

F31: A second strategy outlined focuses on the composition of the search committee by stating that "the appointment of search committee members committed to diversity is essential to influencing the outcome of a search." It goes on to advise that "the department heads and deans should appoint senior faculty members from other departments who are known for their commitment to diversity". It was stressed that "committee should give guidance on ways to evaluate candidates in a way that values diversity."

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The SRJC should review all governing documents and its web sites to remove all language that is contrary to Proposition 209.

F32: The third strategy outlined has to do with effective advertising. Advice given includes to "advertise in journals and periodicals that make special efforts to reach minority faculty and graduate students." Suggestions for alternative places to advertise listed: CareersNow- Oline.com; Craigslist; Hispanic Outlook; La Voz; EL Mensajero.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The SRJC should review all governing documents and its web sites to remove all language that is contrary to Proposition 209.

F33: The White Paper appears to be written by someone very well versed in both federal and state laws. References in the White Paper go back and forth between federal and state laws. Some references in the report are troubling and of great concern, such as: "Race should be considered a 'plus' factor, not the deciding factor." Under California law, race is not a factor at all, at any time.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The SRJC should review all governing documents and its web sites to remove all language that is contrary to Proposition 209.

F34: Another reference began, "to the extent that race is considered, the burden on those who do not get a plus factor should be considered as part of the analysis of the impact of the diversity program." The law says that race is not to be considered to any extent, at any time.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The SRJC should review all governing documents and its web sites to remove all language that is contrary to Proposition 209.

F35: A definition of diversity given by an SRJC supervisory person to the jury: "A range of applicants. If you had two equal candidates and one was from an underrepresented ethnicity, you can choose that one." Statements such as this are illegal as they actually give preference based on ethnicity which is prohibited by law. A legal solution to a decision between equal candidates would be by chance.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: The SRJC should review all governing documents and its web sites to remove all language that is contrary to Proposition 209.

R3: The SRJC should provide sufficient direction and oversight at all levels of administrative supervision to ensure that SRJC practices equal opportunity employment with absolutely no employment p

F36: The jury was told by an SRJC administrator that SRJC is not constrained by Proposition 209 in accomplishing its commitment to diversity because diversity is a state of mind, a tolerance, having a much broader concept - not a limited view. Since diversity is neither race nor ethnicity it therefore is not covered by Proposition 209.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The SRJC should review all governing documents and its web sites to remove all language that is contrary to Proposition 209.

F37: There is a District Staff Diversity Committee listed on the SRJC web site list of standing committees. It was "established to assist the District to achieve an understanding and compliance with the employment policies and programs outlined in the District Affirmative Action Policy." The preceding quotation is from an undated paper that details committee function, meeting schedule and structure. This committee was unknown to all but one person interviewed by the jury and that person was the chairperson of the Diversity Committee.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The SRJC should review all governing documents and its web sites to remove all language that is contrary to Proposition 209.

F38: The State Chancellor's web site defines diversity as follows: "Diversity means a condition of broad inclusion in an employment environment that offers equality and respect for all persons." This definition is not precise enough to be used as the basis of evaluating one candidate in comparison to other candidates during the hiring process. Conclusions A higher education institution, such as SRJC, may have a beautiful campus and an extensive schedule of classes but the key to a high quality educational experience is the level of talent, expertise and dedication of the teachers that are part of that institution. The hiring and maintaining of the best possible teaching personnel by selecting the best candidates regardless of immutable characteristics, as Proposition 209 mandates, must be the rule. The jury concluded that a strong effort was being made at SRJC to achieve affirmative action goals by the creative use of a vaguely defined term, "diversity". By giving preference to job applicants for certain faculty positions to those with somewhat exclusive life experiences may, in fact, lead to a stronger ranking for members of certain races and or ethnicities. Aproposition 209 specifically prohibits any preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race or ethnicity or national origin. The SRJC, as well as other institutions of higher learning, has been slow to let go of "affirmative action" type programs and language that gives preference based on race, ethnicity, etc. A considerable time has passed since California voters, by a substantial margin, said yes to Proposition 209 – effectively ending affirmative action programs that give preference. Over ten years later SRJC has not completed updating its official policies to reflect this very major change in law. SRJC's use of the word "diversity" moves around from meaning a race or ethnicity to meaning a tolerance in thinking. The jury believes that this thinking and creative use of language might pose a risk to SRJC, a risk that could play out in a court of law, jeopardizing funds for higher education. This obfuscation may be unintentional or it may be an intentional strategy to circumvent Proposition 209. The jury does not know if either one is the truth. The jury does, however, raise the question of whether divergent uses of such a vital but apparently varied meaning of the word are appropriate. It is the jury's conclusion that, all things considered, the SRJC hiring process may have, in some cases, violated the spirit if not the letter of the law. The jury did not find that there was indisputable evidence to prove that the hiring process was illegal. The jury also did not find that SRJC is in absolute compliance with Article 1, Section 31 of the California Constitution. Commendations The jury commends faculty who have been willing to come forward to help the jury despite their fear of retribution. The fears were so pronounced that the jury is compelled to make a statement supporting the individual's rights not to experience any retribution, retaliation or failure to advance as the result of having spoken to this jury. The jury commends SRJC for initiating an independent investigation into its hiring practices.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: The SRJC should review all governing documents and its web sites to remove all language that is contrary to Proposition 209.

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R5: The SRJC should provide the grand jury with a copy of the independent investigation report. Required responses to Findings President of SRJC

Fatal Incident Report*

3 pages 5 findings 2 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 5 findings

F1: The "Law Enforcement Employee-Involved Fatal Incident Protocol" requires that investigations be conducted "free of conflicts of interest."

F2: The primary agency that employed the officers involved conducted their own administrative investigation to determine: If the agency's policies and procedures were followed If there could be improvement in those policies and procedures • If any disciplinary action should be imposed against a particular individual or individuals.

F3: The District Attorney's office, based on the evidence, reached its conclusions and issued a report for all the reviewed fatal incidents.

F4: The Critical Incident Report Status Log prepared by the District Attorney's office for the grand jury to review was not sent in a timely fashion.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: The grand jury recommends that they continue to be notified as soon as an incident protocol is initiated.

R2: The District Attorney must provide the grand jury with a copy of the Fatal Incident Report Status Log in a timely fashion on a quarterly basis. Required responses to Findings and Recommendations District Attorney, R1 and R2

F5: The District Attorney's Office concluded there was not sufficient evidence of criminal liability on the fatal incidents reviewed. Conclusions The grand jury found that the fatal incident reports reflected thorough, detailed and unbiased investigations by those assigned to the cases. The conclusion of the District Attorney's Office is clearly based on all aspects of submitted evidence, photographs, witness statements and reports by involved personnel. The grand jury found that established protocol was followed in the incidents reviewed.

* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.