HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 09/12/2011 5.DA gim� Item #5 .
D
�ALU�
z.s5$
DATE:
TO
FROM:
September 12, ,2011
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
John C. Brown, City Manager
SUBJECT: Resolution Approving Response Letter to Sonoma County Grand Jury's Final
Report for FY 20.1.0/11.
RECOMMENDATION
It' is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution Approving Response
Lette`vto Sonoma County Grand Jury's Final Report for FY 2010/11.
BACKGROUND
Under Califorriia law, .the civil_ Grand Jury is an.independent institution that oversees all aspects
of the legislative and administrai'ive departments that make up county, city and special district
governments, and has:fhe power to investigate them to ensure they are serving the public and
individual -citizens: At -the end of,each fiscal year, the Grand Juryissues its final report to the
community.
DISCUSSION
The Grand Jury:issued its final yeport for -Fiscal Year. 2010/11 on June 30, 2011, and three of
their investigati'ons°require responses from the City of Petaluma:
® Petaluma Potholes
4. Doing Nothing. About Education Is No longer- an Option — The .Tourney Begins, With,
one Step
® WhatWe Dpfi't„Know C.ould'Hurt Us — The Need for a Whistleblower`Prograrn in'
Sonoma. County
Petaluma's draft response letter is attached for Council's approval. The.resporise letter must be
submitted to the..Grand Jury no later than 90 days, or September 28, 2011', after the Grand Jury
submits its final 'report to any public agency.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution
2. Draft letter
3. Grand Jury Reports
Agenda Review:
City Attorney Finance Director City Manager
ATTACHMENT I
Resolution Approving Response Letter to Sonoma 'County Grand Jury's Final
Report for FY 2010/11
WHEREAS, under Califomia law, the civil Grand Jury is an independent institution that
oversees all'aspects of the legislative ,aind administrative departments that make up county, city
and special district governments, and' has the power to investigate them to ensure they are
serving the public and individual .citizens; and
WHEREAS, the Grand'Jury,.conducts investigations, culminating. in a final report to the
community at the end"of each.fiscal year; and
.WHEREAS, the 2010-2011 Sonoma County Grand Jury issued its final report on June
30, 20.1.1; and
WHEREAS, three of`their investigations. require responses from the City of Petaluma:
o Petaluma Potholes
o Doing Nothing About;Education ,Is :No longeran Option —The Journey
Begins With �One,Step
o What We Don't Know Could Hurt CJs — The Need for a Whistleblower
Program in, So--noma County
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approves the response
letter to'the Grand Jury and. authorizes the Mayor and City Manager to sign said -letter on .behalf
of the City.
RE
ATTACHMENT 2
DRAFT
September'_12', 2011
The, HonorableGary Nadler,;Presiding Judge Foreperson
Superior Court, State of California Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury_
County of Sonoma Hall of Justice P.O. Box 5109
600 Administrative Drive Santa.Rosa, CA 95402
Santa Rosa, CA, 95403
RE: Grand JuryFinal Report`— Responses and Recommendations
Dear Judge Nadler:
The City of Petaluma:is pleased to provide responses to findings sand recommendations for the
2.0,10-2011 Grand Jury Final Report, formatted in.accordance withP.enal Code'Section 933.
Responses are provided on the Grand Jury Report Form, copies, of which pare .attached.
Thank you for the, opportunity to respond to the Grand Jury's report. If you have additional
questions, please.let us know.
Sincerely,
D
a_,yid. Glass. John C. Brown
Mayor, City Manager
cc: Sonoma County'Boardbf.Superv•isors
Sonoma County Clerk
Petaluma City;,Clerk
Petaluma City Council
Sonoma County-bties
3
Response to Grand Jury Report form
Report Title: Petaluma Potholes
Report Date: September 12, 2011
Response by: David Glass Title: Mavor
John C. Brown Title: City Manager
RECOMMENDATIONS
and
RI The. new departmental reorganization should result in improved cooperation between
those employees respons'ib'le forrepair of infrastructure buried in the streets and those
responsible for the surface condition of the streets.
Petaluma's Response:.. 'Recommendation R1 has been implemented.
One of the anticipated benefits of the Public. Works/Water Resources consolidation is
improved communication grid coordination within all program. areas, including operations
aiid-maintenance. The consolidation should result in clearer reporting structures,
increased commu cation Amongst personnel and the, sharing of resources to more
effectively accomplish operations and maintenance,act xities.
R2 Cross training of Public Works,and Utilities Department employees should be a. major
goal within the new combined.administrative structure. The result should improve both
service and efficiency,
Petaluiria''s Response: Recommendation R2 has been'implemented.
Cross -training of employees'is another, anticipated benefit of the Public Works/Water
Resources consolidation. It should be understood that the technical nature of some
positions, including associated certifications or licensure, may limit the cost effectiveness
and/or°,p,racticality of wide -spread cross training. Cross training, however, 'is a,goal,
where it c,ari be -accomplished and Lias begun. The City Council' recently equalized the, pay.
structure `b.etween Parks Maintenance and Street Maintenance Workers: Immediately,
this allowed the transfer of three Parks Workers into vacant Street positions; to reduce'
costs to the, General Fund without corresponding loss of employees, and to provide much-
needed staffing to the Streets Maintenance; function. It is a longer'term goal to align the
pay structures and realign duties to allow for movement across these functions and°in
Water and Wastewater maintenance as opportunity and need arise. As indicated, the City
is in *,early stages of 'reorganization, and is currently recruiting a.new director to lead
the combined Public Works and Utilities Department. A priority for the new director will
be' to identify efficiencies within the new department that include further consolidation of
functions, and.more efficient and flexible use of existing staff.
4
R3 Budget priorities,,should be set that provide the necessary funding to maintain the current
minimal level of"maintenance, and to prevent fur.•,ther degradation of infrastructure.
Petaluma's, Response: Recommendation R3 has.not yet been implemented but will be
implemented in the future.
Based on the 2009 City of Petaluma Pavement'Condition Report, it is estimated that the
City needs to spend approximately $6,000,000, per year, in order to maintain the current
pavement condition. Given the economic challenges facing the Nation, the State, the
County and particularly this City, it is highly unlikely this recommendation can be met in
the near term. However, the City recognizes the need to prioritize pavement maintenance
and management, and applies available resources toward a sound and focused pavement
maintenance program. Please see Attachment 1 for the pavement projects completed or
anticipated 2009-2012.
R4 Future funding sources need to be found to acquire restoration, replacement and/or
upgrading revenue.
Petaluma's Response: Recommendation R4 has not yet been implemented, but will be
-implemented, in the future.
City staff aggressively seeks any grants that provide improvement to City facilities and
particularly funding that is pavement related. Over the course of the last couple years the
City has generated $5:6 million `in grant funding specifically for pavement related
projects, and has relied.primarily on the Surface Transportation Program and Congestion.
Management & Air Quality Program (STP/CMAQ.). Please see Attachment 1 for the
typical funding sources for paving projects, noting that ARRA (America Recovery and
Reinvestment Act "Stimulus") should be considered a one-time funding source. As noted
in the illustration below, funds have been used for major rehabilitation or reconstruction.
projects on.arterials and major collectors. In FY 2010-2011, $375,000 was set aside to be
use&to pay for the local match portion which is required for most federal and state
grants. The funding that wasmot used for grant match was reprogrammed to fund a
slurryseal:project. $500'1000 is budgeted for match in 20.11-12. Again, it i"s anticipated
that any portion of this funding -that is not needed for match Will be used for an overlay
project_in2012. This increased level of funding is expected to be'supported by`iiicreases
in the franchise fees charged to waste haulers. A portion of the franchise -fee: is intended
to compensate the public for the deterioration to city streets caused by these haulers. The
City is continually analyzing'this fee to assure its sufficiency relative to the impact of
such haulers on City streets. In addition to pursuing outside funding the City could
reexamine the prospect of a voter approved tax or assessment that could be used to
provide a dedicated and stable source of funding for much needed roadway
improvements. While such an effort was defeated by a2 to 1 margin in 2003, a
successful'campaign could go a long way toward funding necessary maintenance and
repairs.
In addition to enhancing communication, creating amore efficient organizational
structure and identifying funding sources of sufficient capacity to support'the
maintenance needs required of an aging infrastructure; it is, important to understand other,
less manageable factors contribute to the degradation of paved roadways in Petaluma.
As is often the case with older communities, the roadway structural section was not
designed for current vehicular loads. In such cases, roadway failures are due to
inadequate, pavement thickness and/or base layers, and would optimally require full
reconstruction10 bring such a street back to a condition•that would provide decades of
useful life and minimize for several years, any need'to perform substantive maintenance
on it: Street reconstructions typically entail removal of the entire asphalt section and
often portions of the engineered base material.
As well much of Petaluma is built on adobe soil, which expands in the winter, contracts
in the.suminer, and provides a.less stable foundation for road base than other soil types.
The typical solution to building better roads on adobe soils is deeper excavation, and
deeper road base, both of which increase the cost of a reconstruction proj ect.
Taking -these two. factors into; account, the cost of reconstructing' a street may be, as costly
or moreso than installing;a street where none has been before. Reconstruction is also
more disruptive to homes and businesses located in -such, areas. Accordingly, to stretch
limited funding as, far as',. possible, and to limit disruption to neighbors, effort is made to
treat the deteriorating "roadways with some, lessen rehabilitation, which does not provide
the same pavement life.
Pavement maintenance.'activities (rather than Capital Improvement Projects) can typically
be separated :into two categories,: ; preventative maintenance; and corrective maintenance.
Preventative maintenance; _such as crack sealing.aind seal coats; are used on a regular
basis,to maintain°pavemehfin a_good condition, and to seal the surface to prevent water
intrusion. Such maintenance; serves to extend the life of the surface at a relatively low
cost,,' Corrective: maintenance is used to remedy a pavement distress and includes
patching; localized repairs, and thin. overlays. Such„an approach provides timely
mitigation of problems, and can, but doesn't always increase the useful life of the surface.
Pavement maintenance is a critical part of an overall pavement'.managerneint strategy:.
I_' 1 - ,, the'O. y would be able to fund an ongoing program that combines regular:
preveritative maintenance with pavement rehabilitation and reconstruction to continually
improve the City's pavement condition to a level that' minimizes maintenance costs in the
future..As 'indicafed in the foregoing response, the City's -resources ;are inadequate for
this approach, thus the Public Works department attempts to conduct a.maintenance
program thatseeks to expend limited resources on a combination of good streets, to keep
.them 'in bet'ter repair,, and on worse streets that have:not yet ,failed and which can be
addressed by something less than a reconstruction. Unfortunately, due to the conditions
of: our streets, ,patching, and repairs are frequently reactive activities, :rather than proactive
ones,,, and ,are often based on citizen complaintsi rather than on, an established maintenance
schedule. 'These activities usually occur on streets that are already in poor condition and
b
provide only short term improvement. While temporary. repairs may satisfy an
immediate need, which is 'irnportant to the satisfaction of our residents, they do little to
improve the overall condition or life expectancy of such, streets. -Expending what is
already inadequate funding on temporary repairs is necessary -to avoid complete failure of
some portions of :our road system, but reduces resources and impairs our ability to
complete full rehabilitation of street sections.
Regardless of the cause, the problem today is inadequate funding to maintain the current
pavement. condition, much less make significant improvements. What is being done is an
effort to better inform the community and decision makers' of proper pavement
management strategies, and adjustments that serve to better organize the maintenance
program to make the most efficient and cost- effective use of all available resources.
ROADWORK PROJECTS;COMPLETED
OR PLANNED IN THEIAST TWO
YEARS
Project
Washington and Sizth;Street
Rehabilitation
Crinella Drive Reconstruction
Mcdowell Boulevard' North
Rehabilitation
Ely Road and Sunnyslope Avenue
Ij Reconstruction
Slurry Seal -;27 Streets
Petaluma Boulevard South Road Diet
- Surface Treatment
Sonoma;Mountain Parkway
TOTALS
Date:
Date:
ATTACHMENT 1
Signed:
'David Glass, Mayor
Signed:
John C. Brown, City'Manager
Total Project
$ 1,943,175
$,1,178,202
$ 814,000
$ 665,188
$ 360,000
$ 906,239
$ 1,198,330
$ 7;065,114
Grant/Bond
FY
Funded
Grant/Bond
Grant/Bond
Constructed
(Y/N)
Type
Amount
City Match
$
957,000
$ 986,175
09-10
Y
CMAQ
09-10 & 10-11
Y
Prop 1'B
$
1,132,202
$ 46,000
$
728,000',
$ 86,000
09-10
Y
ARRA
$
614,000.
$ 51,188
09-30
Y
ARRA
10-11
Y
Prop 1B ,
$
292;046
$ . 67,954
TLC/Prop
$
877,400
$ 28,839
11-12
Y
:11-12,
Y
CMAQ
$
1,036;000
$ 162;310
$
5,636,648
$1,428,466,
Signed:
'David Glass, Mayor
Signed:
John C. Brown, City'Manager
Total Project
$ 1,943,175
$,1,178,202
$ 814,000
$ 665,188
$ 360,000
$ 906,239
$ 1,198,330
$ 7;065,114
Response to Grand Jury Report Form
Report Title: Doin,g' Nothing About Education Is No Longer an :Option
Report Date:
Response by:
FINDINGS
September 12, 2011
David Glass Title: Mayor and
John C. Brown Title:- City Mariager
F-8 Certain elected bodies (city and town council, County Board of Supervisors, governing
body of a special district or. 'localagency formation commission with jurisdiction over all,
or a portion of a school district) may request the County Committee on School District
Organization .(CCSDO) to do a study on unification/consolidation (E. C. #35721 (c))'.
Peialuma's Response: We agree with the finding numbered F-8.
In January 2011 the retired Sonoma County Superintendent.of Schools appeared before
the Petaluma City`Council and during the public'comment:portion of the agenda
advocated his, position that school districts'withih Petaluma give full consideration to
school district consolidation. While no formal action was .taken; individual
Councilmember's expressed support for and encouraged sucb�an analysis.
RECON MENDAT16NS
R-2 Every city or town couneil'in Sonoma County should exercise their prerogative per the
E. C. 35720-35724,,to initiate a CCSDO study or educational and. financial benefits that
might be achieved for their citizens,throug'h consolidation or unification ofschool
districts withintheir city boundaries.
Petaluma's Response: Recommendation numbered. R-2 has been implemented.
In.April 201.1 the O1d.Adobe.School 'District Governing Board accepted theinvitation
from, Petaluma City, Sehools to pursue a study of school. district consolidation. In June
Ml! the Sonoma County Office of Education (SCOE) authorized a study 'to analyze the
consolidation of the Petaluma City Schools and Old Adobe Union School District.. The
study is funded' by SCOE, and is expected to begin during the summer of 2011 and take
approximately'8 months to complete.
Date: Signed:
David Glass, Mayor
Date: Signed:
John C. Brown, City Manager
Report Title:
Report°Date:
Response by:
Response to Grand Jury Report Form _
Whistleblower- Program -What We, D'on't.,Know,Gould Hurt Us -
September 12, 2011
David Glass Title: Mayor and
John,C. Brown Title: City Manager
RECOMMENDATIONS
R-1 Every', governmental,unit:' county, city, school board or special district should encourage
employees 'and citizens alike to report suspected waste, fraud or abuse issues to a central
county reporting location. This,local whistleblower hotline should be administered by
the .'Civil' Grand Jury or the Auditor -Controller's offiee, to provide anonymity and
assurance that,investigations will be thorough and impartial for any government entity in
Sonoma County. "y°wouid'the Grand Jury want the County of Sonoma to provide this
seryice and include cities and'other government entities'? We suggest -this for the greater
good of the citizens_!
Petaluma''s Response: 'Recommendation numbered R71. requires further analysis.
The City of Petaluma supports and encourages the reporting of suspected waste; fraud or
abuse. We`believe, however, that a central county.reporting location or:county managed
hotline would be_ duplicative, of existing avenues for receiving and responding to
complaints; and as -such is°would not be cost effective. The City of Pefaluma currently
adheres to all state and. federal°whistleblower requirements: A process exists,for the
investigation: of complaints: It ,protects the confidentiality ofthe reporting party, provides
for„thoroughinvestigation into the;allegations, and for corrective action as warranted.
Allegations ,can'he reported by calling 'the California State Attorney General's
Whistleblower Hotline. The'Attorney General's Office refers such matters to the
appropriate government authority for review and possible investigation, or may.
investigate them itself depending on the issue. ,As, well,, contact:.inforniation.ds .readily_
available. to .report a.c_omplaint to the City Council, City Manager, .City Attorney or,
affected department director. Citizens may also .attend regularly not City Coun, cl
Meetings and provide' public comment: Additionally, a,citizen :currently has the right and
ability to>filb:&compl'aint with the Grand Jury if they'hefieve ihat a„governmental agency
has not responded adequately to a complaint. The City is .ektremely committed to
,maintaining a work environment where employees are encouraged to raise concerns
about .fraudulent or otherwise inappropriate activity, Tle City is equally committed to
preventing, any,form-of 'retaliation against reporting,parties, treatsseriously and
investigates' promptly and properly all legitimate complaints, and reports results in an
appropriate fashion..
R-2 When a'Sonoma County'ventral Whistleblower program. and administrator is established,
every governmental unit should provide clear, easily accessible information about the
program and'24 hour hotline on their websites, in their,employee training and as a notice
on employee bulletin boards.
Petaluma's Response: Recommendation numbered R-1. requires further analyais.
The City does not believe that a central county reporting location or county managed
hotline is the" best or most.cost effective way to receive and respond to complaints. The
City currently posts notices.conveying that whistleblowers are protected and such notices
include hotline phone numbers, the various protections afforded to reporting parties and
related' statutes.
R-3 The county.budget for 20.11/2012 and forward, include the°cost of a commercial
whistleblower hotline service (est. less than $15, 000/yr) either as part of the operating
budget of Civil Grand Jury or the office of the Auditor%Controller.
Petaluma's_Response: Recommendation numbered R-1 requires further analysis.
The Grand..Jury report estimates a„cost of less than $15,000 per year for a commercial
whistleblower hotline service, but the report provides' -no information on the cost of
follow up, .investigation; and/or enforcement activities, which depending on the severity
of a complaint or, the complexity of an investigation, could,be significant. The City is
not in a position to determine the ability of the Grand Jury or Sonoma County Auditor -
Contro'ller's office', or any other County agency to support or implement a county -wide
whistleblower program, either financially or administratively. These matters are best
determined by the affected departments, the County Administrator, and the Board of
Supervisors, and ',to their collective judgment we would defer..
R-4 The designated office for Sonoma County should provide anannual report to the public
on the whistleblower -program. including such information as the.total,number of
whistleblower complaints, received, the number:of complaints that were formally
investigated, and the dollar value (if applicable) that was recovered.
Petaluina's Response: Recommendation numbered R-1 requires further analysis.
If such a program were to be implemented, annual tracking of"its performance to
determine ongoing necessesity'would be important. As previously'stated, however, the
City does not believe that a central county reporting location- or'county managed hotline
is the best or mostcost effective way to receive and respond to complaints.
10
Appendix' 3 Questions to' Requested Whistleblower Response
1. Do you post copies of the State whistleblower statutes and hotline number in your
employee breakroom?
Petaluma's Response: Yes, the State whistleblower'information,'including hotline
number, is posted on all official City bulletin boards.
2. How, would an emplovee.allegation ofsignificantwrongdoing be directedwithin your
organization?
Pe'taluma's Response: Per City policy, an employee is required :to promptly notify his
or her supervisor, or the .Department Director, or the;Human.Resources Manager.
3. How would a citizen allegation"of significant wrongdobig be directed within your
organization?
Petaluma's Response: ' A reporting party would be.directed to the appropriate
Department Director, or the Human Resources Manager or the City Manager.
4. Do you,beli'eve that present laws,and practices provide an adequate safeguard for`your
organization .and for, -those individuals who may wish to report wrongdoing? If yes,
please explain.
Petaluma's Response: 'Yes, employees have legal protection and may report
wrongdoing "Outside the chain of command.
S. Do you believe. that a local twenty-four hour hotline, additional assurance of
corijidentiality, and summary annual reports to the citizens would be of substantial value
When managing, increasingly scarce governmental resources? yes no
Petaluma's" Response: °No,,:the State of California "provides a hotline. .
Given time and adequate description of a proposed structure and process, would you
consiaerformally.wt6piing a resolution to participate in a countywide whistleblower
program, administered by, either the grand jury or the county auditor -controller office?
Petaluma's: Response: Adopting such a resolution does not appear to be necessary.
Date: Signed:
David,Glass, Mayor
Dater Signed:
John C. Brown, City Manager
PETALUMA POTHOLES
SUMMARY
ATTACHMENT 3
The Grand Jury reviewed the Petaluma Public Works Department, as to the providing of timely service
for maintenance and repair of city, facilities. Public outcry over,potholes in the streets and non-
functioning streetlights led to this investigation.
We found that communication between staff in the Public Works Department and their counterparts in
the Water Resources and Conservation Department was not adequate to provide timely completion of
work and resulted in less than satisfactory final work products. During the course of our investigation,
the city initiated a reorganization abolishing the two departments mentioned above, combining them to
create a new Public Works and Utilities Department.
The city indicated that this reorganization was done to address budgetary shortfall issues. The Grand
Jury believes that the communication problems we observed can now be more efficiently addressed with
all the city infrastructure maintenance personnel now reporting to the new position of Director of Public
Works and Utilities.
GLOSSARY
Public Works—Facilities and services of infrastructure for the use and benefit of the general public.
Infrastructure—Basic facilities, services and installations needed for the functioning of a community
or society. Examples applicable .to this report include: water supply (treatment and distribution),
wastewater collection (treatment land disposal), storm water collection, electrical service, television
service, telephone service, natural gas service and public streets.
INTRODUCTION
The 2010-2011 Sonoma County Grand Jury decided to investigate the City of Petaluma's Public Works.
Department's continued media criticism regarding issues relating to potholes, streetlights and the overall
condition of the city streets.
The investigation process led. jury members to a review of the city's organizational structure and the
revenue sources that support public works functions.
INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURES
Specifically, Grand Jurors reviewed city organization charts and city websites as a whole, and
specifically, the Departments of Public Works and Water Resources and Conservation. Research
included review of_print media for information relative to public works issues in Petaluma and
interviews of several city staff members.
DISCUSSION
l�
Petaluma's water treatment and,distribution system, originally privately owned and operated, was taken
over by the city over fifty years ago and became the responsibility of the Public Works Department. At
that time the Public Works Director was also the City Engineer and reported to the City Manager.
In 2000, a re -organization took place resulting in the establishment of a Water Resources and
Conservation Department in addition to the Public Works Department. Both departments reported
individually to the City Manager. Water Resources and Conservation became responsible for the water,,
sewer and drainage functions that were previously the responsibility of Public Works. The City Engineer
was, at one time, located in the Community Development Department and then transferred to Public
Works. This was the organizational structure in place when the. Grand Jury started its review, and this
convoluted structure appears to have contributed to the lack of communication observed by the Grand
Jury.
In recent years, the city has had to -reduce staffing in many areas due to declining revenues resulting
from the overall economic downturn. Maintenance staff reductions have resulted in delays in addressing
on-going needs such as pavement repair and replacement of streetlights.
During the preparation of the. Grand Jury report the city established a Public Works and Utilities
Department replacing the two previously separate departments. While.this change was primarily to
address budget issues by eliminating positions, it may also result in improved services by improved
communication and more, efficient sharing of resources.
FINDINGS
F1. Staff reductions, due to budgetary -priorities, have left the city without the proper resources
required to adequately maintain and repair all city infrastructure.
F2. Limited communication between the two departments with public works' responsibilities creates
delay in accomplishing important infrastructure activities.
F3. The department responsible for street maintenance (former Public Works Department) did not
appear to have the authority to supervise and approve street repair work done by, or under the
direction of, the former Water Resources and Conservation Department.
RECOMMENDATIONS
R1. The new departmental reorganization should result in improved cooperation between those
employees responsiblefor repair of infrastructure buried in the streets and those responsible for the
surface condition of the streets.
R2. Cross, training of Public'Works and Utilities Department employees should be a major goal within
the new combined administrative structure. The -result should improve both service and efficiency.
R3. Budget priorities should be set that provide the necessary funding to maintain the current
minimal level of maintenance, and to prevent further degradation of infrastructure.
R4. Future funding, sources need to be found to acquire restoration, replacement and/or upgrading
revenue.
REQUIRED RESPONSES
From the following:individuals:
® Petal Lima, City Manager: R1, R2, R3 and R4
From the following governing bodies:
® Petaluma City Council: R 1, R2, R3 and R4
The governing bodies indicated above should be aware that the comment or response of the governing
body must be conducted subject to .the notice, agenda and open meeting requirements of the Brown Act.
iii
Doing Nothing About Education Is No Longer an Option
The .Tourney Begins With One Step
SUMMARY
The 2010-11 Grand Jury has studied the issues of school district consolidation/unification in Sonoma
County. The investigation.was initiated by a citizen's complaint. Sonoma County has over 70,000
students, in 40 school districts; one of highest numbers .of school districts in the State of California. Our
schools have problems including declining enrollment, teacher and instructional staff layoffs, school
closures and lack of funding. In;this report, we want to make everyone aware that elected officials (i.e.,
County Board of Supervisors, city/town councils, and school district trustees) have the power to request
studies of school district cons olidaiion/unification that could lead to significant positive change.
We interviewed principals, district superintendents of both.small and large districts, the past and present
County Superintendents of Schools, members of school district boards, members of the County Board of
Supervisors and an aide to a local state senator. Most of'those we spoke with agreed that the current
school district configuration is not financially sustainable. Reductions in state revenue, declining
enrollment and the rise in charter school development have put the operation of our current school
districts at risk. School districts are being forced to close campuses; increase class sizes, reduce days of
student instruction and lay off teachers and other educational staff in order to cope with declining
financial resources.
Most of those we interviewed, agreed' that there could be dollars saved by school district consolidation/
unification. They also agreed that consolidation/unification might not be the right fit for everyone.
Financial savings may not result`in program expansion or improved educational outcome for students.
However, everyone agreed that our focus should be on educating our children. The Grand Jury believes
that better education, not cost savings, is the most compelling benefit that school district
consolidation/unification may achieve. Improved education can take place through articulation and the
implementation of some standardized teaching methods, which will provide a better focus to get
students the best education possible. For example, the Twin Rivers School District consolidation has
resulted in student achievement, with student test scores in math rising.over 100 pointsJ. They are on
track to repeat this feat in their language arts program this year.. This success story could be emulated
here in Sonoma County.
We also found that the road to consolidation/unification can be dauntingz. There are complex issues that
will be raised by the multitude of stakeholders involved in educating our children. There will be initial
costs, ,and the time frame to realization will take patience. Consolidation may not be for everyone.
There are many inequities in funding'between the various, districts in Sonoma. County 3. The County
Superintendent of Schools is not authorized by state. statute to step in or request studies in any of the
school districts he or she supervises, nor can he or she initiate a study to reorganize such districts.
However, these requests can, come from local school boards; city .governments or the County Board of
Supervisors. If the same tenacity; commitment, enthusiasm and dedication of our educators can be
1 Twin Rivers Report 2010 report to the Community
2 The County Comnfittee Plans and Recommendations Flowchart E
3 Please refer to the glossary of definitions of Revenue Limit District and Basic Aid
16
duplicated in the, community -at -large, then the task of school district.consolidation/unification can
happen. The idea will 'require a.great deal of political "will from all of"the stakeholders involved in
education. The concept is educationally sound and has economic. merit. If your district is suffering
economically, and/or seeing educational achievements falling, you should consider the, positive effects
of consolidation/unification.
This Grand Jury is aware of the recent developments in Petaluma, and we commend the three school
districts involved and the Petaluma City Council for taking, the bold first steps on the road to
consolidation/unification. We hope that their efforts are considered by the remaining Sonoma County
School Districts.
The Grand Jury commends all the educators we interviewed for their tenacity, commitment, enthusiasm
and dedication to educating our children, in spite of the above-mentioned adversities.
GLOSSARY
ADA: Average Daily Attendance
Articulation: (more specifically, curriculum articulation) The . process of coordinating curriculum
content between primary and :secondary schools.
Basic Aid District (or Excess Revenue Districts): Districts that have the advantage of being primarily
funded by local property taxes (i.e., receive minimal .funding from state). They also have the ability to
keep all their local property taxes thus giving them revenue in excess of that in Revenue Limit Districts:
Sonoma County's 2010 — 2011 Basic Aid Districts are:
Alexander Valley Union, Forestville Union, Fort Ross, Horicon, Kenwood, Montgomery,
Geyserville Unified, Healdsburg Unified, Monte Rio and Sonoma Valley.
CCSDO: County Commission on School District Organization
CBOE: County Board of Education
Charter Schools: Primary or secondary schools that are established and operated under a charter for a
fixed period of time and that receive public money (also, like ,other schools, may also receive private
donations), but are not subject to some of the rules, regulations, and statutes that apply to other public
schools in exchange for some type of accountability for producing certain results, which are set forth in
each school's charter. Student attendance in charter schools is based on parental choice.
Consolidation: An "action to reorganize districts," which could consist of either:
(a) An action to form a -new school district, which is accomplished through any combination of
the following:
(1) Dissolving two or more existing school districts of the same kind and forming one
or more new school districts of that same kind from the entire territory of the original
districts.
(2) Forming one or more new school districts of the same kind from all or parts of one
or more existing school districts of that same kind.
-, N
(3) Unifying school districts, including the consolidation, of all or part, of one or more
high s1chootdistricts: with all or part -of one or more component schoot'di'stricts into one or
more new, unified ischool districts.
(4) Deunifying a school district, including the conversion of all or part of a unified
school district into one or more new high school districts, each with two or more new
component districts.
(b) An action to transfer territory, including the transfer of all or part of an existing school
district to another existing school district. (EC 35511)
Dependent Charter, Schools:, Referred to as schools that are" established, or remain as, a legal arm of
the school district or the county office of education that granted their charter.
E.C.: State Education Code
Independent Charter Schools: Referred to as schools that function as independent legal entities and
are usually governed by or as public benefit ("not-for-profit") corporations. Acceptance of students isiat
the discretion of the school's, administration.
JPA: Joint Powers Agreement an agreement between two or more public agencies to provide
services.
Revenue Limit District: The amount of general purpose funding (state and local) a school district
receives per student using ADA.
SCOE: Sonoma County Office of Education
Unified School Districts: School districts that include both elementary and secondary (middle and high
schools) educational levels.
BACKGROUND
Sonoma County is divided into 40 school districts, which include 31 elementary districts, 3 high school
districts, and 6 unified districts that operate both elementary and secondary schools for students residing
within their boundaries. This pattern is a,carryover from a time when thecounty was largely a
collection of agricultural communities separated by miles of open space and each community
e§tablilshed.a local school district.
In the early 1900s, when the population of the county was expanding and many small communities were
established, the cou . rity'had in. excess of 100 school districts, largely compromised of "one -room
schoolhouses." The majority of those 100 districts were consolidated into the present 40 districts by the
development. of modem- transportation, larger and more permanent buildings and the. need to reduce
duplication of efforts and associated costs. Currently, Sonoma County has 112 school districts, each
consisting of only one school, and, several of these have only a single. classroom.
APPROACH
As members of the Grand Jury, we have '
access to community leaders, institutions and expert
professionals who. have studied the multitude of competitive priorities and restrictions that shape public
0
education in Sonoma, County. Unfortunately, many of these priorities.and restrictions have more to do
with politics and employment security than they do with how well students learn and whether the system
has sufficient flexibility to meet the needs of a very diverse student population.
We have examined education in the county because it is one of the most important issues that we face as
a community. Each school day shapes the future of over 70,000 children. Their lives will either have a
positive or a negative impact on Sonoma County, California and the world, well into the next century.
The Jury made the most of our brief opportunity by using our access to interview local education
leaders: school board members, superintendents, principals, officials from the Sonoma County Office of
Education, members of the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, a state senator's staff member and we
traveled to hear presentations from the leadership of a newly consolidated school district near
Sacramento.
We found that everyone agreed. on one thing, which is that we�'must do better! We cannot continue with
business=as-usual in public education. Numerous national and state studies have shown our students
don't have the basic language and math skills that will allow them to compete with the world for the
jobs of today and tomorrow. We observed a lack of agreement among the professionals regarding
priorities to make educational improvements. There is no single thing we need to do. Instead, there is a
need to rally all stakeholders (every citizen, parent, political leader, teacher, administrator) to find ways
of getting a far better student educational outcome without massive additional expenditures.
The Jury sees fertile ground for 'improvement in inter -school communication of student records,
optimization of curriculum and teaching methods (articulation), inter -district sharing of best practices
and resources, some district consolidation, more choice for parents and students and renewal of public
interest and focus as though our very future depends on it - - because it -does. Therefore, we offer our
ideas in the hope that they will help propel improvement in K-1'2 education in Sonoma County.
We also discovered that several County Boards of Education in the state are consolidating from old rural
seven member trusteeships to five member trusteeships. This conforms to the constituency lines of the
local Board of Supervisors. This action has generated a cost savings to the taxpayers in election
expenses, health and welfare, benefits and travel and conference costs to the County Offices of
Education. The CCSDO should study this option with its regular census review.
DISCUSSION
The Grand Jury visited the recently unified Twin Rivers School District in the Sacramento area and
interviewed the superintendent of schools and various administrative staff. This newly unified district,
now in its third year, was the result of.five years of concerted effort, involving dedicated leadership,
parental involvement and political support. Twin Rivers managed to unify four school districts with
diverse socio-economic mixes into one unified school district. The unified district is not yet able to
quantify the financial benefits. Financial issues include the melding of four union contracts into one and
the creation of an equitable distribution of bond liabilities. Educationally, Twin Rivers, in its most recent
2010 report, achieved the highest increase in their Academic Performance Index (API) this past school
year on a school -by=school basis.
The Grand Jury does not suggest that consolidation/unification of school districts is a panacea that will
cure all educational and financial problems. But it may, in appropriate situations, make expenditures
1�
more productive and improve: student achievement. We do suggest ,that those districts, which are
experiencing one or both of these problems, ask SCOE to ,do a, study of -potential consolidations/
unifications leading to a public hearing, if it is deemed advisable.
School principals interviewed were very clear about their problems. The most salient being:
1. Ever -decreasing budgets,
2. Lack of articulation in moving from grade school to middle school and/or grade school to
middle school to high school,
3. Negative impact:of charter schools on public schools, and/or
4. Declining enrollment
In interviews with school trustees we, found either total opposition to considering consolidation/
unification or only a vague mterest'in pursuing unification. However, there was not much knowledge of
the process needed to achieve that objective.
In interviews with representatives of the County Board of Supervisors, we experienced an immediate
push back. One stated that while the board members were very interested in education, they did not feel
that schools were within their purview. We believe that those elected bodies either do not know, or
choose .to ignore, that they ;can "require SCOE to do a study on consolidation/unification. It is obviously
an act with some political risk.
There are bona fide examples of efforts to consolidate school districts in California. In 2010, the City of
Santa Paula asked that the Ventura County School District Organization Committee conduct a study of
the merger of Santa Paula School Districts. The issue may go to a public hearing as early as June 2012.
In addition, our own local community of Petaluma has several districts currently in discussions
regarding consolidation, as evidenced in current Press Democrat articles. It can be done!
The final arbiter of education in ,Sonoma County, as in all other counties, is the State of California. The
state establishes funding, promulgates, the education code, sets, the annual number of required school
days (currently at 175, down from 180 the previous year) and determines education standards. In this
capacity, one would think that the state would show considerable, interest in education problems at the
local level and want to help with finding solutions. In several attempts to meet and discuss these matters
with one of our local state senators, there was little cooperation. We did meet an assistant of our state
senator who came from Sacramento. He met with us for two hours, returned to Sacramento, and was
never to be heard from again.
What have we learned from all this? Change is possible; however, not without information to drive the
complex process. Information is available; one only needs to ask SCOE. SCOE knows more about
education in Sonoma County than any other group, but cannot initiate the studies to help a school district
in trouble unless they are requested to do so; counter intuitive as that may seem. We recognize that
while not all school districts may appear to benefit from consolidation/unification, all those that are now
in immediate need of academic and financial improvements should begin to explore the possibility.
The system needs to become more effective and efficient. Parents, and every other citizen, need to be
involved,.but leadership should come from elected officials. These elected officials need to get
involved by starting a flow of information that would ultimately drive public opinion to find and
6
implement beneficial ne..wMructures for our schools. This report is asking those elected bodies to tell
all of us what they, intend to do in the future.
FINDINGS
F 1. There are 40 school districts in Sonoma County, one of thehighest numbers of districts in any
California county.
F2. With over 70,000 students in 40 school districts, Sonoma County has more school districts per pupil
than any other similar county.
F3. School, districts are closing schools. Student population and budgets/revenues have been declining,
and are expected to continue to decline in Sonoma County.
F4. Charter Schools are in in number and student enrollment in Sonoma County.
F5. State funding has decreased in California.
F6. The graduation rate is in decline, and the dropout rate has increased in Sonoma County High
Schools.
F7. Parents are able to take over failing schools (Charter Schools) and/or move their children out of
failing schools (Open Enrollment Act, E.C. 48350)
F8. Certain elected bodies (city and town councils, County Board of Supervisors, governing body of a
special district or local agency, formation commission With jurisdiction over all, or a portion of, a school
district) may request the County Committee on School District Organization (CCSDO) to do a study on
unification/consolidation (E.C. #35721 (c)). 1
F9. The County Superintendent of Schools does not have the authority to initiate a study on
consolidation/unification even if a school district is, or is in danger, of economically failing
F10. The last study of school district consolidation/unification.in Sonoma County was initiated in 2004.
F 11. Articulated curriculum supports consistency in learning experiences from feeder schools to high
schools.
F12. School Boards of districts in receivership lose financial control (assumed by a trustee appointed by
the state) but.continue`to control those academic decisions that have no.financial implications and
remain in an advisory capacity.
F13. As noted in F8 above, CCSDO oversees and approves school district requests for territorial
transfer, school board issues, and studies for consolidation. They approve all school district
consolidations before sending them to the state for approval prior to final public approval by election.
F14. The County Board of Education is an elected body of seven trustees at present. The CCSDO has-..
the authority to reduce membership to five trustees to realize a cost savings to the citizens of Sonoma`
County.
F 15. There has only been one contested election for the County 'Board of Education in the last 10 years.
F 16. Student record transfers from ,one school district to another are problematic. In some instances it
can take up to a year to get records transferred within Sonoma County.
F17. Parents can get statistical data for a teacher's grade level performance from SCOE; however,
districts do not disseminate this information routinely.
F18. A breakdown of the number of schools in the school districts of Sonoma County is as follows:
12
districts
1 school
6
districts
2 schools
4
districts
3 schools
5
districts
4 schools
3
districts
5 schools
2
districts
6 schools
8
districts
have between 8 and 19 schools
Additional information can be found in the attached Appendix.
F19. Some Sonoma County school districts are failing financially (Schedule of 2010 - 2011 Financial
Reporting in the attached Appendix).
RECOMMENDATIONS
R1. Every school district in Sonoma County that is not currently a K-12 or basic aid district should
request a CCSDO study to determine if educational and/or financial benefits could be achieved through
either consolidation or unification.
R2. Every city or town council in Sonoma County should exercise their prerogative per the E.C.
35720-35724 to initiate a CCSDO study of educational and financial, benefits that might be achieved for
their citizens through consolidation or unification of school districts within their city boundaries.
R3. As per the E.C. 35720-35724, the. Sonoma County Board of Supervisors should request that the
CCS.DO 'initiate a fact finding study for the purpose of determining the educational and financial
benefits, 'if any, of reconfiguring or consolidating school districts within their overlapping jurisdictions
within Sonoma County into K12, or other configurations, of unified school districts, that would benefit
all stakeholders.
R4. The Sonoma County Superintendent of Schools should sponsor twice -annual regional meetings of
all school district superintendents to:
(a) discuss and implement "best practices";
(b) explore and implement school district cost-sharing programs that would reduce school district
duplication;
�I
(c) initiate horizontal'and vertical articulation of classroom curriculum, in order to meet
educational needs, which benefit the students going forward feeding into the high school district;
(d) provide for prompt transfer of pupil records among all schools that any student may chose to
attend in Sonoma County, especially those students who are entering a secondary school
districts.
R5. All CCSDO studies should include the statutory elements required by the state educational code
and:
(a) an evaluation of an articulated K-12 curriculum,
(b) the economic benefits of Special Education, transportation, administrative services,
(c) board members' health and welfare benefits, and
(d) stipend savings through elimination of duplicate services.
R6. The CCSDO, in an effortto better manage costs, should istudy the, potential savings available by
reconfiguring the CBOE trusteeships (currently 7 members) to align with the County Board -of
Supervisors (currently 5). A new, smaller CBOE would then also reflect current census distribution
within the county.
R7. The County Board of Education and the County Superintendent. of Schools should support and
work with state legislators to establish a provision in the educational code that would empower the
County Superintendent to make his/her own request for district consolidation or unification studies if a
school district has filed qualified or negative financial certification for two or more years.
R8. The Sonoma County Board of Education should conduct a study of SCOE to determine the possible
costs and savings of fewer school districts to manage,Sonoma County Schools, and where those
costs/savings, if any, could be applied to better the education of students.
R9. All 40 Districts in Sonoma County shall respond to the following questions, which will be
published by the Grand Jury:
a. After hearing public comments and by a majority vote of the Board of Directors we _invite or
decline to cooperate with a SCOE funded study to discover whether there could be benefits to
both educational and financial costs in district consolidation.
b. Current 2010/2011 enrollment is Enrollment for 2009/2010 was
c. We are currently a K-12 unified school district? yes, or no. If not our current structure
is:
d. We are or not currently classified as a Basic Aid District. As a Basic id District we
derive the following financial benefit:
e. We currently have enrolled students living outside district boundaries. Five years ago
there were students living outside district boundaries.
d��
f. We currently have, students living inside district_. boundaries who have chosen to attend
schools in other districts. How many such students were there in the 2005/2006 school year ?
g. There are currently dependent and independent charter schools operating within
our district. Five years ago there were dependent and independent charter schools in
our district.
h. We currently have developed effective protocols with all. surrounding districts to insure complete
and timely access to student records transferring in or out of our district _yes no.
i. We currently have or have not implemented coordinated plans to insure articulation
and basic curriculum compatibility with those districts most likely to receive our students and from
whom we are.likely to receive students.
j. We currently have or do not have Joint Power Agreements (JPAS), or similar
significant shared cost' saving _plarns with neighboring districts.
REQUIRED RESPONSES TORECOMMENDATIONS AND FINDINGS
From the following school districts: To R1, R9 and to Findings F3, F5, F7, F11, F16, F17, and F19:
Alexander Valley Union
Bellevue Union
Bennett Valley Union
Cinnabar
Cloverdale Unified
Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified
Dunham
Forestville Union
Fort Ross
Geyserville Unified
Gravenstein Union
Guerneville
Harmony Union
Healdsburg'Unified
Horicon
Kashia
Kenwood
Liberty
Mark West Union
Monte Rio Union
Montgomery Elementary
Oak Grove Union
Old Adobe Union
Petaluma City Elementary
Petaluma Joint Union High
Piner-Olivet Union
Rincon Valley Union
Roseland
Santa Rosa City Elementary
Santa Rosa City High
Sebastopol Union
Sonoma Valley Unified
Twin Hills Union
Two Rock Union,
Waugh
West Side Union
West Sonoma County High
Wilmar Union
Windsor Unified
Wright
k�1
From the City or. Town Councils of Cotati, Cloverdale, Healdsburg, Petaluma; Rohnert Park, Santa
Rosa, Sebastopol, Sonoma and 'Windsor to: R2 and F8.
From the County Superintendent of Schools to: R4 and R7, F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F9, F11, F12,
F17 and F19.
From the Deputy County Superintendent of Schools to: R8
From the Sonoma County Board of Education to: R4, R6, R7, and R8, F14 and F15.
From the County Commission of School District Organization to: RI, R2, R3, R5, and R6, F8, F10 and
F13.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Individuals Interviews Conducted:
® County Superintendent of Schools
® Former Superintendent of Schools
® School District Superintendents
® Presidents of Boards of Trustees
® Member of the School District Board
® Member of the California School Board Association
® Deputy County Superintendent of Schools
® High School Principal
® Middle School Principal
® Sacramento Area Superintendent- of Schools
® Sacramento Area Administrative Staff
® Santa Clara County Grand Jury Member
® Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Members
® Sonoma County Administrative Officers
® Field Representative for State Senator.
m Sonoma County Public Information Officer
Documents Reviewed:
Sonoma County Schools Directory, California State Education Code, Santa Clara County Grand Jury
Report (2009=2010 School Consolidation), Twin`Rivers School District Publications, West Sonoma
County School Study (Published 2006), Financial Accountability and Oversight Program Provisions
(Assembly Bill 2756- July 2004, Sonoma County Office of Education Statistical Reports, California
Department of Education Program ("NAEP"), Star School Test Results, Santa Rosa Press Democrat
Articles, Ventura County Article, Various Education Websites, California School Financial Report,
Lawsuits against the State of California (Adequate Funding, Structure)
0
APPENDICES
Map of Sonoma County School District (SCOE Report)
The County Committee Plans and Recommendations — Flowchart E (SCOE Report)
Financial Status (SCOE reports as -of 3/31/2011)
Statistical Schedules of School Districts (SCOE Report)
Sonoma County School Board Member Stipends Benefits (SCOE Report)
Sonoma. unt'Stho-®Districts
There are 40 school districts that provide kindergarten through grade ►z
education for Sonoma County: 3J elementary school districts, 3 high school
districts, and 6 unified districts.
Students in elementary districts "feed". into high school or unified districts as
indicated by the color coding on this map.
<UoveddeUhiHe�
Noricon {=
Koshia
' � 54:ffi Y.���;�'4b:f�� �f •�w�4'u�:.. J�f,.a_ iC.y.�'S'W.
ram..
P
' ,.�'� ^ " r �"i.`,h* yc ,r '^"'`ems°
�.
FbresNile
Uuk Grove'
Harmony Sebastopol+
r Twin v• t
f Nib Giavenst
t4. .s..A:,:
"Unlf'rad..;sy„F Sonoma
on Vol
01UnZed
i�r 'N1n
Students attendingschgol in elementary districts
transition to secondary schools in these four districts.h-:-
.,
Healclsburg Unified'School District . ='° =j
Petaluma Joint Union High School District xTw,......,.... �.
IN Santa Rosa City High 5ihool District
❑ West Sonoma County Union High School District
Unified districts operate, both elementary and secondary schools for the
students residing within their boundaries. Cloverdale, Cotati-Rohnert Park,
Geyserville, Healdsburg, Sonoma Valley, and Windsor are unified districts.
Horicon and Kashia are unique in that these small elementary
districts feed into Mendocino County.
Lit
L)
EL-
Q z
10
CL
LLI Q
w
W
00
{_} W
4
U
r•
QM M
r Q Q W
r
i5
W
�N�' N
C�4�•�
a s Q
_u
cz�U
gu,
`n
=uw
X a3
a
o
slap ou 00,
t
a,
v
p
N vii
Nun:-
v
N G;
.r U
o•� E�m
a
cG
�6
a
o
cs o'vs
M:tN,,,
C
05 Q tr7
61 t01� W
W C O_
T CD
tt
¢ rN"
ar_
-------i'
0.
'C ti
v,r °
it :3LP O. M
0- C-01)
ENac4n
Eca'
°.or0„w
T 3 a V
°� W
U"N 4i1 z
O W
U p
�
t
a,
CURRENT SONOMA COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT INFORMATION
05
_• .
Alexander Valley Union
(Bellevue Union
IBennen Valley Union
ICinnabar
ICloverdale Unified
ICotati-Rohnert Park Unified
IDunharn
Forestville Union
IFort Ross
IGeyserville Unified
IGravenstein Union
IGuerneville
(Harmony Union
IHeal dsburg Unified
IHoricon
IKashia
IKenwood
ILiberty
Mark West Union
Monte Rio Union
IMontgomery
IOak Grove Union
101 Adobe Union
IPetalurna City Elem/Fligh
IPiner-Olivet Union
IRincon Valley Union
IRoseland
ISanta Rosa City Elem/High
ISebastopol Union
ISonoma Valley Unified
(Twin Hills Union
ITwo Rock Union
I Waugh
IWest Side.Union
IWest'Sonoma County Union High
1 Wilmar Union
(Windsor Unified
IWright
ITOTA.LS
1
128
1
5
1,602,576
4
1,762
5
5
13,716,875
2
957
3
5
6,883,627
1
195
1
5
2,099,604
5
1,525
4
5
11,006,662
11
6,206
18
5
45,898,2991
2
178
1
5
1,420,108
2
434
3
5
3.672,844
1
3
555,3801
1
4
44
255
2
5
2,859,6241
3.
617
2
5
4,118,0761
2
296
2
5
2,560,8841
3 I
774
6
5
2,762,7391
4
2,048
10
5
15,527,725
1
73
1
5
1,426,078
1
11
1
3
269,000
1
148
1
5
2,009,182
3
1,172
16
5
3,532,691
4
1,428
6
5
9,239,365
I
5
1,110,913 1
1
95
1
1
37
1
5
595,225
3
812
4
5
7,152,34,1
4
1,771
9
5
13,020,102
18,
7,875
36
5
63,636,707
5 _
1,671
8
5
8,809,466
8
3,123
9
5
27,655,530
3
2,168
14
5
15,365,821
32
16877
53
7
130,497,289
5
1,077
4
5
5,607,793
12
4,671
16
5
36,066,3311
4'
991
6
5
4,839,638
1
187
1
5
1,876,37.1
2
1 920
2
5
6,356,801
1
171
l
5
1,193,060
20,452,5061
4
2,344
11
5
1
204
1
5
1,564,624
9
5,720
16
5
40982,035
3
1,487
8
5
11,739,466
172
70,152
285
188
529,683,358
Information compiled February 4, 2011
to
Sonoma
County Office of Education
2009/10 District Financial Reporting Status
;Sonoma County
2009-10 District Financial Status
i
I
08-09.2nd
interim District Name
Budget
! 1st Interim Report
�
2nd interimw:Re ' of t• ...
_. (� _ .
;=..=,'::.:..'.`. ;;-.:...:
expend, Trans out `
Self .Ceriificat►on 1: Fin alsCertifcat>:on_ ;,
4 -Uses
1lPf')sitice Cloverdale I
Approved
('tiatiili c,
Negative
Negative
12,83-5.053
i
2 i Positive Cotati=Rohneri Park I
Approved
i}.oalliiC(1
Negative
Negative.
52,019,420
Forestville
Approved
Qkuliifiied
4', Positive Geyserville
Approved
fit?:tlilec.d
t,lli2i,Illli't
i)t;:;li le(I
"•"t'�
S Nc_xtiic Healdsburg
Approved
`�ii:4iifiet!
'hfai.rfi<'ri
Ne,irti+e
19,,9f1,.116
6 1 Negative Piner-Olivet
Approved
Oli.,@ilied
Positive
4
7:Positive. Sebastopol
Approved
d tl,tlilictt
::i1'i;itr;
t�ii,alit�tti
i.�tf .h;ts
West Sonoma County High SD
Approved
Quahfictt:
# uallified
Qllahfied
21,381,` 7
,.
;..
Po'stive w/,serious:;:
.°
eusitiSe..,.. ,. ►. h' of
9 Santa.Rosa C ty:Sc o:' s -
A` ioved
pp r ._._...
''''
'=Positive-:
Positive` ....
'. reservations'<". .
..........,..
I0 Positive West County Trans JPA
Approved
Positive
Owditied
Qualified
1#J,(1{Jy,�s9ti
n vi 6ers14tan Wilkenin.�'�kppDatalLocal\.%licrosoft\Windoa•s:Temporarp Internet Files`•.Content-IE5i7 ,9N8JO-n.F'inancial Status - Question 94 - Grand JurvFinancial Status - OKMiUdIA*c40d4;d3tatW
SONOMA COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER SITP SDs BENEFITS
— I -. Ir• r
4� -5
.t{
t'
.f
r.
t'
1
tl.
• ,r e•
� 1
Alexander Valley Union
Bellevue Union
Bennett Valley Union
Cinnabar
Cloverdale Unified
Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified
Dunham
Forestville Union
Fort Ross
Geyserville, Unified
Gravenstein Union
Guerneville
Harmony Union
Healdsburg Unified
Horicon
Kashia
Kenwood
Liberty
Mark West Union
Monte Rio Union
Montgomery
Oak Grove Union
Old Adobe Union
Petaluma City Schools
none
$50 X x X
none may purchase benefits at employee rate at own expense
none X
may receive a stipend of $229.64 or participate in benefits up to"$591/mo
$240 X X X X $1331/ino toward all benefits
none
$10 (dinner allotment) may purchase benefits at employee rate at own expense
none
none may purchase benefits at employee rate at own expense
$10 - deposited into an account for lunches, retiree gifts, etc.
none
none
none
none may purchase benefits at employee -rate at own expense
$30
none
none
none may purchase benefits at employee rate at own expense
none may purchase benefits at employee rate at own expense
none
none may purchase benefits at employee rate at own expense
$240 cash stipend & $260 towards benefits or $500 towards health benefits
none up to $839/mo X X X
SONOMA COUNTY Saiou BOARD MEMBER SITPENDs BENEFITS
:a
.1-
t
1 .`t
1�t.
1 I'
;i
Piner-Olivet Union
none
Rincon Valley Union
$250
may purchase benefits at employee rate at own expense
Roseland
none
up to $1659h110 X X X
Santa Rosa City
$400
X X, X X S565/mo towards all benefits
Sebastopol Union
$75
SCOE
$315
up to $2048/mo X X X
Sonoma Valley Unified
none
Twin Hills Union
none
Two Rock Union
none
X $400 contribution to medical benefits
Waugh
$45
may purchase benefits at employee rate at own expense
West Side Union
none
West Sonoma Union High
none
X. X X X
Wilmar Union
none
Windsor Unified
$216
up to $15191/1110 X X.
Wright
$125
X X X $1530/mo toward all benefits
NB - An "X" in the benefits column indicates the benefit is paid by the district.
Government Code sections 53200 through 53210 state that a local agency's contribution toward the cost of benefit
premiums for board members whose service begain as of January 1, 1995 or later, are limited to a contribution no
greater than the highest contribution made on behalf of any employee group. The "up to" limit on this spreadsheet
does not apply to all board members in the various districts. Board members taking office after 1995 may receive less
than the "up to" figure.
2/11/11.
SUMMARY
WHAT WE DON'T KNOW. COULD HURT US
The Need: For A Whistleblower Program
In Sonoma'County,
Whistleblower Tip Nets HRS. $20 Millions -
Glaxco Smith Kline Pays $750.,Million2
Tenet Healthcare Pays $62,550,0003
$6.89 Billion Returned to the U.S. Treasury4
It's no secret that .waste, fraud and abuse exist, as evidenced in the recent news exposes listed above. All
of the recovered money listed above was the result of whistleblowers coming forward to expose the
waste, fraud or abuse in companies and/or government entities. A whistleblower is a person who
exposes wrongdoing about an employer, business or government entity to the public, or to those in the
organizations who are in a position of authority and who can affect change. "Whistleblowing" is an
activity that requires the utmost confidentiality and trust. Absent the confidentiality and trust that the
information will be well handled, whistleblowing will not occur and important information needed to
effectively confront waste, fraud and abuse will not be available. In these cases, we can expect that what
we don't know could hurt us as citizens and taxpayers.
Getting whistleblower information is also a matter of convenience and accuracy. That is, the ability to
make a report at the right moment and' having the ability to convey verbal or written information
accurately and efficiently. The State of California offers a central whistleblower hotline, which requires
public employers to publicize hotline contact information and also prohibits workplace retaliation.
However, using the state system, the calling party is likely to be redirected to one or more local agencies
where the complainants must repeatedly make their case and where confidentiality can be lost.
Many public entities in California have created their own whistleblower programs as a way to provide
greater availability, responsiveness and anonymity for employees and rCitizens who make complaints
within each county. We believe that,the public entities in Sonoma County would be well served by
implementing a single, central, local program.
This Grand Jury report is concerned with improving -the mechanisms for receiving and dealing, with
complaints from employees or citizens about,fraud, waste -or abuse of authority against any regularly
constituted district, council, board', commission or agency that provides, services to the citizens of
Sonoma County and is funded through locally collected fees, special assessments or taxes.
The Grand Jury recommends that all governmental units within Sonoma County cooperatively institute
and publicize one inclusive whistleblower program that would provide an anonymous hotline, an annual
reporting system and the assurance that consideration of the complaint will result from a single phone
www.usatoday.com (04-08-11)
'- www.nytimes.com (10-26-10)
3 www-.hirst-chanier.com/lO.html
4 www.phillipsandcohen.com
call. Absent such a program, there are many possibilities for either suppressing critical information
and/or for career -altering retaliation against a whistleblower.
BACKGROUND.
California Government Code section 8547 et. seq. and Labor Code section 1102.5 establish
whistleblower legislation that,protects employees who complain against their employers. Section 8547
et. seq., known as the California Whistleblower Protection Act, provides that "state employees should be
free to report waste, fraud, abuse of authority, violation of law, or threat to public health without fear of
retribution." Section 1102.5 provides that "no employer shall retaliate against an employee for
disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency,, where the employee has reasonable
cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or violation or
noncompliance with a state or federal regulation."
During its investigation, the Grand Jury called the state hotline number to determine how complaints are
received and handled. Employees of organizations other than state. agencies can phone in or email their
complaint to the State Attorney General's office, while complaints related to state agencies are directed.
to the State Auditor/Controller's whistleblower hotline. In ei;thercase, the receiving office attempts to
understand the nature of the' complaint and -then directs, the individual to the appropriate agency at the
state or local level. The complaining individual subsequently must contact another office to get the
complaint heard. It is likely that this complicated process deters people with valid complaints from
following through with contacting more than one agency. Also, individuals who have complaints about
a county or city employee may view the state's hotline as too farremoved from the city or county,
thereby decreasing the chances that their complaints will be acted upon. Therefore a single, countywide
hotline would address this issue.
If one of several available commercial hotline services were used, accessibility would be extended to
"24/7/365," and information captured would be complete and accurate because the caller would speak
with a trained person (not an answering machine.). Multiple (40+) :languages would be accommodated,
-anonymity would be assured and costs (est. less than $15,000/yr5) would be far less than attempting to
staff one or more similar functions locally.
INVESTIGATIVE APPROACH
The Grand Jury gathered information on whistleblower legislation in the. State of California. In
addition, each of"California's 58 counties was contacted to determine. its whistleblower approach. As
detailed below, at least 11 counties,have instituted their own whistleblower programs. Administrators
and elected officials.in Sonoma County were interviewed to gather historical perspectives and current
thinking regarding a county -based whistleblower program. The Grand Jury researched available
commercial ethics hotline companies and their case management programs.
DISCUSSION
A locally administered, independent and confidential whistleblower program for all of Sonoma County
would provide governmental employees, elected board members and citizens the assurance that
5 Based on a written quote from a national company.
�3
allegations of fraud, waste or abuse of authority can be anonymously reported and resolved without the
threat of retaliation. Two options were considered b_y the Grand Jury.
The, first `option is the County Auditor/Controller's office could administer a central whistleblower
program and that any governmental units within Sonoma, County could agree to participate/cooperate.
The County Auditor/Controller's office currently has an employee complaint evaluation system through
its "Inappropriate Actions Committee," which could be expanded into a full-fledged whistleblower
program. The complexity would, come in getting voluntary participation from other governmental units
operating within county borders. There are numerous examples of similar programs at the county or
even city level around the state, but these generally do not reach across governmental boundaries. A
SINGLE, CENTRAL reporting location in Sonoma County would greatly enhance the assurance of
impartiality, confidentiality and. citizen accountability.
The second option is for Sonoma County's Civil Grand Jury to administer the whistleblower program.
The Civil Grand Jury is citizen -based, judicially supervised and.empowered with special access and
confidentiality. Although these are powerful advantages, the Grand Jury also has significant limitations
in terms of investigative resources and the required annual turnover of=membership. Nevertheless, the
Grand Jury, as the central collection -point in a countywide, whistleblower program, could provide an
umbrella that comfortably covers all governmental units and offers a high level of confidentiality and
trust for the employees and citizens. In addition, the Grand Jury could give assurance that complaints are
not forgotten by using a summary in regular annual reports to the general public.
Regardless of the option ,chosen,, l'egal.guidance would be needed as to, whether issues may have
criminal content. Credible reports, or complaints, would be referred to appropriate levels of
government, with the understanding that status reports would be required and that a central open file
would be maintained, pending final resolution.
The role of the central administrator for a whistleblower program would be to provide an additional
layer of security and confidentiality and to extend the program's reach to include any governmental unit
within the county. The Grand Jury may be better suited for this role because it already has a mandate for
governmental oversight, and it has established investigative powers, including the ability to use
subpoena to gain access to officials and records.
Our investigation revealed .that the following counties have instituted their own local whistleblower
programs: Alameda, Los Angeles, Orange, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Francisco, San Mateo,
Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano,.and Stanislaus. A list of the websites for these programs is provided in
Appendix 1.
The Grand Jury found that many of the counties had hotlines available 24 hours, 7 days a week. Others
had lines available only during business hours. Variations were in the administration of the programs
and whether or not they were inclusive on a regional basis. The Auditor -Controller's Internal Audit
Division was a strong choice to investigate claims, as were the County Administrative Officer and
County Counsel. Most California counties do not have whistleblower programs in place. Complaints are
received by Human Resources and referred to the corresponding departments.
The number of complaints received by these local programs seemed to vary with population. One county
had only 20 complaints in a year, while a large population county reported having 600+ pending
complaints. If we assume that these numbers are typical, then a Sonoma County program might expect
�A
to receive about 50+ complaints per year. All of the local programs included provisions for annual
reports listing the number of complaints received, how many were investigated and the results of the
investigations.
Although better than simply relying on the State Whistleblower Hotline, most of these programs target
county employees and are limited ,to, complaints about county, government. As a result, citizens,
municipalities, school districts and other special districts are still not well served. Therefore, we
recommend that a Sonoma County Whistleblower program include all cities, districts and agencies
operating within the county. A list of the Sonoma County cities, districts and agencies, not affiliated
with county government, is provided in Appendix 2. There are 110!
At first, the mechanics and complexity of such a system appear overwhelming in terms of 24-hour
access and the need forprofessional staff. However, our investigation has shown that these services are
readily available by independent companies at a modest cost. These specialized companies provide a
centralized service and, have established track records with a variety of business and government clients.
We believe that selecting,; one of these specialized service companies would enable an administrator to
effectively implement the investigation, or referral, of all complaints and to track and report the results,
using specialized software available through the company program.
FINDINGS
F1. Sonoma County offices" follow state law by posting the State Attorney General's hotline number
on employee bulletin boards.
F2. Many of the larger counties and several cities. in California have created their own whistleblower
programs. Most are provided only for their own employees.
F3. There is no central administrator -in Sonoma County to report evidence of waste, fraud and abuse
among, the mulfitude of local governmental organizations and to ensure that a fair and confidential'
investigation takes place.
F4. The cost to implement a whistleblower program applicable to all governmental units in Sonoma
County would be modest and initially focused on publicizing contact information and educating
employees and citizens about its availability.
RECOMMENDATIONS
R1. Every governmental .unit: county, city, school board or special district should encourage
employees- and citizens alike to report suspected waste, fraud or abuse issues to a central county
reporting location. This local whistleblower hotline should be administered by the Civil Grand
Jury or the Auditor -Controller's office -to provide anonymity and assurance that investigations will
be thorough and impartial for any government entity in Sonoma County. Why would the Grand
Jury want the County of Sonoma to provide this service and include cities and other government
entities? We suggest this for the,greater good of the citizens!
R2. When a Sonoma County central whistleblower program and administrator is established, every
governmental unit should provide clear, easily accessible information about the program and 24-
hour hotline on their websites, in their employee training and as a notice -on employee bulletin
boards.
�5
R3. The county budget for 2011/2012'and forward, include the cost of a commercial whistleblower
hotline service (est. less' than $15,000/ yr), either as part of the operating budget of the Civil Grand
Jury or the office of the Auditor / Controller.
R4. The designated office for Sonoma County should provide an annual report to the public on the
whistleblower program including such information as the total number of whistleblower
complaints received, the number of complaints that were formally investigated, and the dollar
value (if applicable) .that was recovered.
REQUIRED RESPONSES TO, RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE. QUESTIONS IN APPENDIX 3
From the following County officials:
® Chief Administrative Officer
® Auditor/Controller
From the following governing bodies:
® Board of Supervisors
® City Councils as listed in Appendix 2
REQUESTED RESPONSES TO RECOMMENDATIONS IN APPENDIX 3
From the following governing bodies:
School Districts Boards of Directors as listed on Appendix 2
Boards of Directors for special districts and agencies listed in Appendix 2
APPENDIX 1
List of whistleblower websites for California counties:
® http://sfcontroller:or,2/index.aspx?pai4e=31
® http://www.oc�zov.com/oc2ov/Internal%2OAudit/OC%2OFraud%2OHotline
® http://www.lacountvfraud.org/
® http://www.finance.saccounty:net/Auditor/AuditFraudHotline.asp
® http://www.sbcounty.�zov/acr/hotline.htm
® htta://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/portal/site/controller%menuitem.lf860392596ef25b74452b3 Id
17332a0/?v�4nextoid=2b5a0f68ed 180210V�nVCM 1000001 d37230aRCRD&vgmextfmt=Divi
sionsLandin-
® http://www.scc.i�ov.org/portal/site/wp/
® httD://www.co:santa-cruz.ca.us/whistleblower.htm
® htty://www.co.solano.ca.tfs/depts/auditor/whistleblower/default.asp
3b
APPENDIX 2.
City of Santa Rosa.
City of Petaluma
City of Rohnert Park
City of Cotati
City of Healdsburg
Town of Windsor
City of Sonoma
City of Cloverdale
City of Sebastopol
Independent Special Districts
Green Valley Cemetery
Shiloh'Cemetery
Bennett Valley Fire
Rancho Adobe Fire
Forestville Fire
Glen Ellen Fire
Graton Fire
Russian River Fire
Kenwood Fire
Monte Rio Fire
Rincon Valley Fire
Roseland Fire
Schell -Vista Fire
Gold Ridge Fire
Valley of the Moon Fire
Bodega Bay Fire
Windsor Fire
Geyserville Fire
Timber Cove Fire
Cloverdale Fire
Cloverdale Hospital
Marin/Sonoma Mosquito Abatement
Camp Meeker Rec & Park
D"el Rio Woods Rec & Park
Monte Rio Rec & Park
Russian River Rec & Park
Gold Ridge Soil Conservation
Sotoyome Resource Conservation
Southern So Co
ResourceConservation
Occidental Community Services
Cazadero Community Services
Graton Community Services
RCPA
Forestville Water
Valley of the Moon Water
Sonoma Mountain Co Water
P.O. Box 678 Graton, CA 95444
7130 Windsor Rd. Windsor, CA 95492
6161 Bennett Valley Rd. Santa Rosa, CA 95404
11000 Main St. P.O. Box 1,029 Penngrove, CA 94951
6554 Mirabel Rd. P.O. Box 427 Forestville, CA 95436
13445 Arnold Dr. Glen Ellen, CA 95442
P.O. Box A Graton, CA 95444
14100 Armstrong Woods Rd. P.O. Box 367 Guerneville, CA 95446
P.O. Box 249 Kenwood, CA 95452
9870 Main St P.O. Box 279, Monte Rio, CA 95462
P.O. Box 530/8200 Old Redwood Hwy. Windsor, CA 95492
830 Burbank Ave. Santa Rosa, CA 95407
22950 Broadway, Sonoma CA 95476
4500 Hessel Rd. Sebastopol, CA 95472
630 Second St. West, Sonoma CA 95476
510 Highway 1, P.O. Box 6 Bodega Bay, CA 94923
8200 Old Redwood Hwy. P.O. Box 530 Windsor, CA 95492
P.O. Box 217, 20975 Geyserville Ave., Geyserville, CA 95441
30800 Seaview Rd. Cazadero, CA 95421
451 S. Cloverdale Blvd, Cloverdale, CA 95425
P.O. Box 434 Cloverdale, CA 95425
595 Heiman Ln. Cotati, CA 94931
5240 Bohemian Hwy. P.O. -Box 461 Camp Meeker, CA 95419
C/O Don King,, 1521 Fou ntaingrove Pkwy Santa Rosa, CA 95403
P.O. Box 877 Monte Rio CA'95462
15010 Armstrong Woods Rd P.O. Box 195 Guerneville, CA 95446
P.O. Box 1064 Occidental, CA 95465
P.O. Box 11526 (95406) 2156West College Ave Santa Rosa, CA
95401
1301 Redwood Way Ste #170 Petaluma, CA 94954
C/O 3799 Bohemian Hwy P.O. Box 244 Occidental, CA 95465
P.O. Box 508 Cazadero, CA 95421
250 Ross Lane Sebastopol, CA P.O. Box 534 Graton, CA 95444
490 Mendocino Ave Ste 206 Santa Rosa, CA 95401
6530 Mirabel Rd. P.O. Box 261 Forestville, CA 95436
P.O. Box 280 EI Verano, CA 95433
5438 Alta Monte Dr Santa Rosa, CA 95404
�1
SMART
750 Lindaro St'. Suite 200 San Rafael, CA 94901
North Marin Water
999 Rush Creek PI P.O. Box 146'Novato, CA 94948
Russiarf River'Ca-Water
P.O. Box 954 Forestville, CA 95436
SweetwaterSprings Water
17081 Hwy 116 Suite B P.O. Box 48 Guerneville, CA 95446
Timber Cove Water
P.O. Box 118 Jenner, CA 95450
Rains Creek Water
P.O. Box 730 Forestville, CA 95436
Windsor Water (Town of Windsor)
9291 Old Redwood Hwy Windsor, CA 95492
Bodega Bay Public Utilities
265 Doran Park Rd. P.O. Box 70 Bodega Bay, CA 94923
SCPSA
965 Sonoma Ave Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Palm Drive Health Care
501 Petaluma Ave. Sebastopol, CA 95472
Bay Area Air Quality -
939 Ellis St. San Francisco, CA 94109
Sonoma Valley Health Care
347 Andrieux St. P.O. Box 600 Sonoma CA 95476
Coast Life Ambulance
P.O., Box 1056 38901 Ocean Dr. Gualala, CA 95445
NCRA
419 Talmage Road Suite M Ukiah, CA 95482
LAFCO
575 Administration Dr. Rm 104A Santa Rosa, CA 95403
REDCOM
2796 Ventura Ave Santa Rosa, CA 95403
North Bay Coop Library
55 E. Street Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Law Library
2604 Ventura Ave Santa Rosa, CA 95403
SCERA-Retirement
433 Aviation Blvd. Santa Rosa, CA 95403
SCAVA Service Authority
2550 Ventura Ave Santa Rosa, CA 95403
So Co Open Space Authority
747 Mendocino Ave Suite 100 Santa Rosa, CA 95401
So Co Transportation Authority
490 Mendocino Ave Ste 206 Santa Rosa, CA 95401
SCWMA
2300 County Center Dr. B100 Santa Rosa, CA 95403
School Districts
Alexander Valley Union
8511 Highway 128, Healdsburg, CA 95448
Bellevue Union
3150 Education Drive, Santa Rosa, CA 95407
Bennett Valley Union
2250 Mesquite Drive, Santa Rosa, CA 95405
Cinnabar
286 Skillman Lane, Petaluma, CA 94975-0399
Cloverdale Unified
97 School Street, Cloverdale, CA 95425
Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified
5860 Labath Avenue, Rohnert Park, CA 94928
Dunham
4111 Roblar Road,' Petaluma, CA 94952
Forestville Union
6321 Highway 116, Forestville, CA 95436-9699
Fort Ross
30600 Seaview Road, Cazadero, CA 95421
Geyserville Unified
1300 Moody Lane, Geyserville, CA 95441
Gravenstein Union
3840 Twig Avenue, Sebastopol, CA 95472-5750
Guerneville
14630 Armstrong Woods Rd, Guerneville, CA 95446
Harmony Union
1935 Bohemian Highway, Occidental, CA 95465
Healdsburg Unified
1028 Prince Street, Healdsburg, CA 95448 "
Horicon
35,555 Annapolis Road, Annapolis, CA 95412-9713
Kashia
Skaggs Springs Road, Stewarts Point, CA 95480
Kenwood
230 Randolph Avenue, Kenwood, CA 95452
.Liberty
170 Liberty School Road, Petaluma, CA 94952
Mark West Union
305 Mark West Springs Rd, Santa Rosa, CA 95404-1101
Monte Rio Union
20700 Foothill Drive, Monte Rio, CA 95462
Montgomery Elementary
18620 Fort Ross Road, Cazadero, CA 95421
Oak Grove Union
5299 Hall Road, Santa Rosa, CA 95401
Old Adobe Union
845 Crinella Drive, Petaluma, CA 94954
Petaluma City Elementary
200 Douglas Street, Petaluma, CA 94952
Petaluma Joint Union High
200 Douglas Street, Petaluma, CA 94952
Piner-Olivet Union
3450 Coffey Lane, Santa Rosa, CA 95403-1919
Rincon Valley Union
1000 Yulupa Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95405
Roseland
1934 Biwana Drive, Santa Rosa, CA 95401
Santa Rosa City Elementary
211 Ridgway Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95401
Santa Rosa City High
211 Ridgway Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA -95401
I
Sebastopol Union
7611 Huntley, Sebastopol, CA 95472
Sonoma, Valley Unified
17850 Railroad Avenue, Sonoma, CA 95476
Twin Hills Union
700 Watertrough Road, Sebastopol, CA 95472
Two Rock Union
5001 Spring Hill Road, Petaluma, CA 94952
Waugh
1851 Hartman Lane, Petaluma, CA 94954
West Side Union.
1201 Felta Road, H.ealdsburg, CA 95448
West Sonoma County High
462 Johnson Street, Sebastopol, CA 95472
Wilmar Union
3775 Bodega Avenue, Petaluma, CA 94952
Windsor Unified
9291 Old Redwood, Hwy, Bldg 500, Windsor, CA 95492
Wright
4385 Price Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95407
APPENDIX 3
Requested Whistleblower Response
1. Do you post copies of the state whistleblower statutes and hotline number in your employee
breakroom? Yes No
2. How would an emolovee allegation of significant wrongdoing be directed within your organization?
3. How would a citizen allegation of significant wrongdoing be directed within your organization?
4. Do you believe that, present laws and practices provide an adequate safeguard for your organization
and for those individuals who may wish to report wrongdoing? If yes, please explain.
Yes _ No
5. Do you believe that a local twenty-four hour hot line, additional assurance of confidentiality and
summary annual reports to the citizens would be of substantial value when managing increasingly
scarce governmental resources? Yes No
6. Given time and adequate description of a proposed structure and process, would you consider,
formally adopting a,resolution to participate in a countywide whistleblower program administered by
either the Grand Jury or the County Auditor -Controller office? Yes No
7. Comments:
tA