El Tejon School District and Board Reviewed by Kern County Grand Jury

LEBEC, CA (Thursday, March 19, 2015 at 3 p.m.)—The Kern County Grand Jury has just issued a report about the El Tejon Unified School District. Here it is, exactly as it has been distributed today. We will observe that some items issued here as facts are not current. For instance (among other items) ETUSD does not currently run a Continuation School, transportation for school athletics has been largely restored and fees for students to bus to school are not being collected. Read our analysis of the Kern County Grand Jury’s report in the coming week’s issue of The Mountain Enterprise.

EL TEJON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
preface:
Tucked into San Emigdio Mountains is the small El Tejon Unified School District (District) serving approximately 730 students.  An elementary district was founded in 1876 and has grown into a unified school district that now includes: El Tejon Continuation School, Mountain Communities Family Resource Center, Frazier Park Elementary School, El Tejon Middle School and Frazier Mountain High School.

PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:

The 2014-2015 Kern County Grand Jury (Grand Jury) received multiple complaints concerning a wide range of concerns about the District Board Members and past District Superintendents of the El Tejon Unified School District.  Penal Code §933.5 authorizes the Grand Jury to investigate and report findings.  These complaints were assigned to the Health, Education and Social Services Committee (Committee).

PROCESS:

The inquiry began by doing internet research including watching video recordings of meetings of the District’s Board of Trustees (Board).  Many officials and citizens were interviewed by the Committee.   Local newspaper articles were also examined.

FACTS:

 The El Tejon Unified School District serves kindergarten through 12th-grade students in the mountain communities of the Tejon Pass, which include Frazier Park, Lebec, and Pine Mountain Club in the southern mountains of Kern County.  Lockwood Valley is part of the District even though it is within Ventura County, and Gorman students in Los Angeles County are accepted into the high school by special permit.  Frazier Mountain High School was established in 1995 after the unified school district was formed.

Figures show the District had a total of 1,433 students enrolled in grades K through 12 in 1996.  In 2000, there were 1,748 students.  In 2010, the number dropped to 1,123 and by 2012 the enrollment dropped to 980, which is a loss of 758 students.  Board Members stated the October 2014 enrollment to be approximately 731 students.

California has an open enrollment policy, which means a child can attend any school in the district, including charter schools, as long as there is space available.  Some districts will allow a child to attend a school in a neighboring district.

In 2013, the Peak to Peak Mountain Charter School left the District and opened under the Maricopa Unified School District.  This resulted in a loss of average daily attendance (ADA) for the District resulting in a loss of revenue.

Many students choose to attend schools within other school districts causing a loss of ADA.

The 2012-13 State Funded Base Revenue Limit for El Tejon Unified School District was $5,689.33 per student ADA.

Because of the District’s financial situation, money saving measures were initiated:

  • No transportation for school athletics
  • Bus pass was required for home to school transportation
    • o $80 for the year
    • o $40 for the semester
    • Staff layoffs
    • School maintenance repair projects were placed on hold

The closing of the middle school was also considered as an option but not initiated.

All school board meetings and actions of the board must follow the Ralph M. Brown Act and California Education Code.

FINDINGS:

F1. District communications were not functioning well and caused concerns for the public:

•Audio of recorded Board meetings is not user friendly

  • YouTube video feeds of Board meetings are incomplete
  • Minutes of Board meetings and agendas are provided in English only
  • District Newsletters were not found by the Committee or made available
  • Information regarding the new Superintendent was not made available to the public on the website, YouTube or in a press release

F2. Board of Trustees actions seems to be questionable:

  • Inconsistent Board Member statements indicated that the Brown Act and Williams Settlement Agreement may have been violated by not addressing all complaints equally and in a timely manner
  • Robert’s Rules of Order or equivalent are not currently being used at Board meetings
  • Vision Statement and Mission Statement are not current
  • Recusal protocol requiring a person recusing themselves to leave the immediate area before discussion or action begins is not being followed
  • No captions are listed under photographs to identify Board Members on the District’s web page
  • The timing of open and closed sessions Board meetings is not in the public’s interest

F3. Currently the District communications are not informing the public of the actions of the Board.

F4. Failure to use Robert’s Rules of Order resulted in chaos during Board meetings which led to an unproductive work environment.

F5. Holding closed Board sessions first results in the public being left waiting for hours for the open sessions, and the meetings have gone late into the night.

F6. Members of the public were upset with the Board’s failure to address their concerns during the public comment session and over solutions offered to District’s problems.

F7. As evidenced by Board Member interviews and Board meeting minutes, some Board Members seems to have personal agendas that do not consider the needs of the entire District.

F8. Board Members are unclear as to what is considered a conflict of interest regarding their ability to vote on raises/stipends and other related issues that affect their immediate family members.

F9. Loss of student enrollment has placed a financial burden on the District in meeting all of its statutory obligations.

F10. Home to school bus pass fees are not properly collected and accounted for.    Some Board Members stated that the fee is only voluntary.

COMMENTS:

The Committee would like to thank the past and present Superintendents as well as the members of the School Board who cooperated with us in this investigation.  The Committee has some concerns that not all the information given by the interviewees was truthful.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

R1. The Superintendent and Board Members should be trained in communication and meeting skills. This would allow the Board members and the public an opportunity to express and work out concerns.  (Finding 1)

R2. A Board Retreat with the Superintendent should be offered to develop communications and cooperation amongst themselves on an ongoing basis.  (Findings 1 and 2)

R3 Robert’s Rules of Order, the Brown Act, the Williams Settlement Agreement and Board Ethics training should be completed by all board members.  (Findings 2 and 4)

R4. Open session of Board meetings should be held at a reasonable time to allow public access and input prior to going into closed session.  (Finding 5)

R5. The public should be allowed adequate time to express their concerns in open session at Board meetings.  Board Members should address respectfully the public regarding their concerns.  (Findings 2, 5, and 6)

R6. Board Members should take into consideration the needs of the entire District.  (Finding 7)

R7. The District should consult legal counsel regarding the Brown Act on conflict of interest and personal concerns.  (Findings 2 and 8)

R8. The Board should address the public’s concerns to determine why so many students have left the District in hopes of re-enrolling those students.  This would help place the District on a better financial standing.  (Finding 9)

R9. The District should follow their adopted administrative policy concerning bus pass fees, so the fees are equally and equitably applied to all students who ride the bus.  (Finding 10)

NOTES:

  • The El Tejon Unified School District should post a copy of this report where it will be available for public review.
  • Past and present Kern County Grand Jury Final Reports and Responses can be accessed on the Kern County Grand Jury website:  www.co.kern.ca.us/grandjury.

RESPONSE REQUIRED WITHIN 90 DAYS

PRESIDING JUDGE
KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 212
BAKERSFIELD, CA  93301

 

CC:    FOREPERSON

KERN COUNTY GRAND JURY

1415 TRUXTUN AVENUE, SUITE 600

BAKERSFIELD, CA  93301

 

 

DISCLAIMER:

 

This report was issued by the Grand Jury with the exception of two jurors pursuant to Penal Code §916.2(a).   These jurors were excluded from all parts of the inquiry/investigation (including interviews), deliberations, writing and approval of this report.

This is part of the March 13, 2015 online edition of The Mountain Enterprise.

Have an opinion on this matter? We'd like to hear from you.