Yamindira KanagaSundaram heads up a media conference Thursday at the Santa Cruz County Building regarding the final report from the Grand Jury regarding a host of county issues.

Pajaro Valley Unified School District’s Board of Trustees has failed to provide proper oversight of the district’s finances or management, according to the 2006-07 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report released Thursday.

The report, released at a press conference at the Santa Cruz County Courthouse on Ocean Street, covered nine investigations the Grand Jury has completed in the past year, including a scathing review of the PVUSD Board.

The other investigations were: how well funds from Measure D, the $118.5 Cabrillo College construction bond, are being managed; how well the county Assessor’s Office is doing its job regarding the values of business property; how well the county has complied with the “Help America Vote” Act and how electronic voting worked in the past election; a review of Santa Cruz County’s jails; a look into the Santa Cruz Police Department’s undercover surveillance of the planning of the Last Night New Year’s celebration; how well defibrillators are being disbursed to the county’s emergency agencies and a follow-up review on the county’s library system and its worker safety and hiring practices.

But of the nine investigations, the results of the PVUSD investigation were the most incendiary. The Grand Jury found that the board had failed to properly oversee the district’s budget, that various board members did not understand budgets well enough to make an informed opinion, that the board failed to properly oversee district expenditures and has failed, at least in spirit, to comply with the Brown Act regarding open, public meetings. It also says the board needs to investigate whether Superintendent Mary Anne Mays has committed ethical violations.

The Grand Jury also criticized the board for not looking for a full-time superintendent to rectify the poor performance of the district and that the superintendent and assistant superintendents have failed to provide leadership, standards or management of instructional programs.

Board members and school officials reacted in a variety of ways to the news. Superintendent Mays said she felt just the opposite.

“I would say both boards have been very responsive in terms of asking hard questions and in terms of administrating a proper level of oversight,” she said. “ I certainly couldn’t fault them for too much oversight.”

Board member Sandra Nichols, often criticized for asking too many questions of district management, said it was ironic that the Grand Jury criticized the board for not asking enough questions.

“The public expects oversight,” she said. “Criticism of trustees that are performing the duty of oversight is counterproductive.”

Former board members Sharon Gray and Rhea DeHart, who lost their seats in the 2006 election after being publicly chastised by Mays for “meddling,” welcomed the news.

“I’m so excited that this is finally coming out,” Gray said. “After all the terrible things they said about me, I feel vindicated.”

In one instance, in the year 2000, the report points out a $12.5 million loan the board accepted in a Certificate of Participation program, acting against the advice of private financial counsel. Gray was the lone board member to vote against what the report described as a “poor management decision.”

“Nobody wanted to oversee anything,” said Gray. “The times I was voted down 6-to-1 is crazy. And finally, with Mary Anne, I was getting some people on my side. That’s why she wanted to get rid of me.”

“One of the reasons Mary Anne hates some of us is because we micromanage,” said DeHart. “But that’s one the main purposes of a board, is to hold the district accountable for their actions. We were just trying to do what a board is supposed to do.”

Regarding the superintendent, the Grand Jury found that in 2003, within months of having left the firm America’s Choice, Mays asked a subordinate to purchase the America’s Choice Million Words Campaign. This request was followed up in 2003, 2004 and 2005 when she told subordinates to purchase a multi-year educational program from America’s Choice for three schools for a total of $1,300,000.

Furthermore, the report said, Mays might have stock options in the company and the district’s ethics policy includes conflict of interest guidelines that would apply, but the policy is not dated and it is not clear if Mays’ actions took place before or after the policy was instated.

“The Grand Jury discovered that the district not only paid more than $1,300,000 for an educational program and related materials that were inadequate and inappropriate, but the materials were purchased from the superintendent’s recent employer and she did not exempt herself from the purchasing process,” said the report.

But Mays said she never instructed anybody in the district to purchase America’s Choice curriculum and she gave the Grand Jury documentation showing that during the time she worked with America’s Choice, it was not a for-profit company.

“I was never offered any shares and I don’t hold any shares,” she said, a fact backed up by a letter from Judy Codding, president and CEO of America’s Choice.

Furthermore, said Mays, The Million Words Campaign is not part of America’s Choice, but was only based on a program the company offered titled the “The 25-Book Campaign.”

“The Millions Words Campaign is an idea, it’s not a thing that you buy,” said Mays.

The Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury is composed of community members and has three primary functions: to audit government agencies and officials, to publish its findings and to investigate citizens’ complaints. The members serve for one year.

Nichols said she was impressed with the Grand Jury’s thoroughness.

“The Grand Jury’s ability as private citizens to scrutinize the work of public entities is impressive to me. I was quite impressed that randomly selected public citizens are able to perform a duty like that,” she said. “Hopefully there will be discussions and improvements will result. I look at it as a mechanism for positive change.”

Gray said she is encouraged to run for the board again.

“Of course I’m going to run again and meddle more,” said Gray. “There is no reason this district cannot deliver a solid education to those young people. But they are focused on other stuff, probably enriching others or themselves, rather than educating our kids.”

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

*Photo by Tarmo Hannula*

(Published in 6/29/07 edition)

Share on Facebook