California League of Bond Oversight Committees

The First meeting of the Contra Costa County CaLBOC Chapter (CCCCC) was held on June 23, 2012.   ccccalboc.eventbrite.com
https://www.eventbrite.com/e/first-contra-costa-county-calboc-chapter-meeting-tickets-3675966916#


Second Meeting: Saturday • December 1, 2012 • 10am- Noon
ccccc2.eventbrite.com
Location: John Muir Inn
455 Muir Station Road, Martinez, CA 94553
TOPICS INCLUDE:
The Contra Costa County Grand Jury Report
School Bond Oversight Committees - Raising the Bar

Report by the 2011-2012 CCC Grand Jury
• May 10, 2012 • Report # 1208
Present and discuss the responses to the Grand Jury from the nine school districts in Contra Costa County who were required to formally respond.
• The California Treasurers and Tax Collectors School Finance Handbook
PDF of CACTTC Finance Handbook
Our County Treasurer's office will briefly explain this important handbook with requirements and best practices for prudent school financing.
http://cacttc.org/assets/school%20finance%20handbook%20sept%202012_final.pdf


How to Interpret the Financial Audit and Performance Audits for School Bonds. Learn basics to interpret financial and performance audit reports for school bonds, and the difference between a properly performed audit vs a substandard audit.
PerformanceAudits.pdf • 3 page PDF

1. Accountability Requirements
2. Understanding the Performance Audit
3. Performance Audit: Sample Questions to Ask the Auditor


District Responses to Grand Jury Report 1208:
• Acalanes Union High School
• Antioch Unified School District
• Byron Union School District
• Contra Costa Community College District
• John Swett Unified School District
• Martinez Unified School District
• Mt. Diablo Unified School District
• Pittsburg Unified School District
• West Contra Costa Unified School Districts

2 page PDF • Charts of districts responses to
Findings and Recommendations

ARCHIVES • Contra Costa County CaLBOC Chapter • CCCCC

PDF: CCCGJ1208.pdf
Contra Costa Grand Jury Report #1208
"School Bond Oversight Committees - Raising the Bar"

by the 2011-2012 CCC Grand Jury, May 10, 2012
The report is to the Governing Boards of: Acalanes Union School, Antioch Unified School District, Byron Union School District, Contra Costa Community College District, John Swett Unified School District, Martinez Unified School District, Mt. Diablo Unified School District, Pittsburg Unified School District, West Contra Costa Unified School District.


Findings

  1. The Grand Jury commends the many citizens who serve on bond oversight committees and devote considerable time and effort to the task, without any compensation.
  2. Ballot language that is overly general in identifying specific projects, and fails to indicate priorities and at least a realistic estimate of project costs, impedes meaningful and effective oversight and accountability.
  3. Bond proceeds are sometimes used to provide General Fund relief in various ways, which even if lawful, may not have always been fully disclosed to voters in the ballot language
  4. District boards have an inherent conflict of interest in selecting, and in some cases, having the power to remove with or without cause, the members of the oversight committee who are required to oversee the district's spending of bond funds.
  5. Districts do not consistently reach out to the legally-mandated organizations, to local professional associations, community groups, or to district residents generally, to seek independent, qualified and motivated nominees for their bond oversight committees.
  6. There does not always appear to be a consistent and transparent process for interested persons to be nominated, apply for, and be appointed to membership on oversight committees, or disclosure of any previous employment by, or other prior involvement or business relationship with, the district.
  7. Districts do not consistently provide timely, adequate and independent training or resource materials for members of their bond oversight committees that explain their role, duties and functions, or provide training in the skills needed to analyze the kinds of fmancial data that bond oversight committee members are asked to review.
  8. Although all oversight committees have bylaws, they do not appear to include or take into account "best practices" recommended by independent groups.
  9. The public websites required to be maintained by districts for their bond oversight committees are not always easily located or navigable.
  10. The websites required to be maintained by districts for their bond oversight committees are not always timely or complete in posting agenda materials, minutes, reports and other required items.
  11. Financial reports furnished to oversight committees by the districts are not always complete and comprehensive enough to allow meaningful and effective review and oversight.
  12. Financial data and reports are not always furnished to oversight committees early enough to allow time for thorough review prior to meetings.
  13. Districts do not typically afford their oversight committees an opportunity to provide input into defining the scope and content of the district's required annual performance audit.
  14. The performance audits provided by some districts to their oversight committees are so limited in scope and conclusory as to prevent meaningful and effective oversight.