Citizen Oversight Committee
Membership
The seven-member minimum requirement listed in the Education
Code allows for five members from interest groups (a business person, taxpayer,
senior citizen, representative from a college support organization and a
student) as well as two at-large members not belonging to one of these groups.
Since it is likely that some expertise that would benefit the committee in its
work would be found in the at-large members, the possibility of increasing the
number of members to bring a broader range of expertise should be considered.
The argument that more at-large members would dilute the voices of the
stipulated interest groups is true. However, that was already contemplated in
the law when it stipulated that seven members is a minimum.
There are a number of specific areas of expertise that could be invited in press releases and other solicitations and should be given weight in consideration for COC membership. Some of these areas are as follows:
Citizen Oversight Committee
By-Laws
The committee’s by-laws were prepared by the district and issued to the committee. The by-laws authorize facility inspections and review functions for: the audit report, deferred maintenance proposals and cost-saving measures when offered by the district. The available meeting minutes do not reflect any review of deferred maintenance and cost saving proposals.
The by-laws do not define the process to deal with concerns or
issues raised by the oversight committee itself. They do not authorize a
committee role in working with the district to establish priorities when
projects are delayed or cancelled, as suggested by the text of Measure D. In
fact, the by-laws devote twice as much space to what the committee is not
authorized to do than what they are authorized to do.
Independent Audit Report
The performance audit dated
The performance audit dated
Construction Quality Control and
Construction Safety Programs
The Citizen Oversight Committee appears to have no role in the review of construction quality control and construction safety programs. Although such a role is not required by law, one might expect that the committee would insist on seeing program documentation to confirm that such programs are in place. Quality control problems could have a serious impact on cost and schedule. The public is reliant on the district to oversee these functions. The district contracts with contractors, the construction manager and inspector of record to assure quality and safety. However, in order to manage these areas and ensure compliance, an agreement on the definition of roles and responsibilities is critical.
The district has not fully implemented or defined an
integrated program that captures all construction activities. The design team
and the construction contractors play the key role, but the oversight function
of the district over the contractors, construction manager and the inspector of
record is critical to such projects. Many elements are in place, but there is
no single document for each of these two areas that defines the role and
responsibilities of all the parties.
Findings
Response: The
·
The District
Facility Master Plan (FMP) is a comprehensive document that sets forth a
long term vision for the facility needs of the college. It includes projects funded not only by local
bond funds, but also funds provided by the state capital outlay program,
redevelopment agencies, and local contributions. Twice a year, the FMP is submitted to the
Governing Board at a public meeting for approval and to the COC for
review. This report provides a detailed
summary of projects recently completed, projects under construction, and
projects approved for future construction. This semi-annual report also
provides recommendations for changes to FMP projects; scope, budget or
schedule. In addition, a monthly FMP
Project Status Report is submitted to the Governing Board and to members of the
COC for their review. This report
provides monthly updates on the status of major active FMP projects.
·
In compliance with Proposition 39, the voter pamphlet is a brief summary of portions of the Facility
Master Plan which are authorized projects to be funded with Measure D funds.
·
The COC
·
The Proposition 39
Response: The
COC “independence” means that the committee is not populated with
persons who have conflicts of interest with the District, the implementation of
Measure D, or the consultants who assist in the execution of Measure D. In all respects the establishment and
empowerment of the District COC satisfies all Proposition 39 requirements. The COC satisfies the membership requirements
of Education Code 15282, is totally independent, and satisfies Education Code
15278(b) which states: “The purpose of
the citizens' oversight committee shall be to inform the public concerning the
expenditure of bond revenues.”
Response from
the
The
·
General contractor/developer with
significant number of construction projects, apartments, homes, school
facilities
·
Local business owners: insurance, food
franchise
·
Previous experience on school oversight
committees
·
Public School Board Member
·
Local Financial Institution Board Member
·
Community relations
·
Representative of very large local
employer
·
·
Technical writer, editor
·
Student Senate leadership and budget
management
Response: The
As formulated by the Education Code, the COC is an
advisory committee empowered by State law, established by the Cabrillo College
Governing Board, overseen by the Governing Board and the COC is without the
authority to expand its powers or establish its own bylaws.
While the bylaws did
not reflect the phrase from the Full Ballot Text that the “District would work
with the Citizens’ Oversight Committee on prioritizing those project in the
event factors beyond the District’s control require that projects be
reconsidered,” such inclusion was not necessary. The District has had a successful, open
dialogue with the COC regarding what projects have been selected for funding,
and how those projects progress; Student Activities Center, Arts Education
Classrooms, Allied Health Classrooms, Watsonville Educational Center Expansion,
accessibility projects, and remodeling and renovating existing and vacated
classroom, lab and office space. In
fact, only one Measure D project has been deferred, the second access bridge
across Soquel Drive, and the deferral of the project was discussed with the
COC.
Response: The Cabrillo Community College Governing
Board PARTIALLY AGREES.
Proposition 39 does not provide any
guidance as to the content of a performance audit. In the absence of performance audit
standards, Cabrillo worked with their auditors prior to the audit to define a
process that fulfills the intent of Proposition 39. The critical component is to design a process
that compares the amounts spent to the purposes specified in the bond language
the voters approved. This type of report
requires that the accountant not issue an opinion, either positive or negative. The auditors have reported in the performance
audits the following for Cabrillo: “Our
review of the expenditures for the period July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006,
did not reveal any items that were paid from the general obligation bond funds
that did not comply with the purpose of the Bonds as approved by the registered
voters of the District on March 2, 2004.”
The financial audit reports include a summary of what
projects were funded with bond monies and state a conclusion whether bond money
was or was not used for teacher or administrative salaries or other school
operating expenses.
Response: The
Cabrillo Community College Governing Board DISAGREES
The District has defined quality control
and safety program requirements in the contracts with the construction
managers, architects, inspectors and contractors.
The contractors are
contractually responsible for the quality of their work as described in the
contract documents, Section 2.3.4.2 (Construction Quality). The construction manager has the authority
and responsibility to address defective or deficient construction or
workmanship as stated in section 2.3.4.3 of the contract (Rejection of
Work). The Inspector of Record also has
responsibility for the quality of work on the site as required by Section
9-81130 of the Education Code. In
addition the Architect of Record’s agreement with the District requires that
the Architect shall “advise the District regarding defects and deficiencies
observed by the Architect in the work of the contractors.”
With regards to safety, the contractors are
clearly responsible for safety on the job site as defined in section 4.9.1 of
their General Conditions which states:
The Contractor shall be
solely responsible for initiating, maintaining and supervising all safety
programs required by applicable law, ordinance, regulation or governmental
orders in connection with the performance of the contract, or otherwise
required by the type or nature of the Work.
The Contractor’s safety program shall include all actions and programs
necessary for compliance with California or federally statutorily mandated
workplace safety programs, including without limitation, compliance with the
California Drug Free Workplace Act of 1990 (California Government Code 8350 et
seq.). Without limiting or relieving the Contractor of its obligations
hereunder, the Contractor shall require that its Subcontractors similarly initiate
and maintain all appropriate or required safety programs. With regards to
safety each Contractor is defined as the “controlling employer” for purposes of
the Multi-Employer Worksite Rules of the California Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (California Code of Regulations 336.10).
The District has
implemented more frequent safety inspections as a result of concerns from the
Response from
The Cabrillo Community College Governing Board:
The Cabrillo Community College
Governing Board AGREES that the inspector of record may not have agreed to
having responsibility for quality control, but DISAGREES with the inspector of
record’s opinion. As mentioned in
item 6 the inspector of record is responsible for the document completion on
the site as is required by Section 81130 of the Education Code as follows:
“(a) The Department of General Services under the police power of the state shall supervise the design and construction of any school building or the reconstruction or alteration of, or addition to, any school building, if not exempted under Section 81133, to ensure that plans and specifications comply with the rules and regulations adopted pursuant to this article and building standards published in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, and to ensure that the work of construction has been performed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications, for the protection of life and property.”The District is not aware of any other inspector on site (of which there are currently five) who agrees with the opinion of the one cited.
Conclusions
Recommendations
Response from
the Cabrillo Community College Governing Board:
This recommendation will not be
implemented. The District Facility Master Plan is a detailed and comprehensive
report, expanding on the COC
Response from
the Cabrillo Community College Governing Board:
This recommendation will not be
implemented. The Education Code (15280) requires that “the citizens’ oversight
committee shall issue regular reports on the results of its activities. A
report shall be issued at least once a year.” The activities of the committee,
as defined in Education Code 15278(b) are to review expenditures of bond funds,
satisfy themselves that such expenditures were made for voter-approved purposes
and that no money was applied to teacher or administrative salaries or other
school operating expenses and then to inform the public concerning the past
expenditures of those funds. The
Governing Board and staff tracks all projects for which Measure D funds are
planned but have not been expended to date.
Response from
the Cabrillo Community College Governing Board:
This recommendation will not be
implemented. The recommendations are not consistent
with the requirements of the Education Code or are currently permitted by the
operation of the committee. As
previously stated, the committee’s independence is assured by the membership
selection requirements of the Education Code and the Ethics Policy Statement
relating to the committee. Further, the
Education Code contains no provision for an oversight committee to adopt its
own bylaws. Currently, the committee has
been advised that if the committee has any comments on the existing bylaws
approved by the Board that such suggestions may be made to district staff or
may be presented to the Board of Trustees in public session.
With respect to the selection of independent
auditor and the process of preparing and delivering the audit, California
Constitution directs that it is a district responsibility, not a committee
responsibility. The Committee, as
required by law, does receive and review, to whatever extent they determine,
the audit. The recommendations offered
by the
Response from
the Cabrillo Community College Governing Board:
This recommendation will not be
implemented. The California Constitution directs that the process of preparing
and delivering the audit is the District’s responsibility.
Response from
the Cabrillo Community College Governing Board:
This recommendation will not be
implemented. The California Constitution directs that the process of preparing
and delivering the audit is the District’s responsibility.
Response from
the Cabrillo Community College Governing Board:
This recommendation has been
implemented.
Response from
the Cabrillo Community College Governing Board:
This recommendation has been
implemented. The District currently uses newspaper advertisements, as well as
other forms of publicity, to attract applicants to serve on the Committee. The
District will continue to seek individuals who satisfy the qualifications of
membership as set forth in Education Code and if applicants also possess
experience in construction projects, accounting, finance, etc., those
applicants will have those experiences recognized in the selection process and,
assuming they satisfy the Education Code categories, would be attractive
members of the committee.
Response from
the Cabrillo Community College Governing Board:
This recommendation will not be
implemented. The bylaws and operating practice currently provide ways through
which concerns can be expressed. First,
the committee has exclusive control over the agenda of its meetings. If a
concern arose, the committee would agendize the issue and discuss it at its
next properly noticed public meeting. If
the committee requests the District respond to a concern, the response is
provided by the District at this meeting or at a subsequent meeting. If the committee is not satisfied with the
answer of the staff, Section 5.8 of the bylaws states that “individual members
of the committee retain the right to address the Board [of Trustees] either on
behalf of the Committee or as an individual.” The Board then has the duty to
respond to any concerns expressed.
Response from
the Cabrillo Community College Governing Board:
This recommendation has not been
implemented, but will be implemented during the spring 2008 semester.
Response from
the Cabrillo Community College Governing Board:
This recommendation will not be
implemented on existing work due to the fact this is addressed in current
contract language. On future projects, District will revise
contract language as necessary to provide additional clarif[ication] regarding
roles.
Response from
the Cabrillo Community College Governing Board:
This recommendation has been
implemented.
Response from
the Cabrillo Community College Governing Board:
This recommendation will not be
implemented. The performance audit report requires that the accountant not
issue an opinion, either positive or negative.
Response from
the Cabrillo Community College Governing Board:
This recommendation has not been
implemented, but will be implemented for the June 2008 audit.