The second of 14 editions of California’s school districts finds us finishing up those that have unrestricted net assets, versus unrestricted net deficits.
Only two school districts have not made their comprehensive annual financial reports (CAFRs) available. This is a very small segment, considering we’ve obtained the information for nearly 1,000 districts.
We have shown these two districts at a zero unrestricted net position (UNP), but actual numbers may vary depending on some disclosure by Big Sur Unified and Linns Valley-Poso Flat Union. Based on the percentages, casting them at zero may not be a charitable gesture, as those serving a small constituency have fared better in this ranking.
We just found, in looking for a third missing audited financial statement, that another two districts have paired up for their CAFR, so we’re now focused on 935 reporting entities.
We also have our first Orange County school district, which is the only one in County to have a positive UNP. It is Fountain Valley Elementary and it is in 102nd place. Rankings 67 to 132 are provided below first.
I wouldn’t want to leave you without an interesting update discussion of SB 1421, which is provided by the Daily Bulletin and the OC Register at the very bottom below (see MOORLACH UPDATE — SB 1421 and SB 828 — May 31, 2018 and MOORLACH UPDATE — California Cop Culture — June 19, 2018).
|66||Belleview Elementary||Sonora||Tuolumne||45||1,711||$ 697,730||$ 408|
|67||Wheatland||Wheatland||Yuba||16||7,531||$ 3,062,000||$ 407|
|68||Montgomery Elementary||Cazadero||Sonoma||63||881||$ 354,783||$ 403|
|69||Hart-Ransom Union Elem||Modesto||Stanislaus||23||4,453||$ 1,783,705||$ 401|
|70||Mark West Union Elem||Santa Rosa||Sonoma||7||14,858||$ 5,900,143||$ 397|
|71||Firebaugh-Las Deltas Uni||Firebaugh||Fresno||14||8,998||$ 3,352,744||$ 373|
|72||Semitropic Elementary||Wasco||Kern||92||368||$ 129,145||$ 351|
|73||Douglas City Elementary||Douglas City||Trinity||69||831||$ 290,410||$ 349|
|74||Elkins Elementary||Paskenta||Tehama||100||270||$ 91,495||$ 339|
|75||Bogus Elementary||Montague||Siskiyou||93||358||$ 118,339||$ 331|
|76||Garfield Elementary||Eureka||Humboldt||96||331||$ 107,899||$ 326|
|77||Jefferson Elementary||Paicines||San Benito||107||203||$ 65,049||$ 320|
|78||Trinity Center Elementary||Trinity Center||Trinity||91||424||$ 131,760||$ 311|
|79||Gazelle Union Elementary||Gazelle||Siskiyou||102||290||$ 89,235||$ 308|
|80||Kenwood||Kenwood||Sonoma||29||4,276||$ 1,291,001||$ 302|
|81||South San Francisco Unif||So San Francisco||San Mateo||2||82,935||$ 22,830,283||$ 275|
|82||Flournoy Union Elementary||Flournoy||Tehama||104||267||$ 72,816||$ 273|
|83||Cuddeback Union Elem||Carlotta||Humboldt||79||892||$ 220,293||$ 247|
|84||Indian Diggings Elementary||Somerset||El Dorado||110||164||$ 39,078||$ 238|
|85||Waukena Joint Union Elem||Tulare||Tulare||75||1,021||$ 235,246||$ 230|
|86||Stone Corral Elementary||Visalia||Tulare||83||745||$ 170,096||$ 228|
|87||Lake Elementary||Orland||Glenn||101||418||$ 90,128||$ 216|
|88||Happy Camp Union Elem||Happy Camp||Siskiyou||72||1,304||$ 270,429||$ 207|
|89||Pine Ridge Elementary||Auberry||Fresno||84||897||$ 168,329||$ 188|
|90||Di Giorgio Elementary||Arvin||Kern||82||967||$ 180,048||$ 186|
|91||Browns Elementary||Rio Oso||Sutter||89||975||$ 135,317||$ 139|
|92||Klamath River Union Elem||Horse Creek||Siskiyou||109||470||$ 60,376||$ 128|
|93||Robla Elementary||Sacramento||Sacramento||19||20,773||$ 2,656,403||$ 128|
|94||Paradise Elementary||Modesto||Stanislaus||94||936||$ 118,285||$ 126|
|95||Rockford Elementary||Porterville||Tulare||85||1,344||$ 164,825||$ 123|
|96||Caliente Union Elementary||Caliente||Kern||95||964||$ 115,753||$ 120|
|97||Junction City Elementary||Junction City||Trinity||103||695||$ 81,391||$ 117|
|98||Twain Harte||Twain Harte||Tuolumne||48||5,468||$ 626,757||$ 115|
|99||Wasco Union High||Wasco||Kern||13||31,543||$ 3,357,016||$ 106|
|100||Round Valley Joint Elem||Bishop||Inyo||98||1,047||$ 104,672||$ 100|
|101||Kneeland Elementary||Kneeland||Humboldt||113||337||$ 26,881||$ 80|
|102||Fountain Valley Elementary||Fountain Valley||Orange||10||56,680||$ 4,442,293||$ 78|
|103||Indian Springs Elementary||Big Bend||Shasta||114||220||$ 16,282||$ 74|
|104||San Lucas Union Elem||San Lucas||Monterey||112||417||$ 28,309||$ 68|
|105||Raisin City Elementary||Raisin City||Fresno||87||2,129||$ 140,090||$ 66|
|106||Green Point Elementary||Blue Lake||Humboldt||115||233||$ 14,007||$ 60|
|107||North County Joint Union||Hollister||San Benito||80||3,668||$ 219,029||$ 60|
|108||Big Pine Unified||Big Pine||Inyo||99||1,820||$ 103,599||$ 57|
|109||Summerville Union High||Tuolumne||Tuolumne||51||9,824||$ 552,045||$ 56|
|110||Strathmore Union Elem||Strathmore||Tulare||70||5,820||$ 281,596||$ 48|
|111||Bonny Doon Union Elem||Santa Cruz||Santa Cruz||90||3,069||$ 134,295||$ 44|
|112||Alta-Dutch Flat Union Elem||Alta||Placer||105||1,950||$ 66,099||$ 34|
|113||Monte Rio Union Elem||Monte Rio||Sonoma||108||2,292||$ 60,948||$ 27|
|114||Oak Run Elementary||Oak Run||Shasta||117||608||$ 7,541||$ 12|
|115||Orchard Elementary||San Jose||Santa Clara||78||19,431||$ 223,597||$ 12|
|116||Modoc Joint Unified||Alturas||Modoc||106||5,941||$ 65,541||$ 11|
|117||Palo Verde Union Elem||Tulare||Tulare||116||2,810||$ 12,295||$ 4|
|118||Three Rivers Union Elem||Three Rivers||Tulare||118||2,363||$ 1,506||$ 1|
|119||Big Sur Unified||Big Sur||Monterey||119||465||$ –||$ –|
|120||Linns Valley-Poso Flat Un||Glennville||Kern||120||642||$ –||$ –|
|121||Fieldbrook Elementary||McKinleyville||Humboldt||121||876||$ (1,390)||$ (2)|
|122||Somis Union||Somis||Ventura||123||3,295||$ (29,603)||$ (9)|
|123||Lucerne Elementary||Lucerne||Lake||129||3,388||$ (58,603)||$ (17)|
|124||Lassen View Union Elem||Los Molinos||Tehama||131||2,816||$ (79,639)||$ (28)|
|125||Armona Union Elementary||Armona||Kings||149||6,533||$ (196,891)||$ (30)|
|126||Golden Feather Union Elem||Oroville||Butte||135||2,756||$ (103,750)||$ (38)|
|127||Big Lagoon Union Elem||Trinidad||Humboldt||122||462||$ (25,973)||$ (56)|
|128||Vineland Elementary||Bakersfield||Kern||157||4,428||$ (253,793)||$ (57)|
|129||Whitmore Union Elementary||Whitmore||Shasta||127||736||$ (45,336)||$ (62)|
|130||Cutten Elementary||Eureka||Humboldt||166||5,307||$ (331,869)||$ (63)|
|131||Bridgeville Elementary||Bridgeville||Humboldt||125||564||$ (36,684)||$ (65)|
|132||Chowchilla Elementary||Chowchilla||Madera||274||22,462||$ (1,712,027)||$ (76)|
California bill takes aim at secrecy surrounding police officer personnel records
By tsaavedra |
Orange County Register
More than 40 years of police secrecy could begin to crumble if California lawmakers pass a new bill allowing the public release of personnel records for law enforcement officers involved in deadly force, on-duty sexual assaults and falsifying evidence.
Senate Bill 1421, by state Sen. Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, is the latest effort to open police records in the name of transparency. Since 1976, California law enforcement officers have been protected by statutes and court rulings — the strictest in the nation — that make it illegal to release virtually all police personnel records, including those involving wrongdoing and disciplinary action.
Past efforts to undo those protections have been rejected under withering opposition by law enforcement unions, which argue that releasing confidential personnel information would endanger police lives, fuel lawsuits and make it more difficult for officers to do their jobs.
However, Skinner said her bill is more narrow than past efforts and focuses on only the most serious of offenses. Details such as home addresses, names of family members and telephone numbers would remain exempt from disclosure. Additionally, under Skinner’s proposal, the release of information could be delayed when there is an open investigation.
“I believe the bill really balances the rights of law enforcement with the right of the public to know,” Skinner said. “(The public) will have the ability to see the agency took (its concerns) seriously. … Until we have access, we won’t be able to determine that.”
Supporters of the SB 1421 say police transparency is key to gaining the trust of the community.
Current law “allows bad officers to perpetuate and bad supervisors to continue their behavior without it ever being known,” said James Chanin, a former American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who practices in San Francisco. “The quality of policing goes down.”
For example, an off-duty Buena Park police officer in March pulled his gun on a man he mistakenly thought had stolen a roll of Mentos from a convenience store. A video of the police gaffe went viral on the internet. Yet, under current law, it is highly unlikely the public will ever know whether the officer was disciplined or retrained. Even his name remains secret, though his face has been seen by a million viewers.
When a Cleveland officer in 2014 shot and killed 14-year-old Tamir Rice, a letter was released from his previous employer saying that agency had found him unfit to be an officer and allowed him to resign.
The release of that kind of information is a crime in California.
“The public has a right to know what’s going on with their taxpayer money, but not in this state,” Chanin said.
Existing law has become a safety net for bad cops, critics say.
In 2006, Berkeley police officers refused — citing state protections — to cooperate with a civilian probe into the theft of heroin, methamphetamines and other drugs from 286 envelopes in the evidence locker. Without police participation, the probe was unable to determine the extent of the security breach.
The Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights was passed by the Legislature in 1976 as a way to keep police supervisors from framing the rank-and-file in the heat of scandal. Before then, officers could be bullied into taking polygraph tests or face losing their jobs. Police brass, according to some stories, would lean on wives and families to get confessions from officers when politically expedient.
The bill of rights basically makes it difficult to fire police officers.
That bill was coupled with a 1978 statute that prohibited disclosure of police disciplinary files to the public without court approval. Those provisions are codified in Penal Codes sections 832.7 and 832.8.
Supporters were worried that criminal defendants were using police disciplinary records to fish for evidence that would help their cases.
California’s protections were made virtually impenetrable in 2006, when the California Supreme Court ruled in Copley Press v. Superior Court of San Diego County that civilian police commissions could not publicly disclose their findings on police misconduct. As a result, some commissions could no longer gain access to personnel files. Lobbyists for the police said these protections were necessary for officer safety.
Specifically, Skinner’s bill would allow for the disclosure of reports, investigations or findings for incidents involving the discharge of a firearm or electronic control weapons, strikes by weapons to the head or neck area or deadly force; incidents of sustained sexual assault by an officer; and findings of dishonesty by an officer.
The proposal is scheduled to be heard Thursday by the Assembly Appropriations Committee. It already has been passed by the Senate.
The Peace Officers Research Association of California opposes the bill because of what it believes are damaging side effects to police. Among the concerns, the group says, is that officers fearing their names might be disclosed might hesitate in the field before acting, creating a police safety issue.
State Sen. John Moorlach, R-Costa Mesa, co-authored the bill and believes the benefits outweigh the risks.
“I’m trying to assist to getting to the truth and getting to the truth faster,” Moorlach said. “I think there has been a credibility concern about whether we are being told the truth.”
This e-mail has been sent by California State Senator John M. W. Moorlach, 37th District. If you no longer wish to subscribe, just let me know by responding with a request to do so.