EDITORIAL, Appeal-Democrat -
There's no doubt in our minds that the topic of the Yuba County Grand Jury report was an important one: School security.
Did they look at all the relevant angles and get all the facts right? We don't know, yet, but we hope that Marysville Joint Unified School District officials take some time to measure out their answers to the report when they file their official response.
Historically, we think, responses (at least immediate responses) by officials to grand jury reports fall into a couple disappointing classes: They try to discount the findings by discrediting the jury (didn't ask the right questions, a group of people with no depth of understanding, lack context, etc.) or go into denial mode.
The latter seems to be the tack taken by school Superintendent Gay Todd when asked to comment on the findings for a story in Friday's edition by Eric Vodden.
The grand jury report said that security cameras, door locks and public address systems were often missing, inadequate or lacked maintenance. It said that most of the doors they looked at couldn't be locked from the inside and that some classrooms were missing doors.
Todd didn't exactly say the grand jury was mistaken. But she said that security procedures and safety measures were approved by local law enforcement. Installing new doors with locks? Huge price tag, she said. At one campus alone, it could cost from $40,000 to $70,000. And she also said that all doors do lock and all classrooms do have doors.
If so, what were the grand jury members looking at?
The jury members visited three intermediate and two high schools. They reported that the district lacked a comprehensive policy for security cameras and that the administrative staff failed to respond in a timely manner to known security issues.
Todd said that sheriff's and police personnel conducted staff training and security surveys. She said they brought up no serious concerns. Cameras? Again, she cited the huge expense of upgrading cameras.
To be fair on a couple fronts to all officials who have to deal with grand jury reports:
• We always ask for immediate response to the reports and the officials might be taken by surprise. We're hopeful that elected school board members and their administrative representatives lay out a better case when they've had time to look at the report.
• We can see where it would be off-putting for a group of citizens with no real past experience in your world to suddenly come traipsing through with questions about something that is just one in a thousand subjects you're charged with dealing with. And they're probably asking questions from a point of view with some evident bias.
Yet, we see great value in ordinary citizens investigating issues for the rest of us citizens and representing a general point of view from outside the system. Government agencies should be able to stand up to that sort of scrutiny.
• Reports like this one point up one of the inherent problems with our budgeting systems for taxpayer-supported agencies of all kinds. What if there is an immediate need that isn't budgeted for? What are officials supposed to do? They can't legally vary from the budget; they can't print money; and they can't use deficit spending.
So when national tragedies occur and we're suddenly forced to look at the viability of the security systems in our schools, and if they are found lacking … what can be done? Legally? How are officials supposed to respond to a report that cites needs that they can't afford to address?
We'd like to see officials respond thoughtfully to grand jury reports. If they disagree or don't see the legitimacy of points in a report, they should just explain why and cite their own evidence. If the findings are moot because there simply aren't the dollars available to address concerns, they should just say so and ask the public for solutions. If they think that the grand jury has a good point or two, but are just a little indignant for being called on it, they should get over it.
No comments:
Post a Comment