Monterey County Office of Education Report

County Office Evaluation August 19, 2020 Monterey County Office of Education Michael H. Fine Chief Executive Officer August 19, 2020 Deneen Guss, Ed.D., Superintendent Monterey County Office of Education 901 Blanco Circle Salinas, CA 93901 Dear Superintendent Guss: In February 2020, the Monterey County Office of Education entered into an agreement with the Fiscal Crisis and Managment Assistance Team (FCMAT) for a study to perform the following: Prepare an initial analysis of the county office fiscal oversight provided to the South Monterey County Joint Union High School District using FCMAT’s County Office Evaluation Tool, and make recommendations for improvement, if any. This report contains the study team’s findings and recommendations. FCMAT appreciates the opportunity to serve the Monterey County Office of Education and extends thanks to its staff for their cooperation and assistance during our review. Sincerely, Michael H. Fine Chief Executive Officer Michael H. Fine • Chief Executive Officer 1300 17th Street – City Centre, Bakersfield, CA 93301-4533 • Tel. 661-636-4611 • Fax 661-636-4647 www.fcmat.org Table of Contents Table of Contents About FCMAT ...................................................................................................ii Background.......................................................................................................1 County Office Evaluation Guidelines ...................................................................1 Study Team ................................................................................................................2 County Office Evaluation Tool .....................................................................3 Summary ....................................................................................................................3 Scale ............................................................................................................................8 Conclusion .......................................................................................................9 Appendices ......................................................................................................9 Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Monterey County Office of Education I About FCMAT FCMAT’s primary mission is to assist California’s local K-14 educational agencies to identify, prevent, and resolve financial, human resources and data management challenges. FCMAT provides fiscal and data management assistance, professional development training, product development and other related school business and data services. FCMAT’s fiscal and management assistance services are used not just to help avert fiscal crisis, but to promote sound financial practices, support the training and development of chief business officials and help to create efficient organizational operations. FCMAT’s data management ser- vices are used to help local educational agencies (LEAs) meet state reporting responsibilities, improve data quality, and inform instructional program decisions. FCMAT may be requested to provide fiscal crisis or management assistance by a school district, charter school, community college, county office of education, the state superintendent of public instruction, or the Legislature. When a request or assignment is received, FCMAT assembles a study team that works closely with the LEA to define the scope of work, conduct on-site fieldwork and provide a written report with findings and recommendations to help resolve issues, overcome challenges and plan for the future. Studies by Fiscal Year 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 FCMAT has continued to make adjustments in the types of support provided based on the changing dy- namics of K-14 LEAs and the implementation of major educational reforms. FCMAT also develops and provides numerous publications, software tools, workshops and professional learning opportunities to help LEAs operate more effectively and fulfill their fiscal oversight and data management responsibilities. The California School Information Services (CSIS) division of FCMAT assists the California Department of Edu- cation with the implementation of the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS). CSIS also hosts and maintains the Ed-Data website (www.ed-data.org) and provides technical expertise to the Ed-Data partnership: the California Department of Education, EdSource and FCMAT. FCMAT was created by Assembly Bill (AB) 1200 in 1992 to assist LEAs to meet and sustain their financial obligations. AB 107 in 1997 charged FCMAT with responsibility for CSIS and its statewide data management work. AB 1115 in 1999 codified CSIS’ mission. seidutS fo rebmuN About FCMAT Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Monterey County Office of Education II About FCMAT AB 1200 is also a statewide plan for county offices of education and school districts to work together locally to improve fiscal procedures and accountability standards. AB 2756 (2004) provides specific responsibili- ties to FCMAT with regard to districts that have received emergency state loans. In January 2006, Senate Bill 430 (charter schools) and AB 1366 (community colleges) became law and ex- panded FCMAT’s services to those types of LEAs. On September 17, 2018 AB 1840 was signed into law. This legislation changed how fiscally insolvent dis- tricts are administered once an emergency appropriation has been made, shifting the former state-centric system to be more consistent with the principles of local control, and providing new responsibilities to FCMAT associated with the process. Since 1992, FCMAT has been engaged to perform more than 1,000 reviews for LEAs, including school districts, county offices of education, charter schools and community colleges. The Kern County Superin- tendent of Schools is the administrative agent for FCMAT. The team is led by Michael H. Fine, Chief Execu- tive Officer, with funding derived through appropriations in the state budget and a modest fee schedule for charges to requesting agencies. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Monterey County Office of Education III Introduction Background Introduction Background In September 2018, Governor Brown signed Assembly Bill (AB) 1840, making a significant change in how insolvent school districts are administered after they receive a state emergency appropriation. As part of that legislation, Education Code Section 41326(1), the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) was given the responsibility of reviewing the fiscal oversight performed by the county superinten- dent of schools for any district receiving an emergency apportionment. FCMAT is required to report its find- ings to the Legislature and provide a copy of that report to the Department of Finance, the superintendent of public instruction (SPI), and the president of the State Board of Education (SBE). This report is required to include findings regarding fiscal oversight actions that were or were not taken and may include recommen- dations for an appropriate legislative response to improve fiscal oversight of school districts. In the years following the initial report of fiscal oversight performed by the county superintendent of schools, FCMAT will complete annual reviews of the county office’s effectiveness in overseeing the district. On July 23, 2009, Senate Bill (SB) 130 (Denham, co-author Assembly Member Caballero) was signed into law, authorizing the appointment of a state administrator and providing a $13 million emergency state loan or line of credit to the King City Joint Union High School District (later renamed the South Monterey Coun- ty Joint Union High School District). This is the initial report for the Monterey County Office of Education under AB 1840 and covers the study period from 2010 to the date of this review in 2020. FCMAT will review the current fiscal oversight of the county superintendent of schools since there was no provision for such a review at the actual time of insolvency. County Office Evaluation Guidelines FCMAT entered into a study agreement with the Monterey County Office of Education on February 15, 2020 and a study team visited the district on March 9, 2020 to conduct interviews, collect data and review docu- ments. Following fieldwork, the study team continued to review and analyze documents. This report is the result of those activities. FCMAT’s reports focus on systems and processes that may need improvement. Those that may be function- ing well are generally not commented on in FCMAT’s reports. In writing its reports, FCMAT uses the Asso- ciated Press Stylebook, a comprehensive guide to usage and accepted style that emphasizes conciseness and clarity. In addition, this guide emphasizes plain language, discourages the use of jargon and capitalizes relatively few terms. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Monterey County Office of Education 1 Introduction Study Team Study Team The team was composed of the following members: Joel Montero Nicolas Schweizer FCMAT Consultant FCMAT Consultant Leonel Martínez Sheldon Smith FCMAT Technical Writer FCMAT Consultant Misty Key FCMAT Consultant Each team member reviewed the draft report to confirm accuracy and achieve consensus on the analysis. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Monterey County Office of Education 2 County Office Evaluation Tool Summary County Office Evaluation Tool The Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) has developed the County Office Evaluation Tool (COET) to help assess the effectiveness of county offices in fiscal oversight of school districts that have received an emergency apportionment. The COET includes 36 questions and is intended to satisfy the requirements of AB 1840 regarding review and assessment of the county office, determine how well those districts adhere to Education Code requirements, and communicate with those districts about these issues. The tool identifies the key review elements performed by county office staff in their review of annual budgets, interim reports and unaudited actuals. Responses to each of the elements are confined to “yes” or “no.” Any “no” response requires a written explanation of the remedial action taken by the county superintendent to address the issue. Oversight performance is assessed using a risk protocol based on the number of “no” responses related to the assessment of each element. The team gathers information through an initial document request and on-site interviews of county office staff. The greater the number of “no” answers to the questions in the analysis, the higher the score, which points to a lack of sufficient oversight. To help the county office understand the “no” responses, narratives are included that give the reason for the response and actions that may be needed to obtain a “yes” answer. Identifying issues early with districts at risk of insolvency is key to restoring and maintaining their fiscal health. Diligent oversight will help a district better understand its financial objectives and strategies to sustain a high level of fiscal efficiency and overall solvency. County Office Name: Monterey County Office of Education Date of Fieldwork: March 9, 2020 Summary In 2010, the governing board of the King City Joint Union High School District declared the district fiscally insolvent. This decla- ration occurred after several years of financial struggles that were punctuated by significant issues related primarily to collective bargaining. At the core of the district’s struggles was a difference in interpretation of a signed and approved collective bargain- ing agreement that was negotiated in 2007. After a series of attempts to solve the dispute, the case was forwarded to the Public Employee Relations Board (PERB) to adjudicate. As a result of the PERB final decision, the district found itself in severe financial distress, which eventually led to fiscal insolvency. Had the PERB decision not reversed the district’s position on the collective bargaining issue, the district would have remained solvent although the county office had communicated fiscal issues and con- cerns related to the cost of total compensation for all staff prior to the declaration of insolvency. The Monterey County Office of Education provides fiscal oversight to all of the school districts in the county as a result of the original AB 1200 legislation signed into law in 1991 and expressed in the California Education Code Section 42127 and related subsections. FCMAT assessed the county office’s involvement with the district during the course of its normal oversight responsibilities and specif- ically during the period that led to the district’s declaration of insolvency and beyond, up to and including the date of this review. The team reviewed the fiscal oversight of the qualifying district by the county superintendent of schools utilizing documents prepared by county office staff (see attached document request list) both historical and current as well as conducting a series of interviews with individuals key to the oversight process. The team asked a series of questions relating to the time leading up to the insolvency, in addition to reviewing oversight practices currently employed by the county office. Some of the county office’s external business staff worked there at the time of the district’s insolvency, which added to the completeness of the historical record. The team’s findings indicate that the fiscal oversight actions taken by the county office during the study period in question were appropriate and adequate within the guidelines contained in the California Education Code and were consistent with the best practices established in a variety of other documents including the County Office Fiscal Oversight Guide and the County Office Fiscal Procedural Manual. The team found that in its oversight of the district, the county office applied the indicators of fiscal distress during the certification process and appropriately qualified the school district in a timely fashion. Moreover, the county office applies the process of fiscal oversight consistently with all school districts and programs within its purview. The majority of the review elements included in the COET were evidenced in the documentation and forms provided by the county office used to perform its AB 1200 oversight reviews. Where information was not available in the documentation, staff described a robust review process that included all of the elements. While not the focus of this review, moderate tension clearly existed between the original state administrators, the county superintendent and the county office staff who were in the positions at the time of insolvency, but are no longer in place. The relationship between all of the parties improved when the district transitioned to a state trusteeship and later to a county trustee. The team found that communication between the county superintendent, county office staff and county trustee in the current model of oversight was timely and consistent with a focus on district recovery. In the district review, the county office staff and superintendent rely heavily on the feedback from the county trustee when making determinations about current and future solvency of the district and strategic decisions related to collec- tive bargaining and resource allocation. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Monterey County Office of Education 3 County Office Evaluation Tool Summary The following section of this report focuses on the team’s implementation of the COET. All of the areas assessed are listed be- low. A notation of “yes” indicates that FCMAT found sufficient evidence to support that appropriate fiscal oversight actions were taken. If an area has an indication of “no,” the team found either insufficient documentation or a lack of focus with respect to that particular responsibility. If the exclusion in the area is material, it is noted in the narrative. For all of the items assessed, some narrative is included. At Budget At Interim At Unaudited Period Period Actuals Did the county office of education (COE) receive and retain certifi- cations with original signatures? 1 Narrative: Staff indicated that this process is followed and that is Yes Yes Yes supported by the documentation. Blue ink signatures are part of its interim/budget review document. Did the COE review the status of all import, export, general ledger and supplemental checks? 2 Narrative: These were always noted in the budget/interim review Yes Yes Yes materials, and the districts were asked to fix them and resubmit if the COE staff found errors. Did the COE verify whether allowable exceptions (also known as explanations) in the technical review process were reasonably explained? 3 Yes Yes Yes Narrative: The COE verified when explanations were made to the Technical Review Check (TRC) exceptions, and they were clear and concise. Did the COE verify whether there were no fatal “F” exceptions in the technical review process? 4 Narrative: The COE verified that the district submitted an “official Yes Yes Yes export” free of fatal exceptions and acknowledged this in the review materials. Did the COE review transfers being made from restricted funds (e.g., building fund, bond interest and redemption fund, self-insur- ance fund, etc.)? Narrative: Staff indicated that the procedure is to review transfers and comment on them in the district’s review checklist. Staff also indicated that they review funds and if they go negative, they contact both the district and the county treasurer. The chief business official monitors funds and takes action with the districts when necessary. 5 Staff indicated that they allow negative balances and will make a No No No notification in the review worksheet (confirmed in materials). Staff further indicated that they look for “due to” and “due from” being reconciled in the out years. Staff verifies that due to and due from are zeroed out at interims, as reflected in the interim comments. The review tool points out negative balances, but does not require districts to respond (unlike other sections of their review form). The best practice would be to require the district to respond, reconcile and resolve negative balances. Did the COE review Form A and determine whether the prior year’s P-2 and annual ADA agreed with the actual attendance report? 6 Narrative: FCMAT verified this in the interview with staff. The review Yes Yes Yes form has a place for it, in addition to using the ADA tracking work- sheet. Did the COE investigate and determine the reason for any signifi- cant change in ADA since the prior reporting period? 7 Yes Yes Yes Narrative: FCMAT verified that this occurs in the interview with staff and reviewed the county office’s ADA tracking worksheet. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Monterey County Office of Education 4 County Office Evaluation Tool Summary At Budget At Interim At Unaudited Period Period Actuals Did the COE verify if the enrollment and ADA projections are rea- sonable for at least the past three years? 8 Yes Yes Yes Narrative: FCMAT verified this in the interview with staff and re- viewed their ADA tracking worksheet. Did the COE review the reasonableness of the explanations in the Criteria and Standards form? 9 Narrative: FCMAT verified this in an interview, and found their inter- Yes Yes Yes active (district/COE) review worksheet allows for and documents correspondence between the district and COE. Did the COE review the reasonableness of multiyear commitments listed in the criteria and standards by comparing them with the 10 information in the most recent audit report? Yes Yes Yes Narrative: FCMAT verified this with staff during the interview. The interim report review sheet also reviews the audit. Did the COE review retiree health and welfare benefits liabilities for reasonableness by comparing them with the information in the most recent audit report? 11 Yes Yes N/A Narrative: Documentation indicates that the COE staff reviews this as a part of Criteria and Standards, comparing appropriate transactions with recent district audits. Did the COE check the accuracy of the status of any salary settle- ment or negotiations against current bargaining agreements as presented in the Criteria and Standards and the Public Disclosure 12 Yes Yes N/A of Collective Bargaining Agreement? Narrative: FCMAT verified this through documentation supplied by the COE. If the district received a qualified or negative certification, did the COE review the AB 1200 disclosure documents and provide a written analysis regarding the viability and affordability of the col- 13 lective bargaining agreement within the 10-day statutorily required N/A N/A N/A period? Narrative: The district was certified as positive throughout the study period. Did the COE compare budget to actuals for all revenues and ex- penditures while also considering historical trend data? Narrative: The COE indicated these comparisons were completed at 14 budget and interim, and provided the documents used to complete Yes Yes No them. However, the forms the county office uses to document its review of unaudited acuals does not indicate these comparisons were made. Did the COE review the “% of difference” column for reasonability? Narrative: The forms the county office uses to document its review 15 Yes Yes No of the unaudited actuals does not indicate this check was made, although it was made for the budget and interim periods. Did the COE verify whether the district’s reserve calculation meets 16 the applicable percentage of reserve requirement in object 9789? Yes Yes Yes Narrative: FCMAT verified this through COE documentation. Did the COE verify whether the Local Control Funding Formula revenue (object 8011) agrees with the LCFF Calculator for the cur- 17 rent year and in the multiyear projection? Yes Yes Yes Narrative: FCMAT verified this through COE documentation and LCFF Calculator documents. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Monterey County Office of Education 5 County Office Evaluation Tool Summary At Budget At Interim At Unaudited Period Period Actuals Did the COE verify whether local taxes agree with the most recent report of local property taxes from the county auditor? 18 Yes Yes Yes Narrative: The COE verifies verifies that local taxes agree with the most recent county auditor local property tax report. Did the COE verify whether the district’s assumptions and bud- geted revenues are reasonable based on the latest information on the state budget, School Services of California, Inc. Dartboard, and 19 LCFF Calculator? Yes Yes N/A Narrative: FCMAT reviewed source review checklists that indicate these assumptions are routinely verified at budget and interim peri- ods. Did the COE determine whether salaries and benefits (including increases and/or decreases due to settlements of negotiations) are reasonable as budgeted in the current year and in the multiyear projection? Is the budget consistent with assumptions and Criteria and Standards information? 20 Yes No N/A Narrative: The forms used by the COE staff to document their review of the interim reports indicates that multiyear salary and benefit projections cannot be compared with the Criteria and Standards. However, these forms do not indicate any other checks for reason- ableness were done to assess reasonableness of the projections. Did the COE identify and determine the reasonableness of the increases and/or decreases in financing sources/uses? Narrative: COE staff indicated financing sources/uses were reviewed at budget, interim, and unaudited actuals. However, the forms county 21 office staff use to document its reviews only indicate an assessment No No No of whether additional transfers will be needed from the general fund to other funds and not whether they are reasonable. The best practice would be for the COE to assess the reasonableness of any increases/decreases in financing sources/uses at all review periods. Did the COE verify whether the base year totals in the multiyear projection match the Form 01 totals? 22 Narrative: MCOE staff indicated this verification is done at budget No Yes N/A and interim. However, the forms the county office uses to document its review of the budget do not indicate this was actually performed. If line B10 on the multiyear projection was used, did the COE verify whether detailed assumptions or information was included from the district to explain the adjustment? Narrative: The county office staff indicated that the district has not used line B10 (other adjustments) during the study period. The staff 23 N/A N/A N/A verbally described the process they would use to verify any amount put on that line. However, the forms the COE uses to document its reviews do not specifically indicate that the amounts on line B10 are verified, though overall expenditure increases or revenue decreases are verified for reasonableness. Did the COE verify whether projections for supplies, services, cap- ital outlay and other expenditures (e.g., energy costs, health and 24 Yes Yes Yes welfare, one-time expenses, etc.) appear reasonable? Narrative: FCMAT verified this through COE documentation. Did the COE verify whether prior year ending balances were for- 25 warded correctly as beginning balances? Yes Yes Yes Narrative: FCMAT verified this through COE documentation. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Monterey County Office of Education 6 County Office Evaluation Tool Summary At Budget At Interim At Unaudited Period Period Actuals Did the COE verify whether the district projects maintaining the minimum reserve for economic uncertainty, consistent with the 26 guidelines established in the Criteria and Standards, for the cur- Yes Yes Yes rent plus two subsequent years? Narrative: FCMAT verified this through COE documentation. Did the COE verify whether the beginning cash balance for July 1 on the cash flow was reasonable and forwarded correctly from the prior year? Narrative: The cash flow projection is not required at budget adop- 27 N/A Yes Yes tion. There was adequate evidence the COE verifies the beginning cash balance postings at other points during the year. The best prac- tices would indicate that the COE should request cash flow informa- tion at budget adoption. Does the COE monitor cash flow monthly at a minimum and com- 28 municate with the district regarding concerns about cash balance? Yes Yes Yes Narrative: FCMAT verified this through COE documentation. Did the COE identify any tax revenue anticipation notes (TRANs) that were issued in the budget year, including a schedule for re- payments, and, if so, did the COE verify whether the receipts and payments are included in the cash flow worksheet and booked in the general ledger in 9640 - Current Loans? Narrative: Cash flow projections are not required or requested at budget adoption so the process of verifying any TRANs repayment is not included in the budget adoption review. There was a specif- 29 ic question in the interim review template to monitor any TRANs N/A Yes No repayment being projected. A specific position was also responsible for TRANs repayment follow-up as part of the interim review pro- cess. The review template for the actuals did not have a prompt for the TRANs repayment. However, since the interim review process included the question, and several staff mentioned it was part of a certain position’s task, it appears there is adequate evidence TRANs repayments are monitored during the year, but not specifically called out in the review of the unaudited actuals. Did the COE monitor or identify any temporary borrowing between funds and use of appropriate object codes by the district? Narrative: The evidence from the review templates and from inter- views with staff demonstrated the interfund transfers were reviewed and monitored at budget development. However, it appeared there is a lack of evidence to demonstrate any temporary cash borrowing 30 Yes No No is monitored as is the best practice. This is an area of improvement that could be added to the review process during interim and unau- dited actuals. The COE should scrutinize interfund borrowing of cash and not just the interfund transfers within the expenses and revenue. The COE should also watch the balance sheet transactions between funds. Did the COE verify whether prior year accruals, suspense ac- counts, and general ledger/balance sheet transactions are recon- 31 N/A Yes Yes ciled by the district at each reporting period? Narrative: FCMAT verified this through COE documentation. Did the COE review compliance with maintenance of effort and Current Expense of Education (CEA) for applicable reporting peri- 32 N/A N/A Yes ods? Narrative: FCMAT verified this through COE documentation. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Monterey County Office of Education 7 County Office Evaluation Tool Summary At Budget At Interim At Unaudited Period Period Actuals If the district is deficit spending, did the COE note the levels of deficit spending and communicate the COE’s concerns to the district in the budget and/or interim letters sent to the district’s 33 governing board? Yes Yes No Narrative: There is no formal letter from the COE to the district after review of unaudited actuals. It is a best practice to respond to the district formally after reviewing unaudited actuals. If the district has contingent liabilities, did the COE measure the district’s ability to manage debt service or eliminate the liability 34 Yes Yes Yes and the effect on the ending fund balance? Narrative: FCMAT verified this through COE documentation. If the COE received disclosures of non-voter-approved debt from the district, did the COE respond within the statutory timeline? Narrative: There was no activity in this area during the sample period 35 N/A N/A N/A that was reviewed. Staff stated they would respond per the statute timelines when non-voter-approved debt disclosures would come to them. Is the COE monitoring the training of administrators who have budget authority and financial management responsibilities? 36 Yes Yes Yes Narrative: FCMAT verified this through COE documentation on train- ing programs and their attendance. Total, “No” Responses 14 Scale: 0 – 20, favorable oversight performance 21 – 39, marginal oversight performance 40 – above, poor oversight performance Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Monterey County Office of Education 8 County Office Evaluation Tool Conclusion Conclusion The Monterey County Office of Education provided favorable oversight performance based on the County Office Eval- uation Tool developed by FCMAT. FCMAT will continue to perform an annual review of the effectiveness of the county office of education’s oversight of the district. [E.C. 41326(l)(3)]. Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Monterey County Office of Education 9 Appendices Appendices Appendix A - Document Request List Appendix B - Study Agreement Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Monterey County Office of Education 10 Appendices Monterey County Office of Education County Office Evaluation Review Documentation Request List On-site Interviews: March 9, 2020 Please upload all documents, using the item number below, to FCMAT’s SharePoint document repository by February 28, 2020. Document(s) Needed that pertain to the fiscal oversight of South Monterey County Joint Unified School District 001 COE organizational chart 002 Business Services organizational chart 003 Completed checklists/files used to review each financial reporting period (adopted budget, first interim, second interim, unaudited actual) for the preceding 2 years 004 Communication to the districts for interims and budget submission 005 Communication to the district regarding auditor selection and audit guidelines 006 Copy of district audit and resolution of findings including the COE correspondence regarding findings and follow up of audit corrective actions 007 Communication to districts regarding special education monitoring and forms 008 COE External business department organizational chart with responsibilities for performing district oversight tasks 009 Policies/Procedures established for district oversight and financial review 010 COE procedure/process for tracking district ADA (historical and/or projections) 011 COE procedure/process for validating LCFF Calculations 1 FFiissccaall CCrriissiiss aanndd MMaannaaggeemmeenntt AAssssiissttaannccee TTeeaamm MoSnctheoreoyl DCiosutrnictyt oOr ffiCcOeE o Nf Eadmuec aHteioren 1111 Appendices 012 Budget approval (disapproval) letters to district, last two years 013 Interim certification letters to district, last two years 014 Lack of going concern letters to district, last two years 015 Unaudited Actuals letters to district, last two years 016 Any communication from the COE to the CDE/SCO regarding the district fiscal solvency, last two years 017 Any relevant communication between COE and COE assigned fiscal advisor to the district 018 Any relevant contracts or forms pertaining to employment of fiscal advisor 019 Communication to the districts of J29 property tax statements 020 COE review and correspondence with district regarding public disclosure of collective bargaining 021 Cash reconciliations and monitoring performed by the COE 022 COE review and correspondence with district regarding non-voter approved debt Person assigned to upload documents: Cindy Dunn For any questions related to SharePoint provisioning or uploading documents, please email: SharePointHelp@fcmat.org 2 FFiissccaall CCrriissiiss aanndd MMaannaaggeemmeenntt AAssssiissttaannccee TTeeaamm MoSnctheoreoyl DCiosutrnictyt oOr ffiCcOeE o Nf Eadmuec aHteioren 1122 Appendices Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Monterey County Office of Education 13 Appendices Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Monterey County Office of Education 14 Appendices Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Monterey County Office of Education 15 Appendices Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Monterey County Office of Education 16