In its most recent report, the Yolo County Grand Jury has again taken up the issue of school safety in the Davis Joint Unified School District (DJUSD), focusing on high-profile concerns such as fencing, surveillance cameras, and locked doors.
While no one disputes that student safety is of paramount importance, it’s worth asking a basic question: Why is the Grand Jury involved in this at all?
As such, this is not a corruption case. This is not a failure of compliance with state law. This is a disagreement over best practices in school safety. And that is a debate that should be happening within our own community, not driven by a civil grand jury composed largely of individuals from outside of Davis.
The Grand Jury’s latest investigation is the fourth in recent years targeting DJUSD school safety procedures. This report, like its predecessors, critiques the district’s approach to balancing open campus design—a long-standing community value—with modern security expectations, particularly in the context of rare but tragic school shootings. Specifically, the report recommends expanding surveillance capabilities, mandating locked classroom doors, and accelerating fencing projects.
These suggestions are not without merit. In fact, DJUSD is already implementing many of them. But the underlying problem isn’t policy—it’s process.
Davis has an elected school board. It has a responsive administrative team. And it has an engaged public that has weighed in, again and again, on how best to ensure student safety without undermining the open, walkable, integrated character of our schools. What the Grand Jury has done is to insert itself into a local, ongoing, and nuanced conversation and attempted to settle it from above. That’s not their role.
Unlike other school districts that may have neglected safety or misused funds, DJUSD has, in fact, been proactive. The district has updated safety plans, conducted regular emergency drills, installed motion-detection cameras and Lok Bloks at elementary and junior high campuses, and implemented standardized signage to help guide visitors during emergencies.
Moreover, the district is not ignoring the call for fencing. North Davis, Willett, Pioneer, Korematsu, and Montgomery Elementary Schools are scheduled to receive new fencing in the coming months, with more to follow next year. These decisions weren’t made in isolation—they followed 18 months of community outreach and planning. That’s what local democracy looks like.
The Grand Jury, in contrast, parachutes into the conversation with a narrow lens and outsized authority. Its most recent recommendations—such as scheduling bathroom trips to keep classroom doors locked—may sound sensible on paper but fail to acknowledge the logistical and developmental realities of elementary education. Such policies should be decided through open dialogue among educators, parents, students, and administrators—not through unilateral edicts disguised as findings.
Let’s also confront the elephant in the room. The report is framed around the specter of an active shooter event. But such tragedies, while horrifying and deserving of preventative efforts, are extraordinarily rare—especially in small, suburban districts like Davis. It’s one thing to prepare for emergencies; it’s another to let fear dictate policy.
By highlighting Davis’s open access points through public parks and unlocked classroom doors, the report implies a level of negligence that is not supported by any actual incident. While it’s true that an active shooter event occurred nearby at Community Park in April, it is equally true that the incident did not penetrate the school or compromise student safety. That context matters.
Creating a climate of fear—particularly one stoked by outsiders—is not only unhelpful, it is harmful. Students thrive when they feel safe and supported, not surveilled and confined. A fortress-like school may deter threats, but it also sends a message: the world is dangerous, trust no one, and your community is a liability. That’s not the ethos we want in Davis.
But this op-ed is largely about process, not policy. Davis voters elect school board members. Those board members oversee a professional staff. Together, they weigh competing values—openness and safety, flexibility and protocol—and chart a course accordingly.
The Grand Jury report, by contrast, is not accountable to the voters of Davis. And while its members no doubt care about safety, they do not have to navigate the complexities of daily school operations, nor do they have to answer to the parents whose children learn and grow in these spaces.
According to DJUSD’s official response, the district has consistently and promptly addressed prior Grand Jury findings. This year is no exception.
“We just received the recent report and are reviewing the findings. We will provide a structured response within the required timeline,” the district said in a statement. In the meantime, the district affirmed its commitment to a “safe and secure learning environment” and emphasized the measures already underway.
Indeed, while some Davis residents may believe the district is going too far with its fencing initiatives, others think it’s not going far enough. That’s the nature of local debate. But it’s precisely because reasonable people disagree that the decision-making should stay in local hands.
I have recently had reason to go to the District Attorney’s Office to inquire about the procedure for submitting an issue for Grand Jury consideration. What I found out is that anyone can submit an issue.
Submission doesn’t guarantee the Grand Jury will take up the issue, but based on the information shared in this article, it would appear that one or more persons have submitted school safety concerns to the Grand Jury, and in multiple different timeframes.
One person’s “inadequate safety measures” is another person’s “overkill” and the persons who believe the former are going to be much more likely to make one or more submissions to the Grand Jury.
“Creating a climate of fear—particularly one stoked by outsiders—is not only unhelpful, it is harmful.”
Do you know if the submission to the Grand Jury was initiated by an “outsider”? (Also, do “outsiders” include the parents of the 1,300 or so DJUSD students who don’t live in the district?)
Also, neither “insiders”, “outsiders”, nor Grand Juries are necessarily experts in security.
For sure, if something ever happens – the first thing to occur will be to blame lack of basic security measures. That (such as lack of fencing) would literally be on the news that same night.
Not that this reflects my “personal” opinion, as I believe the risk is extraordinarily low.
Point of the column was that DJUSd has had an ongoing policy discussion on this and that the grand jury (which by the way has no official authority anyway) is not the place to address these concerns.
You don’t seem to understand the type of issues that Grand Juries can investigate, despite literally having an example of what they can investigate. But that’s right, they have no actual authority as far as I know.
It might be interesting to know if school boards have sole authority regarding such decisions, or if the state might also have some authority / basic requirements.
Also would be interesting to know the situation at other schools across the state for comparison.
But framing this as an “insider” vs. “outsider” issue is not relevant, unless you’re claiming that school boards are the only party which should have input regarding such decisions.
For that matter, might law enforcement also have some concerns? (They’re the ones who would be called on to respond.)
Maybe you should define what you mean by “insider” vs. “outsider” regarding the parties that might have authority and/or concerns.
I’m not saying they can’t – I’m saying they shouldn’t
O.K. – you want to limit input/decision-making to those you consider to be “insiders”. Despite the probability that an “insider” is likely the person(s) who reached out to the Grand Jury, perhaps as a result of dissatisfaction with the response from the board.
You also want to change the scope of what Grand Juries can investigate.
I don’t see any harm arising from the investigation, but I suspect that the “open campus” might be pretty unusual across the state at this point. (I don’t believe they would allow that at any new school, these days.)
But like I said, my “personal” opinion is that the risk is extraordinarily low, even though school shootings create sensational news stories (which probably results in more “copycat” shootings).
None of the above. My column is making a very narrow argument – it’s process based and its situation specific. There are times when input from a grand jury is helpful although increasingly I question that. In this case there’s no upside to it because the school district is already deciding the issue and that’s the proper venue and forum for discussion. More over the grand jury is basically an advisory body. They can’t compel the school district to do anything. So what’s the upside of this?
Someone (probably an “insider”, or more than one “insider”) seems to be dissatisfied with whatever process or decisions are being made by the board.
They also don’t seem to agree with you, regarding what should be done about it. Perhaps they also don’t agree with the board. (But this is just speculation, based upon the submission to the Grand Jury.)
Seems likely that there’d be an entire group of “insiders” who lean toward more security, vs. another group of “insiders” who like things the way they are.
And sometimes, boards don’t proportionately reflect those whom they represent – just like in every other political arena.
But perhaps more importantly, what are the guidelines (e.g., from the state) regarding security requirements – assuming they exist? And did the Grand Jury look into that?
If there’s no guidelines, perhaps THAT’s a problem.