California Grand Jury News

Kern County: Grand Jury releases reports on Sheriff's Dept. Tehachapi Sub-Station and Stallion Springs Police Dept.

2012-01-27T08:33:00.000-08:00

Thursday, Jan 26 2012 02:41 PM

The Kern County Grand Jury recently released reports concerning the Kern County Sheriff's Dept., Tehachapi Sub-station, and the Stallion Springs Police Dept.

These are published here in the public interest.

KERN COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT TEHACHAPI SUBSTATION
PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:

The Law and Justice Committee (Committee) of the 2011-2012 Kern County Grand Jury visited the Kern County Sheriff’s Department Tehachapi Substation (Substation) on December 6, 2011, pursuant to California Penal Code §919(b) and §925, to observe the facility and interview the Sergeant in charge of the Substation.

PROCESS:

The Committee met with the Sergeant in charge of the Substation who conducted a question and answer session, after which the Committee was given a tour.

BACKGROUND
/FACTS:

The Substation is located at 22209 Old Town Road Tehachapi, CA 93561. The Substation covers approximately 572 square miles of unincorporated area around Tehachapi including Sand Canyon, Hart Flat, Keene, Bealville and Old West Kern. There are two Community Service Districts (CSD), Stallion Springs and Bear Valley Springs, who provide their own Police Departments.

A. The entire Tehachapi Valley has approximately 35,000 residents.

The Substation serves a population of approximately 18,000 to 20,000 residents.

B. The Substation can provide/receive mutual aid from surrounding agencies if the need should arise. These agencies are: Tehachapi Police Department, Stallion Springs Police Department, Bear Valley Police Department, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Police, and the California Highway Patrol.

C. The Substation is staffed by one Sergeant, seven Deputies, two Investigators, and two Office Service Technicians (OST). The Substation has a Citizen Service Unit (CSU) that has been active for over 15 years, and has 18 people involved.

FINDINGS:

There are no holding cells or secure interview rooms at the Substation. Arrestees are brought to the Substation for investigation follow-up and then booked at either the Mojave Substation or downtown Bakersfield.

There are no security measures in place to monitor entry into the building or restrict entry into unauthorized areas of the building. This is a security issue for staff.

The Substation is currently in a leased building and shares the site with the Kern County Roads Department located in Golden Hills.

The CSU provides valuable volunteer services to the Substation.

COMMENTS:

The Committee thanks the Substation personnel for their courtesy and professionalism during our visit.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

R1. An electronically locked door and audio/video recording equipment should be installed at the front counter for personnel security.

R2. An interview room should be installed at the Substation, complete with audio/video recording equipment, when funds and space become available.

R3. The OST desks should be positioned to allow direct view of the public access entry.

STALLION SPRINGS POLICE DEPARTMENT AND COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT
PURPOSE OF INQUIRY:

The Law and Justice Committee (Committee) of the 2011-2012 Kern County Grand Jury visited the Stallion Springs Police Department (Department), and Community Service District (CSD) on December 6, 2011, pursuant to California Penal Code §919(b) and §925, to tour the facility and interview the Chief of Police and CSD General Manager.

PROCESS:

The Committee members met with the CSD General Manager (Manager) and the Chief of Police (Chief). The Committee was given a tour of the CSD facilities after a question and answer session.

BACKGROUND
/FACTS:

The Department is in the CSD building at 27800 Stallion Springs Drive, Tehachapi, CA 93561. The Department serves a population of approximately 3,400 residents.

A. The Department has three sworn Police Officers. The Chief, one Sergeant, and an Officer. There are two part-time Police Officers.

These part-time Officers work 960 hours per year. The Chief has been with the Department for 18 years.

B. The CSD building (12,000 square feet) was built in 2009. The Department is spacious and appears adequate for future growth. The Department has an Emergency Operations Room, which was utilized as a Command Post during the recent fires in the area.

C. The CSD encompasses 50 square miles, with 48 miles of paved roads. The City was incorporated in 1970. The Manager has a staff of 13 people and eight departments. The Manager is very knowledgeable of matters concerning the CSD.

D. Besides the CSD facility, the CSD also has a multi-purpose room (“The Corral”) and a gymnasium. The multi-purpose room and gymnasium are used for CSD functions and rented out for private events.

FINDINGS:

The Kern County Sheriffs’ Department dispatches calls for the Department.

There are two interview rooms. Both are equipped with audio and visual equipment.

The Department has video surveillance cameras.

The Department has a Community Oriented Policing and Problem Solving (COPPS) program, which is grant funded.

Arrested persons are processed at the Department, and then booked either in Bakersfield at the Kern County Sheriff’s Department (KCSD) Central Receiving Facility or the KCSD Mojave Substation.

The Department has a Police Activities League (PAL).

The Department has an active Neighborhood Watch Program which includes residential checks.

The Department averages approximately 800 calls annually. This number includes self-initiated activities by the Officers.

The Department works with the KCSD, Bear Valley Springs PD and Tehachapi PD if any mutual aid is needed.

COMMENTS:

The Committee was impressed with all the recently built facilities of the CSD. The tour was very informative and it appears the CSD has a positive working relationship with the County of Kern.

2012-01-25T09:55:00.000-08:00

Kern County town known as a speed trap disbands police force

By Steve Chawkins, Los Angeles Times

January 25, 2012

Faced with crushing bills, a tiny Kern County town that became infamous for aggressive law enforcement has eliminated its police department.

"Maricopa just does not have the money to run a professional department," said Eric Ziegler, a retired city manager who advises the City Council. "It wasn't because of any particular feeling that there had been wrongdoing."

Officials in the town of 1,200 are considering the sale of the department's last remnants: four patrol vehicles — all bought used years ago — and two motorcycles.

The department had two full-time employees and about 20 uniformed volunteers — mostly veterans of other departments or younger people looking to land their first law enforcement jobs.

Over the last couple of years, the oil town 40 miles southwest of Bakersfield became known as a speed trap. Officers pulled drivers over for infractions such as cracked windshields and unlighted license plates.

In a scathing report last June, the Kern County grand jury accused police of targeting Latino motorists in hopes of seizing vehicles from unlicensed, undocumented immigrants.

The panel urged the 100-year-old city to pull the plug on its police department. A few days later, it urged Maricopa — which was swamped with debt — to pull the plug on itself and disincorporate.

Earlier this month, Maricopa decided to contract out its law enforcement responsibilities to the Kern County Sheriff's Department. In addition to that money-saving move, the town made changes to its trash collection and sold some property.

"They took a giant step toward putting the city on the path to solvency," Ziegler said.

The city's two former police employees are both on disability leave, officials said.

steve.chawkins@latimes.com

Stanislaus County: Logan taking on county Judiciary in latest filings

2012-01-21T08:28:00.000-08:00

by Nick Rappley | Patterson Irrigator

Former City Attorney George Logan is taking on the entire Stanislaus County court system in recent filings regarding a contempt-of-court case filed against him by the Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury.

Logan filed a request Friday, Jan. 20 to have the entire case taken to a different county because he thinks the Stanislaus County court system is biased against him. The matter is scheduled for a court hearing Friday, Jan. 27, at the Stanislaus County Superior Courthouse.

“I think we need to get some fresh eyes on this issue,” Logan said Friday, Jan. 21, regarding the contempt charges against him.

The civil grand jury is seeking a contempt-of-court charge against Logan for discussing and writing in local newspapers in April and May about his testimony in front of the grand jury during an investigation into Patterson City Council dealings. The penalty could carry a $1,000 fine or possible jail time as well as court costs and opposing counsel’s attorney fees.

An affidavit signed by former Grand Jury Foreman Denis France accuses Logan of violating an oath and admonition to secrecy as well as insulting the grand jury.

Logan has cited previous court cases when arguing that he is not legally bound to secrecy by the body because there was no clear and present danger to the proceedings.

In other recent court filings, Logan has asserted that all Stanislaus County judges be barred from the case due to bias, including William Mayhew, the current judge assigned to the case.

Logan also is arguing to have the law firm representing the county in the case — McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard Wayte and Carruth — tossed because the attorney handling the case, Dean Petrulakis, is the brother of George Petrulakis, a high-profile real estate lawyer in Modesto that represents the interests of the Keystone Pacific Business Park in Patterson.

Keystone ended up playing a role in the grand jury investigation, as a portion of the grand jury report focused on the City Council's response to Del Puerto Health Care District's request to move its health center to the Keystone business park.

Logan said the way the contempt case has been handled is “un-American” because the case has so far been sealed and he has been unable to look at the documents in the case file.

In a report released in late June, the civil grand jury recommended that Councilwoman Annette Smith resign or be recalled and that former Mayor Becky Campo pay back money she received as mayor because she allegedly lived outside city limits.

It also stated that the city should file a complaint with the California State Bar to chastise Logan for alleged improprieties. Those include failing to be in the room when the council voted to reimburse developer John Ramos for $27,000 in legal fees he incurred as he sought to block the Del Puerto Health Center from moving to the Keystone Pacific Business Park in western Patterson. The grand jury suggested that Ramos return that money to the city.

Smith, Logan and an official response by the City of Patterson have alleged that grand jurors were biased against the city in their report.

The Stanislaus County Counsel’s office recused itself from the case because of a conflict of interest and because it was unclear whether the charge should be civil or criminal contempt. County Counsel Jack Doering has noted that his office cannot pursue criminal charges, which he thought the situation warranted. The Stanislaus County District Attorney’s office has said it believes the matter is civil, not criminal.

• Nick Rappley can be reached at 892-6187 or nick@pattersonirrigator.com.

Forum in Santa Clara County explores issue of school district consolidation

2012-01-20T09:35:00.000-08:00

By Carol Rosen, Correspondent

An exploration of the pros and cons of consolidating some of the county's 31 school districts was the topic of a forum hosted this week by Silicon Valley Education Foundation. School district consolidation was a recommendation that came out of a 2009-10 Santa Clara County Grand Jury report.

The report recommended combining four high school districts with their feeder elementary and middle schools, decreasing administrative positions and adding efficiencies, thus saving money.

Examples include putting Cambrian, Union, Campbell, Moreland and Luther Burbank into a unified district with Campbell Union High School District; taking the Cupertino Union and Sunnyvale districts into the Fremont Union High School District. It also suggested consolidating Los Gatos Union, Saratoga Union, Loma Prieta Joint Union and Lakeside school districts with Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union High School District.
Emmett Carson, CEO of Silicon Valley Community Foundation, was adamant in his keynote address that something has to be done to improve the quality of education in Santa Clara County. Carson said one in six high school students in the county dropped out during 2009-10.

Calling the county's public education "a failed system," he noted large subgroups in which students didn't meet the state's A-G requirements to be eligible for consideration at California state universities.

That's the problem with our current educational system, Joseph DiSalvo said after the forum. Di Salvo, Santa Clara County Board of Education president, said, "We've been talking about the achievement gap for the past 30 years and unless we do something about it, we'll still be talking about it 30 years from now."

Di Salvo, an outspoken supporter of district consolidation, added, "Silicon Valley has 10,000 good-paying job openings for people with technical skills in engineering and math. If our public schools don't create students with the talent necessary to get into and graduate from college, we will continue to see 8.6 percent unemployment, and businesses may move on to other areas where the population has the technical skills to meet their needs," he said.

Carson told the audience that scenario already has happened. "Companies are coming from around the world to learn how Silicon Valley companies are successful. I haven't heard of schools coming here to find out how well our schools function."

One business entity came here thinking about moving to the area, he said, but when iofficials saw the school scores, they backed off.

He said after the forum that it might not be necessary to consolidate, but argued that it is necessary to create an accountability of student outcomes. "There's too many pointing fingers leaving no one accountable," he said, noting that the county's 169 school board members are the decision makers, instead of administrators who are closer to day-to-day realities.

Carson said he would like to see more innovation, instead of a system that makes innovation difficult. "There's something wrong with a system that doesn't reflect our innovation," he said referring to the Silicon Valley's technological edge.

While some of the six panel members agreed, others were confident that communities and parents are behind their local elementary districts and are satisfied with their students' outcomes.

Parent surveys seem to conclude that students are doing well, and API scores at Union's schools are improving, said Jackie Horejs, superintendent of the Union School District.

She cited Lietz Elementary, which reduced its achievement gap to 19 percent in 2011, plummeting from 48 percent a year earlier, including 63 percent of Latino students scoring proficient or above in third grade reading.

There also are concerns about California's grim financial picture. "What will happen to state funding if districts merge?" asked Josephine Lucey, Cupertino Union school board member and a member of the county's Committee on School District Organization. "What happens to parcel taxes and bonds that haven't yet been issued?"

Charter schools likely will affect public schools in a positive way, added Charles Weis, superintendent of the county's office of education. "More charters are going after different areas, and it's changing the way public education does its business. School districts could become a thing of the past," he said.

Orange County: Grand jury applicants sought - Deadline to apply is Jan. 20

2012-01-19T12:36:00.000-08:00

By VIK JOLLY / THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

SANTA ANA – The deadline for applications to serve on the 2012-13 grand jury is Jan. 20, and court officials are urging Orange County residents to consider applying.

Superior Court has received far fewer applications than in previous years, according to a news release.

"Serving on the grand jury gives you a unique opportunity to have a significant impact on the lives of Orange County residents," the release says.

Requirements to serve, among others, include: you must be 18, a U.S. citizen and an Orange County resident for at least one year.

Qualifying applicants are interviewed by a panel of Superior Court judges and are subject to a background investigation conducted by the Orange County Sheriff's Department. Grand jury members are selected by a random draw of applicants nominated by the judges, the release said.

Applications, information and past reports are available online at www.ocgrandjury.org.

Application packets are also available at the Jury Commissioner's Office at the Central Justice Center, 700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, or by calling the grand jury hotline, 714-834-6747.

Monterey County: Grand jury report criticizes welfare oversight

2012-01-15T09:52:00.000-08:00

Panel says child abuse apparently underreported
-by JULIA REYNOLDS, Herald Staff Writer
______________________
Declaring child rape and abuse cases are "apparently" underreported by county medical and social workers, the Monterey County civil grand jury blasted local welfare and food stamp programs.

The 2011 jury's report released Monday suggests that local welfare eligibility workers may have failed to report suspected child abuse when they provided "pregnancy services" to girls under age 14.

"They misunderstood the law," said Elliot Robinson, the county's director of Social Services.

He said a chart listing several instances of pregnancy services rendered to girls under age 14 does not necessarily mean those girls were pregnant.

"Pregnancy related services can mean family planning. They might want to know about contraception." he said.

He said the decision as to whether a girl under age 14 has been subject to rape or child abuse should be made by medical professionals.

"Teen pregnancy is not a healthy thing. But the law is clear that when it comes to mandated reporting (of possible abuse), it's a clinical judgment," he said. In contrast, the role of benefit workers "is to ensure that minors get the prevention and intervention treatment they need and can do so with confidentiality."

The civil grand jury is empaneled every year by the courts to investigate local governments. It can make recommendations, but has no enforcement power.

Robinson agreed with the grand jury's conclusion that banks are profiting from exorbitant ATM fees for electronics benefits transfer cards that are used to distribute food stamps-type funds as well as cash assistance.

The report noted that EBT cards can be used to withdraw cash at questionable locations around the county, including "high-end hotels and clothing stores" and the Monterey County Race Place, an off-track betting facility at the Monterey fairgrounds.

Although it described no incidents of violations, the report hinted at possible increases in welfare fraud because, it said, state and local agencies have been encouraging more people to apply for welfare benefits and EBT cards.

"There are active efforts to reach out and recruit applicants for the benefits programs and eligibility workers are encouraged to be proactive in helping applicants qualify for benefits in these programs," the report said. "This raises the possibility of some applications being fraudulent."

The report tersely recommended that staff members in the local community benefits office "should do more than efficiently process applications and hand out brochures."

Fernando Elizondo, a retired school administrator and chairman of the grand jury, said he wasn't a member of the grand jury committee that focused in detail on electronic welfare benefits and minors receiving medical services.

But he said concerns were warranted about potential fraud and the lack of parental notification to minors receiving pregnancy services. More training may be needed for employees, he said, and the district attorney and Board of Supervisors should look into the grand jury's concerns about fraud.

Elizondo said the panel started with 26 members and alternates, but finished the one-year term with 13 members.

"The faithful 13 I called them," he said, during ceremonies where the new 2012 grand jury was sworn in Monday afternoon.

Given the attrition, Elizondo said he believed the grand jury performed a good job, producing four reports and two of them with recommendations and findings.

"I'm very proud of what we accomplished," he said.

The areas of focus were generated by public complaints and from jurors themselves, he said.

The grand jury found that, overall, local government agencies from school to special districts were dealing with budget cutbacks, but still providing services to the public.

"We found those folks were fiscally responsible," he said.

In a section investigating salaries and benefits paid to employees and board members in special districts, grand jurors surveyed 35 districts, and got answers from 29.

Among the six districts reported as not responding were three Greenfield special districts, two from Spreckels and one in San Ardo.

The grand jury wrote that its investigation into special district boards began after The Herald reported high salaries in two districts.

Grand jurors included results of the surveys so that residents can "consider whether compensation and benefits ... provided by special districts are appropriate."

The survey results show that many small districts pay little or no compensation for vital services, the report said.

The grand jury also commented on deputy overtime at the county jail, giving the example of a deputy who worked 124 hours of overtime in August.

Responses to various findings are required from the sheriff, social services department and Board of Supervisors.

No response was required for investigations into special district salaries and use of a Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District parcel tax for which no problems were found.
_____________________________

Julia Reynolds can be reached at 648-1187 or jreynolds@montereyherald.com.

Herald staff writer Larry Parsons contributed to this story.

2011 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Report

Contra Costa regulators vote to dissolve Mt. Diablo Health Care District

2012-01-14T07:30:00.000-08:00

By Lisa Vorderbrueggen - Contra Costa Times

MARTINEZ -- Contra Costa regulators will disband a small public health care district that lost its hospital 16 years ago and went on to spend the bulk of its $3 million in property tax proceeds on overhead, elections, legal bills and free lifetime medical benefits for several directors.

The Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission voted unanimously Wednesday to dissolve the Mt. Diablo Health Care District, the first such act in the state since California lawmakers adopted new rules allowing regulators to eliminate public agencies without holding an election.

The district includes about 205,000 residents in Concord, Martinez, Pleasant Hill, Clyde and Pacheco, along with portions of Walnut Creek, Clayton and Lafayette.

Advocates implored commissioners for a stay during the three-hour hearing. The district's past performance is imperfect but holds great potential, they urged. Among the speakers were high school students who participate in a local culinary program that received district grant dollars and a once-homeless man who said one of the district-funded programs helped find him shelter.

But the commissioners ultimately agreed with critics, four civil grand juries and their own consultants, who said eliminating the district will free up tens of thousands of dollars for unmet community health needs.

Shifting the program's administration to another public agency will not necessarily cost less or provide residents with comparable access to the money, added district interim executive director Daymon Doss. He was referring to the two criteria the commission must meet in order to dissolve a public agency.

And the district's attorney described what he characterized as legal uncertainty surrounding the impact of dissolution on its community benefit agreement with John Muir Health. The private nonprofit organization took over the district's Concord hospital in 1996 after the public agency ran into financial troubles.

With no hospital to manage and one part-time staffer, 83 percent of the $3 million in property tax revenues the district has received since 2000 has gone to pay for administration, legal bills, elections and the highly publicized health care benefits for a current and a former district director, according to the consultants' analysis.

"We can provide grants for worthwhile community programs without the additional costs associated with maintaining the elected health care district," said Contra Costa Supervisor Federal Glover, also a member of the commission.

The commission, which consists of local elected officials, rejected an option that would have restored the roughly $240,000 a year the district receives to the countywide property tax pool for distribution among the 143 public agencies that receive a share. Under no scenario would taxpayers pay less.

The dollar amount is small, but it adds up over the years, and if most of it were spent on community grants, it would serve a valuable role, commissioners said.

The commission must now decide to which agency to hand over the task.

"We know we want to assign a successor agency," said Lafayette Councilman and commission Chairman Don Tatzin. "But depending on which agency we select, it will require a different process. We need more information about that process before we choose."

Consultants recommend the countywide emergency medical services district. Governed by the county, the existing agency could create a zone that matches the former health care district, set up a grant-making community board and allocate the dollars each year with minimal overhead and no elections.

Concord wants it. But the health care district is larger than the city, and state law bars an agency from spending tax dollars generated outside its boundaries unless 70 percent or more of the registered voters and land area of the bigger entity are within the city's jurisdiction.

To meet the legal standard, the city is looking at filing a petition with the commission for the formation of a smaller subsidiary health care district. The new district would exclude Martinez on the grounds that its taxpayers have not paid into the district at the same rate as its neighbors.

The commission is scheduled to make its choice in March.

Once the commission completes the next step, dissolution could take six months or longer.

It is unclear whether the health care district will mount a legal battle or even if it could afford one.

It projects reserves of nearly $700,000 in its preliminary 2012 budget, but the amount roughly equals its unfunded liability for health and dental benefits for current Director Grace Ellis and former Director Ron Leone, a Concord councilman. The district banked the cash during the years it spent little or no money on community grants, and it has had no contested elections in six years.

Contact Lisa Vorderbrueggen at 925-945-4773, www.ibabuzz.com/politics or at Twitter.com/lvorderbrueggen.

East Kern Pollution Board opposes grand jury report

2012-01-13T14:29:00.000-08:00

Tehachapi —

By Jill Barnes Nelson
Special to The Daily Independent
Posted Jan 13, 2012 @ 09:30 AM

Chip Holloway called it, “laughable.”
“Combining the East Kern air district with that of the San Joaquin Valley is just laughable,” said Holloway, the Vice-Chairman for the Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District. “The recommendations of the Grand Jury to combine the two air districts into one is not logical and is cost prohibitive. We dispute the Grand Jury findings.”
Holloway, who also is councilman for Ridgecrest, was among those in attendance for a meeting of the EKAPCD on Tuesday in Tehachapi. The main topic of the meeting was the recommendation of the Kern County Grand Jury to combine the EKAPCD with a similar district in western Kern County. Much of the western section includes the San Joaquin Valley, which is noted for its bad air.
Holloway, along with the rest of the board and members of the public from East Kern, expressed their displeasure with the findings.
“We are strongly opposed to combining the two,” said Jennifer Keep, a representative of the Indian Wells Valley Water District in Ridgecrest. “We are presenting this board with a letter concerning our opposition. This would not be a benefit to us.”
The Grand Jury decided to look into why there were two different agencies governing air quality in Kern County. Much of the State is broken down into broader areas. The East Kern district includes 48 communities, including Mojave, California City, Ridgecrest, Rosamond, Tehachapi and Kern River Valley, as well as a number of smaller communities.
The Western portion of Kern County falls under the jurisdiction of another pollution board, which covers areas from Arvin to the western borders of the county, and includes parts of Tulare, Kings, San Luis Obispo and Ventura counties.
David Jones, the Air Pollution Control Officer for the EKAPCD, explained that the Kern County Board of Supervisors made a decision to split the county back in 1991 because of the major differences in the two areas. It was pointed out that the western portion consisted of more oil refineries, while the eastern section had cement plants and mining.
But the Grand Jury decided to examine the two districts. It then issued a reported on Oct. 2011, stating it would be “logical” to combine the two districts.
“I don’t see any logic to it,” said director Jon McQuiston, who also is the County Supervisor for District One. “It’s just not feasible.”
Ridgecrest resident Renee Westa-Lusk wanted to know why the Grand Jury made the recommendations.
“I really don’t know,” said Chairman Ed Grimes, who’s also Mayor of Tehachapi. He and his Council also sent a letter opposing the change. “I really don’t know what their motivation is.”
District Two Supervisor Zack Scrivner, also on the EKAPCD board, noted that it is the Grand Jury’s job to occasionally look into different agencies to ensure accountability.
“I don’t think it had any bad intentions when it released its report,” he said. “I just think it was misinformed to the particulars of the two different areas.”
Jones said that if the two were combined it could have a negative impact on Edwards Air Force Base, China Lake Naval Base and the Mojave Air & Space Port, along with other businesses in East Kern.
“There could be some severe restrictions concerning ozone emissions,” he said. “Both these areas have such different concerns for air quality. So on behalf of the East Kern Air Pollution Control Board, I’ve drafted a letter opposing the Grand Jury’s recommendations.”
The City of California City and the Mojave Air & Space Port also have sent letters of opposition to the Grand Jury.
Scrivner said that the Grand Jury doesn’t have to respond to the board’s letter.
“We just need to be professional in our approach,” Grimes said. “We need to let our feelings be known to the Grand Jury.”

http://www.ridgecrestca.com/news/x1354951847/East-Kern-Pollution-Board-opposes-grand-jury-report

Solano County grand jury reviews city treasurers

2012-01-13T08:42:00.000-08:00

PUBLISHED BY THE REPORTER

The 2011-12 Solano County grand jury conducted a review of city treasurers to ensure that treasurers complied with applicable state and local requirements.
It was found that those cities with treasurers have no clear documentation of responsibilities of the treasurer. In addition, there are no monthly accounting reports as required by law.

The reported noted that the grand jury concluded that, over time, most city treasurer tasks had migrated to other city staff, primarily finance directors. As a result, city treasurers in Solano County generally did not perform the tasks identified by state code. Additionally, the grand jury found no city treasurer in Solano County who had "money coming into his hands" and receipt of funds was generally accomplished by the finance department.

The grand jury encourages each city council to identify what it expects from its city treasurer and to set a course of action to bring that expectation to reality.

More information including a list of annual salaries for hours worked by the treasurers can be found in the report available online at solano.courts.ca.gov/GrandJury/GrandJuryReports20112012.html.

Monterey County officials respond to grand jury findings

2012-01-12T08:27:00.001-08:00

Many recommendations for jail, youth center are already under way.

The Californian.com - 11:06 PM, Jan. 11, 2012.

A day after the 2011 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Report was released, two top officials whose departments were criticized responded to its findings and recommendations.

The grand jury, in the Monday-released report, surmised that staffing shortages and overtime at the county jail, and insufficient security policies at the youth center possibly placed the public at risk.

The jail and detention center were two of four areas reviewed by the 13-member grand jury. The areas included: the detention facilities, welfare operations, special districts and the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District.

According to the report, inadequate staffing at the jail caused hours of overtime to some deputies, leading to sleep deprivation. The report pointed to one deputy in August who had worked 124 hours of overtime. It also found that in one particular month, only 62 of 84 sworn officers were available for duty.

County Sheriff Scott Miller had some blunt words about the report, adding that no grand jurors had met with him.

"I respect the grand jury a great degree. They're very fine individuals, but generally their investigations are very superficial," said Miller, adding that he hadn't read the report.

"When you don't speak with the individual involved in policymaking, then you haven't done a thorough job in giving this weight."

Deal on overtime
After months of discussion, he said, an agreement has been made with the Deputy Sheriff's Association to cap the overtime. Now, he said, there is no policy that limits the overtime amount.

"We're establishing those limits," he said. "It's already been done and we're putting it in writing."

Addressing the jail staffing shortage, Miller said, the Sheriff's Office has been approved to hire 12 civilian control operators who'll be tasked with manning the control booths at the jail. This will free up deputies to work in other areas. Miller said he hopes to have those civilian positions in place in the next 90 days.

The sheriff acknowledged one or two of the 300-plus deputies working significant overtime and said he hasn't received any complaints.

"I have absolutely zero complaints for the amount of overtime that they have to work that I'm aware of," Miller said. "Those deputies embrace working those (voluntary) hours."

Findings deemed to be 'fairly accurate'
Meanwhile, Assistant Chief Probation Officer Marcia Parsons called the report's finding "fairly accurate," especially about the outdated case management system. The grand jury, according to its report, had requested data for repeat offenses for juvenile who went through any intervention programs and first-time offender programs for the past five years.

That requested level of detail, Parsons said, posed a roadblock for the staff.

"We fully recognize that our old case management system was inadequate," she said.

Parsons said a new system was implemented in April 2011 to address those issues.

As for the concerns about the security breaches at the youth detention center, she said, changes are under way. A total of nine juveniles of the facility escaped in three separate incidents in August and September.

Some of the improvements, Parsons said, include reinforcing the front gate, adding no-climb fencing to the inside of the facility's perimeter and placing an officer inside the rooms during group sessions.

"It's been going well," she said. "We haven't suffered any further escapes and we're gradually getting back to normal. The youths have been very, very confined in the escapes and we're gradually giving them the flexibility and programming."

San Bernardino County supervisors cut their own benefits

2012-01-11T08:22:00.000-08:00

by Rob McMillan - Inland Empire News
________________

SAN BERNARDINO, Calif. (KABC) -- San Bernardino County supervisors have voted to cut their benefits in the midst of a budget crisis.

According to the county charter, the supervisors cannot change their actually salaries, only voters can do that. But the supervisors can reduce their benefits packages. They did that Tuesday.

The annual salary for each of the five members of the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors is $152,000.

But by the time you add up their medical benefits, retirement, cellphone and car allowance, it's nearly double that, at $273,000.

So how high is that? A grand jury report came to this conclusion: "We were way, way out of whack with comparable counties in Southern California."

So Tuesday, Supervisor Janice Rutherford made a motion to eliminate some of their benefits completely that passed unanimously.

Board members still receive medical benefits, car allowance, and cellphone, but the retirement benefits have been gone.

In fact, they voted to cut their benefits by about $50,000 each, which will save the county close to a quarter-million dollars.

"We're the only elected officials in this county who get to vote on either increasing or decreasing our own benefits, and we have an opportunity today to take a stand for the public and say we're going to lead by example and do with less because that's what the times dictate," said Supervisor Rutherford.

We spoke with people outside the meeting about the board's decision.

"If it's saving money for everybody and it's helping the community, then I don't see what's wrong with it," said San Bernardino resident Silver Lee.

"I feel that they're very generous people to give back and cut pensions and things like that," said Robert Hulett, a resident of San Bernardino.

"I think this is a great way to start. If they can't take a cut in their salary, they can sure take the cut in the benefits. I think that's awesome," said San Bernardino resident Grace Chacon.

The board needs to vote in two weeks for final approval. But it won't stop there: They're also going to cut the benefits packages for other elected county officials like the sheriff and the county assessor, and will examine all non-union employees for potential cuts to benefits packages as well.

(Copyright ©2012 KABC-TV/DT. All Rights Reserved.)

(Contra Costa) Grand jury report questions need for fire district's $197 parcel tax

2012-01-10T11:04:00.000-08:00

By Rowena Coetsee
Contra Costa Times
Posted: 01/07/2012 04:18:09 PM PST
Updated: 01/07/2012 09:04:51 PM PST

The East Contra Costa Fire District should offer taxpayers an alternative to the $197 parcel tax the cash-strapped agency is proposing, according to a recently released grand jury report.

The 2011-12 Contra Costa County grand jury late last month made the recommendation after researching the district's attempts to boost its income so it can reopen a fire station and hire more firefighters with advanced life support training.

The report concluded that the $8.6 million the district estimates the annual tax would generate the first year is significantly more than what's needed to provide these services. It advised the fire district to present property owners with alternative levels of service and the cost of each so it can make an informed decision when they vote on the ballot measure in June.

If the tax passes, district officials anticipate that they'll be able to ramp up manpower over five years from the 43 firefighters currently on the payroll -- all of whom are working overtime to fill the equivalent of 48 positions -- to 63 positions. The additional hires all would be paramedics, enabling the district eventually to have one per shift at each of the seven stations.

Unless it finds additional revenue or makes more cuts, the district expects to have exhausted its savings by June, when its ending fund balance will have dwindled to $480,000 -- a figure that doesn't include the cost of the election.

The grand jury report concluded that the district can't sustain the status quo -- a level of service it considers adequate -- without more money. But the report also indicated that at the end of five years, a $197 annual tax would leave the district with roughly $11.8 million in "unused funds."

In short, it said the district would end up with more than it needs to support the level of service it is proposing, resulting in substantial reserves.

The grand jury also recommended the district consider outsourcing all its current firefighting services to Cal Fire, noting that the state might be able to do the job more cost-effectively.

The district also might be able to reduce its overhead in the contract it's negotiating with the firefighters' union, the report said.

The grand jury's findings don't sit well with fire district board President Kevin Romick.

"There's really not much I agree with in here," he said. "I thought it was inappropriately biased against the parcel tax ... it was slanted from the get-go."

Romick disputes the report's determination that the current level of service is adequate because there have been no deaths and property losses directly attributable to a lack of firefighters or equipment.

He noted that multiple groups have studied the fire district over the years and found it unable to meet residents' needs. A consulting firm commissioned by county supervisors reached that conclusion in 2006, as did a previous grand jury, Romick said. Director Erick Stonebarger also questions how the grand jury decided that the existing level of service is acceptable.

Moreover, Stonebarger said only those jurors who receive fire district services should be weighing in on their effectiveness.

"I think it's (the residents') right to dictate what service level is adequate -- not someone who doesn't live in the district," he said.

The report's assertion that the tax will generate more than the district needs doesn't take into account the cost of replacing fire engines and remodeling or even rebuilding rundown stations like the one on Bethel Island, Stonebarger said.

Nor does it factor in the need to maintain a reserve that's at least 20 percent of the overall budget, he said.

Both Stonebarger and Romick also take issue with the grand jury's recommendation that the district should present the public with alternatives to the parcel tax.

The district initially proposed a $97 benefit assessment, although it subsequently nixed the idea because there were questions about whether the approach would hold up in court. The district also presented the public with several scenarios before adopting the current budget, one of which would have meant laying off about half its firefighters to avoid deficit spending.

But in the end, constituents indicated they want more than six fire stations and additional firefighters with advanced life support training, Stonebarger said.

East Contra Costa Fire District's board will meet Monday, when directors are expected to discuss the grand jury report.

The board has until March 12 to submit its written response.

Contact Rowena Coetsee at 925-779-7141.

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_19696613

2011 Monterey County grand jury raps jail, welfare

2012-01-10T08:33:00.000-08:00

by SUNITA VIJAYAN - The Californian.com

Staffing shortages at the jail and inadequate security policies at the youth detention center pose potentially public-safety problems for the community, according to the 2011 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury report released Monday.

The jail and detention center were among two of four areas reviewed by the 13-member grand jury. The areas included: the detention facilities, welfare operations, special districts and the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District.

Fernando Elizondo, a retired Salinas school superintendent, served as the grand jury foreman. He said the jury made recommendations for welfare operations and the detention facilities — two areas he thinks will reverberate most with the public. The findings in the other two areas, Elizondo said, will serve mostly for informational purposes because the grand jury didn't find anything out of sorts with them.

Though the grand jury has no authority to enforce its recommendations, the target agencies must respond to the report findings.

The 2011 report was released on the same day the 2012 grand jury was sworn in by Superior Court presiding Judge Timothy Roberts. The 19 sworn jurors will be tasked with examining relevant issues in the coming year.

The grand jury, as required by law, investigated and inspected detention facilities in the county — the jail, juvenile hall, youth detention center and both state prisons in Soledad.

The grand jury found that staffing shortages at the county jail resulted in hours of overtime for some officers, leading to sleep and rest deprivation. The grand jury urged the Sheriff's Office to review its overtime policies and make appropriate changes.

"In (August 2011), a four-week work month with 160 regular work hours, one deputy worked over 284 work hours," the report states. "That deputy worked 124 hours of overtime, the equivalent of 10 extra 12-hour work days, and 24 out of the 28 work days."

Moreover, the grand jury found that only 62 of 84 sworn officers were available for duty in October. The rest of them — 26 percent of the payroll — were on leave, the report states.

Following nine escapes from the Youth Center in 2011, the grand jury recommends a re-evaluation of its security policies.

"While the grand jury did not have time to adequately investigate these three incidents of security breaches, they are indicative of problems with current security policies and procedures," the report states.

As for the welfare operations of the county Department of Social and Employment Services, the grand jury focused on three areas in the community benefits branch including:

ª The eligibility and process of applying

ª The use of electronic benefits transaction, or EBT cards and Medi-Cal

ª And mandated reporting of sexual assaults against children under 14.

The grand jury recommended retraining of mandated reporters because "eligibility workers have not been processing mandated suspected child-abuse reports for girls under age 14 years (who are) applying for Medi-Cal-covered induced abortions and other pregnancy services."

Improvements to the department's processing system are also needed because of an increase in the number of applications, the report states.

Nonetheless, Elizondo said, the grand jury is impressed with the consistent level of services still being provided to residents by agencies given the limited resources available overall.

"Given the challenging economic situation ... our county services, our city and schools are maintaining fiscal responsibility and, what's more important, they're maintaining services to Monterey County," he said.

Monterey County grand jury report 2011 due out today

2012-01-09T13:46:00.000-08:00

The final report of the Monterey County grand jury for 2011 is scheduled for release today, a news release said.

In addition, the grand jury members selected to serve in 2012 will be sworn in at 4 p.m. in Courtroom 1 of the Salinas Courthouse by Timothy P. Roberts, presiding judge of the Monterey County Superior Court.

No details about the contents of the report for 2011 were provided in the release.

But grand jury foreman Fernando Elizondo noted that "We ... found that virtually every county and municipal agency, department, school and special district was impacted by the present challenging economic situation and that personnel are addressing the budgetary constraints while maintaining services to the residents of Monterey County."

http://www.thecalifornian.com/article/20120109/NEWS01/201090319/Monterey-County-grand-jury-report-2011-due-out-today

Tulare County: A watchful citizen strikes paydirt, by Jim Houck

2012-01-09T10:27:00.000-08:00

Irene Lapin is the kind of civic activist we need more of. A retired publicist and teacher, she's been a member of the Tulare County Grand Jury. She describes herself as a consumer advocate.

She believes it's her responsibility and right to keep close watch on what elected officials and their appointees do and make sure it's transparent. She says she attends every Visalia City Council meeting. She asks questions. She prods politely, and she doesn't give up. She studies documents. If someone says it's the law, she checks it out. I have a file of emails from Irene on various issues that shows her tenacity.

She's currently keeping a VERY close eye on the citizen task force appointed by the Visalia City Council to look into whether City Council members should be elected at-large, as they currently are, or by district.

This is high-stakes stuff. One side says the old system dilutes the vote of minorities. The other side says the current system gives council members a citywide view.

It's also expensive stuff. The city is hiring a consulting firm called National Demographics Corp. to provide guidance and, if it gets that far, to prepare district maps that will stand up to challenge in court.

Visalia had been quiet about the cost, and that raised Irene Lapin's suspicions. After scouring City Council agendas without finding any reference to appropriating money for the task force, she sent Deputy City Manager Leslie Caviglia a nice email on Dec. 19.

"Hi, Leslie — Can you tell me who can provide (a) the operating budget figure for the Election Process Task Force, including the total fee to be paid to the demographic consultant and any other consulting personnel; (b) the Council meeting date at which the budget was approved?

"Thank you kindly,

"Irene Lapin"

There was some back-and-forth, where Caviglia offered to provide the information via phone ("hard to explain via email") and Lapin said she'd like it in written form, "if you'd be so kind."

So, on Tuesday, Jan. 3, Lapin got her answer:

"The City Council approved up to $50,000 for expenses associated with the Task Force during a closed session discussion on Oct. 3. It was closed session because litigation has been threatened. The City Attorney has given permission to release this portion of the discussion.

"... The fee for the demographer is estimated to be between $20,000 and $30,000, depending upon how much data the Council determines is necessary to present a complete picture of the current voting situation. We are reviewing the first substantial data from him this week in preparation for next week's Task Force meeting. It's unclear yet if/how much more we will need him to do."

"Hope this is helpful. ... Happy New Year!"

"Leslie"

So the City Council voted in closed session to provide $50,000 for the task force? And it felt that it had the right to do that because "litigation had been threatened"?

What's wrong with that?

Well, it violates the state's open meetings law on several counts.

ª The Brown Act strictly limits the matters that can be discussed in closed session. (Government Code 54956.9) Providing $50,000 for a task force isn't one of them. "Closed sessions must be expressively authorized by explicit statutory provisions." (California Attorney General Opinion: 71 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen 96, 105-105 (1988).)

ª Any business to be transacted or discussed, either in open or closed session, must be described on the meeting's agenda. (GC 54954.2)

ª Closed sessions to discuss threatened litigation can't be used to reach decisions on issues other than litigation. The attorney general calls that a subterfuge. (California Attorney General Opinion: 71 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen 96, 105-105 (1988).)

ª Any action taken at a closed session (except contracts in some circumstances) must be disclosed publicly immediately afterward. (GC 54957.1) That's right now. Same day. Same hour. Not three months later when someone asks about it.

How did this happen?

Was the City Council just sloppy or trying to slip one past the public?

Bob Link was mayor at the time and current mayor Amy Shuklian was vice mayor.

We heard from the city's lawyer, Alex Pletzer, who was there. He agreed that the council voted on the expenditure during a closed session discussion of "potential litigation." And he said the Brown Act wasn't violated.

So much for subterfuge.

Peltzer's casual response raises the question of what else the City Council approves behind closed doors without notifying the public in advance or telling the public about it later.

That ought to trouble every resident of Visalia.

The good news, though, is that it was a citizen who yanked the covers off this charade. Irene Lapin deserves our thanks.

ª Jim Houck is the Visalia Times-Delta's special projects editor. He can be reached at jhouck@visaliatimesdelta.com.

Contra Costa County: Grand jury report questions need for fire district's $197 parcel tax

2012-01-08T08:38:00.000-08:00

By Rowena Coetsee
Contra Costa Times

The East Contra Costa Fire District should offer taxpayers an alternative to the $197 parcel tax the cash-strapped agency is proposing, according to a recently released grand jury report.

The 2011-12 Contra Costa County grand jury late last month made the recommendation after researching the district's attempts to boost its income so it can reopen a fire station and hire more firefighters with advanced life support training.

The report concluded that the $8.6 million the district estimates the annual tax would generate the first year is significantly more than what's needed to provide these services. It advised the fire district to present property owners with alternative levels of service and the cost of each so it can make an informed decision when they vote on the ballot measure in June.

If the tax passes, district officials anticipate that they'll be able to ramp up manpower over five years from the 43 firefighters currently on the payroll -- all of whom are working overtime to fill the equivalent of 48 positions -- to 63 positions. The additional hires all would be paramedics, enabling the district eventually to have one per shift at each of the seven stations.

Unless it finds additional revenue or makes more cuts, the district expects to have exhausted its savings by June, when its ending fund balance will have dwindled to $480,000 -- a figure that doesn't include the cost of the election.

The grand jury report concluded that the district can't sustain the status quo -- a level of service it considers adequate -- without more money. But the report also indicated that at the end of five years, a $197 annual tax would leave the district with roughly $11.8 million in "unused funds."

In short, it said the district would end up with more than it needs to support the level of service it is proposing, resulting in substantial reserves.

The grand jury also recommended the district consider outsourcing all its current firefighting services to Cal Fire, noting that the state might be able to do the job more cost-effectively.

The district also might be able to reduce its overhead in the contract it's negotiating with the firefighters' union, the report said.

The grand jury's findings don't sit well with fire district board President Kevin Romick.

"There's really not much I agree with in here," he said. "I thought it was inappropriately biased against the parcel tax ... it was slanted from the get-go."

Romick disputes the report's determination that the current level of service is adequate because there have been no deaths and property losses directly attributable to a lack of firefighters or equipment.

He noted that multiple groups have studied the fire district over the years and found it unable to meet residents' needs. A consulting firm commissioned by county supervisors reached that conclusion in 2006, as did a previous grand jury, Romick said. Director Erick Stonebarger also questions how the grand jury decided that the existing level of service is acceptable.

Moreover, Stonebarger said only those jurors who receive fire district services should be weighing in on their effectiveness.

"I think it's (the residents') right to dictate what service level is adequate -- not someone who doesn't live in the district," he said.

The report's assertion that the tax will generate more than the district needs doesn't take into account the cost of replacing fire engines and remodeling or even rebuilding rundown stations like the one on Bethel Island, Stonebarger said.

Nor does it factor in the need to maintain a reserve that's at least 20 percent of the overall budget, he said.

Both Stonebarger and Romick also take issue with the grand jury's recommendation that the district should present the public with alternatives to the parcel tax.

The district initially proposed a $97 benefit assessment, although it subsequently nixed the idea because there were questions about whether the approach would hold up in court. The district also presented the public with several scenarios before adopting the current budget, one of which would have meant laying off about half its firefighters to avoid deficit spending.

But in the end, constituents indicated they want more than six fire stations and additional firefighters with advanced life support training, Stonebarger said.

East Contra Costa Fire District's board will meet Monday, when directors are expected to discuss the grand jury report.

The board has until March 12 to submit its written response.

Contact Rowena Coetsee at 925-779-7141.

Monterey County: 2011 grand jury report due Monday - New panel scheduled for swearing in

2012-01-07T08:30:00.000-08:00

The Monterey County Superior Court announced that it’s expecting to release the 2011 Civil Grand Jury report on Monday.

The annual report is the result of the investigation of county, municipal, school and special district operations.

“The final report is a result of countless hours of research conducted by the members of the 2011 (Civil Grand Jury),” said the 2011 panel’s foreperson Fernando Elizondo in a statement. “We also found throughout the year that virtually every county and municipal agency, department, school and special district was impacted by the present challenging economic situation and that personnel are addressing proactively the budgetary constraints while maintaining services to the residents of Monterey County.”

At 4 p.m. Monday, the 2012 county Civil Grand Jury will be chosen and sworn in by presiding Judge Timothy Roberts at the Salinas courthouse at 240 Church Street.

- Sunita Vijayan, svijayan@thecalifornian.com

Imperial County Civil Grand Jury: Not certain whether changes to final report about juvenile hall will be made, jury foreman says

2012-01-06T09:33:00.000-08:00

By SILVIO J. PANTA
Staff Writer
12:50 a.m. PST, January 6, 2012

Whether the Imperial County Civil Grand Jury will update its report on the county’s juvenile hall following Wednesday’s suicide of a 16-year-old Winterhaven boy at the facility has yet to be determined, the civil grand jury foreman said Thursday.

Gil Rapoza, who is serving for the first time as the jury’s foreman, said such findings would be made public if the 19-member body brings up the topic in a future meeting.

Rapoza declined to specify when that meeting would occur, citing confidentiality rules pertaining to the civil grand jury, but stressed he could not speak for the jury “as a whole.”

Rapoza added that he could not say with any certainty whether the recently released and upbeat final report about the juvenile hall would be changed in light of what happened Wednesday night.

The report was based “on what we knew at the time,” said Rapoza, who could not say whether mental health evaluations or behavioral health issues would be included among the evaluations the civil grand jury would observe in a future annual report.

The final report that was released provided an account of such things as the 72 minors the juvenile hall facility can house, the number of supervisors it has on staff and other factual items.

But neither mental nor behavioral health evaluations appear on the list of things the civil grand jury looked for in its report that commended staff and volunteers at the facility “for their excellence, service, procedures and care for those in their custody and devotion to duty.”

Rapoza said he was not with members of the civil grand jury when it toured the juvenile hall “within the last couple of months.”

Officials with the Imperial County Sheriff’s Office and Probation Department referred all questions about the teen-age boy to the County Counsel’s Office, which issued a general, three-paragraph news release Thursday.

The statement provided little information about the boy, or what he was in for, but reported that a sheriff’s investigation is under way.

A review team comprised of probation officers, behavioral health and public health leaders will also be conducting a probe into what happened “as per county procedures.”

Staff Writer Silvio J. Panta can be reached at 760-337-3442 or at spanta@ivpressonline.com Copyright © 2012, Imperial Valley Press

Twin Rivers interim police chief resigns amid launch of criminal probes

2012-01-05T13:15:00.001-08:00

January 5, 2012

By Sam Stanton and Melody Gutierrez
stanton@sacbee.com

After less than two months on the job, the interim police chief for the Twin Rivers Unified School District abruptly resigned Wednesday amid stepped-up investigations into the district by the Sacramento County grand jury, the District Attorney's office and federal agents.

Trang To, a department captain and former Sacramento Sheriff's Department official, was named to head the troubled agency in November after the district placed Chief Christopher Breck on administrative leave.

To had been brought in to head the department after a series of controversies that included claims of excessive towing and traffic stops by officers, as well as the October shooting of a department officer during a Saturday traffic stop. The officer survived the shooting, but the incident focused new attention on the district and its department after a suspect arrested in the shooting died in Sacramento Police Department custody.

Twin Rivers police spokesman William Cho did not immediately respond to a request for comment today. District spokeswoman Trinette Marquis said the district has not received a letter of resignation from To and could not comment.

To is expected to be replaced by former Sacramento Police Capt. Scott LaCosse.

Meanwhile, The Bee has learned that the police department is now the subject of criminal probes involving the District Attorney's Office, the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

The ATF and FBI probes involve the possible mishandling of weapons in the department's possession, including the loss at one point of an automatic weapon that has since been recovered, sources told The Bee.

Those probes are in addition to a longstanding investigation by the county grand jury into allegations of theft of district property, mismanagement and other issues.

The district itself has launched its own internal investigation, hiring a former top FBI agent to conduct a review of the police department. James Maddock, whose experience includes working the Oklahoma City bombing investigation and heading the Sacramento FBI office during the 1990s, has been hired by the district.

Helen Dunkel, a spokeswoman for the ATF in San Francisco, declined comment today.

"I'm not confirming that anyone is under investigation," Dunkel said.

A spokeswoman for the District Attorney's Office, Shelly Orio, confirmed to The Bee today that a criminal investigation is underway, but said she could not comment further.

Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/crime/archives/2012/01/interim-police-chief-resigns-as-investigations-of-twin-rivers-escalate.html#storylink=cpy

Kern County: Grand jury seeking applicants

2012-01-05T09:32:00.000-08:00

THE BAKERSFIELD CALIFORNIAN | Wednesday, Jan 04 2012 04:13 PM

Last Updated Wednesday, Jan 04 2012 04:16 PM

Applications for the Kern County Grand Jury season that begins in July are now being accepted.

The county's 19 grand jurors are chosen from a pool of volunteers who are willing to serve for 12 months on the investigative panel charged with rooting out government corruption and mismanagement and empowered to issue criminal indictments for public offenses.

Members of the grand jury must be at least 18 years old, speak English and have lived in Kern County for at least one year.

Applicants who meet those criteria are interviewed by Kern County Superior Court judges who then nominate them for the position. The final 19 jurors are chosen by random drawing from that pool of nominees.

Applications for the 2012-2013 jury can be downloaded from the county's website at www.co.kern.ca.us/grandjury or obtained by contacting the grand Jury at 868-4797 or at the offices of the grand jury in the Kern County Superior Court Building at 1415 Truxtun Ave. in Bakersfield.

Those interested in a grand jury seat will need to submit a completed application by April 13.

Grand jury: Yuba County wrongly slashed construction fee

2012-01-02T08:34:00.000-08:00

December 30, 2011 11:40:49 PM
By Ben van der Meer/ADbvandermeer

Yuba County's chief building official allowed some construction projects to pay a "half fee" between 2005 and 2008, though he was given no authority to do so by county supervisors, says the grand jury.

The official, who was not named in the report, may have cost the county thousands in fees as a result, including on one commercial project owned by an unnamed former county supervisor.

"In reviewing the (Board of Supervisors) minutes from 2004 to 2009, there is no ordinance or resolution adopting the building permit 'half fee,'" the report said, "nor is there a request for waiver of permit fees on behalf of the previously mentioned developer and the former supervisor."

The grand jury report, released Friday, only halfway through the jury's year, recommends holding the chief building official responsible for the fees. It also urged better oversight to make sure only fees authorized by the Board of Supervisors are charged.

County spokesman Russ Brown said the report had just been released, and the county hasn't yet formed a proper response.

The report requests a response from County Administrator Robert Bendorf, the Board of Supervisors, county Community Services and Development Director Kevin Mallen and the building official, Martin Griffin.

Brown confirmed Griffin was the chief building official during the time scrutinized by the report.

Griffin, who is still the county's chief building official, said Friday he was familiar with the report, but wouldn't comment until he released his official response.

"I'm not going to cut my own throat," he said.

According to the report, the jury began investigating after a complaint that the building department only charged half the typical permit fees between 2005 and 2008 on residential construction projects where the owner of the home was the same person doing the work.

The report did not list how many times the "half fee" was charged, but noted board minutes from those years show no authorization for such a move. Supervisors interviewed by the jury were unaware of the practice.

As well, in October 2006 the building official charged the "half fee" to a commercial home developer, saving the developer $1,143.66, with a corresponding loss of that amount to the building department.

And in May 2008, the jury's review found the building official charged only the half fee to a commercial construction project owned by a former county supervisor, an $18,568.87 savings.

A similar project at the same time with different ownership did not receive the lesser fee, the report noted.

It was not clear whether the supervisor referred to in the report was a former supervisor at the time of the "half fee" being paid, or is a former supervisor only now.

Supervisor John Nicoletti said the report's allusion to someone receiving a benefit is too vague, and the board will have to investigate further before it can accurately respond.

"We'll check into what the whole story is," he said.

The building official appeared to have exhibited favoritism in granting the "half fee" but had no authority to do so, though the official said during interviews by the jury the board had directed him to make such adjustments in fees for projects where the work was being done by the owner, according to the report.

As well, the report recommended the building official be held accountable for the loss of revenue to the building department, though no dollar figure is given.

Bendorf, Mallen and Martin have 60 days to publish a public response to the report, and the board has 90 days.

San Bernardino International Airport

2011-12-30T10:40:00.000-08:00

The biggest story of the year was an FBI raid at San Bernardino International Airport.

Following a civil Grand Jury report that questioned operational and financial oversight of the airport, federal investigators raided the former Norton Air Force Base on Sept. 21.

The FBI filled a 26-foot U-Haul truck with official records, as the agency is attempting to show a relationship between controversial airport developer Scot Spencer; Mayor Pat Morris; former interim Executive Director Donald L. Rogers; airport Aviation Director Bill Ingraham; Mike Burrows, the Inland Valley Development Agency's assistant director; former airport director Thomas "T. Milford" Harrison; and South Carolina-based aircraft materials company Tiger Enterprises and Trading.

San Bernardino Staff Reports, December 29, 2011

Patterson Irrigator - Rough ride in 2011 for city politics, by Nick Rappley

2011-12-29T08:23:00.000-08:00

Big shoes to fill

More than 11 months after his death, the gap left by Cuellar continues to leave a mark on city affairs, council members say.

“I don’t know that we’ve replaced Sam,” Smith said this week. “With Sam, there was institutional knowledge and experience, and that’s not something you can replace overnight. His life experience and his council experience is not something you can replace without years and years.”

“He was a very consistent councilmember,” Molina said this week regarding the councilmember he regarded as a friend and mentor. “He was reinvigorated by his re-election and I think there would’ve been more respectful dialogue.”.

No sooner did the city begin to heal after Cuellar’s death than controversy filled City Hall regarding how to fill the seat of the iconic councilman, who had been elected two months earlier to another four-year term.

The remaining council members agreed unanimously not to pursue a costly special election. Based solely on the results of the November 2010 election, the council appointed the next highest vote-getter, Larry Buehner, on Feb. 8, with Smith, Councilman Dominic Farinha and newly elected Councilwoman Deborah Novelli voting in favor and Molina dissenting.

A week later, after much public discussion and audience opposition within the council chambers, the council rescinded the appointment with another 3-1 vote, this time with Smith dissenting, on the night Buehner was to be sworn in.

The council decided instead to interview 10 candidates, including several who had run in the November election, starting Feb. 28.

As an advocate for the interview process, Reyes Cuellar, Sam Cuellar’s wife, expressed happiness after the meeting.

“I am very pleased and proud of what the council members decided tonight,” she said. “I certainly didn’t expect this to happen, but I’m glad it did. I know (Sam) was pleased, too.”

Following the interviews, however, the council decided unanimously and without comment to appoint Buehner again, and he was sworn in March 7.

Criticism by community members and political opponents in the following weeks centered on Buehner’s business interests and perceived conflicts of interest. Buehner disclosed ownership or partial ownership of 29 rental properties throughout Patterson and of undeveloped land interests outside city limits that are expected to be annexed. But council members and city staff, including interim City Attorney Tom Hallinan, said there was little to worry about.

“He’ll be just like anyone else on the council,” Hallinan said. “Although he may have more potential conflicts of interest than average, it’s not unusual for council members to have to conflict out of decisions sometimes.”

Grand jury dustup

Just as the political seas seemed to calm, an uproar broke out June 29 when the civil grand jury released a scathing report that named former city staff and present and past City Council members.

Most affected were Smith, former Mayor Becky Campo and former City Attorney George Logan.

The civil grand jury recommended that Smith resign or be recalled and that Campo pay back money she received as mayor because of allegations that she lived outside city limits.

It also stated that the city should file a complaint with the California State Bar to chastise Logan for alleged improprieties. Those included failing to be in the room when the council voted to reimburse developer John Ramos for $27,000 in legal fees he incurred as he sought to block the Del Puerto Health Center from moving to the Keystone Pacific Business Park in western Patterson. The grand jury suggested that Ramos, the health center’s present landlord, should return that money to the city.

In July, Campo blamed Molina for the grand jury investigation, alleging that he was behind the investigation and was a complainant.

“I was not a complainant,” Molina said in July. “I was called as a witness by the civil grand jury, but I never filled out a complaint.”

The city’s official response three months later, in a letter to the grand jury written by Hallinan, appeared defiant.

“This is the most outrageous and inappropriate recommendation our City Attorney has seen in 17 years of reviewing Grand Jury reports,” Hallinan wrote in response to the resignation-or-recall recommendation. “To engage in political advocacy is completely and utterly contrary to the charge of the Grand Jury.

“This recommendation cannot be implemented by (the city) and as such, shouldn’t even be included in this report.”

While the council voted unanimously to send off the response, Molina was apprehensive about the tone of the letter, calling it “harsh.”

Returning fire

The grand jury report prompted two related lawsuits — one from Smith and one from Logan.

On Sept. 28, Smith filed a federal suit against Stanislaus County and the civil grand jury for defamation of character and violation of her civil rights.

“I don’t want to see anyone else to have to go through something like this,” she said this week. “It was clear that there was a conspiracy to target myself, Mayor Campo and Dominic Farinha,

“It was hearsay, nonsense and outright made up. I will not stop this lawsuit until I uncover those that perjured themselves in front of this grand jury.”

The complaint, filed in U.S. District Federal Court in Sacramento, seeks an injunction against the grand jury to stop further alleged abuse of authority and publication of transcripts from the investigation. The suit also calls for the jury to revise its findings and seeks unspecified damages and attorney fees.

Smith said she was never given an opportunity to respond formally to the allegations, as the grand jury asked only the city for a response, not the people identified in the report.

Meanwhile, former civil grand jury foreman Denis France — along with Stanislaus County Counsel Jack Doering, who later recused himself from the case because of possible conflict of interests — began pursuing a contempt-of-court charge against Logan.

The court asked the county for $10,000 to hire Modesto civil attorney Dean Petrulakis to pursue the contempt charge against Logan for discussing and writing in local newspapers about his civil grand jury testimony in April and May.

Logan wrote op-eds in the Patterson Irrigator and the Modesto Bee and also responded to questions from the Irrigator for a story about the grand jury investigation.

“I knew they were just going to try and crucify me and my reputation, along with the others (they brought in as witnesses),” Logan said in late May.

In court documents, Logan has cited legal precedent that he has a right to freedom of speech in the matter if no one is endangered by his testimony.

More ahead In early December, criticism of Molina arose regarding his dual roles as mayor of Patterson and chairman of the Stanislaus County Office of Education board.

Smith asked at the Dec. 6 Patterson City Council meeting that Molina’s dual offices be publicly discussed at the council’s next regular meeting Jan. 17. Smith has said she wants the attorney general’s opinion on the matter, while Molina has contended that the offices are compatible and can coexist. Legal opinions have been murky.

Such incidents hint that there may be more council drama ahead in 2012, as the political year will begin apace with Molina’s debate and Logan’s court date.

• Nick Rappley can be reached at 892-6187 or nick@pattersonirrigator.com.

1000th Post

2011-12-27T16:16:00.000-08:00

This represents the 1000th posting of news articles from around the State of California, pertaining to (Civil) Grand Jury activities in the 58 counties.

2010-11 Shasta County grand jury have filed their responses and rebuttals to the jury's findings and recommendations

2011-12-27T15:56:00.000-08:00

Government agencies and special districts that came under the magnifying glass of the 2011 Shasta County Grand Jury.

Those responses can be viewed in their entirety on the grand jury's website, www.co.shasta.ca.us.

The full grand jury report, which was issued on June 27, also can be viewed there.

The responses include those from the Mountain Gate Community Services District, which the jury claimed showed favoritism when it lowered its employment standards and hired a former board chairman as its general manager.

In its rebuttal, the district maintains the board of directors did not lower the employment standards.

Instead, it said, the general manager's job description was revised to conform with the Association of California Water Association and Americans with Disabilities Act.

Also available on the grand jury website are forms for citizens to file complaints with the grand jury to initiate an investigation into city or county government or a special district operating within Shasta County.

Applications are also included for those interested in serving on the 2012-13 grand jury.

Further information and inquiries can be addressed by writing the grand jury at P. O. Box 992086, Redding, CA 96099-2086, or by calling 225-5098.

http://www.redding.com/news/2011/dec/26/grand-jury-replies-filed/

Library case verdicts show the value of grand juries

2011-12-22T12:40:00.000-08:00

Editorial: Library case verdicts show the value of grand juries

Published: Wednesday, Dec. 21, 2011

California's civil grand juries aren't perfect; they sometimes go overboard in their zeal to uncover wrongdoing in local government.

But the kickback scandal at Sacramento County's library is a good reminder of the valuable watchdog role the citizen grand juries can play.

A Superior Court criminal jury on Monday convicted the library's former security chief and his wife for bilking taxpayers of $780,000 in a maintenance over-billing scheme that also involved the library's former facilities director, who was convicted earlier this month. All three are to be sentenced Jan. 20 and face years in prison in what the prosecutor called "a classic case of public corruption."

It's a case, however, that might not have seen the light of day – except for a whistle-blower who came forward, a series of stories in The Bee and investigations by the Sacramento County grand jury and the District Attorney's Office.

The library director at the time, Anne Marie Gold, brushed off the accusations. So the whistle-blower sought out the grand jury. It pushed the case and issued a blistering report in 2008 that helped force Gold's resignation.

"You swear people in and all of a sudden, a lot of the truth comes out," grand jury foreman Don Prange told The Bee's Andy Furillo. "I'm very pleased."

This case also should be a caution to those who want to overhaul how grand juries operate.

Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, a former Sacramento County supervisor and defender of Gold, pushed a sweeping measure last session in the name of transparency. But after supporters of grand juries responded, Assembly Bill 622 was wisely stripped down.

What the Legislature eventually passed and Gov. Jerry Brown signed allows any witness testifying under oath to a grand jury to have his or her lawyer present, though it restricts attorneys from objecting to questions or disclosing anything that they hear during the proceedings.

Grand juries will have to see how the law works. While it's an additional safeguard for witnesses, it would be a shame if it interfered with the important job that grand juries do.

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/21/4136471/library-case-verdicts-show-the.html#storylink=cpy

Logan fires back in contempt case - Stanislaus County

2011-12-22T09:18:00.000-08:00

by Nick Rappley | Patterson Irrigator
Dec 22, 2011

Former Patterson City Attorney George Logan is firing back at the Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury, saying he was within his First Amendment rights to speak about his testimony in front of the legal body before the jury published its findings earlier this year.

The civil grand jury is seeking a contempt-of-court charge against Logan for discussing and writing in local newspapers about his testimony in April and May. The penalty could carry a $1,000 fine or possible jail time and added court costs.

“Mr. Logan insulted the integrity, ability and intelligence of the Grand Jury in an attempt to influence the outcome of its investigation,” states an affidavit signed by Denis France, the former grand jury foreman.

The affidavit also accuses Logan of violating an oath and admonition to secrecy.

In the written admonishment that witnesses must sign as they exit their grand jury interview, they are told not to reveal to anyone what was discussed, except as the court dictates. The court requires witnesses to sign the document to indicate that they understand the admonishment.

Below is the question, “Will you abide by the admonishment?”

Logan crossed out that question on his exit document and wrote, “I will abide by the law,” and signed it.

Logan argues in court documents that his First Amendment right to free speech trumps the grand jury’s admonition of secrecy, because his disclosures posed no specific harm to the public.

Citing a 2000 California appellate court case, Logan states in the documents that the grand jury’s admonition was unconstitutional, unless there had been a clear and present danger or an imminent threat to the grand jury.

He also cites a 1978 U.S. Supreme Court opinion, Landmark Communications v. Virginia, which states, “This Court has consistently rejected the argument that out-of-court comments on pending cases or grand jury investigations constituted a clear and present danger to the administration of justice.”

The Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors approved a $10,000 appropriation at its regular meeting Tuesday, Dec. 6, to hire private attorney Dean Petrulakis to pursue the contempt charge. Stanislaus County Counsel Jack Doering said his office wouldn’t pursue the charge because of a conflict of interest and because it was unclear whether the contempt charge would be civil or criminal. County counsel offices by law cannot pursue criminal charges.

Neither Logan nor Petrulakis has returned calls on the matter. France, reached at his home last week, refused to comment.

In a grand jury report released in late June, the civil grand jury recommended that Councilwoman Annette Smith resign or be recalled and that former Mayor Becky Campo pay back money she received as mayor because she allegedly lived outside city limits.

It also stated that the city should file a complaint with the California State Bar to chastise Logan for alleged improprieties. Those include failing to be in the room when the council voted to reimburse developer John Ramos for $27,000 in legal fees he incurred as he sought to block the Del Puerto Health Center from moving to the Keystone Pacific Business Park in western Patterson. The grand jury suggested that Ramos return that money to the city.

Smith filed a federal lawsuit against the Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury and Stanislaus County on Sept. 28.

The complaint for damages — filed in U.S. District Federal Court in Sacramento — seeks an injunction against the grand jury to stop further alleged abuse of authority and to publish transcripts from the investigation. The suit also calls for the jury to revise its findings and seeks unspecified damages and attorney fees. By law, the Stanislaus County Superior Court — which is funded by the state — has purview over the civil grand jury, while Stanislaus County has responsibility for legal defense of the body.

The board voted to pass a proposed Legislative Projects and Issues document for the upcoming year Tuesday Dec. 20 that asks for the state Legislature to support full state funding for the civil grand jury, including its legal defense.

• Nick Rappley can be reached at 892-6187 or nick@pattersonirrigator.com.

Sacramento library kickback scheme results in 2 more convictions

2011-12-21T15:44:00.000-08:00

Sacramento library kickback scheme results in 2 more convictions

By Andy Furillo afurillo@sacbee.com, The Sacramento Bee,Dec. 20, 2011

Gadflies, watchdogs and whistle-blowers basked in validation and vindication Monday when a Sacramento jury closed the book on the library corruption scandal with a clean sweep of convictions.

"You swear people in and all of a sudden a lot of the truth comes out," said Don Prange, foreman of the Sacramento County Grand Jury, which forced the case that has placed three defendants on the precipice of prison. "That's how we got to where we're at, and I'm really pleased."

A Sacramento Superior Court criminal jury finished the work begun more than four years ago by a library whistle-blower, The Sacramento Bee, a citizen activist and Prange's grand jury.

The culmination came in convictions returned against the library's former security chief, James Mayle, and his wife, Janie Rankins-Mayle. They ran a billing operation good for a $780,000 take by those two defendants and another convicted in-house collaborator, former library facilities director Dennis Nilsson. Nilsson was found guilty Dec. 9 on 16 counts.

To see full story click on:

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/20/4134416/sacramento-library-kickback-scheme.html

Kern County Grand Jury recommends consolidation of air districts

2011-12-21T11:15:00.000-08:00

Tehachapi News

Tuesday, Dec 20 2011 02:30 PM

The Kern County Grand Jury has recommended that the Air Pollution Control Districts of eastern and western Kern County be consolidated into one.

In a report issued earlier this month, the Grand Jury noted that its Administration and Audit Committee conducted a review of the Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District.

According to the findings of the committee, “it is logical and advantageous to combine the Eastern Kern County Air Pollution Control District and Western Kern County into a single pollution control local district. This change is justified by the extensive oil production and refinement activities in western Kern County, including the expanded financial resources gleaned from production and manufacturing.”

According to Dave Jones, Air Pollution Control Officer with the Eastern Kern APCD, the recommendation is problematic in that the Eastern Kern APCD is comprised of the eastern portion of Kern County that is not within the San Joaquin Valley APCD.

Jones said that Kern County once had one APCD, but that around 1990, state legislation required the eight counties of the San Joaquin Valley to consolidate into one air pollution control district to begin addressing issues common to that air basin.

Eastern Kern - including Tehachapi - is not part of the San Joaquin Valley air basin, so a decision was made at the time to split off into a separate air pollution control district.

Currently, the board of directors of the Eastern Kern APCD is made up of two representatives of the Kern County Board of Supervisors and representatives of the three cities in the district - Tehachapi, California City and Ridgecrest. Tehachapi Mayor Ed Grimes sits on the board.

Jones said the board will consider the Grand Jury recommendation at its January meeting. The staff recommendation is to oppose consolidation because of the differences in the air quality issues.

“Although there are minor ozone problems,” the air in Eastern Kern is “nothing like it is here in Bakersfield,” Jones said.

The Mojave Chamber of Commerce has also come out against the consolidation proposed by the Grand Jury.

In a letter to Kern County Supervisor Zack Scrivner, Cathy Hansen, president of the Mojave Chamber of Commerce, noted that “Eastern Kern is in a separate APCD because this region is in a different air basin, and has an industrial base based on mining, aerospace, renewable energy, and tourism rather than the petroleum and agriculture base of the SJVAPCD.

“Further,” Hansen noted, “EKAPCD consists of the 41 communities of the region, all in Kern County, while SJVAPCD includes seven other counties in addition to the western portion of Kern County.”

Eastern Kern leaders have faced the challenge of similar suggestions in the past, Hansen noted.

“Several years ago the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency attempted to impose upon Eastern Kern potentially devastating air quality rules based on combining pollution levels in the Valley with those in Eastern Kern. It took an outcry from Eastern Kern community leaders and the support of then-Congressman Bill Thomas to halt this action, which could have closed down activities at Edwards Air Force Base, the Mojave Air and Space Port, and the Naval Air Warfare Weapons Division Weapons Division at China Lake if fully implemented,” she said, asking Scrivner to “do everything in your power to oppose this recommendation, and that you suggest to the Grand Jury that they perform more intensive studies before making potentially devastating suggestions such as this one.”

The January meeting of the EKAPCD Board of Directors will be held on Jan. 12, 2012, beginning at 1 p.m. at the Golden Hills Community Services District office, 21415 Reeves, Tehachapi. The meeting is open to the public.

Jones noted that although the district is now headquartered in Bakersfield with a field office in Tehachapi, it plans to relocate its headquarters to Tehachapi in October 2012.

EZ way to follow our News Blog

2011-12-20T10:56:00.000-08:00

Text FOLLOW @cgja1 to 40404 and you'll receive updates via your cell phone. Just click on the link in the text to read the entire article. It's never been easier to stay informed about grand jury news from all of California's 58 counties!

Solano County grand jury reviews treasurer's department

2011-12-16T15:22:00.000-08:00

Solano County grand jury reviews treasurer's department

By Melissa Murphy / The Reporter

Posted: 12/16/2011 01:04:33 AM PST

A review of the Solano County treasurer's department by the county grand jury showed it is an "effectively managed organization" with only minor changes needed. One change recommended is the elimination of the department's oversight committee.

A report released Thursday states that the grand jury reviewed the county treasurer and its treasury oversight committee, finding that the committee created in 1997 only met four times in the last two years. It is required to meet quarterly.

The committee apparently failed to attain a quorum at the four meetings and was unable to perform any formal business for at least two years. The committee, according to the report, didn't post agendas, as required by the Brown Act.

Meanwhile, the committee did not conduct an annual audit in either 2009 or 2010, as required by county policy. The last audit performed by the Auditor-Controller's Office was for 2008.

"We asked them to see if the committee was relevant," said Charles Lomeli, treasurer/tax collector/county clerk. "We want to eliminate things that cost money and this was one of those things."

Lomeli explained money was spent on staff to prepare reports for meetings.

"There was a time when we did things manually," he said about when the committee was first created. "We've revamped the process since then and technology has improved."

Other inconsistencies mentioned in the report show that the Solano County Treasurer Investment Policy does not contain all the language required by California Government Code and a Board of Supervisors' resolution.

On a positive note, the committee also found that the treasury's activity is transparent to the public and financial information is posted on its website, including yield reports, financial statements, rating reports and the results of both internal and external audits.

Additionally, the grand jury noted that the auditor-controller conducts quarterly treasury reviews, which are also published online.

Also, the investment rating company Standard and Poor's continuously rates the Solano County Treasury. As a result, according to the grand jury, every month the treasurer provides a complete accounting of the investment pool and all securities held to the rating agency.

See complete story at: http://www.thereporter.com/news/ci_19560867

Follow Staff Writer Melissa Murphy at Twitter.com/ ReporterMMurphy.

Trustees should be removed from office

2011-12-16T15:13:00.000-08:00

(Kern County) Grand Jury says two Elk Hills trustees should be removed from office

Two members of the Elk Hills School District Board of Trustees do not live in the district and should be immediately removed from the board, the Kern County Grand Jury said in a report issued Thursday morning.

The grand jury did not name the board members, but did recommend that the Kern County Superintendent of Schools immediately replace the trustees.

The grand jury investigated the district after receiving a complaint against the trustees. The report said it found no evidence of criminal activity.

The grand jury report also recommended the California Legislature change state laws to make it legal to conduct “thorough criminal/background checks on all individuals currently holding or running for elected positions, including School Board Trustees, without exception.”

The reports said the grand jury contacted the Kern County Superintendent of Schools over residency and background check issues and also did an online search for records of criminal activity in Kern County

There are three trustees currently serving on the Elk Hills School District Board of Trustees.

According to the district's website, they are Board President Curt Stephens, whose four-year term expires in 2014 and Debra Howard and Brenda Bennett, whose terms expire in 2012.

Taft Midway Driller
December 15, 2011

(Imperial) County Grand Jury Report Cites Problems

2011-12-08T13:02:00.000-08:00

(Imperial) County grand jury report cites narcotics and cellphone problems at local state prisons

By SILVIO J. PANTA, Staff Writer

An ongoing problem of illegal narcotics and a continuing issue with inmates in possession of cellular phones are problems that Centinela and Calipatria state prisons are dealing with, according to the findings of a final report issued by the Imperial County
Civil Grand Jury.

The report concluded that both prisons are generally well-run “with no major issues uncovered” during annually mandated inspections conducted by the civil grand jury.

The presence of illegal drugs is common in most modern prisons. The grand jury recommended that local prison officials “make use of one or more trained narcotic dogs that would be assigned to one or both prisons.”

In addition, both prisons should work with local, state and national authorities “to overcome the federal resistance to block illegal cell phone signals,” according to the report.

The civil grand jury is allowed to issue as many reports as it can as long as they are done before the end of the fiscal year, June 30, said Imperial County Civil Grand Jury Foreman Gil Rapoza.
More reports by the civil grand jury are expected, Rapoza said.

Centinela State Prison Administrative Lt. Jesse Jackson was unable to immediately comment and referred all questions to Chief Deputy Warden Amy Miller, who did not return a call for comment.

Administrative Lt. Jorge Santana of Calipatria State Prison said that efforts are always being undertaken to assure that drugs and cellular phone use are curtailed. “We’re constantly searching and make every reasonable effort,” Santana said.

Board backs Stanislaus grand jury's legal press

2011-12-07T20:40:00.000-08:00

Wednesday, Dec. 07, 2011

Ex-Patterson lawyer divulged his testimony
By Garth Stapley
gstapley@modbee.com

Stanislaus County civil grand jurors want Patterson's former city attorney held in contempt of court for publicly divulging the focus of a grand jury investigation before it was complete.

County Counsel John Doering said his office thinks George Logan broke the law and should be prosecuted in criminal court, but the district attorney's office refused.

County supervisors on Tuesday unanimously agreed to let grand jurors spend up to $10,000 hiring private lawyers to go after Logan in civil court.

Logan and District Attorney Birgit Fladager could not be reached Tuesday.

In a court document, Logan says his constitutional right to free speech trumps a grand jury's admonition to keep quiet about an ongoing probe.

"I plead not guilty and refute all charges," Logan said in an Oct. 14 court brief.

At issue is the grand jury's June 29 report criticizing Logan, former Patterson Mayor Becky Campo and Councilwoman Annette Smith. Smith subsequently sued the grand jury, saying her rights were violated and that she hoped to force an overhaul of the grand jury system.

A report to the Board of Supervisors on the grand jury's request for $10,000, submitted through Presiding Judge Ricardo Córdova, fails to identify parties. Tuesday, Doering offered details.

He said his office initially represented the grand jury but backed away because of a potential conflict of interest and because his office cannot pursue criminal matters.

Logan, an Atwater attorney, pre-empted the grand jury's report by writing a point-by-point summary of his testimony to some jurors, published April 28 in The Bee and the next day in the Patterson Irrigator.

"They told me I could not reveal any of the discussions before the grand jury. I told them that the prohibition only applied to grand jury members — not witnesses," Logan wrote. "They were dead wrong on every assumption about the city and even about their own rules."

In a separate Irrigator news story about Logan's decision to go public, he is quoted as saying he feared grand jurors "were just going to try and crucify me and my reputation."

When grand jurors issued their report two months later, they said Logan should have recused himself from advising a councilman summoned by the grand jury, because Logan had himself already testified. Logan also violated a grand jury oath by talking about his testimony, grand jurors found.

Grand jurors also claim Logan mishandled a matter involving a developer whose legal fees were paid by the Patterson council and told the city he would testify for the developer should he sue the city. Jurors recommended that the city complain to the California Bar Association.

In a November affidavit, former grand jury foreman Denis France said Logan "disobeyed the admonition … with the intent to frustrate the dignity, authority and the processes of this court."

Logan told The Bee that grand jurors didn't understand the law.

He resigned as Patterson's city attorney in May 2010, citing medical reasons.

In a court document, Logan said newspaper articles amount to hearsay and are not suitable as evidence.

In an August affidavit, France said Logan signed an oath and admonition form after receiving this instruction: "You are admonished not to reveal to any person … what questions were asked or what responses were given or any other matters concerning the nature or subject of the grand jury investigation … until such time as the report is made public. Violation of this admonition is punishable as contempt of court."

In a rival brief, Logan said state law "recognizes the First Amendment right to criticize any judicial office as long as it does not actually interfere with its proceedings."

Hearings are scheduled in Stanislaus County Superior Court.

Bee staff writer Garth Stapley can be reached at gstapley@modbee.com or (209) 578-2390.

Read more: http://www.modbee.com/2011/12/07/1977114/board-backs-grand-jurys-legal.html#ixzz1fumv58io

Oakland building inspection reforms 'too slow'

2011-11-30T14:45:00.000-08:00

Oakland Councilwoman Jane Brunner tore into the city's building services division on Tuesday, saying its attempts at reforms in the wake of a scathing grand jury report have been sluggish.

Among other things, the division has failed to create an independent appeals board or create a citizens task force, Brunner said. In addition, the division plans to bring a reform plan before the council in March even though an Alameda County Civil Grand Jury issued a report with recommendations in June.

"We are absolutely moving too slow," Brunner said at a meeting Tuesday of the City Council's community and economic development committee. "I had higher expectations of things."

E-mail Matthai Kuruvila at mkuruvila@sfchronicle.com.

Judge orders more Grand Jury transcripts be handed over to Colonies' defendants

2011-11-30T13:48:00.000-08:00

Joe Nelson, Staff Writer
Posted: 11/29/2011 10:37:41 PM PST

A San Bernardino Superior Court judge on Tuesday ordered that the Grand Jury testimony of a former county official be unsealed.

Judge Michael A. Smith ordered the release of transcripts of testimony given by Jim Lindley, the county's former public health director and former director of purchasing, before the county's civil Grand Jury on April 21.

Defense attorney Stephen Larson requested the transcripts. He is defending Rancho Cucamonga developer Jeff Burum in a corruption case.

Burum and three former county officials are accused of conspiring to expedite a legal settlement between the county and Rancho Cucamonga investor group Colonies Partners LP, of which Burum is a co-managing partner, in exchange for bribes.

The county settled with Colonies in November 2006 for a landmark $102 million, ending a nearly five-year legal battle over flood-control easements at the developer's 434-acre residential and commercial development in Upland.

Prosecutors allege the settlement was tainted by bribery and blackmail. Also charged are former county Supervisor Paul Biane, former Assistant Assessor Jim Erwin and Mark Kirk, former chief of staff for Supervisor Gary Ovitt. All four defendants deny any wrongdoing.

Lindley's Grand Jury testimony occurred the same month state and local prosecutors impaneled the special criminal Grand Jury to hear testimony in the Colonies' case. His testimony was subsequently summarized to the criminal Grand Jury by prosecutor Lewis Cope, Larson said.
Larson said that when all the evidence is presented, Burum will be vindicated.

"We are confident once all the information is out in the open it will clearly establish Mr. Burum's innocence," Larson said.

Contact Joe via email or by phone at 909-386-3874.

Read more: http://www.sbsun.com/ci_19437802?source=most_viewed#ixzz1fEBkSV4b

S.F. Ethics Meetings Coming to Local TV

2011-11-28T17:05:00.000-08:00

CITY INSIDER/S.F. ethics meetings coming to local TV
Three cheers for '10-11 (San Francisco Grand) Jury

Monday, November 28, 2011 (SF Chronicle)

By Rachel Gordon

Move over, "Dancing with the Stars." San Francisco soon may lay claim to one of the hottest shows on TV: "The Ethics Commission." Starting in January, the commission's regular monthly meetings will be moved to thefourth Monday of the month and televised locally on Channels 26 and 78, orviewable online at www.sfgovtv.org. And special sessions held in between -sweeps week, perhaps? - also will be broadcast.

The San Francisco Civil Grand Jury pushed for the idea, after derisively describing the panel as "the sleeping watchdog," and Supervisor David Campos ran with it, crafting legislation to turn the concept into reality,as in reality TV. Raw and unfiltered. The idea, states the legislation, is to give "the public a chance to monitor and understand the commission's role in protecting the integrity of city government and local officials." The commission oversees and enforces San Francisco laws regulating campaign finance and the conduct of appointed and local officials.

Currently, only audio recordings of the meetings are available. The public also can catch the commission action live and in person at City Hall. But that's far different from watching from the comfort of your own home or on the communal flat screen at your favorite bar. The Board of Supervisors gave a preliminary OK to the broadcast deal las tweek, with final approval expected Dec. 6. The five commissioners and executive director may not be household names -yet. But just wait. And, to keep the show from getting stale, keep an eyeout for guest appearances by campaign consultants, good-government watchdogs, candidates and attorneys. Mondays will never be the same.

For complete story: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2011/11/28/BAPL1M3DL7.DTL

San Bernardino officials draft response to grand jury

2011-11-27T17:58:00.000-08:00

By Kimberly Pierceall, The Press-Enterprise, Riverside, Calif.
Source: McClatchy-Tribune Information Services

Nov. 23--ONLINE EXCLUSIVE:

San Bernardino International Airport's response to the civil grand jury's response (that was a response to the airport's original response to a scathing report that questioned the airport's management) appears to be ready.

On the Nov. 30 agenda for the San Bernardino International Airport Authority's agenda is a draft copy of a letter the authority and its parent agency -- the Inland Valley Development Agency -- may send to the grand jury.

Approval of what the letter may say is only up for a vote of the airport board, though, not the related IVDA board.

Earlier this month, the grand jury made the unheard decision to fire back at the agency for its "unsubstantiated and misleading" allegations that the jury got its facts wrong.

The cost to build a passenger terminal and a destination for private planes to land and refuel has grown in cost from $45 million to more than $142.5 million and the report questioned no-bid agreements awarded to the airport's developer, Scot Spencer, as well as a legal settlement with the agencies he manages, among other concerns raised. The grand jury's report was released June 30. In September, the FBI led a raid of airport offices as well as the offices and rented Riverside home of Spencer.

The Nov. 30 meetings of the SBIAA and IVDA boards will start at 3 p.m. at Loma Linda City Hall at 25541 Barton Rd.

The proposed response (verbatim and with no changes to spelling, punctuation or formatting errors):

SBIAA and IVDA Confirm Intent for Action on Grand Jury Report

The Board of Directors of the San Bernardino International Airport Authority acknowledged the receipt of the Grand Jury's follow up letter and affirmed at their meeting the implementation of a program to address the concerns.

"We welcome the clarifications of the Grand Jury who, as we, wish to insure that the San Bernardino International Airport and the related development activities of the Inland Valley Development Agency are managed and operated with the highest professional standards."

"We have moved forward and begun the process of addressing all of the concerns with the systems and operations issues raised by the Grand Jury report We have already taken steps to address their suggested improvements and are conducting a review which will set in place policies and procedures that meet the highest professional, accounting, and public accountability standards".
Best Impaired Risk

"We have asked out Interim Executive Director to manage this corrective action process and anticipate that we will be able to demonstrate in a very short time not only the intention but the capacity to become a public entity whose policies, procedures, programs and operations will be viewed as exemplary".

"We are pleased with our achievements in the redevelopment of Norton Air Force Base and the development of the San Bernardino International Airport to date but remain committed to new ideas on how we can do even a better job."

http://insurancenewsnet.com/article.aspx?id=302772

San Bernardino COUNTY: Grand jury disputes airport’s claims

2011-11-22T07:44:00.000-08:00

A civil grand jury is saying officials tied to San Bernardino International Airport, seen above during an FBI raid, are misrepresenting findings from a previous civil grand jury that faulted the management of the airport's operations.

BY KIMBERLY PIERCEALL

STAFF WRITER

kpierceall@pe.com

Published: 08 November 2011 03:12 PM

The San Bernardino County civil grand jury has fired back at officials leading San Bernardino International Airport who had earlier accused the jury of getting its facts wrong in a highly critical audit of efforts to build a commercial airport at the former Norton Air Force Base.

The current grand jury defended the report Tuesday, saying the airport’s allegations were “unsubstantiated and misleading.”

While unusual for a grand jury to respond in such a way, the jury said in a statement Tuesday that it felt it was necessary to do so, quoting a line from the airport’s own response that it needed to “ensure the integrity of the process.”

The 15-page response was sent Nov. 3 to San Bernardino Mayor Patrick Morris, president of the San Bernardino International Airport Authority, and the rest of the board made up of elected officials from San Bernardino County’s east valley. One alternate member on the board called the response from the grand jury unprecedented.

“The (airport’s) written response to our audit report consistently misrepresents our findings and provides vast amounts of information that is superfluous to the audit topics,” the letter stated.

The grand jury letter was signed by Edward Burgnon, foreman for the current 2011-12 grand jury who wasn’t a juror June 30, when the airport report was released. Burgnon said the audit report commissioned by the prior jury was “very thorough” and “pointed out things that we would hope they would build on and correct.” He said the report was free of errors.

“We stand by that report,” he said.

The 120-page grand jury report questioned many of the airport’s operations, including the decision to award lucrative no-bid development agreements to Scot Spencer, who was convicted of bankruptcy fraud in the mid-1990s for his role at Braniff Airlines and who was later banned from the aviation industry by the Department of Transportation.

In 2007 Spencer was put in charge of developing the main passenger terminal and a smaller fixed-base operation for private pilots, earning a developer fee and a percentage for each construction contract awarded. The projects grew in scope and cost from $45 million in 2007 to at least $142.5 million today and now include a three-story U.S. Customs building still under construction.

After the grand jury report was released, airport officials, including Morris and former executive director Donald L. Rogers, defended the decision to award contracts to Spencer and often discredited the report for containing errors.

In one case, Rogers — a certified public accountant who is a former partner in the San Bernardino CPA firm Rogers Anderson Malody & Scott — said the report wasn’t a true performance audit as it was represented to them by San Francisco auditing firm Harvey M. Rose Associates. Harvey Rose auditors wrote the final grand jury report.

Rogers had said the audit wasn’t a performance audit because it didn’t compare the airport to similar airports, for example.

The 15-page letter from the grand jury pointed out that a performance audit, as defined by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, is exactly what the jury conducted.

Rogers resigned Sept. 28, a week following an FBI-led raid of airport offices as well as the offices and rented Riverside home of Spencer. The FBI was seeking evidence of conspiracy, bribery, fraud and money laundering among other wrongdoing, according to the search warrant.

The grand jury report had criticized the airport’s decision to buy used airport equipment from Spencer for $4.06 million and how the transaction was handled.

Calls to Morris and San Bernardino County Supervisor Josie Gonzales, another longtime member of the authority board, weren’t immediately returned Tuesday. Neither were calls to the airport authority’s assistant director Mike Burrows. In an e-mail, Rogers said he hadn’t seen the grand jury’s letter and declined to comment since he’s no longer with the airport.

The authority is related to the Inland Valley Development Agency, which earns revenue from property tax revenue and has been overseeing redevelopment of the former Norton Air Force Base since it closed in 1994. The IVDA funds the airport's construction and operation.

San Bernardino County Supervisor Neil Derry, who was appointed to the IVDA board in 2009 and is an alternate on the airport board said Tuesday that he hadn’t read the 15-page letter but had been told about its content and believed it was unprecedented.

“All in all, I don’t question its accuracy,” he said of the original grand jury report.

In August, the airport responded to the 120-page grand jury audit with a collection of 583 pages that included presentations made at public meetings and a Cal State San Bernardino report paid for by the airport that looked at the beneficial economic impact of private development, primarily nonaviation commercial development, at the former base.

The grand jury took issue with the airport using other companies, including TranSystems which is a subcontractor still developing the airport, to make presentations that attempted to discredit the grand jury’s claims. TranSystems ultimately misrepresented the report’s findings, the letter states.

The grand jury’s investigation spanned two years after it received an anonymous complaint in 2009.

http://www.pe.com/business/business-headlines/20111108-s.b.-county-grand-jury-disputes-airports-claims.ece

(San Joaqin) Sanitary district counters key grand jury findings

2011-11-22T07:42:00.000-08:00

By Keith Reid
Record Staff Writer
November 08, 2011 12:00 AM

WOODBRIDGE - The Woodbridge Sanitary District has responded to a critical June report out of the San Joaquin County grand jury, denying that the district has falsified reports to the State Water Resources Control Board or was involved in payroll fraud, but also saying it will implement some new policies to better monitor district spending.

A scathing nine-page San Joaquin County grand jury report released in June blasted general manager Luis Ching for engaging in payroll fraud, falsifying State Water Resources Control Board records and nepotism. The report also criticized the elected board of directors for being "uninformed" on the issues.

The Woodbridge Sanitary District, which serves 3,500 customers over 188 acres in northern San Joaquin County, issued a seven-page response to the allegations signed by board president Douglas Colucci. Ching would not respond further when contacted by The Record.

"It's a constant work in progress as far as implementing the policies," Woodbridge Sanitary District Attorney Mia Brown said. "We've responded to all of the allegations and implemented or have drafted forms (for procedures) in regards to everything recommended."

The payroll fraud allegation stemmed from a report that an employee was paid $1,260 for 36 hours of work that he didn't perform so that he could turn the money over to another employee who couldn't be formally paid because he was getting disability benefits.

That allegation was denied in the district's response, saying the employee that did the work was paid for his time "and no check was issued improperly."

The district also denied falsifying quality control reports or failing to document sewage spills that were reported by customers. In both cases, the district said "The district does not find support for this finding in its records, no such records were requested by the Grand Jury for inspection, and therefore the District is unclear upon what evidence this finding is based."

In the case of the water quality control reports, the district said employees did find that three full months of records regarding dissolved oxygen levels in the district's water treatment system are missing. The district is filing a police report in regard to the missing documents in the event they were stolen.

The grand jury also alleged the district engaged in nepotism/favoritism in hiring and paying employees. The grand jury report said relatives of district management were paid as much as $25 an hour more to do the same work as nonrelatives. The district made it clear it will not hire relatives of employees.

"The district's personnel manual does not allow for the hiring of relatives of present employees," the district's response states.

In other areas, the district said it has begun a process of tightening up its operations and fiscal management with new procedures for credit card use and employee-training manuals.

The district has also created new policies to review water readings and spills and to better monitor public complaints.

Brown said the district's response is likely the end to the grand jury's report.

"The grand jury that performed this investigation is disbanded. The next grand jury can take it up if they wish," she said.

Contact reporter Keith Reid at (209) 546-8257 or kreid@recordnet.com. Visit his blog at recordnet.com/lodiblog.

http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20111108/A_NEWS09/111080315

CA Grand Jurors’ Association gives award to Oakland Local for outstanding coverage

2011-11-22T07:41:00.000-08:00

Oakland Local is proud to receive a 2011 A Certificate of Merit for Excellence in Reporting – Media Award from the California Grand Jurors’ Association for our coverage of the CEDA/Building services issues and the Alameda County Grand Jury report.

The citation reads: "Many media organizations reported on the 2010-2011 Alameda County Grand Jury’s investigation and subsequent report titled “City of Oakland Building Services Division,” however, it was the comprehensive series of reports by Oakland Local that made a significant impact and through this exposure, created a positive change in the government of the City of Oakland. This extensive series of articles, which included interviews with citizens and city officials, was made possible by a grant from “The Fund for Investigative Journalism” in Washington, D.C. This Fund was founded in 1969 to grant money to determined journalists to assist in the fight against racism, poverty, corporate greed, and governmental corruption. The awarding of this national grant for press coverage substantiates the impact of the Grand Jury’s investigation and report.

"The Alameda County Grand Jury’s investigation was generated by many citizens who were negatively affected by the city of Oakland’s Building Services Division’s practices and who contacted the Jury to express their outrage. Through the series of articles presented by this media outlet, many other citizens were alerted to a means of finding resolution of their complaints with this Division."

The ward was presented at the association’s annual conference held in Napa on Nov. 7-8. Susan Mernit, founder and editor of Oakland Local, and reporter Barbara Grady attending the ceremony and accepted the award; reporter Jennifer Inez also shared the lead writing duties on the stories with Grady.

Representing the 2010-11 Alameda County Grand Jury were Dale Rogers Marshall, Foreperson; Dr. Patrick Preminger, Forman Pro Tem; and Anita Ramlo, Government Committee Chair.

The California Grand Jurors’ Association is a statewide nonprofit organization of former grand jurors dedicated to promoting government accountability by improving the training and resources available to California’s 58 regular grand juries and educating the public about the substantial local government oversight and reporting powers of those grand juries.

We're thrilled to receive this honor from them. The Fund for Investigative Journalism's grant made the work possible. Follow the stories recognized at oaklandlocal.com/tags/ceda.

If you'd like to support what we do, make a donation to our nonprofit at bit.ly/dPU5NZ.

http://oaklandlocal.com/posts/2011/11/ca-grand-jurors%E2%80%99-association-gives-award-oakland-local-outstanding-coverage

2011-2012 Yolo County Grand Jury is in session

2011-11-22T07:39:00.001-08:00

• Sun, Nov 20, 2011

The Yolo County Grand Jury functions as a citizen “watchdog” organization to review the operations and performance of county and city organizations, school districts and special districts. Citizens may submit complaints about the actions or performances of public officials or public agencies within Yolo County and the Grand Jury makes its own determination about which complaints may be investigated. All information is kept strictly confidential.

Based on these reviews or investigations, the Grand Jury publishes its findings and may recommend constructive action to improve the quality and effectiveness of local government.

The public can access Grand Jury forms, information and published reports at YoloCountyGrandJury.org or by calling (530) 406-5088. Forms are also available at Yolo County Administration information counter, 625 Court Street, Woodland, California and Yolo County Public Libraries.

The Grand Jury is an all volunteer panel of Yolo County residents. Jury service is a one-year term. The Grand Jury is an arm of the judicial system, but acts as an entirely independent body. Juries act as oversight bodies for county and city governments and also have responsibilities in certain criminal matters. Grand Juries are mandated by the California constitution.

http://woodlandrecord.com/yolo-county-grand-jury-is-in-session-p2334-1.htm

AIRPORT: Leaders to respond to (San Bernardino) grand jury’s response

2011-11-14T06:04:00.000-08:00

BY KIMBERLY PIERCEALL

kpierceall@pe.com

Published: 11 November 2011 06:05 AM

The back and forth between San Bernardino International Airport officials and the San Bernardino County civil grand jury isn’t over yet. Expect a response to the grand jury’s Nov. 3 response to the airport’s 500-plus page answer to the jury’s highly critical report of the airport’s operations.

That’s right. A response to the response that was a response to another response.

During the closed session of Wednesday’s meeting, the elected leaders that sit on the San Bernardino International Airport Authority discussed their intention to formally respond to the grand jury, again, but this time they’ll keep it short and concise.

Meanwhile, there was no mention of the grand jury’s letter during the regular Wednesday meeting’s open session. The letter was made public a day before and accused airport officials of being misleading and making unsubstantiated claims that there were errors in the original jury report, a rare action by a grand jury.

The original report released June 30 was the culmination of a two-year investigation that started in 2009. The jury had hired San Francisco firm Harvey M. Rose Associates for $75,840 to conduct an audit of the airport’s operations and management.

The airport’s former executive director, Donald L. Rogers, deferred comment to the authority’s current staff. The authority’s assistant executive director Mike Burrows didn’t return calls seeking comment the day the letter was released. Neither did San Bernardino Mayor Patrick Morris and San Bernardino County Supervisor Josie Gonzales who both sit on the authority’s board. Morris is president and Gonzales is a member.

When asked about the letter after Wednesday’s meeting, board member and Colton Councilman Vincent Yzaguirre said he had actually handwritten his thoughts on the subject on the back of one of the pages in the agenda. He wrote:

“I personally and respectfully appreciate the sincere effort by (the) grand jury to provide a meaningful and helpful critique of this airport. One that we can all humbly find value in (in) the form of recommendations that will help us become more efficient, more effective and more productive in our efforts to develop this base for the future benefit of this region. I personally thank the grand jury for their collective input and service to our communities.”

http://www.pe.com/business/business-insider-headlines/20111111-airport-leaders-to-respond-to-grand-jurys-response.ece

(Santa Cruz) Grand jury’s final report now online

2011-11-13T22:47:00.000-08:00

Posted: Friday, Nov 11th, 2011
BY: JON CHOWN

The final report of the 2011 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury has been put online, complete with responses from those investigated.

The city of Watsonville was the target of an investigation titled “City of Watsonville: Fastest Growing City Looking for Leadership and a Fire Truck.” The investigation questioned the process the city took when buying a used fire truck, which was purchased in 2008 but did not arrive in Watsonville until earlier this year; questioned the city’s apparent nondisclosure of environmental issues concerning selective land use permits; criticized the city for its handling of development issues around the airport; and criticized the city for failing to provide the public, the City Council and other elected bodies with complete information regarding city functions.

http://www.register-pajaronian.com/v2_news_articles.php?heading=0&story_id=11578&page=72

Grand Jury commissions second audit of Victorville

2011-11-04T15:57:00.001-07:00

Joe Nelson, The (San Bernardino County) Sun
Posted: 11/03/2011 02:13:47 PM PDT

The San Bernardino County Grand Jury has commissioned a performance and compliance audit of Victorville, the embattled High Desert city's second one in the last two years.

A letter received by the city on Monday from Grand Jury foreman Edward "Ted" Burgnon confirmed that the Grand Jury is now in its unprecedented third year investigating the city.

"This engagement is intended to complement a forensic audit of the accounts and records of the city of Victorville and associated agencies that was requested by the Victorville City Council and conducted for previous grand juries by the firm Kessler International," Burgnon said in his letter.

He said the Grand Jury has commissioned North Hollywood-based Harvey M. Rose Associates LLC to conduct the performance and compliance audit. The company will investigate the operations, accounts and records of the city and the Victor Valley Economic Development Authority.

Kessler International, a New York City-based forensic accounting firm, conducted the audit in 2009 and 2010 at the request of then-Councilman Ryan McEachron, who is now mayor. The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors approved an allocation of $195,000 for the audit.

In July, Supervisor Brad Mitzelfelt voiced concern when the Grand Jury released its annual report, which did not include any findings from the Victorville audit and investigation.

Mitzelfelt did not return phone calls Thursday seeking comment, and it was unclear how the recently commissioned audit will be funded.

In December 2009, McEachron pushed for the forensic audit amid allegations of shaky finances and reported handshake deals for development projects, mainly at Southern California Logistics Airport.

Earlier that year, the Grand Jury interviewed roughly a half-dozen elected and appointed city officials, inquiring about the city's financial and at least three verbal or handshake deals involving former City Manager Jon B. Roberts, who is now the city manager in Steamboat Springs, Colo.

The allegations also prompted an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which is still ongoing.

When volunteers were selected for the 2010-2011 Grand Jury, six members of the previous year's Grand Jury were held over for the continuing investigation of Victorville. They were dismissed on June 30, leading some to believe the investigation had been scrapped or handed off to the FBI.

But rumors swirling about a potential FBI investigation have gone unconfirmed.

"The city has had no contact with the FBI in any way," City Manager Doug Robertson said Thursday.

McEachron said he has not received any concrete proof that the FBI is investigating and just wants to see some closure to the whole thing.

"We want to move on.... I think we all deserve a report," McEachron said Thursday.

A news release issued this week by the city summed up its position:

"Inasmuch as the investigation was never concluded we are hopeful the work to be done by Harvey M. Associates LLC and the 2011-2012 San Bernardino County Grand Jury will finally conclude this investigation with a public report. The city and its employees stand ready to fully participate and assist in any way in the completion of this investigation."

Reach Joe via email, call him at 909-386-3874.

Read more: http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_19257821#ixzz1cmQxw8HU

True Facts on (San Francisco) Central Subway

2011-11-01T15:03:00.000-07:00

Documented true facts on the Central Subway

By:Quentin L. Kopp 10/23/11

Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, 10th edition, defines boondoggle as “a wasteful or impractical project or activity often involving graft.” In one of the most remarkable and distorting set of glittering generalities in contemporary local public affairs, Steve Falk, president of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, in an Oct. 6 op-ed tries to justify the Central Subway project on the ground it would create construction jobs and put money in businesses.

He doesn’t tell us that most of those big businesses are headquartered elsewhere. He claims the project has been “politicized in the heated mayoral race.” He purports “to set the record straight.” Well, let’s do so.

If it weren’t for the unappreciated San Francisco civil grand jury’s June 11 report, titled “Central Subway: Too Much Money for Too Little Benefit,” and the unsung and uncompensated efforts of citizens Howard Wong, Gerald Cauthen, Aaron Peskin (two-term Board of Supervisors president), Jake McGoldrick (eight-year Board of Supervisors member), the Sierra Club, Save Muni and now others, this scandalous project would never have been the subject of mayoral candidate debate.

City Attorney Dennis Herrera, former Supervisor Tony Hall and Green Party member Terri Baum have unmistakably declared the project should be scrapped in favor of a more effective, considerably less expensive plan, which the appointed mayor never even knew about when first questioned this month. Public-Defender Jeff Adachi recommends thorough, public reexamination of this disgraceful, political waste of taxpayer money.

Falk mischaracterizes the Central Subway as a “fully funded $1.6 billion project.” It is not fully funded. The major source, the Federal Transit Administration, supposedly will supply $983.2 million, or 62 percent, of the June estimated total cost of $1.6 billion. For the record, in 2003, the estimated project cost was $648 million by 2004, it was $763 million by 2006, it was $994 million for a 1.7-mile project.

Omitted from Falk’s false rhetoric is that FTA final approval as part of its so-called New Starts program has yet to occur. Moreover, any FTA approval must thereafter be approved by both houses of the U.S. Congress, and on Sept. 8, 2011, an appropriations bill was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives; its effect will strip all federal funds from the Central Subway project.

Falk then talks of where the Central Subway will go, but not where it will not go. It will not go to the Market Street Subway System. The Central Subway’s Union Square stop is about 1000 feet from the BART and Muni subway stops. It also manages to miss connections with 25 of the 30 east-west bus and rail lines it crosses, thereby making connections to most of Twin Peaks longer and less convenient. And because it arbitrarily ends at Stockton and Washington streets, the subway would extend neither to the nine populous residential and commercial districts to the north and west of Chinatown, nor the northerly two-thirds of Chinatown itself.

Falk asserts the Central Subway would “provide direct, rapid transit from the Bayview, Mission Bay and South of Market areas to The City’s dense downtown core and Chinatown.” That’s untrue. The trip from the Bayview would continue to be virtually all by surface light rail, a service that today is slow and unreliable. “Direct service to the downtown core”? Also untrue. Union Square isn’t the downtown core — it’s our shopping center, featuring high-priced retail stores unlikely to be patronized by Chinatown or southeast San Francisco residents. And, “service to Chinatown”? Misleading. Chinatown extends at least as far north today as Greenwich Street, eight blocks past the end of the vaunted subway.

Next, Falk repeats The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency’s exaggerated contention that by 2030, “the new rail line will accommodate 43,700 daily riders in its opening year and more than 65,000 in 2030.” But here’s the rub: The SFMTA representations of 65,000 one-way riders includes ridership of the already completed and paid-for Third Street line; and according to reports The SFMTA filed officially with the FTA, by 2030, the Central Subway would carry only 35,100 one-way riders daily, of whom but 4,800 would be new Muni riders. If Caltrain is extended to First and Mission streets, Central Subway ridership is projected by The SFMTA to decline by another 8,000 or more riders per day. These are The SFMTA data, not political campaign talk. These are reasons Messrs. Peskin and McGoldrick, who approved the proposed project eight years ago as Supervisors, and the Sierra Club, which did likewise, now loudly proclaim opposition to an excruciatingly flawed project.

So, San Francisco City Hall is now poised to spend over $100,000 in capital for each daily rider added by the subway and force Muni to suffer $15,200,000 more a year in operating costs to its 2011-12 estimated $23,000,000 deficit. What Falk doesn’t tell readers is that Muni promulgated in 2002 a “transit-preferential streets” program, which included for Stockton Street traffic signal priority, transit-stop respacing and relocation, bus bulbs, and an extension of overhead trolley wires to Marina Boulevard, at a three-year completion cost of only $9,100,000.

Finally, Falk refuses to note that under applicable federal law and contractual requirements, San Francisco taxpayers will be responsible for all further cost increases of the project beyond the approximate $1 billion-per-mile current price tag.

In sum, Central Subway represents a garish, highly overpriced “loser” that if opened by 2018 (which it won’t) will fail to provide enough in transportation benefits to justify exorbitant cost and its baleful effect upon Muni operating expenses. Heed the facts, not the downtown propaganda.

Quentin L. Kopp is a retired Superior Court judge, a former state senator and San Francisco Board of Supervisors member.

(Santa Barbara) County, DA working to develop truancy plan

2011-10-31T15:15:00.000-07:00

Goal is to address root causes with help from local school districts

By Marga K. Cooley/Associate Editor mcooley@lompocrecord.com | Posted: Sunday, October 30, 2011 12:30 am |

Santa Barbara County, in conjunction with the District Attorney’s Office, is working to establish a partnership with local educators to stop a growing truancy problem.

The effort is in response to a Grand Jury report that shows the truancy rate for the county’s approximately 66,000 public school students has skyrocketed — from 21 percent in 2007-08, to 31 percent in 2009-10.

Truancy refers to a student having more than three unexcused absences.

The upward trend began in 2008, when the cash-strapped county Board of Supervisors decided not to fund an existing program, which would have cost about $215,000 that year and required ongoing revenue of $226,900 beginning in 2009-10.

Earlier this month, 5th District Supervisor Steve Lavagnino and 1st District Supervisor Salud Carbajal agreed to serve as an ad-hoc committee and work with the district attorney’s office and local school districts to develop a plan to address the problem.

The move is something that local school superintendents said earlier this year they would welcome.

Lavagnino said Friday that District Attorney Joyce Dudley will be studying a program in the Bay Area next month that could serve as a blueprint for Santa Barbara County.

“There’s an enforcement procedure, but there’s also hand-holding to get the kids to class and find out what the systemic problems are that are associated with truancy,” he said.

In the meantime, Lavagnino said, he and Carbajal will be talking to school district officials about their involvement.

According to Deputy District Attorney Gordon Auchincloss, a successful program will require at least some funding from the county.

Beyond that, he said, the parties will have to look at creative ways to put a budget together that can operate such a system.

That may involve private funding, he said, adding that the District Attorney’s Office is “actively engaged in looking at community interest along those lines.”

The Grand Jury report notes that state and federal funding for truancy programs is no longer available.

While Auchincloss points to a bare-bones truancy program in place now that involves sending letters to school districts and parents, Lavagnino said he doesn’t think that approach is effective, especially in Santa Maria.

“I look at the socioeconomic and cultural setup in Santa Maria and I don’t think sending a letter from the DA to somebody’s house saying your kid isn’t going to class would be a very effective way to deal with the problem,” said Lavagnino. “I think in Santa Maria we have to find out why kids aren’t going to class. Are they working? Are they ditching and their parents don’t know it?

“I’d like some real fixes instead of trying to Band-Aid it,” he continued. “We’re kind of blazing our own trail to get everybody involved.”

Pointing to the big-picture impact that truancy has on society in terms of its cost to taxpayers, as well as to school districts, Lavagnino said he wants to fix the fiscal problem “and turn people into taxpayers instead of benefit recipients.”

According to the Grand Jury report, the unemployment rate for working-age people over 25 who have not completed high school has grown from 11 percent in 1992 to nearly 16 percent in 2010. Comparatively, the unemployment rate for high school graduates with no college has gone from about 7 percent in 1992 to about 8.5 percent in 2010, and for those with a bachelor’s degree or higher, from 2.5 percent in 1992 to 4 percent in 2010.

“You are required to have your kids in school, and at the end the only way to deal with it is enforcement, but I just want to make sure that’s the last resort,” Lavagnino said. “It’s probably not the most effective way to communicate with most of these people.”

Auchincloss said that the DA’s office is committed to reestablishing a truancy program because it’s an invaluable aspect of criminal intervention and prevention, and because of the value of education.

More importantly, he said, there is a need to understand what’s causing the problem.

“That’s where a truancy program comes in,” Auchincloss said. “Our truancy program as it existed in the past worked to identify the root causes, and used truancy as a bellwether to determine what kids are at risk in our community.”

Lavagnino said he hasn’t done any outreach with regard to local school districts since the ad-hoc committee was formed on Oct. 18, and none has contacted him. But, he said, it’s early in the process.

“I know their budgets are tight as well,” he said, “but I think everybody is going to have to tackle this thing together.”

Read more: http://www.lompocrecord.com/news/local/education/county-da-working-to-develop-truancy-plan/article_3b65e266-02b3-11e1-85c3-001cc4c002e0.html#ixzz1cOsiLKjA

Santa Barbara County Grand Jury recommends cameras in police cars

2011-10-31T15:13:00.000-07:00

Guadalupe chief to ask council for cash

By Brian Bullock / Staff Writer / bbullock@santamariatimes.com | Posted: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 12:05 am |

The Santa Barbara County Grand Jury thinks all law enforcement patrol cars in the county should be equipped with video cameras.

For the Guadalupe Police Department — one of only two agencies in the county without them — that means an investment of around $65,000. Chief George Mitchell will put forth that information and a request to fund the effort to the City Council when it meets at 6 tonight at City Hall, 918 Obispo St.

According to the report, all county law enforcement vehicles are equipped with audio/visual equipment except those in the cities of Guadalupe and Santa Barbara. The report recommends those cities have such equipment installed on its patrol cars — 35 in Santa Barbara and seven in Guadalupe.

The grand jury estimates the cost per unit between $8,000 and $9,500, an amount not many departments can afford right now, according to Mitchell.

“Due to reduced budgets that all police departments are experiencing, they’re all looking for grant funding, so its getting hard to find,” said Mitchell. “We have no funding this year with the Police Department budget, so we’ll take it to the next level and ask the City Council.

“For us, it would have to be something that was planned for. Other than that, there would have to be some kind grant windfall or something like that.”

The report, published earlier this month, says that in an effort to maintain openness and accountability in government and to help protect agencies from litigation, audio/video technology should be installed in patrol vehicles. The report was in response to requests in July that local law enforcement agencies provide more transparency in their operations.

The county Sheriff’s Department installed the equipment in 53 of its patrol cars back in 2000. The report also indicates the Santa Maria Police Department has had similar equipment in all 32 of its cars since 2000, while Lompoc installed the equipment this year in all 11 of its patrol cars.

“It’s basically been driven by the grand jury’s look into the cameras,” Mitchell said of his request. “So we’re just trying to be in compliance with addressing their concerns and seeing what we can come up with.”

The council also will hear reports on its Guadalupe Street (Highway 1) improvement and street overlay projects.

Approximately $2 million in overlay and Guadalupe Street (Highway 1) improvement projects were recently finished, and City Engineer Dennis Delzeit will brief the council on their completion.

The projects were accomplished with a variety of funding, including Measure D, Proposition 1B, State Transportation Program Exchange funds and federal funding, according to the staff report.

Read more: http://santamariatimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/santa-barbara-county-grand-jury-recommends-cameras-in-police-cars/article_56dc6436-fed3-11e0-ba3f-001cc4c002e0.html#ixzz1cOs6hat4

FBI, county join forces to probe Victorville

2011-10-31T15:09:00.000-07:00

SEC also continues interviewing staffers

October 31, 2011 11:16 AM
Brooke Edwards Staggs

VICTORVILLE • Though Victorville wasn’t mentioned in the San Bernardino County Grand Jury’s 2011 report, that doesn’t mean the citizen group’s two-year probe into corruption allegations turned up nothing, according to a source close to the investigation.

Instead, the grand jury has turned its findings — including results of a lengthy, county-funded forensic audit — over to the FBI, the source told the Daily Press. The FBI then asked that some members of the grand jury join a special task force charged with looking into Victorville.

The grand jury began questioning city officials in spring 2009, as concerns continued to emerge over finances, the November 2008 campaign and handshake contracts allegedly made under former City Manager Jon Roberts.

Over the next two and a half years, council members and city staff were questioned, documents were subpoenaed and the county Board of Supervisors agreed to spend $195,000 to have New York-based auditor Kessler International look into the allegations.

For the first time in the history of San Bernardino County, six citizens were held over from the 2009-10 grand jury to continue serving with the next year’s watchdog group. Those members were released from service at the end of June, though a source who didn’t have permission to speak on the issue said at least two joined a task force to work with the FBI on both Victorville’s case and corruption concerns that have emerged related to San Bernardino International Airport.

Victorville staff hasn’t heard anything from the grand jury since the 2010-11 citizen group disbanded and issued its report at the end of June, according to City Manager Doug Robertson.

Two staff members are tentatively scheduled to meet separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission next month, Robertson said, as part of the federal agency’s ongoing probe into Victorville’s bond expenditures.

“The city has had no contact from any other investigatory body,” Robertson said in an email, “nor have any employees been interviewed by any other agency that we are aware of.”

In September, Councilman Mike Rothschild asked the District Attorney’s office, which oversees the grand jury, to look into statements made by Councilwoman Angela Valles following closed session talks. The DA issued a letter a short time later dismissing the concerns.

Valles said she spent several hours meeting with representatives from the DA’s office last week, expressing her concerns over the way Victorville operates.

“I believe in our justice system and I know that the wheels of justice turn slowly,” Valles said. “Hopefully we can get some closure to the investigations soon.”

Brooke Edwards Staggs may be reached at (760) 955-5358 or at bedwards@VVDailyPress.com.

http://www.vvdailypress.com/news/victorville-30973-join-probe.html

(Mendocino) County responds to grand jury's medical marijuana dispensary report

2011-10-30T08:54:00.000-07:00

By TIFFANY REVELLE The Daily Journal
Updated: 10/30/2011 12:00:01 AM PDT

Mendocino County departments responded in August and September to a report from the county's civil grand jury recommending that the county regulate medical marijuana dispensaries.

The report, titled "A Pot Paradox or Bud Bingo?: A Report on Medical Marijuana Dispensaries in Mendocino County," says all that's required to open a dispensary is a business license, which doesn't provide for "the needs of neighbors and communities to be protected from public safety impacts" of dispensaries.

"The public safety impacts are currently being met, regardless of the existence of dispensaries," Mendocino County Counsel Jeanine Nadel wrote in her response.

The grand jury report also notes two dispensaries were opened earlier this year in the coastal town of Mendocino, both within 1,000 feet of schools.

Nadel responded that she has "no specific knowledge" of that and two other of the grand jury's findings.

The county Treasurer-Tax Collector's Office, which the grand jury criticizes for being "unable to accurately state how many (dispensaries) or collective business licenses have been issued," stated in its response that it knows about at least one of the dispensaries in the town of Mendocino.

"The (office) has issued one business license for medical marijuana distribution in Mendocino Township and has no specific information regarding a second establishment," Treasurer-Tax Collector Shari Schapmire writes in her response.

Schapmire also notes that, contrary to an earlier estimate of 10 dispensaries in all of Mendocino County, her office has issued four business licenses for medical marijuana dispensaries or collectives.

Nash Gonzalez, director of the county Planning and Building Services Department, gives the exact addresses of both Mendocino dispensaries and their relative distances from the local high school.

"The two dispensaries that staff is aware of are located at 10470 Lansing Street ... located approximately 897 feet from the high school and 675 feet from the community center, which has after-school programs. The second is located at 10483 Lansing Street, approximately 500 feet from the community center and 890 feet from the high school," Gonzalez writes.

His office reviews the business licenses "for use and occupancy only," he writes, adding that determining whether the license is for a dispensary "would be difficult ... until such time as a specific use type is defined for marijuana dispensaries."

Gonzalez responds to the grand jury's claim that "an undetermined number of (dispensaries) have been established" in the county, saying county code doesn't provide for marijuana sales as a permitted use.

"Many of these so-called dispensaries have or are applying as some form of retail sales (i.e. herbal sales, etc.)," Gonzalez writes. "Therefore it is difficult to fully evaluate such uses unless it is specifically noted on an application that such uses are medical marijuana dispensaries."

The grand jury notes in its report that "There are no grounds for denial by the county (of the establishment of a dispensary) except the limitations imposed by the business license process."

Nadel agrees with the finding. Gonzalez also agrees, but notes that "sale of marijuana is not a permitted use contained within the county's zoning ordinance and is thus not permitted and a business license could be denied.

"However, (Planning and Building) staff cannot regulate a marijuana dispensary' when an applicant for a business license does not represent such use on an application, and calls it something else that could be permitted within the confines of retail sales."

Responding to a recommendation that the county adopt regulations regarding the production and sale of food-based medical marijuana items, Gonzalez says his staff is "more than willing" to meet with Nadel and Mendocino County Sheriff Tom Allman to craft the language of an ordinance regulating dispensaries "as it relates to zoning/land use/building and safety issue (sic)."

He goes on in his response to recommend that the county Health and Human Services Agency's Division of Environmental Health have input about that recommendation.

Environmental Health Director John Morley disagrees with the recommendation, citing a California Department of Public Health determination that "edible products containing marijuana may not legally be sold as food pursuant to the Sherman Food, Drug and Cosmetic Law ... or the California Retail Food Code."

Morley continues, "Edibles that contain marijuana meet the statutory definition of drugs' under the Sherman Law because they are being used in the cure, mitigation and treatment of disease. The edible merely becomes the drug delivery system."

The grand jury also recommends the county establish fees to cover its regulation and enforcement costs.

Gonzalez recommends in his response that "a permit or entitlement be utilized as a mechanism for regulation and enforcement," noting the recommendation needs further analysis.

The grand jury also recommends that the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors adopt an ordinance that would address neighborhood safety concerns, mobile dispensaries, patient/caregiver relationships, medical marijuana transportation within the county, a definition of a mature, female plant and a minimum age requirement for anyone allowed inside a dispensary.

Nadel notes in her response that the Board of Supervisors formed an ad-hoc committee to write an ordinance regulating dispensaries.

Tiffany Revelle can be reached at udjtr@pacific.net, or at 468-3523.

http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/ci_19227092

(San Francisco) Schools leave real estate funds untapped

2011-10-24T15:47:00.001-07:00

Proposition A on this November’s ballot would authorize the issuance of $531 million dollars in general obligation bonds for the San Francisco Unified School District. General obligation means they are repaid with San Francisco property taxes.

Is it just me, or have we been here before? In 2003, 2006 and again in 2008, massive revenue measures have been passed by voters for the purposes of funding and fixing our schools. This is in addition to the millions in rainy-day funds that are given to the district each year because of sudden budget problems. I say, “given” because the school system is a state entity. We can’t really tell it what to do with the money it receives, though state law requires certain oversight for bond money.

In 2009, The City’s civil grand jury issued a report called, “Use it or Lose it: A Report on the Surplus Real Property Owned by the San Francisco Unified School District.” It seems that dwindling numbers of students since 1978 has resulted in shuttered schools that are still owned by the district. At least 10 parcels have been designated “surplus” by an advisory committee set up by the school district to study the problem from 2006-07.

According to representatives of the school district, selling the property is complicated, and in some cases, state law restricts the use of money from the sale of real property.

The grand jury report concluded that, “The city and county of San Francisco should not allocate to the SFUSD any further ‘rainy day’ or ‘bail out’ funds until such time as the SFUSD has sold the properties it already identified as surplus.”

Believing that this conclusion was a bit harsh, in November 2009 the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution asking that the school district “bring its surplus property disposition plan(s) before the Joint City and School District Select Committee in a timely manner for review and consideration.”

No such plans have ever been presented to that committee.

The grand jury report does not estimate how much money could be made from the sale or lease of surplus school property, so I’m not necessarily suggesting that people vote against Prop. A. I’m merely suggesting that, as the grand jury report stated, “the SFUSD is poised to waste the extraordinary amount of time and money that has already gone into determining how to dispose of or manage some of its real property. The SFUSD should take the remaining critical steps.”

Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011/10/pension-reform-backers-san-francisco-are-not-gop-heroes#ixzz1bk4WsVQw

Conflict-of-interest controls in place, (San Luis Obispo) official finds

2011-10-24T15:13:00.000-07:00

Auditor-controller’s review runs counter to a grand jury report critical of district board

By Cynthia Lambert | clambert@thetribunenews.com

In the wake of a civil grand jury report that found a conflict of interest at a South County sewage treatment plant, a review by the county auditor-controller has found there is sufficient oversight of finances to prevent such conflicts.

Auditor-Controller Gere Sibbach — who was not investigating whether or not a conflict of interest existed at the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District — found a few areas he called a small “breakdown of their systems.” But by and large his office’s review of some district finances and methods was far brighter than a critical report the San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury released in June.

The grand jury report alleged a conflict of interest exists at the sanitation district because John Wallace serves as the treatment plant’s administrator while his engineering firm, the Wallace Group, provides engineering services for the district.

The grand jury also criticized the district board for failing to recognize the conflict.

The board vehemently disputed that conclusion, stating in a rebuttal that a conflict does not exist, the grand jury’s assertions were largely inaccurate and its “depiction of the board of directors as being generally ‘unaware’ is both inaccurate and offensive.”

The district provides wastewater treatment services to about 39,000 people in Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach and Oceano.

Sibbach didn’t determine whether he believes a conflict exists at the sanitation district. Instead, he focused his review on what types of policies the district has in place regarding district finances to offset any potential conflict.

“The district has been making some changes, and I think they’re going to come out of it with stronger financial controls and more transparency than they had before,” he said Friday.

Sibbach released a final copy of his review to the district board members on Friday, in which he primarily reviewed documents in fiscal year 2010-11, which ended June 30.

Among his findings:

• In one out of 23 instances, the district’s list of checks to be issued (called a warrant register) was only signed by one board member. District practice requires two board members to sign it. In three of 13 separate instances, Wallace and one board member had signed to authorize payments to Wallace’s firm. Sibbach recommended that Wallace not be allowed to sign for payments made to his company, and as of August, he has not been authorized to do so per a new district policy.

• The district board receives quarterly financial reports, but Sibbach did not find a year-end report showing the budgeted estimates compared to actual results. Michael Seitz, the district’s attorney, said the board does receive the information while preparing the following year’s budget, just not in a formal report.

• The district’s cash balances have decreased by about $1.8 million over the past three fiscal years.

• Costs for Wallace Group services in major budget items were not always easily identified or separated from other project costs. But the information in the budget and board reports from fiscal year 2011-12 improved.

• The district has a clear and well-understood organizational structure, and all employees and officers who have to disclose economic interests have done so.

The board has also split Wallace’s contract into two: one for his administrative role, a second for engineering services his firm provides. The board moved to do so before the grand jury report, Seitz said, “and so the inference that the grand jury caused that is not particularly accurate.

“But,” he added, “the fact that we were getting looked at did cause us to be a little more self-introspective in terms of what we’re doing.”

Seitz said the board will discuss a response to Sibbach’s review at its next meeting.

Read more: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2011/10/22/1806829/conflict-of-interest-controls.html#ixzz1bjwZ7vik

(San Bernardino) Grand Jury testimony could help defense

2011-10-22T12:38:00.000-07:00

By Joe Nelson, Staff Writer

Grand Jury testimony given by Rancho Cucamonga developer Jeff Burum in 2009 could prove beneficial to his defense and should have been provided to a criminal grand jury in April, according to Burum's attorney.

The transcripts, released last week, detail Burum's March 2009 testimony before the county's civil Grand Jury in which he described how attorneys for his firm, Colonies Partners LP, impeached nearly every witness called by San Bernardino County's lawyers in the months leading up to the county's decision to settle with Colonies.

In testimony, Burum said attorneys representing the county were giving the Board of Supervisors bad advice and telling them they were winning in court despite evidence to the contrary, according to the 130-page transcript.

"It is fundamentally unfair and, in our view, contrary to the law, that the grand jury was not provided with copies of Mr. Burum's testimony prior to being asked to return the indictment," Burum's attorney, Stephen Larson, said in a telephone interview.

None of Burum's 2009 testimony was provided to a special criminal grand jury, which indicted Burum and three former county officials, including former Colonies consultant Jim Erwin, in May on charges of conspiracy, bribery and conflict of interest, among other charges. Prosecutors allege the county's landmark $102 million settlement with Colonies Partners in November 2006 was tainted by bribery and extortion. A federal investigation is under way as well.

Five of the seven charges against Burum, including all bribery-related charges, were subsequently dismissed after a judge determined the criminal statutes used to charge Burum were either erroneously applied or the statute of limitations had lapsed for charging Burum with such crimes. Judge Brian McCarville also dismissed one felony count of misappropriation of public funds against the other three defendants - former county Supervisor Paul Biane, former assistant assessor and union boss Erwin and Mark Kirk, former chief of staff for Supervisor Gary Ovitt.

During his 2009 testimony, Burum laid out his interpretation of the nearly five-year legal battle over who was responsible for flood-control improvements at Colonies' Upland development, which resulted in two Superior Court rulings in the developer's favor.

"I'm going, `Are they in the same courtroom I'm in, because they're getting killed every day?"' Burum said during his testimony.

He said Colonies made strong headway during the 2006 trial, and the county resorted to having a witness go on the stand and attack his character.

Burum said what made him angriest - when he broke off communication with county supervisors - was when the county forced him to build a flood control basin on Colonies' property with enough storage capacity to protect residents from a 100-year flood, then reversed its position after the trial court ruled the basin's construction was the county's responsibility.

On appeal, the county unsuccessfully argued that the basin was not needed, and that its existing earthen berm easement was sufficient. The county requested construction on Colonies' property be halted until the conclusion of litigation, a move Burum said was an attempt to bankrupt Colonies and force and end to the lawsuit.

The judge denied the county's motion for a stay on the construction of the basin, allowing Colonies to proceed with the second phase of its residential development, Colonies at San Antonio.

Settlement encouraged

As the trial moved forward, so did settlement talks between the county and Colonies' attorneys. Burum said during his testimony that he pushed to settle the lawsuit for a discounted value, despite what he said could have been upwards of a $750 million judgment that could have bankrupted the county had it lost to in court.

Though initial damage estimates by Burum's camp ranged between $250 million to more than $300 million, efforts were under way in 2006 to change state law so that when the government abused a private property owner the government was held to the same standards as the private sector. As to damages, that would mean three times the amount of whatever the jury awarded.

"So ... if we continued down the road at ($250 million), the verdict against the county could be a $750 million verdict against the county, which would bankrupt the county," Burum said during his testimony. "Everyone in political circles also knew this. This was a hotly contested issue."

See complete story at: http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_19078164?nclick_check=1

Sheriff Audit: County's medical pot law causing a chasm'

2011-10-22T11:37:00.000-07:00

"Since the law was revised and approved in 2010, it's also been the subject of a lawsuit that's not yet resolved, (the subject of a 2011 Mendocino County Grand Jury Report), and the scrutiny by 5th District Supervisor Dan Hamburg. who said during his campaign that he questioned whether the ordinance is legal."

By TIFFANY REVELLE The Daily Journal

Posted: 10/21/2011 11:59:37 PM PDT

An efficiency audit of the Mendocino County Sheriff's Office revealed discord among department employees about the county's medical marijuana cultivation ordinance, and urged county leaders to rethink the way it's enforced.
Codified as County Code Chapter 9.31, the ordinance allows up to 25 medical marijuana plants per parcel, and up to 99 plants per parcel with a permit from the Sheriff's Office, as long as the gardens meet state and local requirements, including documentation that the plants are grown under a doctor's recommendation.
"The 9.31 program is by far the program that causes the greatest chasm of disagreement within the department," states the audit report, which was written by Harris & Harris Enterprises.
The Board of Supervisors hired the consultant earlier this year to do the audit. Part of the consultant's methodology was to survey Sheriff's Office employees and to interview management, supervisors and others in key roles.
In a section of the report that highlights recurring themes in the responses, the report details feedback about the 9.31 permit program.
"Some feel strongly it is a program that is based in the reality of the situation related to marijuana in California and is a realistic and worthwhile program whose time is now," the report says. "Others believe the program is illegal, runs counter to overall crime prevention in Mendocino County, is potentially criminal-friendly, reduces morale and is poised to bring more crime to the county and potential corruption to the department."
The report goes on to list the 9.31 program as one of the reasons staff gave for declining morale in the department, saying the program is "viewed by many staff as acquiescing to the drug culture and potentially could attract gangs and more criminality."
The 9.31 program is currently overseen by a sergeant. The audit report says some in the department think the program should be run by non-sworn staff or by retirees.
Sheriff Tom Allman said he's looking into the idea of having his non-sworn staff run the program.
Disagreement over the politically-charged marijuana issue is to be expected, he said.
"It's fair to say 9.31 is not embraced by law enforcement, but it was adopted by the Board of Supervisors, and we are merely carrying it out," Allman said.
He stopped going to the meetings where the details of the county ordinance were hammered out in 2009, he said, "because it was hard to tell the direction of the meeting."
Second District Supervisor John McCowen, one of the two county supervisors appointed to write the regulations and conduct the meetings to gather public input, said the process was slowed by voluminous public speakers opposed to county regulation.
Since the law was revised and approved in 2010, it's also been the subject of a lawsuit that's not yet resolved, and of scrutiny by 5th District Supervisor Dan Hamburg, who said during his campaign that he questioned whether the ordinance is legal.
Mendocino County Counsel Jeanine Nadel has contended that the county is within its constitutional rights to enforce the ordinance and to treat violations as nuisances.
"I didn't ask for 9.31, but I'm carrying it out as directed," Allman said.
The report notes "a significant concern" among Sheriff's Office staff that the ordinance creates "a public perception that Mendocino County is significantly less likely to take a strong stance against drug production and sales, and that this could attract more criminal activity, more gang activity (often associated with illegal drug production), violent drug robberies, and other activities endemic to drug production."
The fact that the federal government still lists marijuana as an illegal drug is also a cause of concern, the report says.
An excerpt quoted in the audit report from the Mendocino Major Crimes Task Force's 2010 annual report says the Task Force was "inundated with complaints from citizens about marijuana gardens in their neighborhoods. Indoor grows are becoming the norm and many citizens are tired of the effect on their life. The smells, the noise and the high-volume, short-term traffic are causing home values to go down."
The excerpt goes on to say the occurrences of locally-grown marijuana being traded for methamphetamine from the Central Valley and Southern California have also increased, with marijuana's trade value fluctuating "as the value of marijuana decreases due to an over-saturation of the market.
"Traditional outlaw motorcycle gangs are becoming involved in the lucrative marijuana market in this county. Under their protection/extortion, growers are moving their product."
And, the excerpt says, the gangs are trying to recruit members to expand further into the local market.
Also interesting, according to the Task Force, is "how many dealers of methamphetamine have switched to the marijuana trade because the penalties are less harsh."
Additional follow-up reports on the sheriff's audit are planned for upcoming editions of the Daily Journal.
Tiffany Revelle can be reached at udjtr@pacific.net, or at 468-3523.

http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/ci_19170631

(Ventura) Grand jury finds workplace bullying a problem within county government

2011-10-21T12:46:00.000-07:00

The Ventura County Grand Jury recently concluded that workplace bullying is a problem in county government offices and encouraged county officials to develop a policy against bullying in the workplace.

"Unfortunately, bullying is not limited to schools," the grand jury stated in a letter released in late May.

The 2010-11 grand jury investigated bullying within county government after getting a complaint about it. As part of this, the grand jury interviewed past and current county employees who were the targets of bullying or witnessed it.

John Nicoll, assistant county executive officer and the director of human resources for the county, said county officials are preparing a response to the grand jury's report.

"We understand the concerns about conduct like that in the workplace," Nicoll said.

Grand jurors found employees "were yelled at by managers in group meetings and in public areas."

Also, employees, including some highly experienced ones, "were excessively monitored by managers to such an extent that they left their positions," the grand jury's report stated.

Some employees went to other agencies, while others accepted "a demotion to receive that transfer."

Others left county government for other jobs or retired earlier than they had planned because of a "manager's bullying behavior," the grand jury found.

Some employees were isolated both "organizationally and physically," the report stated.

The report found the county "has no written policy specifically directed against bullying in the workplace."

It also found that processes to report workplace bullying "are not trusted by employees because the agency with the alleged bullying issue is allowed to investigate complaints using personnel within its own organization."

Nicoll said there are mechanisms now in place for county employees to file a complaint if they believe they have been discriminated against.

As to the allegation by the grand jury that county employees have left their jobs because of workplace bullying, Nicoll said he "would be upset if someone were legitimately fleeing the workplace if they felt they were being mistreated" and felt they had no recourse but to leave.

"We do not tolerate employees being mistreated because they've filed a complaint," Nicoll said. "I'm disappointed if someone left for that reason."

Nicoll said he did not know how widespread a problem workplace bullying is in the county government.

However, he said "the county has gotten very limited number of complaints of inappropriate treatment by their supervisors."

The Workplace Bullying Institute, a nonprofit organization dedicated to eradicating workplace bullying through research and education, commissioned a 2010 study that found 35 percent of workers in the United States have experienced bullying firsthand. Men constitute 62 percent of bullies, while women make up 58 percent of the targets of bullying, according to the study. Female bullies target other women 80 percent of the time, according to the study, done by Zogby International. The study found workplace bullying is a silent epidemic since many workers who are victims of it or witness it fail to report it.

The group, which is based in Washington state, defines workplace bullying as repeated, health-harming abusive conduct committed by bosses and co-workers against others. Workplace bullying is legal in many states across the nation, according to the institute. The institute is working to introduce bills in various state legislatures that would make workplace bullying illegal.

The institute also found that workplace bullying costs companies millions of dollars in employee turnover, lost productivity and lawsuits. The grand jury seemed to agree, stating in its report that workplace bullying costs taxpayers additional money because the county must incur the cost of recruiting and training replacement personnel for those who have left their jobs because of bullying.

To be successful in today's workplace, employees must know how to stand up for themselves, said Barbara Pachter, a Cherry Hill, N.J.-based business etiquette expert and the author of the book "The Power of Positive Confrontation."

"If someone does not speak up for themselves, the bullying is far more likely to continue," Pachter said.

But standing up for oneself in a productive way means a worker must at once be assertive without being offensive, she said. To do so, it helps to use "a lot of "I" statements, she said, as in, "I find that action or statement offensive," rather than "you" statements, as in, "You are rude or abusive."

The grand jury is recommending the Ventura County Board of Supervisors issue a policy against bullying and collect data "to identify the existence and extent of bullying in branches of county government."

Such a policy should include descriptions of bullying behaviors to educate employees on unacceptable workplace behaviors and encourage employees to report this type of workplace abuse, the grand jury said.

On the Net:

Read the grand jury's report at http://portal.countyofventura.org/portal/page/portal/Grand_Jury.

Efforts redoubled against school bullying in San Mateo County

2011-10-17T20:49:00.000-07:00

By Neil Gonzales

ngonzales@bayareanewsgroup.com
Posted: 10/15/2011 09:52:49 PM PDT
Updated: 10/17/2011 09:54:37 AM PDT

A somber anniversary passed just a few days ago for Jack Kazanjian, 15, of Redwood City.

It's been a year since a close friend took his own life after the relentless taunting of others -- much of it over the Internet.

"He was gay, and he was getting bullied," Jack said. "I posted on Facebook for people to stop, but on the Internet no one cares."

In the year since his friend's death, however, local, state and federal efforts to battle bullying in its various forms have increased.

San Mateo County school districts, spurred by a recent grand jury report that pointed out a lack of policies specific to bullying, are working to strengthen their procedures. The governor has signed anti-bullying bills into law, and the federal government already launched several initiatives to address student-on-student harassment.

Local students are also doing their part, whether it's participating in a simple round-table discussion or planning a rally to encourage other youngsters to stand up to bullying.

In recognition of October as National Bullying Prevention Month, Jack, fellow students and school officials at Fusion Academy in San Mateo held a group discussion about bullying. They also watched a video about Jamey Rodemeyer, 14, of Buffalo, N.Y., who killed himself last month after suffering gay slurs online for more than a year -- a case that has caught national attention.

"A lot of kids don't care about other kids but themselves," Jack said.

Jamey's plight echoed what happened to Jack's friend a year ago. "One of the kids kept making fun of him," Jack recalled. "The bully had his friends post comments on the Internet. They wrote, 'Everyone hates you' and 'Why don't you just die.'"

Online bullying can be particularly devastating, said Dan Morgan, Fusion's chief administrator. "It's there forever. It's easy to say something anonymously, and it can really, really hurt."

Brian Buntz, executive director of the youth-development nonprofit Dream Volunteers in Redwood City, agreed with that assessment. "What the Internet has done, especially social websites, is it has given young people tools to engage in bullying-type activities behind closed doors," Buntz said.

As part of the nonprofit's anti-bullying campaign, which is being launched this year, teen members are organizing a free concert and rally to raise awareness of the severity of the problem. The event, which targets middle school students and their parents, is scheduled for 3:30 p.m. Oct. 24 at the Fox Theatre in Redwood City.

"We're trying to get students to reach out to each other when they see bullying," Buntz said. "We also want to let them know where they can get help from adults -- after-school program directors, school counselors, school officials and police -- so they don't feel isolated and powerless."

According to the latest figures from the National Center for Education Statistics, 28 percent of students ages 12 to 18 reported that they endured bullying such as punching, name-calling and the posting of insulting messages online on a repeated basis during the 2008-09 academic year.

About 6 percent of students in that age group reported being cyberbullied in 2008-09, according to the center.

A higher percentage of students who were cyberbullied skipped school or got into campus fights than those who were not cyberbullied, the center said.

According to the National Bullying Prevention Center, more than 160,000 children in the country miss school every day just to avoid being bullied.

In California, Gov. Jerry Brown has approved a pair of anti-bullying laws. Assembly Bill 9 requires districts to have a uniform process for addressing bullying complaints. It also mandates that school personnel intervene, so long as it's safe to do so, if they see bullying. Assembly Bill 1156 requires that all school employees go through bullying-prevention training. It also allows bullying victims to change schools in their district.

On the federal level, the U.S. Department of Education and its partners have engaged in summits the past two years to work out a national strategy against bullying. Last year, the department sent letters to schools, colleges and universities reminding them that they could be in violation of federal anti-discrimination laws if they fail to adequately address ethnic, sexual, gender or disability-based harassment.

In response to the San Mateo County grand jury report, representatives from local districts convened last month to explore ways to beef up student-conduct policies to address bullying more effectively. One of the issues has been that a school might have a policy that uses different language in regard to bullying compared to the district office, county schools Superintendent Anne Campbell said.

So the districts' representatives looked at making "everything consistent in terms of understanding what bullying is and the consequences of it," Campbell said.

The Sequoia Union High School District is putting together a committee to craft a new anti-bullying policy, Superintendent James Lianides said. Sequoia Union has pursued a number of measures over the years to combat bullying, such as having older students mentor their younger counterparts and developing a conflict-mediation program.

"We've had a lot done in the last several years to really create climates across the district that provide safe environments for all students," Lianides said.

Contact Neil Gonzales at 650-348-4338.

28 percent of students ages 12 to 18 reported that they endured bullying.

6 percent of students in that age group reported being cyberbullied.

A higher percentage of students who were cyberbullied skipped school or got into campus fights than those who were not cyberbullied.

More than 160,000 children in the U.S. miss school every day just to avoid being the victim of bullying.

Sources: National Center for Education Statistics and National Bullying Prevention Center

If you want to do more

What: Free concert, rally sponsored by Dream Volunteers for middle school students and their parents to raise awareness about bullying
When: Begins 3:30 p.m., Oct. 24
Where: Fox Theatre, Redwood City

http://www.mercurynews.com/san-mateo-county/ci_19124216?nclick_check=1

(Kern County) Can the East Hills Mall be saved?

2011-10-16T14:46:00.000-07:00

BY JOSE GASPAR Californian contributing columnist
elcompa29@gmail.com | Sunday, Oct 16 2011 11:38 AM

Last Updated Sunday, Oct 16 2011 11:40 AM

A recent Kern County Grand Jury report wondered about the economic solvency of a certain Kern County city. The same could be asked of the future of East Hills Mall located in northeast Bakersfield.

After its owner, BH Mall LLC of Los Angeles, filed for bankruptcy protection in 2009, the latest chapter in this saga is that it went to auction in September -- and not a single bid was offered.

The decline of East Hills Mall has progressively worsened. Only a few remaining independent merchants are left.

The mall was built in 1988, and it became home to anchors, Mervyn's, Gottschalk's and Harris, drawing in a steady number of customers. But when the economy soured, the major retailers pulled out; it's been a domino effect ever since. However, a few stories, such as Payless Shoes and Daniel's Jewelers, remain.

The aesthetics in and around the place certainly don't help in luring customers. The landscaping sorely needs work; weeds abound, garbage is scattered, and the parking lot needs repair.

And what greets customers once they arrive? Windows boarded up with plywood at the former Harris and Gottschalk's stores giving the appearance of an abandoned warehouse or worse.

"It looks condemned," said a clerk at one of the stores who gave his name only as Joseph. Renovation is desperately needed in its interior and exterior.

Inside the mall, it's a ghost town and you have to wonder how the remaining merchants survive.

I walked in recently and spoke to one shopkeeper. In the span of five hours, she had made one $6 sale she said. Living on this side of town, Nancy Giertz says she shops at East Hills about 3-4 times a year, mostly to get her nails done, go to Payless Shoes or take the kids to the dollar movie theatre.

Giertz wants to see brand name stores, such as Kohl's, come to East Hills.

"I feel our side of town is forgotten," said Giertz. "Everything is going across town."

Being an east sider myself, I couldn't agree more so I decided to pick some brains and pose the question: Can East Hills Mall be saved?

"You're not going to get a Nordstrom's where you have a dollar movie theatre," said Richard Chapman, president of Kern Economic Development Corporation.

East Hills faces a myriad of challenges, some beyond its control. That includes the sagging economy that makes retailers hesitant to come in and set up business. As Chapman and others point out, East Hills has multiple owners and they must be willing to work cooperatively and develop a plan to rescue the troubled mall.

"It's the property ownership that's going to be the issue," said Bob Bridges, a real estate professor at USC's Marshall School of Business. "You need to get everyone to sign off on working together in the mall's best interest."

So far, it's unclear whether the separate owners are even talking to each other.

The largest properties at East Hills -- the former Gottschalk's, Mervyn's and Harris stores -- have separate owners, including El Corte Ingles, a department store chain based in Madrid. BH Mall LLC owns and runs the center portion where the current stores are located.

A few years ago, 25 students from USC conducted a real estate feasibility study of the mall as a class project under the guidance of professor Bridges. After analyzing its numerous challenges, including poor planning and access to the site, the students concluded the solution was to demolish the site and start anew.

But the new form would have to be radically different -- with a mixed use of an outdoor mall, office space, perhaps apartments and even medical providers.

"It is a viable site for retail once the market recovers," Bridges said.

Who knows how long that will take.

In the meantime, Nick Danesh of BH Mall LLC is just trying to keep the doors open any way he can. Danesh feels the city can help out by waiving the $100 business license fee it charges to new owners who decide to open a business at East Hills and he is working on a proposal that he describes as the "East Hills Incubators," which he wants to present to the city soon.

But it's doubtful the city can do anything -- at least not right now -- to save East Hills. It faces possible foreclosure.

"It's got to go through its evolution process," said city economic development director Donna Kunz. Besides, the city has no funds to do anything since redevelopment agencies are locked up in a lawsuit with the state right now.

As for that Grand Jury report released earlier about a certain city facing insolvency? The recommendation: Disincorporation.

Perhaps East Hills may have to go through the equivalent measure. What would you suggest?

Jose Gaspar is a reporter for "KBAK/KBFX Eyewitness News" and a contributing columnist of The Californian. These are the opinions of Gaspar, not necessarily The Californian. Email him at elcompa29@gmail.com.

http://www.bakersfield.com/news/local/x771641115/JOSE-GASPAR-Can-the-East-Hills-Mall-be-saved

San Francisco Candidate Questionnaire Jeff Adachi

2011-10-16T09:04:00.000-07:00

Jeff Adachi

Born: Sacramento, CA, 1959

Current Gig: San Francisco Public Defender

Why should we vote for you?
I am the only candidate who has a track record of fighting for fiscal accountability in order to preserve basic services and jobs while standing up for this City's progressive values and the people of this City. I've taken on tough issues like police misconduct and pension reform—issues that no other elected official would touch. I believe in merit-based decision-making, and would not be influenced by special interests or power brokers. I have run one of the most effective and efficient public law offices in the country. The public defender's office received the American Bar Association's top award for the best public law office in the country. I've also received the City's top managerial excellence award and have the experience to manage city departments. I have founded several organizations that are model collaboratives. Most importantly, I have an inclusionary style of leadership that would provide greater citizen participation in civic affairs and would bring honest and ethical government to SF.

List a few of your most significant endorsements.
I have received endorsements from the right and left of the political spectrum, from former Senator Quentin Kopp, who supports my fiscal reforms, to former Board President Matt Gonzalez, who supports me for my progressive values. I have been endorsed by a wide range of organizations, including the Chinese American Democratic Club, the Richmond Reform Democratic Club, Tenants Association Coalition, Tenant Rights Association and the Lower Fillmore Neighborhood Association.

Which one do you feel best exemplifies the reasons why you are running for mayor?
I am proud of them all, but the most important reason is that I will bring open, ethical, honest and transparent government to City Hall and decision making. I will be a Mayor that will stand up for San Franciscans.

What's your favorite place in San Francisco?
I love spending time at Golden Gate Park, riding my bike with my daughter when the streets are closed to traffic.

What is the single biggest issue facing San Francisco right now?
Retirement salaries are one of the greatest escalating costs facing our City. Our pension system is not sustainable. Every year, our pension costs are going up by over $100 million. Last year, a police officer earned $516,000 right before retiring. This retired officer is now entitled to receive a pension package of $240,000 each year for the rest of this officer’s life. This real-life case exemplifies the single biggest issue facing San Francisco right now: the City’s fiscal crisis, and ensuring that the pension system doesn’t bankrupt our City.

Pension reform will realign the City’s budget to prioritize our future: keeping schools open and restoring summer school, investing in job-creating micro-enterprise to get food on the table, reducing the licensing burdens on small business owners and restructuring the tax laws to make them fair. Without pension reform, the City faces near certain bankruptcy and I am the candidate who is not afraid to bring to light the backroom deals that compromise the future of this great City.

This is not to say that pension reform is the only problem. I believe on a federal level, the income tax laws must be reformed to ensure that the rich and corporations pay their fair share of taxes. I would also reform the business tax law in SF and move towards a gross receipts tax instead of a payroll tax, which discourages job growth and hiring. I would also identify and eliminate waste in government.

Whether and how we address pension reform is of crucial importance in this election. Since 2005, retirement costs have skyrocketed from $125 to $400 million a year. These costs will increase to $800 million annually in just the next four years without reform.

My reinvestment plan instead creates 28,000 new jobs and $4 billion dollars of new economic activity. Now is the appropriate time for San Franciscans to invest in the future.

Would you continue with the Central Subway construction project as planned or would you re-evaluate?
I strongly believe that the questions that have been raised by the Civil Grand Jury must be answered and addressed before the City moves forward. As Mayor, I would investigate the recommendations made by the SF Civil Grand Jury, which concluded that the Central Subway needs to reevaluated in light of the huge cost increases that are now coming to light for the first time. Originally projected in 2003 to cost approximately $650 million, the price tag has now escalated to a projected $1.6 billion, with the City on the hook for any potential cost overruns.

Furthermore, the addition of a new subway line will add to an existing operating deficit which will stretch the SFMTA’s existing maintenance environment to the breaking point. The project does not link the new line to existing Metro and BART lines, it ignores service to the Financial District, and ignores current 2011 transportation trends which virtually guarantee that it will be outdated by the time it opens several years from now.

As mayor, I would call for a hearing on the Central Subway project in order to review the issues identified in the grand jury report. This review should include potential redesigns of the project, or, if it’s the right thing to do, scrap the project altogether in favor of using existing SFMTA infrastructure to improve transit along the Chinatown-Financial District corridor. I will not have ordinary taxpayers pay for the special interests that would profit from this project and will move it forward only if the plan’s benefits to traffic flow in the City outweigh the budgetary burden and long-term maintenance and infrastructure costs of maintaining the Central Subway.

Do you support either of the two pension reform measures on the
November ballot?
I am the proponent, along with Civil Grand Jury former person Craig Weber, of Prop D, the measure that was placed on the ballot by 50,000 voters. The Civil Grand Jury spent two years studying pension reform and issued two reports: Beyond Our Ability to Pay (2009) and Pension Tsunami (2010). See sfpensionreform.com.

One of the greatest problems this City faces is its escalating pension and benefit costs for City employees. Currently, the City has a $4.3 billion unfunded liability for health care costs and a $4 billion unfunded liability in pension costs, that is driving the City’s contribution to the pension costs from $175 million five years ago to a projected $800 million in the next four years.

San Francisco needs its next Mayor to be firmly committed to solving this problem. Regardless of which measure is approved by the voters, additional reforms would be needed. As Mayor, I would be committed to solving this problem through a series of reforms that would include a separate health care reform measure.

In 2009, the civil grand jury issued a report showing that pension spiking was a problem in the police and fire departments, costing taxpayers $120 million. Additionally, in 2011, the Retirement Fund granted $170 million in “bonus” cost of living increases to pensioners, even though the City faced a $300 million deficit and the pension fund had lost money.

In 2010, I met with members of the civil grand jury who felt that their calls to reform the pension system had been ignored by elected officials. After I too urged Mayor Gavin Newsom and Board of Supervisors to take on this issue, I and others gathered signatures to place a pension and health care reform measure on the ballot in November 2010, when it garnered 116,000 YES votes, but failed to pass.

Taking what I learned from that experience, I retained former City Attorney Louise Renne’s law firm to help draft Proposition D for the November 2011 ballot. Proposition D improves on the earlier proposal by exempting workers who earn less than $50,000 from any increases in retirement contributions and sets a graduated contribution rate so that more highly paid employees will contribute to their retirement at a higher rate than lower paid employees. It also provides a fairer, more sustainable retirement reform system for new hires and prohibits pension spiking.

Proposition D, if approved, will be the largest fiscal austerity measure in the history of the City, saving taxpayers $1.7 billion over the next decade. It will enable the City to utilize some of the savings to prevent further cuts and even restore important City services.

When Mayor Ed Lee was appointed mayor, he pledged to address the City’s growing pension crisis. I supported his original measure, but his plan and the resulting cost savings were significantly weakened through the process of “meet and conferring” sessions with the unions, even though no negotiation was necessary because, since pension benefits are not subject to the requirement of collective bargaining. Lee’s plan also assumes a 7.75% rate of return, which all investors, including Warren Buffet, say is unrealistic. The pension has never realized more than an average of 5% over the past 10 years. Because Proposition D’s contribution rates are greater, it provides greater flexibility in the event that the pension fund earnings fall below the expected projections.

While Proposition C purports to address the pension crisis facing our City, it saves much less, and does much less in terms of pension spiking. It also fails to cap pensions and still allows some employees to receive 90% of the income they received while working. In short, it does not result in long-term, sustainable pension reform.

The proponents of Proposition C claim that Proposition D would more likely be subject to a legal challenge. Both C and D raise contribution rates, and it is likely that both will be challenged. Retirees have already said they would challenge Prop C.

Prop C addresses the $4.3 billion unfunded liability by requiring city employees to contribute .25% towards their health care costs beginning in 2016. I believe this is insufficient and would work to decrease the City’s health care costs while requiring a greater contribution, based on income.

Proposition C is 250 pages while Proposition D is 12 pages in length. Because these competing pension reform measures may be confusing to the voters, I have proposed a series of debates to assist voters in understanding the relative merits of the two pension reform measures. Unfortunately, Mayor Lee has declined this opportunity to inform voters so that the electorate can make an informed decision between the two pension reform measures. I hope Mayor Lee will reconsider his decision to have a full discussion of the two measures.

As rents in San Francisco continue to rise, there are fears that SF is becoming a luxury bedroom community for Silicon Valley, with working-class families being pushed out of the market. Would counteracting this transition be a priory in your administration?
As Mayor, I would slow certain housing in favor of adding affordable housing units and artist loft to counteract the trend of working-class families leaving San Francisco.

I will do more to make San Francisco affordable for the middle class and those of lesser means by continuing to disallow landlord to furnish good cause for eviction. Instead of developing luxury units at the current rate of 120% I would offer incentives to developers to slow this in favor of injection more affordable units onto the market; suitable for families and the working class. Development of artist lofts makes life more affordable for artists who could consolidate their work and home into a single space and I would specifically incentivize development to make housing affordable for the artists of San Francisco. Last but not least, I would have the communities involved in the planning process so that current residents can voice their concerns before development begins. Ideally the new development comes in a pricepoint within reach for the existing community. I also favor public-private partnerships and would bring in developers and community-based organizations committed to providing affordable housing to San Franciscans.

How well do you think BART has handled the recent string of protests? If SFPD were faced with a similar situation, which parts of what BART leadership and the BART police depart has done would you use as a model for what you would do and which parts would you avoid?
BART correctly acted to ensure the safety of riders, but I would not have shut down cell phone service. I thought that was irresponsible. The recent BART protest involved the state’s largest mass transit network; creating chaos throughout the Bay Area. Cutting off communication only compounded the chaos and impeded the riders’ right to communicate with loved ones. It is difficult to imagine a scenario where cutting off cell service would be warranted by the SFPD.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/10/san-francisco-candidate-questionnaire-jeff-adachi_n_1004334.html

Patterson councilwoman takes aim at grand jury

2011-10-16T08:58:00.000-07:00

Wednesday, Sep. 28, 2011

Leader says lawsuit a means for overhauling the system
By Patty Guerra
pguerra@modbee.com

Patterson City Councilwoman Annette Smith has sued Stanislaus County over a harsh civil grand jury report issued earlier this year. The highly unusual move is aimed, she said, at an overhaul of the local grand jury system.

"It was the most demeaning experience of my life," she said of her testimony in November before the grand jury. She said grand jurors made it clear they were targeting her. "They were insulting, they were biased, they were predetermined."

She filed the lawsuit Tuesday in federal court in Sacramento.
Annette Smith has sued Stanislaus County over a harsh civil grand jury report issued earlier this year. The highly unusual move is aimed, she said, at an overhaul of the local grand jury system.

Patterson grand jury complaint

In the report issued in June, grand jurors recommended that Smith should lose her seat for failing to disclose a financial relationship with a developer and voting to give him $27,000 without justification, among other alleged offenses. The report also said then-Mayor Becky Campo moved out of town during her term and Campo, Smith and Councilman Dominic Farinha illegally ousted then-City Manager Cleve Morris.

The city responded last week with a blistering letter to Presiding Judge Ricardo Córdova.

In the response, written by interim City Attorney Thomas Hallinan, the city flatly rejected most of the grand jury's findings. The call for Smith to resign or face a potential recall election, the response says, "is the most outrageous and inappropriate recommendation our city attorney has seen in 17 years of reviewing grand jury reports. To engage in political advocacy is completely and utterly contrary to the charge of the grand jury."

Córdova said he could not comment on pending litigation. Stanislaus County Superior Court Executive Officer Mike Tozzi said the lawsuit is a first in his 27 years with the courts.

"It's very unusual," agreed Mi-chael Vitiello, a law professor at the University of the Pacific's McGeorge School of Law. Grand jurors themselves are offered partial immunity from litigation.

"There are lots of criticisms of civil grand juries," he said. "But these are a bunch of citizens trying to do good. … It should not be too easy to sue them."

Question of oversight

Smith's lawsuit, he said, "sounds like a heavy-handed approach."

Vitiello said the county can respond to the claim, and then a federal judge will decide if the case has merit.

"As a local matter, you have a real risk there," he said. "What you don't want to have happen is for the grand jury to be intimidated."

Smith said the grand jury needs more oversight to make sure members are abiding by the rules.

"Nobody was watching this group," she said. "Not the county counsel, that I could see. Certainly not the presiding judge."

But that's not Córdova's role, Tozzi said. He doesn't get involved until the grand jury issues its report. He reads it and can comment on it or suggest changes if he finds omissions.

"They might make an accusation about something, and there's nothing substantiated," Tozzi said. "The presiding judge might say, 'You didn't have any findings. You might want to soften your wording.'

"But he is not a part of the investigation. And that's important, since the grand jury is considered an independent body, and the county is among the entities it could investigate."

Stanislaus County Counsel John Doering said Wednesday he hadn't seen a copy of the lawsuit. Once the county is served, he said his office will determine how to proceed.

Although he doesn't recall any local lawsuits over a grand jury report, "It's not too terribly surprising. There was a lot of animosity about that report."

Denis France, foreman of the grand jury for the past two years, also said he hadn't seen the claim.

Smith is seeking "injunctive relief prohibiting any further abuses of authority," as well as publication of testimony transcripts and a revised report. She also is suing for unspecified damages.

"Legally, I'm entitled to respond," she said. "Most people write them a letter and say, 'Oh, you're wrong.' I'm unique. This is my response. This is broken, and I would like to see it fixed."

Bee staff writer Patty Guerra can be reached at pguerra@modbee.com or (209) 578-2343.

Read more: http://www.modbee.com/2011/09/28/1881950/councilwoman-takes-aim-at-grand.html?story_link=email_msg#ixzz1axdrSfFB

Butte Grand Jury once again taking a look at PRPD

2011-10-15T12:24:00.001-07:00

By Paul Wellersdick
Staff Writer
Posted: 10/13/2011 07:48:31 AM PDT

Paradise Recreation and Park District is again the subject of a Grand Jury investigation, one its manager welcomes.

"It's not abnormal at all," PRPD Manager Mike Trinca said. "They basically look at public entities, that's their job They're trying to make government work better and that's great."

Trinca was the first agency to hand over the requested information - in this case 1,000 pages of documents in a big box, he said. This year's investigation focuses on personnel matters. The jury requested current board of directors' information, a list of current employees and hire dates, four years of board meeting minutes, a copy of the mission statement and master plan. The current investigation is more specifically targeted than last year's, which was a broader investigation into many districts' ethics training, when PRPD was found to be in compliance with the law.

This year Trinca expects no surprises, but does expect some questions and comments.

"You know, the big thing is, if it's something you force yourself to do, it sits on the shelf," he said. "Most of our stuff (consists of) active documents - we use them, so that's what keeps (them) alive. I feel really good about what we've got."

The district's master plan is a year old; its personnel manual is four years old and has been updated since.

"Everything is up to date, it's as current as we've ever been," Trinca said.

He said he's interested to see what perspective the Grand Jury can bring to the district with a fresh set of eyes. The district meets with the jury next week for the first time. Trinca informed the board about the investigation at the regular board meeting, which started at 6 p.m. for the first time since the meeting time was moved up from 7 p.m. last month. The board meeting was brief, at 55 minutes, an unofficial record, Trinca joked.

Director Steve Rodowick replaces the late Steve Williams as board secretary, while Lara Gularte, the Magalia resident elected last month, was appointed to the Magalia and Crain parks committees as well as the recreation and park committee. Rodowick was also appointed as representative at the Paradise Irrigation District's lake committee.

Also, work is continuing on the retaining wall facing Skyway at the Terry Ashe Recreation Center north of Elliott Road. Weather permitting, the project should be completed by January.

http://www.paradisepost.com/news/ci_19102439

Humboldt County Supervisors to mull grand jury report response

2011-10-10T13:12:00.000-07:00

Megan Hansen/Times-Standard
Posted: 10/10/2011 02:29:45 AM PDT

An employment evaluation of Community Development Services Director Kirk Girard will take place Tuesday during the closed session portion of the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors meeting after being continued from a previous meeting in September.

As head of the county's planning services department, Girard has overseen several controversial issues -- including the recent multifamily rezoning process -- that have sparked lawsuits. Some county residents spoke negatively of Girard before September's portion of his evaluation with the supervisors.

County responses to the 2010-2011 grand jury report will be discussed during the open part of Tuesday's meeting. The supervisors will be evaluating responses to six reports received by the county in July. The county has previously responded to two of the nine reports, eight of which require a response.

In addition, the supervisors are expected to approve closing the Humboldt County Library for five days as a way to achieve some budget savings. The library would be closed Nov. 26 and Dec. 20-23. According to a staff report, the library receives much of its revenue from property taxes, which have remained stagnant during the past year and are projected to remain flat during this fiscal year. The library's website and all other online services would be shut down during the closures.

The board will make proclamations honoring Oct. 10, 2011, as the 100th anniversary of women's suffrage in California and a proclamation that October is United Way month. Supervisors will also make a proclamation honoring the Great California Shake Out earthquake drill program that will be held Oct. 20 at 10:20 a.m.

For the complete meeting agenda and supporting documents, visit online at www.co.humboldt.ca.us/board/agenda/questys/.

(San Bernardino) AIRPORT: Spencer’s debt to agency grew to $780,707

2011-10-10T10:51:00.000-07:00

BY KIMBERLY PIERCEALL
STAFF WRITER
kpierceall@pe.com

Published: 08 October 2011 04:14 PM

Scot Spencer, the man entrusted with developing most of San Bernardino International Airport, still owed about $673,820 in back rent as of Wednesday to the public agency overseeing the airport, according to information from the airport’s finance department.

He had recently paid $106,887 he owed in filming and fuel fees for the year.

Spencer and his companies are at the center of an FBI-led investigation looking for evidence of conspiracy, bribery, fraud and money laundering, among other wrongdoing, according to copies of federal search warrants.

In 2007, the San Bernardino International Airport Authority awarded Spencer two lease agreements to develop a passenger terminal for commercial airlines and a fixed-base operation for private pilots. The passenger terminal is mostly finished and no commercial airline has agreed to provide scheduled service. The fixed-base operation, a Million Air franchise, opened last year.

Mike Burrows, the authority’s assistant director, did not return a call seeking comment. The airport’s longtime executive director, Donald L. Rogers, resigned on Sept. 28. Spencer did not immediately return calls seeking comment.

Besides rent, Spencer’s companies still owe $537,359 in county property taxes related to the airport. His SBD Aircraft Services company owed the state board of equalization $102,170.78 in taxes as of July, according to records from the county assessor office. The same company owed employment taxes worth $17,071.28 to the state as of August.

At least eight search warrants have been served on locations related to the federal investigation into the airport including Spencer’s offices, his home, a location in Boca Raton, Florida, as well as the offices of the airport authority and its parent agency the Inland Valley Development Agency.

When Norton Air Force Base closed in 1994 causing about 10,000 jobs to disappear from the region, the public agency aimed to replace those lost jobs by redeveloping the base with private enterprises and a commercial airport. Elected officials from San Bernardino County, the city of San Bernardino, Colton, Highland and Loma Linda sit on the boards of the two agencies.

Spencer has been paid more than $2 million in taxpayer funds in developer and construction fees since then, based on a percentage of each construction contract. In four years, the cost to construct both, plus a three-story U.S. Customs facility, grew from $45 million to more than $142.5 million as the scope of the project grew. He has also been reimbursed more than $4 million for equipment he’s purchased and services he provided the airport.

In the mid-1990s, Spencer was sentenced to 51 months in federal prison for bankruptcy fraud related to the third and final collapse of Braniff Airlines. The Department of Transportation later banned him from the aviation industry for operating an unlicensed charter airline out of San Bernardino airport. Airport staff, primarily Rogers, had defended awarding two no-bid contracts to Spencer because the transportation ban didn’t apply to airport operations, just airline operations.

In addition to developing the airport, Spencer is the landlord of one of the largest hangars at the base and operates the Million Air franchise which earns revenue from selling fuel to pilots that land at the airport. Another of his companies has a contract with the public agency to manage the airport.

Spencer has racked up hefty debts at the airport, before.

Days after The Press-Enterprise noted in late June that Spencer owed three months worth of rent, he delivered checks worth $329,060.09 for the space he rents for his Million Air franchise, the land where his fueling station sits and most of Hangar 763 at the airport.

As part of his lease agreements with the airport authority, Spencer leases the airport’s main passenger terminal at no cost until construction is entirely finished and the building is transferred back to the airport authority’s ownership.

Until that time though, if a Hollywood location scout thinks the airport is the ideal backdrop for a car commercial, for example, the revenue goes to Spencer except for a 20 percent cut for the authority. This year, his company earned $81,000 in filming fees after seven production studios rented the airport space for shoots. He owed the airport authority its cut of $16,200 but didn’t pay until Sept. 6., after The Press-Enterprise requested information on how much Spencer had paid the public agency in filming and fueling fees.

Actor Kiefer Sutherland was there in late June filming a pilot called “Touch” for 20th Century Fox.

Sutherland took to Twitter to tell followers: “Filming out at San Bernardino International Airport … I didn’t even know San Bernardino HAD an airport.”

There’s no record of Spencer paying any filming fees in 2010 despite there being 11 productions – all commercials or still photography for companies such as Lexus , Kia, Mitsubishi and Hot Wheels – that were held at the airport for a total of 31 days, according to the Inland Empire Film Commission.

On Sept. 6, Spencer also paid the airport $90,687, the amount of fees he owed in full for fuel he sold between January and June.

AN I-O-U

Scot Spencer, the developer of San Bernardino International Airport, has several agreements with the airport authority. As of Wednesday, he owed a total of $673,820 in rent.

Million Air building: about $278,016

Missed payments: Feb., March, July, Aug., Sept. and Oct. (based on monthly payments of $46,345.12)

Hangar 763: $262,746

Missed payments: March, July, August, September and October

A bay inside Hangar 763 that was sublet to Boeing: $74,828

Missed payments: April thru October

Fuel farm formerly known as Don Blue’s Aviation: $58,230

Missed payments: about five months

(Sutter County) Administrator raps Stark for poor communication

2011-10-10T10:50:00.000-07:00

October 08, 2011 11:50:08 PM
By Ben van der Meer/Appeal-Democrat

A grand jury response by the Sutter County administrator's office and Board of Supervisors heavily criticizes county Auditor-Controller Robert Stark for poor communication practices and a lack of accountability, while a response filed by Stark largely agreed with the jury's findings.

"For the Auditor-Controller to state that their office was essentially 'too busy' to correct a $2.1 million error is simply inexcusable," County Administrator Stephanie Larsen writes in her response, which will be part of the board's agenda on Tuesday.

The grand jury investigation stemmed from a complaint against Stark's office over sales-tax revenues put into the wrong account and then not corrected for nearly two years.

When Stark's office discovered the mistake, according to Larsen, he didn't tell supervisors or her office for weeks, then was evasive and noncommittal on how the error would be fixed. Larsen noted the problem significantly affected the county's budgeting.

The grand jury's report found the error was unintentional, but the amount of time for county officials to be informed of the mistake was excessive.

Among the jury's findings were that Stark's policies for control over the general revenue budget unit were found unnecessary by Larsen's office because her office monitors and manages the unit.

In the board's response, it states it respectfully disagrees with the finding because Stark never adopted polices and procedures for deposits to the general revenue fund.

While Larsen's office goes beyond what is required to account for such deposits, the supervisors' response states, they wouldn't be necessary if Stark's office had such policies in place.

Stark's office's response, which is also included in the board's agenda, pointed out the jury also felt the county administrator's office had superseded individual departments' policies.

The response didn't dispute the lag in informing Larsen or the board of the error.

"However, this was a complex issue which needed to be researched and there were other extenuating business and personal circumstances at the time which caused the delay," the response stated.

As well, the response noted the board had 30 days to prepare a response to Stark's office's response.

CONTACT reporter Ben van der Meer at 749-4786.

Read more: http://www.appeal-democrat.com/articles/office-110524-response-stark.html#ixzz1aP0u8Fsb

(Santa Barbara) Grand Jury Report On Audio/Video Cameras In Squad Cars

2011-10-10T10:49:00.001-07:00

Story Created: Oct 7, 2011 PDT
Story Updated: Oct 8, 2011 at 6:24 PM PDT

Santa Barbara County - The Santa Barbara County Grand Jury has issued a report endorsing the use of audio/video camera equipment in patrol vehicles of local police agencies.

Currently, only Santa Barbara and Guadalupe Police Departments do not have the equipment in their patrol vehicles.

The grand jury cited positive results among agencies that are using the technology. The purpose of the system is to provide an unbiased record that can be used with the officer's arrest or incident report.

The grand jury feels the Santa Barbara and Guadalupe Police Departments should install the equipment in their patrol vehicles. The report also says that the equipment costs could decrease the cost of litigation.

To view the report visit www.sbcgj.org.

http://www.keyt.com/news/local/Grand-Jury-Report-On-AudioVideo-Cameras-In-Squad-Cars--131355748.html

(Santa Barbara) Grand Jury Endorses Patrol Cameras

2011-10-10T10:47:00.000-07:00

updated: Oct 07, 2011, 11:31 AM
Source: SBC Grand Jury

The Santa Barbara County Grand Jury has issued a report endorsing the use of audio/video camera equipment in the patrol vehicles of local law enforcement agencies. Currently only Santa Barbara and Guadalupe police departments do not have the technology installed in their patrol vehicles.

In its report, the Grand Jury cites positive results among those agencies that have adopted this technology. "In all cases, agencies that work in law enforcement and have installed audio/ video equipment say they are supportive of the use of this technology," said Ted Sten, Grand Jury Foreman. The purpose of the system is to provide an unbiased record that can be used to supplement a law enforcement officer's arrest or incident report.

The Grand Jury concluded the police departments of the cities of Santa Barbara and Guadalupe should obtain and install audio/video equipment in their patrol vehicles. The report also suggests that the costs for the equipment could be offset through the decreased cost of litigation.

The entire report can be found on the Grand Jury's website at www.sbcgj.org.

The Santa Barbara County Grand Jury is a basic part of the government within the judicial branch. The Grand Jury acts independently, but it is under the general control of the Superior Court Presiding Judge to assure that it acts in accordance with the Penal Code of the State of California.

http://www.edhat.com/site/tidbit.cfm?nid=70964

(Santa Barbara) County Responds to Grand Jury Report

2011-10-10T10:39:00.000-07:00

County Supes Will Act on Two of 11 Grand Jury Recommendations
Friday, October 7, 2011
By Isabelle T. Walker

The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors responded to the 2011 Grand Jury report “Homeless Mentally Ill Recidivism: This Recycling is Not Good for the County” on Tuesday and advocates are bound to be underwhelmed. The five supervisors approved a response letter in which they decline to enact 90 percent of the Grand Jury,s recommendations for fixing the problem of mentally ill homeless people cycling in and out of the County Jail with no improvement in either their health or circumstances.

The Board didn't walk away from problem however. Dennis Bozanich, assistant to County Executive Officer (CEO) Chandra Waller, has been tasked with preparing a comparison of the costs of maintaining the status quo with the costs of providing the homeless mentally ill indigent with enough services to keep them off the arrest, re-arrest merry-go-round. To read more, see homelessinsb.org.

http://www.independent.com/news/2011/oct/07/county-responds-grand-jury-report/

Governor Signs into Law Bill Affecting Grand Juries

2011-10-10T09:12:00.000-07:00

Just ahead of the deadline for signing or vetoing over 800 bills passed by the legislature, Governor Brown signed Assembly Bill 622 that allows an interviewee under oath to have an attorney present. This bill was watered down considerably during the legislative process but still opposed by CGJA and many others.

CGJA will be providing more information, including suggested actions that could be taken by grand juries, in the weeks ahead. The bill takes effect January 1, 2012 and thus impacts current juries.

(San Diego) County bonuses boost pensions by millions

2011-10-06T13:22:00.000-07:00

By KEVIN CROWE and KELLY THORNTON Investigative Newsource | Posted: Wednesday, October 5, 2011 5:30 am

Read more: http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sdcounty/article_226e5c21-cc29-584c-94ff-3d628f66b00b.html#ixzz1a2FF1pdN

The county of San Diego paid employees more than $100 million during the past few years for special benefits such as car and uniform allowances ---- and most of these add-ons can count toward their retirement pay.

It's a practice that goes on across California and is increasingly controversial as taxpayers face gargantuan bills in underfunded public employee retirement costs.

In San Diego County, more than half the "premium pay" from 2007 through 2010 was for performance bonuses, according to an analysis by the local nonprofit journalism center, Investigative Newsource. Although the bonus program was suspended in 2009, its effects could long be felt when recipients begin collecting their pensions.

The county pays more than 80 categories of special pay. After the bonus program, which cost about $30 million a year, bilingual pay was the most expensive, costing $3.3 million a year.

Forty-four employees, including the county supervisors and top administrators, are eligible to receive car allowances ranging from $7,200 and $12,000 a year. They cost the county about $360,000 annually from 2007 through 2010.

For an employee with 20 years of service making $143,021 a year (a supervisor's salary in 2010), an additional $12,000 a year auto allowance would bump their pension payout by about 8.5 percent. If they draw it for 20 years, the extra pay would yield an additional $144,000.

Using premium pay, bonuses, unused sick and vacation time payouts and other devices to increase pensions is so common among public employees that some government watchdog groups, a civilian grand jury and most recently the California Legislature, have sought to ban or at least curb the practice with little success so far.

Advocates consider supplemental pay to be income that is rightfully counted toward pensionable pay; critics see it as another way to gouge taxpayers.

"The abusive practices engaged in by a few individuals have put retirement benefits at risk for the vast majority of honest, hardworking public servants," said Sen. Juan Vargas, D-San Diego, and a member of the Senate Public Employees, Retirement and Social Security Committee. The committee recently championed anti-spiking legislation that failed Sept. 9 after Gov. Jerry Brown indicated he would not sign pension-related legislation unless it was part of comprehensive reform.

Many costs hidden

It's virtually impossible to estimate how much pension add-ons cost taxpayers. There are dozens of separate public retirements systems in California and many variables to factor, such as how many people retire in a year, how many years of services they've had, what their pensionable earnings are, how much special pay will enhance their pensions.

County officials said they have never studied the impact of special pay on long-term pension costs because it's a relatively small amount in relation to the county's payroll, which is just under $1 billion.

Potentially large payments for overtime and accrued sick and vacation time do not count toward retirement.

Special pay items that boost salaries range from "helicopter duty" and "weekend shifts" to "prisoner transportation" and "sewing room supervisor." There's a pay bump for being bilingual or having certifications or advanced degrees. Risky duties, such as handling hazardous materials, increase pay.

During 2007 and 2008, performance bonuses constituted the largest portion of special pay.

Officials defend bonuses

Officials said the bonus program was a win-win for the county and employees. The county avoided some across-the-board permanent pay increases, while employees received up to 4 percent in bonus pay if they helped their departments come in 6 percent under budget. Still, the program was shelved in 2009 because of budget constraints, the officials said.

Outside of the bonus program, the county paid an average of $13.4 million a year in special pay from 2007 to 2010.

More than 70 of the 80-plus categories of special pay are included in pension calculations. Newsource found that payouts ranged from an average of $2,675 in 2007 to $1,193 in 2010. More than 100 people in 2007 and 2008 made more than $10,000 in special pay, five people earned more than $25,000 and one person earned more than $50,000.

For most county employees, retirement calculations are based on years and type of service and rate of pay in the highest 26 consecutive pay checks, which are issued every two weeks. For others, it's based on an average of their highest three consecutive years of compensation.

Special pay can make a difference.

Lifetime boost

For an employee with 25 years of service and a high base salary of $65,000 at retirement, for example, $2,500 in special pay would boost the annual pension pay by about 4 percent, or $1,872 per year. That's $37,440 over 20 years.

Assembly Bill 340 ---- the legislation supported by Vargas ---- would have prevented county workers from spiking pensions with unused vacation and sick leave, bonuses and other special pay items at the end of their careers in the 20 California counties that run their own pension plans. A separate bill, Senate Bill 27, which still is pending in the Assembly, would impose similar rules on the state's public employees and teacher pension funds, including many local employees who are covered by the California Public Employees' Retirement System.

Both pieces of legislation were proposed after public outrage was sparked by news reports in Contra Costa County about two fire chiefs whose pensions were inflated with premium pay. The Contra Costa Times report also showed that more than two-thirds of employees departing a sanitation district in the past five years spiked their pensions by 25 to 41 percent.

News organizations around the state have reported similar stories since the courts recently ordered counties to release pension information. The San Diego County Employees Retirement Association had fought to keep pension information secret, but in light of seven separate Superior Court decisions since 2009 and rulings by three different appeals courts, the association recently released data on the most highly compensated pensioners.

Some raising base pay

Reacting to public perception, some counties are moving away from add-ons and adjusting base salaries upward to avoid the spiking controversy. That can be a complicated process that requires contract negotiations with unions.

County Supervisor Dianne Jacob said county officials are obligated to put special pay into pension calculations because of a 1997 California Supreme Court ruling known as the Ventura decision. The court concluded a number of special payments had been improperly excluded from pension calculations, resulting in retroactive increases for the plaintiffs, Ventura County sheriff's deputies.

"I question many of the premiums and they should be reevaluated," she said. "The problem is, many were negotiated with our labor unions before my time on the board and it's extremely difficult to unring the bell."

Jacob noted that the county needs to offer some types of special pay to attract workers.

"I know how hard it is for the county to recruit quality people willing to put on a Haz-Mat suit, or work as jailhouse nurses or work a graveyard shift in a tough area. I know how hard it is to find crackerjack executives who are creative and committed to public service. We can't compete with the corporate world for that caliber of talent" without premiums, she said.

Willing to work nights

Jacob made a distinction between special pay and the much-derided practice called pension spiking.

"Spiking happens when a public employee is given a significant increase in compensation immediately before retirement in a deliberate attempt to increase their pension," she said. "Paying a premium to a jailhouse nurse willing to work the night shift is not 'spiking.'"

Supervisor Pam Slater-Price said she has no problem with special pay.

"Higher pay for special skill sets, such as helicopter pilots, is part of doing business. Premiums are negotiated with labor. For the most part, they were likely negotiated in lieu of other benefits."

Lani Lutar, president of the San Diego County Taxpayers Association, said eliminating special pay in the city of San Diego, which has a $2.1 billion pension deficit, is one of the cornerstones of a ballot initiative to end guaranteed pensions for most new city hires and give them 401(k)s instead. The ad-ons should be eliminated at the county as well, she contended.

"We don't think any specialty pay should be part of a pension calculation," Lutar said. "This has a significant long-term impact on taxpayers. If you look at the salaries that are paid out, they already allow for extremely generous pensions."

When special isn't

Lutar cited this example in the city: Emergency medical technicians get special pay for obtaining a certification that is required for them to do their job. That special pay then counts toward their pension.

"The type of pension spiking maneuvers we have seen is really on a scale of obnoxious to insane," she said. "The labor unions have been very clever over the years at identifying benefits that are going to be hidden from public view because the liability won't be experienced for years if not decades."

Eraina Ortega, a legislative representative with the California State Association of Counties, a group that lobbies for county government interests, said her organization has advocated for the overturning of the Ventura decision because the association favors placing the decision-making power with counties.

Still, there are steps a county can take to minimize the financial impact of premium pay within the confines of the Ventura decision.

For instance, while the county is required to include certain types of pay in a pension calculation, officials said they could negotiate with employees on how much they might be paid for, say, a uniform allowance.

Don Turko, the county's human resources director, said the county continues to analyze what special pay should be on the table during the next set of contract talks with employee unions. "To the extent we can minimize costs subject to Ventura we'll pursue those," he said.

Ortega of CSAC said transparency is essential in the discussion of pension benefits.

"As long as the public can see what benefits are being provided," she said, "the public has a right to look into it and say, 'Is this the appropriate compensation for our public officials?'"

Investigative Newsource is a nonprofit specializing in data-driven reporting. It is based at San Diego State University's School of Journalism & Media Studies. For more on this topic, tune in to KPBS radio Midday Edition at noon today. For a full list of county employees, their salaries and special pay, go to www.inewsource.org.

Read more: http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sdcounty/article_226e5c21-cc29-584c-94ff-3d628f66b00b.html#ixzz1a2F4tKyw

San Diego City Council Responds to County Grand Jury Assertion That New City Hall Is Unnecessary

2011-10-05T14:04:00.000-07:00

By David Batterson | Published Tuesday, Oct. 4, 2011

The San Diego City Council voted 6-1 on October 4 to adopt a resolution, responding to the San Diego County Grand Jury report that a new city hall is not needed.

The resolution authorized the “council's response to the Presiding Judge of the San Diego Superior Court no later than November 1, 2011.” The Centre City Development Corporation and the Independent Budget Analyst previously prepared the council's response.

Councilmember Carl DeMaio voted no; councilmember Tony Young was absent. Councilmember Todd Gloria, who made the motion to approve, said, “We have a substandard city hall; the building needs replacement.” Councilmember Marti Emerald commented, “We need to revisit lease rates.”

The grand jury concluded that the city cannot justify a new, 19-story, 576,000-square-foot facility with an approximate $500-per-square-foot cost (estimated at $293,500,000). The grand jury determined the city could purchase “existing buildings of sufficient size to accommodate the City’s needs” for approximately $200 per square foot.

According to attachment 1 of the resolution, “the Grand Jury drew a number of inaccurate conclusions.” The council agreed with some findings, including one that the “existing city hall is in disrepair.”

The City of San Diego currently owns four buildings constructed in 1963 and 1965 between First and Third avenues: the city administration building, city operations building, concourse, and the Evan V. Jones Parkade (parking garage). The administration facility includes offices for the mayor and councilmembers, council chambers and committee rooms, the office of the city clerk, and other offices.

The administration, operations, and concourse buildings contain asbestos that will require abatement if they are renovated or demolished. The city leases about 93 percent of the Civic Center Plaza building.

http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2011/oct/04/stringers-san-diego-city-council-responds-/

Getting Ready With CERTitude (Marin County)

2011-10-05T10:15:00.000-07:00

Getting Ready With CERTitude

As locals continue efforts to seize momentum on emergency preparedness campaign, CERT classes are set for Oct. 8 and 15. Get Ready class set for Oct. 13

ByJim Welte
Email the author
October 4, 2011

The City of Mill Valley’s fifth annual evacuation drill, this time in Scott Valley in May, garnered historically high participation from residents. A month later, the Marin County Civil Grand Jury gave Mill Valley a pat on the back for its emergency preparedness efforts that serve as a "blueprint which could be emulated countywide."

For Maggie Lang, a longtime local resident and the countywide coordinator for Community Emergency Response Training (CERT) classes, the events served as a catalyst to be seized upon.

“One of the Grand Jury report’s central tenets was that we’re going to be on our own in the event of a disaster because we don’t have enough public safety people living here in Marin,” Lang said. “Families really need to be able to take care of themselves, and we need to keep getting the word out about the resources available for people to know how to do that.”

“After that, it’s about neighbors helping neighbors,” she added.

Using the pneumonic that “the first 72 (hours) are on you,” CERT is at the heart of that drive. According to Marc Radest, a 42-year-old Sycamore Park resident, EMT and Marin Medical Reserve Corp member who took the CERT class in April, an ideal disaster plan would be to ensure that every neighborhood had a few people who have taken a CERT class and could serve as the point of contact for first responders in the event of a disaster.

“CERT makes the emergency services and fire department response more effective,” Radest said. “There are so many unknowns – who is elderly in the area, are there people who need prescription medication, things like that – that if the first responders had people to give them the details of that neighborhood when they arrive, it significantly changes their ability to respond clearly and quickly.”

The classes teach light search and rescue, basic disaster first aid and triage, small fire suppression and some disaster psychology. The program is funded through a $21,300 State Homeland Security grant awarded to the City of San Rafael’s Office of Emergency Services via the County of Marin to develop a countywide CERT training program called Marin County CERT.

The program kicked off in January and the shift to a countywide system instead of one operated by individual agencies allows any Marin resident to take any CERT class in the county.

Lang hopes that change reaches more people with busier schedules. Along with the neighborhood-specific push, Lang said she’s also hoping to get younger people into CERT classes, as the lion’s share of participants to date have been older people with the free time to accommodate the classes.

“We love their passion and involvement but we can’t have a response team that’s completely staffed with 70 and 80 year olds,” she said.

Lang said the unending challenge in Mill Valley is that despite the well-deserved accolades for developing a citywide emergency preparedness plan, “We’re still butting up against a wall of apathy and denial – that feeling of, ‘it’s never going to happen to me.’ But you get a good feeling from these classes – a sense of well being and a sense that you know how to take care of your family and neighbors if something happens.”

http://millvalley.patch.com/articles/getting-ready-with-certitude

The (Calaveras County) Grand Jury: Under Appreciated

2011-10-02T11:00:00.000-07:00

From the Calaveras Enterprise

By Kevin Wychopen

The grand jury. Now that is a name that sounds, well, grand. I happened to notice a cool little picture of a twisted oak in the lower right corner of the online Calaveras Enterprise. It was labeled "Grand Jury Report" and I decided to look into what was contained within that document.

I found the website for the Calaveras County grand jury, and began my investigation.

People should be aware of the power and reach of the grand jury and recognize it as a valuable community resource. Every county has one and they all seem to file reports that are available to the public and tend to be written in ordinary and understandable language. I wouldn't recommend the reports for light reading, but certainly they provide interesting fodder for the mind.

The grand jury reports for Calaveras, Tuolumne, and Amador counties all provide an opportunity to find out about issues that are facing each of these local counties and the communities within their borders.

What makes the grand jury special, to my way of thinking, is the fact that this group of dedicated citizens actually has the ability to investigate allegations of wrongdoing, inefficient or inappropriate use of public monies. It is also mandated to investigate the conditions in prisons and other detention facilities. In addition, it is an especially valuable entity because citizens can lodge complaints and requests for investigation. If the request is deemed within the purview of the jury, it can choose to devote the time and energy necessary to look into the matter.

The 2010-2011 report for Amador County had some rather startling statistics in it. The Mule Creek State Prison was the subject of a required review by members of the jury. I found out that it had an operating budget of $136,699,467, and out of that budget, $3,570,769 is for education and $52,485,060 is for health care. Now we know one part of the state's budget difficulties.

The prison was designed to hold 1,700 inmates, but in fact holds more than 3,700. According to the report, three gymnasiums have been converted into dormitories where inmates sleep in bunk units that are stacked three high. The spaces between these bunks are apparently less than commodious. So our local prison is subject to severe overcrowding, just like so many others in the state.

I was really pleased to learn that inmates are not just housed, but have opportunities for education, counseling, and academic assistance. They also have access to vocational training in areas such as landscape gardening, milling and cabinetry, electronics, welding, and assorted other useful skills. I was beginning to think, from some of the things that appear in the popular press, that rehabilitation was no longer a major part of California prisons.

In Calaveras County, reports from past years have covered a wide range of concerns. In 1999-2000, the jury investigated a number of citizen complaints regarding law enforcement, child protective services, schools, and local governmental departments. Many complaints ended up being declared unfounded or representing minor mistakes in procedures or actions.

The 2007-2008 jury looked into a number of issues including, the Community Development Agency, E. coli contamination in the Mokelumne River and the Vallecito Conservation Camp. Included in that year's report were a large number of responses to previous years' recommendations.

It seems to me that the grand jury system, with which I had little familiarity before writing this column, is an outstanding asset that provides excellent citizen oversight for the operations of many different aspects of our local communities. If you want to become enlightened about how things work in your community, the grand jury reports are a great place to start.

Perhaps more importantly, if you see something that you know is wrong, or makes no sense or seems detrimental to the health and safety of your city or town, fill in a citizen’s complaint form and your concerns may be addressed.

Kevin Wychopen is a semi-retired school counselor and weekly columnist for the Enterprise. Contact him at itsabigworld@live.com .

http://www.calaverasenterprise.com/opinion/columns/article_3141f0d6-eb89-11e0-82f4-001cc4c002e0.html

Patterson councilwoman takes aim at grand jury

2011-09-30T14:28:00.000-07:00

Leader says lawsuit a means for overhauling the system
By Patty Guerra
pguerra@modbee.com

Patterson City Councilwoman Annette Smith has sued Stanislaus County over a harsh civil grand jury report issued earlier this year. The highly unusual move is aimed, she said, at an overhaul of the local grand jury system.

"It was the most demeaning experience of my life," she said of her testimony in November before the grand jury. She said grand jurors made it clear they were targeting her. "They were insulting, they were biased, they were predetermined."

She filed the lawsuit Tuesday in federal court in Sacramento.
Patterson City Councilwoman Annette Smith has sued Stanislaus County over a harsh civil grand jury report issued earlier this year. The highly unusual move is aimed, she said, at an overhaul of the local grand jury system.

Patterson grand jury complaint

In the report issued in June, grand jurors recommended that Smith should lose her seat for failing to disclose a financial relationship with a developer and voting to give him $27,000 without justification, among other alleged offenses. The report also said then-Mayor Becky Campo moved out of town during her term and Campo, Smith and Councilman Dominic Farinha illegally ousted then-City Manager Cleve Morris.

The city responded last week with a blistering letter to Presiding Judge Ricardo Córdova.

In the response, written by interim City Attorney Thomas Hallinan, the city flatly rejected most of the grand jury's findings. The call for Smith to resign or face a potential recall election, the response says, "is the most outrageous and inappropriate recommendation our city attorney has seen in 17 years of reviewing grand jury reports. To engage in political advocacy is completely and utterly contrary to the charge of the grand jury."

Córdova said he could not comment on pending litigation. Stanislaus County Superior Court Executive Officer Mike Tozzi said the lawsuit is a first in his 27 years with the courts.

"It's very unusual," agreed Mi-chael Vitiello, a law professor at the University of the Pacific's McGeorge School of Law. Grand jurors themselves are offered partial immunity from litigation.

"There are lots of criticisms of civil grand juries," he said. "But these are a bunch of citizens trying to do good. … It should not be too easy to sue them."

Question of oversight

Smith's lawsuit, he said, "sounds like a heavy-handed approach."

Vitiello said the county can respond to the claim, and then a federal judge will decide if the case has merit.

"As a local matter, you have a real risk there," he said. "What you don't want to have happen is for the grand jury to be intimidated."

Smith said the grand jury needs more oversight to make sure members are abiding by the rules.

"Nobody was watching this group," she said. "Not the county counsel, that I could see. Certainly not the presiding judge."

But that's not Córdova's role, Tozzi said. He doesn't get involved until the grand jury issues its report. He reads it and can comment on it or suggest changes if he finds omissions.

"They might make an accusation about something, and there's nothing substantiated," Tozzi said. "The presiding judge might say, 'You didn't have any findings. You might want to soften your wording.'

"But he is not a part of the investigation. And that's important, since the grand jury is considered an independent body, and the county is among the entities it could investigate."

Stanislaus County Counsel John Doering said Wednesday he hadn't seen a copy of the lawsuit. Once the county is served, he said his office will determine how to proceed.

Although he doesn't recall any local lawsuits over a grand jury report, "It's not too terribly surprising. There was a lot of animosity about that report."

Denis France, foreman of the grand jury for the past two years, also said he hadn't seen the claim.

Smith is seeking "injunctive relief prohibiting any further abuses of authority," as well as publication of testimony transcripts and a revised report. She also is suing for unspecified damages.

"Legally, I'm entitled to respond," she said. "Most people write them a letter and say, 'Oh, you're wrong.' I'm unique. This is my response. This is broken, and I would like to see it fixed."

Bee staff writer Patty Guerra can be reached at pguerra@modbee.com or (209) 578-2343.

Read more: http://www.modbee.com/2011/09/28/1881950/councilwoman-takes-aim-at-grand.html#ixzz1ZTQSozIQ

Oakland plans to stop use of liens for blight

2011-09-30T12:14:00.000-07:00

Matthai Kuruvila, Chronicle Staff Writer

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Oakland -- Oakland plans to stop its controversial practice of placing prospective liens on properties that the city's building inspectors deem as blighted, a decision that comes three months after a civil grand jury criticized the city for its code enforcement practices.

City officials placed liens on properties for tens of thousands of dollars early in the code-enforcement process - before owners had a chance to respond or appeal, instead of as a last resort.

The Alameda County grand jury report in July criticized Oakland's practice of citing owners of homes and other property for blight, finding among other things that the city had treated many people unfairly and in one case illegally confiscated and threw out all the belongings in a home. On Monday night, the city formally responded to the grand jury report, conceding that the city had overstepped its authority.

The liens had frustrated many property owners because the liens encumbered properties and made financing nearly impossible, blocking the ability for many homeowners to fix problems for which they were being cited. Among other things, liens can make it difficult to get a loan on the property. The grand jury had urged the city to stop the practice in 1999.

City Administrator Deanna Santana conceded that prospective liens may have had the wrong effect.

"Prospective liens in high amounts may have had an unintended, intimidating and punitive effect on property owners," Santana wrote in a letter to the grand jury.

Santana also said the city will do a better job in notifying property owners when there is a code violation. Many property owners discovered the city had filed a blight complaint only after a lien was already placed on their homes, according to the grand jury report.

Santana said the city will "improve its outreach," partly through better technology that is expected to be working in 18 months.

Michelle Cassens, a West Oakland property owner who has led the fight against the city's building services department ever since her home was condemned in 2009, said the city's response is inadequate.

"The inability to contact a property owner is more a fact of ignorance than technology," Cassens said.

Another problem found by the grand jury was that the city used excessive fees and fines against property owners.

In one case, the city cited a house for "trash and debris, blight," resulting in fees and fines of $18,000 and the demolition of a recreation area that had been approved more than 20 years earlier. The blight turned out to be children's toys in a yard, according to the grand jury.

Santana said in her letter that the city will produce an evaluation of its fees and compare them with other cities by the end of the year.

E-mail Matthai Kuruvila at mkuruvila@sfchronicle.com.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/09/27/BA5O1LADG1.DTL#ixzz1ZSskgi8f

Woodbridge Sanitary District responds to grand jury report

2011-09-28T22:13:00.000-07:00

Posted: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 12:00 am | Updated: 6:01 am, Wed Sep 28, 2011.

By Ross Farrow/News-Sentinel Staff Writer

The Woodbridge Sanitary District has filed a response with San Joaquin County Superior Court regarding a laundry list of allegations the grand jury reported in June.

The district’s response, signed by board President Doug Colucci, says that the board and staff have addressed some of the allegations and continue to work on others.

Among the responses:

The district operated properly in issuing a $1,260 check to an employee for 36 hours the grand jury maintains he did not work. The district maintains the employee worked those hours installing two pumps at the headworks of the sewer plant off Benedict Drive.
The district banned use of district tools and equipment by employees and board members for personal use. The grand jury reported that General Manager Luis Ching frequently allowed employees to use district property for personal use off-site.
District officials and their auditor will review credit cards and warrants for the past year for any suspicious charges. The grand jury report alleges that there were multiple gasoline charges on the same day, and hundreds to several thousand dollars of tool purchases monthly.
The board adopted performance standards for the general manager at the grand jury’s recommendation. Jurors said there were no such standards.
District officials did not find any information to support allegations that improper revisions were made on water quality readings to the State Water Resources Control Board.

Other allegations include hiring employees’ relatives at a higher salary than other employees, lack of employee training, lack of board policies and procedures, and little board oversight of employees.

Colucci said that he, Ching and attorney Mia Brown compiled the grand jury response. Board member Glenda Wall said the response was prepared without the entire board being able to review the response, but Colucci said the board may comment on the response at the next sanitary district board meeting on Oct. 12.

Contact reporter Ross Farrow at rossf@lodinews.com.

http://www.lodinews.com/news/article_0804a44c-27f0-5baf-9897-7e20b828bf66.html

Marin civic groups cash in on unusual county program

2011-09-26T08:47:00.000-07:00

By Nels Johnson
Marin Independent Journal
Posted: 09/24/2011 04:00:00 PM PDT

Spending by Marin County supervisors who dipped into a "discretionary" account totaled $364,000 last fiscal year as board members doled out cash to a variety of charities, civic groups and pet projects.

The account, unique among counties in the Bay Area, survived budget cuts that chopped $20 million from services and required 15 layoffs last fiscal year, although spending was pared by the board, which in previous years had tapped the program for roughly $500,000.

In what one grand jury criticized as "political patronage," county supervisors set aside funding to hand out as they please for charitable and civic projects. The spending is unanimously approved each month, but rarely if ever discussed publicly, along with several dozen other matters in a routine "consent calendar" of business. Each supervisor is given discretion to spend the money as he or she pleases.

Budget records indicate that dozens of community groups cashed in last year, ranging from the Marin Community Food Bank and the Ross Valley School District to Senior Access and the Tomales Community Services District.

Board president Susan Adams, in a departure from her tradition as the board's most frugal member, was the big spender, logging a $116,000 expense. Hal Brown, absent for half the fiscal year recuperating from cancer treatments, spent the least at $43,600. Other totals: Steve Kinsey, $79,000; Judy Arnold, $71,000, and the late Charles McGlashan, $53,400.

County Administrator Matthew Hymel said there is nothing amiss with the program. "The funds really are for small, one-time community projects in the districts, and we have all the providers confirm they use the funds for said purposes," Hymel said, noting the funding has been reduced from $110,000 per supervisor in recent years.

In a deal worked out behind closed doors, supervisors decided to provide more discretionary money to those with aides who work slightly less than full time. Adams gets the equivalent of 1.8 aides and an $85,000 discretionary fund; Brown gets the equivalent of 1.9 aides and a $75,000 fund, and the other three supervisors each retain two full-time aides and $65,000 to dole out as they please. Funds not spent roll over in individual accounts year after year.

Most board members did not respond to a request for comment, but Adams said the funding promoted vital community endeavors.

"The funds help provide flexible matches for many important community projects," she said, calling it a "community services grant program, not a 'discretionary account,' which implies we personally write the checks without public process."

Adams added that "every dollar that is allocated comes before the Board of Supervisors for approval in an open public process before allocations are made." Anyone who reviews spending account details available from the county administrator can "see the public good that is provided," she said.

Adams' supervisorial foe last year, former Assemblywoman Kerry Mazzoni, called the account a political "slush fund," and the 2001 Marin County Civil Grand Jury said the program curried political favor. "Alliances are created and favors curried by reason of such payments," the jury concluded.

Individual grants last year included allocations of $10,000 each by Adams to Marin Builders Association Home and Garden Show, Community Institute for Psychotherapy, Friends of San Rafael/San Pedro Road Median, and Marinwood Community Services District ($9,660). Arnold gave $10,000 to the Novato Youth Center, and Kinsey gave $10,000 to the Tomales Village Community Services District.

Although many smaller grants were made, allocations of $2,000 or more included:

• Adams: Meals of Marin, $6,000; Marinwood Farmers Market, $3,609; Dixie School District, $3,000; Catholic Charities CYO, $5,000; Enriching Lives Through Music, $5,000; Sun Valley PTO, $3,000; Las Gallinas Lions Club, $2,175; Rotary Valley Inc., $2,500; Marin Community Food Bank, $4,611; Strategic Energy Innovations, $6,000; Venetia Valley School PTA, $5,000; Community Action Marin, $3,000; Environmental Education Council of Marin, $2,500; Boys and Girls Club of Marin and Sonoma, $5,000; Healthy Marin Partnership, $2,000; and Santa Venetia community survey, $7,000.

• Brown: Ross Valley School District, $7,500; Marin Link, $2,000; Sleepy Hollow Homes Association, $2,500; Meals of Marin, $2,000; Davidson Middle School, $2,000; Oak Manor Homes Association, $3,000; Marin Services for Women, $2,000; and Lomita Park Neighborhood Association, $3,000.

• McGlashan: Senior Access, $5,000; Performing Stars of Marin, $5,000; Marin Theater Co., $2,000; Center for Volunteer and Nonprofit Leadership, $2,500; Sausalito Film Festival, $2,750; College of Marin, $2,500; Tiburon Pensinula Foundation, $2,500; Bridge the Gap College Prep, $3,000, and Boys and Girls Clubs of Marin and Sonoma, $7,500.

• Kinsey: Slide Ranch, $2,500; Community Action Marin, $3,500; Corte Madera Community Foundation, $2,500; Bolinas Community Center, $2,500; Novato Youth Center, $5,000; Community Action Marin/Bolinas Children's Center, $2,500; Marin Organic, $4,000; Go Next Generation, $2,500; Marin County School Volunteers, $2,000; San Rafael Community Services, $3,900; San Geronimo Valley Community Center, $7,000; KWMR Radio, $3,200; Marin Education Fund, $2,000; Boys and Girls Clubs of Marin and Sonoma, $2,500; Dance Palace Community Center, $2,500; Marin Foster Parent Association ,$5,000; Home Base/Far West Fest, $2,500, and Shoreline Acres Preschool, $2,500.

• Arnold: Center for Volunteer and Nonprofit Leadership, $2,500; Community Action Marin, $2,000; College of Marin, $2,500; Novato Youth Football and Cheer, $3,000; Museum of the American Indian, $5,000; Friends of the Novato Libraries, $4,000; Zan Media, $2,000; San Marin and Novato high schools, $4,000; Novato Chamber of Commerce, $2,500, and Novato Foundation for Public Education, $5,000.

In addition to other small grants, Arnold and Brown reported $250 each to the Marin Independent Journal's Newspapers in Education program.

Contact Nels Johnson via email at ij.civiccenter@gmail.com

http://www.marinij.com/marinnews/ci_18963737

(Patterson) City Council set to take up Grand Jury response

2011-09-19T21:15:00.000-07:00

by PI Staff
Sep 16, 2011

The Patterson City Council next week will discuss and approve a legally required response to a county Civil Grand Jury report that accused current and former council members and staff of wrongdoing.

The discussion will take place at the council's regularly scheduled meeting Tuesday, Sept. 20.

The Grand Jury report, released in late June, outlines a yearlong probe into city matters and calls for the ouster of Councilwoman Annette Smith and returned money from former Mayor Becky Campo and developer John Ramos. The state requires a response from the city — but not from the individuals implicated — by Sept. 27.

The 60-page report calls for the resignation or recall of Smith, accusing her of failing to recuse herself from a vote regarding Ramos’ legal fees while she had a financial relationship with him and accuses her of mistreating members of the public.

It demands that Campo return money from her time as mayor because she lived in a home outside of city limits during part of her tenure.

The report also chastises the council as a whole for providing a $27,000 “gift of public funds” to local developer John Ramos for legal fees he incurred while he sought to block the Del Puerto Health Center from moving to the Keystone Pacific Business Park in western Patterson. The grand jury calls for Ramos to return that money to the city.

Furthermore, it calls for the city to file a complaint with the State Bar of California against former City Attorney George Logan for various alleged offenses, including a failure to be in the room at the time that the council opted to return the money to Ramos.

The report accuses Councilman Dominic Farinha of open-meeting violations, but does not recommend any punishment.

Tuesday's meeting will take place at 7 p.m. in the Patterson City Council Chambers, 1 Plaza.

Read more: Patterson Irrigator - City Council set to take up Grand Jury response

Council members slam (Santa Clara County) Civil Grand Jury reports

2011-09-19T21:14:00.000-07:00

by Daniel DeBolt
Mountain View Voice Staff

City Council members felt that three grand jury reports critical of the city's practices were not worthy of much discussion Tuesday night, and several members had some harsh comments.

"It's been clear that not a lot of research has taken place," said council member Margaret Abe-Koga of the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury reports, having been questioned for another investigation into the county's Local Agency Formation Commission, of which she is a board member. "These reports are frankly unfounded in terms of facts."

The council focused its brief discussion on one of the reports, titled "Rehiring of Pensioners: Good Business, Bad Policy, or Both?" which focused on the common practice of re-hiring city employees who are also allowed by state law to draw on their retirement pensions if only working half-time or less than six months out of a year.

Two other reports focused on consolidating fire departments and emergency dispatch services in the county.

The council approved responses to the reports written by city staff, voting 6-1. Abe-Koga was opposed, saying she wanted responses from the city that were more strongly worded in disagreement with the reports findings, particularly one that said the city's early retirement age of 55 was leading to higher rates of retirees returning to work, which the city said it was in "partial agreement" with. Council member Tom Means said that finding in the report made sense.

By law, the city must state whether it agrees or disagrees with points made in the report. "Frankly, to me, this seems like an exercise. I have no interest in spending any further time on this," said Council member Ronit Bryant before motioning to approve pre-written responses to the reports, adding that they didn't "define the truth in absolute terms."

In a staff report, it was revealed that the city has 27 retired employees on the payroll among its 600 or so employees, 11 from other cities.

City staff members say retirees are hired only when necessary, on a temporary basis to finish a project or investigation, do seasonal work or fill a position until a replacement can be found. The Grand Jury report admits that "there are situations that warrant re-hiring pensioners and often it make good business sense." The pensioners do not require benefits and work for an hourly rate, saving the city money. The problem is "one of public perception," said Mayor Jac Siegel.

Council member Laura Macias was the only one to support less use of retirees. "There are so many people looking for jobs," Macias said. "If there are jobs available, maybe we should give someone who hasn't had that job a shot."

The Civil Grand Jury report says potential problems with re-hiring retirees is that retirees can "block change" in the workplace, make it difficult for new hires to establish authority and create the appearance that a favor was made to the retiree. The report also states that hiring managers expect more retirees to be hired in the future because of their cost-effectiveness.

The Civil Grand Jury found that county-wide, there are 404 retirees employed by cities and the county, out of 26,000 total employees. In Mountain View, 4.6 percent of city employees are retirees, while the average county-wide is 1.55 percent.

In one case, in Santa Clara, a retiree was found to have held a position for six years. Helene Popenhager, 2010 foreperson of the Civil Grand Jury, said she didn't "recall anything strange" about Mountain View's practices.

http://mv-voice.com/news/show_story.php?id=4725

(Fresno) City Leaders Respond to Grand Jury Report

2011-09-19T21:12:00.000-07:00

by Dennis Hart

The City of Fresno officially responded Thursday to a grand jury report that was critical of the independent police auditor position.

City Councilman Larry Westerlund summed up the status of the police auditor position saying it's been suspended because their is "no funding for it right now."

The city says it has temporarily cut off funding for the auditor because of budget problems, but hopes to bring it back.

This after the Grand Jury's report months ago that said the city should either increase the auditor's power or stop funding the position.

The report also said the auditor needed to be able to subpoena and to conduct his own investigations.

The city's official response, approved by the council Thursday, disagrees with that saying it's more appropriate for the district attorney - not the auditor - to conduct investigations into police actions.

The DA, however, has stopped doing that because of money problems.

Meanwhile, the man who held the police auditor position, Eddie Aubrey, left the city to pursue other jobs.

http://www.kmjnow.com/pages/landing_news?City-Leaders-Respond-to-Grand-Jury-Repor=1&blockID=549746&feedID=806

(Ventura County) Grand Jury Questions How California County Tracks School Bus Crashes

2011-09-19T21:10:00.002-07:00

Written by Michelle Fisher
Friday, 16 September 2011 00:00

When the Ventura County, Calif., Grand Jury issued a report this week asking the county Office of Education to start keeping records on school bus accidents, local school districts scoffed at the suggestion.

Conejo Valley, Moorpark and Simi Valley school officials disagree because the California Highway Patrol (CHP) already maintains safety records and statistics on student transportation. They said that it would be wasteful to have another agency charged with overseeing bus safety.

However, the grand jury found that no agency is responsible for tracking school bus accidents in any of the 21 local districts and recommended the Office of Education assume this task.

Conejo Valley Superintendent Jeff Baarstad argued that another report would only burden the county with “a bunch of data.”

“We’ve been downsizing, especially the people who collect data. More bureaucracy isn’t going to make kids any safer,” he told the Thousand Oaks Acorn.

More than 16,000 students ride the school bus in Ventura County. During the 2009–2010 school year, there were 41 school bus–related accidents and four student bus riders were injured.

Baarstad confirmed that, in addition to the CHP’s records, school districts are required to send an annual report to the California Department of Education with the number of students who ride buses and how many miles those buses are driven in the given year.

Yet David Gale, the grand jury foreman, contended that critical safety information was missing from the CHP reports. Even though the CHP tracks school bus crashes, he said officers do not know what district the bus is from and whether the accident occurred during a regular trip to school, a field trip or a sporting event. Gale said this information is important because it could help identify problems and improve bus safety.

Ken Prosser, associate superintendent of fiscal and administrative services at the county Office of Education, said his office does not have the authority to require districts to submit accident data with details like buses’ destinations.

“Information is a good thing because it helps people make informed decisions,” Prosser said. “If there is duplicate effort, there is duplicate cost.”

In its report, the grand jury also issued a recommendation for each school district to post its school bus safety statistics on its website.

All 21 school districts must submit their responses by the end of this month. After that, the grand jury will review the responses, post them online and ask for public comment. The Ventura County Board of Education will ultimately decide whether or not to act on the grand jury’s recommendation.

http://www.stnonline.com/home/latest-news/3699-grand-jury-questions-how-california-county-tracks-school-bus-crashes

(Amador) County issues grand jury response

2011-09-19T21:10:00.001-07:00

By Matthew Hedger

The Amador County Board of Supervisors has issued a response to the findings and recommendations contained in the 2010-11 grand jury report.

Of the 18 findings and five recommendations listed by the grand jury, county leaders agreed with the jurors thirteen times, partially agreed thrice, disagreed with two of their findings, and implemented three of the recommendations.

In the area of Health and Human Services, the board agreed with jury members who said full-service partnerships and independent agencies are essential for the operation of both the health and social service departments, and that both close cooperation and communication between health, social services, the food stamp program and independent agencies are necessary for maximizing available moneys.

The board only partially agreed that a decrease in Mental Health Services Act funding should reduce core services in the health services area, with responsibilities shifting and combining among staff, resulting in a reduction of administrative costs.

A response penned by Health and Human Services head Kristen Bengyel noted that, as day-to-day work increases, necessary functions and follow-up must continue and will impact services if staffing is reduced.

“The solution lies in finding that midpoint between service provision and administration demands and maintaining it for the most efficient use of staff and timely provision of services,” wrote Bengyel.

Supervisors also agreed that some job descriptions in HHS have been blended to include a variety of duties, that both departments pursue every appropriate source of revenue and utilize every possible allocation to the last penny, and that, due to the uncertainty of both federal and state budgets, planning for future needs is made more difficult.

The board also agreed that Amador County’s “minimal allocation” status for MHSA funding based on population is less significant than for other, more-populated counties, and that the anticipated needs for an increased homeless population are unknown at this time.

A recommendation by the grand jury to consider a regional program for researching and applying for grant funding with other rural counties has been implemented, according to the official response, but recommendations to update the county’s website to reflect departmental changes and one to revise the terms of the lease of the HHS building were not.

Over at the Amador County Detention Facility, the board agreed with findings that the philosophy of Sheriff Martin Ryan’s administration is to treat inmates with dignity and to provide a safe and secure environment, although, because of overcrowding, the safety and security of staff, inmates and visitors are at risk.

Supervisors also agreed that antiquated jailhouse monitoring equipment has made it increasingly difficult to find repair personnel, that there is no longer a Community Work Crew because of staffing shortages, that booking fees reimbursed by the state do not adequately offset costs, that the sheriff’s office has continued to pursue funding for a new jail facility, and that morale of the staff is better due to the efforts to continue to try to move forward with that effort.

The board disagreed with a finding that deputies are forced to work in the jail to make up for understaffing, causing fewer deputies to be assigned to patrol duties, and that criteria used in a program to determine whether non-violent felons should be released from jail early is not being implemented successfully because the ACSO is unable to track persons once they are released from custody.

The response, written by Undersheriff Jim Wegner, said the ACSO has not and does not use deputies from patrol to supplement jail staffing needs, and that it is not the responsibility of the jail personnel to monitor inmates who have been released from custody.

Supervisors partially disagreed with a finding that classes for inmates are currently being held in the library and in hallways, with some activities no longer available because of staffing constraints.

“The Amador County jail began to annually exceed its maximum rated bed capacity in 2003,” wrote Wegner. “Due to the fact that space for today’s required programming was not factored into the original 1984 jail design, inmate programs are being provided in the halls and library as well as in the visiting area …”

The response goes on to note that regardless of space and/or staffing issues, the personnel at the Amador County Jail meet and exceed the state-mandated standards, none of which have been eliminated due to staffing constraints.

The ACSO will continue to work on the two recommendations issued in its direction by the grand jury: It will continue to pursue funding for a new jail facility and will petition the state to reimburse the total amount of booking fees due to be repaid by the state.

http://www.ledger-dispatch.com/2011/09/16/county-issues-grand-jury-response/

County rejects (Napa County) grand jury’s Lake Berryessa reports

2011-09-19T21:08:00.000-07:00

JAMES NOONAN | Posted: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 10:01 pm

Two districts providing water and sewer service to residents at Lake Berryessa are flatly rejecting the Napa County grand jury’s assertion that the district’s are being managed illegally.

The official response comes more than two months after the grand jury released a pair of reports —one for the Napa Berryessa Resort Improvement District (NBRID), the other for the Lake Berryessa Resort Improvement District (LBRID) — challenging the legality of the Board of Supervisors’ role in managing the districts.

The supervisors — who take on the title of district director when conducting business relevant to Berryessa — should have held an election to allow district residents to serve on the board or acted simply as county supervisors managing a dependent district, the grand jury states.

Failure to do so means that the district’s resolutions, meetings and actions can face legal challenge, the jury adds.

In their response Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors — acting as district directors — defended their role in managing the two lakeside districts. The board called the crux of the grand jury’s position a “misstatement of both law and fact.”

The grand jury’s position, the response states, is based on a section of California’s Public Resource Code that describes the makeup of a citizen-based board of directors.

In issuing their findings, the grand jury overlooked the preceding sections that say a citizen-based board of directors will be formed only at the discretion of a county’s board of supervisors, the response states.

In forming the two Berryessa districts back in the 1960s, Napa’s Board of Supervisors didn’t exercise that discretion, and have still yet to do so. As such, the current form of governance is legal, according to the districts’ responses.

While brushing off many of the grand jury’s findings and recommendations, members of the district boards noted that the grand jury’s reports had already taken a toll on operations at the lake.

Director Diane Dillon said she had heard of at least one district resident who is now refusing to pay their water bill, claiming that the Board of Directors lacks legal authority to charge for service.

“It’s really unfortunate the way this process works,” Dillon said, noting that the jury has circulated its report and the district has now issued a response, but that the two sides will likely never come together to resolve the issue in the eyes of residents.

Adding to her frustration is the fact that differences in the districts’ and grand jury’s respective positions boil down to a basic reading of the state’s Public Resource Code, which Dillon said clearly supports the districts’ position.

“It wasn’t clear for me, from the grand jury’s report, that they even looked at the law,” she said.

Some residents of the lake’s southern shore — which is served by the NBRID — also seemed unhappy with the depth of the grand jury’s report.

“I was very disappointed with the grand jury’s report,” said Tracy Renee, vice chair of the six-member “transition committee” that will help oversee NBRID’s move to an independent community service district. “I just didn’t feel it was researched correctly.”

Stu Williams, chair of the transition committee, said that he felt that the grand jury failed to talk to the citizen leadership at NBRID, and if they had, might have formed different opinions of the county’s involvement.

“To the best of my knowledge, no one from the grand jury contacted the residents’ committee or the transition committee,” Williams said.

Under state law, public agencies are required to respond to grand jury findings.

Read more: http://napavalleyregister.com/news/local/county-rejects-grand-jury-s-lake-berryessa-reports/article_bc805e5a-df57-11e0-8619-001cc4c03286.html#ixzz1YSjRT4jq

Changes in store for Oakland's blight inspection program

2011-09-19T21:05:00.000-07:00

By Cecily Burt
Oakland Tribune
Posted: 09/12/2011 03:38:59 PM PDT
Updated: 09/13/2011 05:46:54 AM PDT

Oakland's blight inspection program and contracting procedures will have stricter controls to correct several serious deficiencies reported by the 2010-11 Alameda County grand jury, according to the city's formal response.

Overzealous building code inspectors, excessive fees and fines, and a reliance on liens as a use of force will soon be a thing of the past, according to City Administrator Deanna Santana's formal response to the report. The report is expected to be presented Tuesday to the Community and Economic Development Committee, which is over the Building Services department.

The city plans to transform its code enforcement program from one that is complaint-driven to one that proactively targets real blight and preserves neighborhoods. To accomplish that goal, building inspectors now are refocusing their blight enforcement efforts on large substandard multifamily housing and foreclosed and blighted homes, said Margaretta Lin, deputy city administrator who helped craft the city's response.

Lenders will be presented with a list of blighted properties, along with fees and fines that multiply every day they are not paid, she said. Those fines and fees will have to be paid up front so they are not passed along as tax liens to buyers of foreclosed homes, Lin said.

Within 18 months, the city will implement a centralized case management system accessible to inspectors and property owners.

The department will also develop an
Advertisement
appeals process and a new operations manual to make sure inspectors apply code management in a consistent manner.

To help with that, the city has signed a contract with an outside consulting firm that will evaluate best practices in other cities, and recommend alternatives to using liens to put pressure on property owners to clean up blight.

"We are making changes to be more responsive to community needs and issues," Lin said. "We definitely plan to be more customer-friendly and transparent, and more accountable."

Dale Marshall, the grand jury forewoman, said she was pleased with the city's response regarding the new database and the change from a complaint-driven system to one that responds to priority blight and neglect. However, she said next year's panel would continue to "keep an eye on" the department.

"From my point of view, it's a failure of leadership," Marshall said.

"If a leader sets out clear policies and works well with staff, then each of these appalling behaviors could be corrected. ... These inspectors were left to their own devices."

As far as the appearance of favoritism in awarding contracts, another area cited by the grand jury, the city said in its formal response that it had already changed its internal controls to increase the number of inspectors required to review and approve low bid awards. Contractor payments also must be reviewed by two additional staff members, and change orders are limited to 31 percent of the original bid. Anything above that amount must be rebid.

Lin said that the new procedures have increased the number of new contractors in the bidding pool.

The grand jury reported that blight abatement contracts were awarded disproportionately to one contractor. That contractor, Arthur Young, was previously related by marriage to Building Services manager Antoinette Renwick. According to records provided by the city of Oakland, from January 2007 through June 30, 2011, Young's company was paid $2,211,472 for 752 jobs.

The two closest competitors, C & C Construction and De Silva Enterprises, won far fewer bids. With few exceptions, those jobs were not the most lucrative. C&C won 232 contracts worth $384,707, and De Silva won 250 contracts worth $372,412.

The grand jury also noted that Young had given Renwick a 10-year, interest-only personal loan that she failed to report for two years. Renwick resigned in October and is no longer with the city. Young said that he and Renwick's sister have been divorced for more than 20 years, and he was able to win bids because he works hard and knows what he's doing. He said he bid on jobs "just like everyone else" and was not aware of receiving any type of special treatment or favoritism.

He is also bitter that he was not allowed to tell his side of the story to the grand jury before its report was published.

"I've been in business 27, 28 years. I started out with a pickup truck and I built it up," he said. "Everybody is saying that people are giving me something, but that is not true. They are saying it's favoritism, but look at my track record."

Contact Cecily Burt at 510-208-6441. Follow her at Twitter.com/csburt.

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_18879263?nclick_check=1

Tulare Responds to Grand Jury Report

2011-09-19T21:04:00.000-07:00

Written by PublicCEO
September 13, 2011

The Tulare Board of Supervisors didn't have to agree with every recommendation and finding of the Grand Jury, and they aren't going to. But most are being taken under advisement, and the County will be acting to improve services and restructure some financial practices, and review a variety of policies.

At the top of the list, the Supervisors will likely reexamine how office space is allocated and negotiated, as well as how much space is actually necessary. Also, the county's governments must decide how to continue its short-rail transit programs. If the programs are going to continue, then funding must be diversified.

The Grand Jury Report also suggested reviewing school crossings and consolidating certain departments.

From the Visalia Times Delta:

Tulare County supervisors will recommend consolidating office space used by county agencies and seek alternative funding if they want to try to preserve short-term rail lines and improved traffic markers around a rural school. These are some of the responses they have to recommendations made by the Tulare County Grand Jury in a series of reports issued earlier this year.

http://www.publicceo.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3310:tulare-responds-to-grand-jury-report&catid=151:local-governments-publicceo-exclusive&Itemid=20

Guest View: Rebuttal to letter regarding (Tehama County) Grand Jury

2011-09-19T21:02:00.000-07:00

Richard Sol
Updated: 09/13/2011 07:51:04 AM PDT

I am writing a rebuttal to the Aug. 31 letter written in the Daily News from Pat Massie Johnston. I support people and their rights to their opinions, but if they associate my name with those opinions, please get the facts right. I will not address the specific contents of the letter, but will address the incorrect or misquoted statements.

Mr. Wilkerson, the deceased Grand Jury Foreperson and I spent many hours reviewing all of the complaints brought before the Grand Jury. He never shared any concerns over a fraudulent election or cover-up. After his death I recused myself, since I am the next door neighbor of Mr. Nielsen, (as is proper protocol) of any involvement with the investigation, but the final report reflected the findings and the facts, and the Grand Jury should be commended for its effort.

While Judge Garaventa did appoint me as foreperson, I was the Pro-Tem, which was the logical and proper move. Being the next door neighbor of Jim Nielsen has nothing to do with the appointment. As for the "low rent mobile" statement, perhaps Ms. Johnston should tour the area and see his house, mine and the surrounding homes before summarizing the physicality of the area.

The letters which were passed to me after Mr. Wilkerson's death were copies of correspondence that he was in the process of making at the time of his death. He kept no secret files, nor did he keep any information from the Grand Jury, as was implied. I coordinated with the secretary St. Elizabeth Hospital Sports Medicine Program
of the Grand Jury to make sure that we responded to those complaints. Furthermore, I published all of the citizens' complaints in the Final Report. The only ones not published would be those determined not to meet the criteria for further action on the part of the Grand Jury.

County Counsel provided legal support to the Grand Jury. They reviewed those matters and cases brought before them by the various Grand Jury Committees. They would advise us on cases that were turned over to the District Attorney's Office for criminal action or on those cases that lacked merit or were matters out of the scope of the Grand Jury.

In the case regarding Mr. Nielsen, County Council provided the specific California law which was used in the summary of the investigation which sited "a residence is a domicile and a domicile is a residence." After its thorough review, the Grand Jury report concluded there was "no merit" to the claims made regarding Mr. Nielsen.

Lastly, as a good citizen, I took my job seriously as Grand Jury Foreman. I felt it was my civic duty to do the best job possible. During the turnover from the outgoing 2010-1011 Grand Jury to the incoming 2011-2012 a statement was made to the incoming members that, in fact, a County Grand Jury has no jurisdiction over state employees and cannot investigate a state employee. The statement was not made by Judge Garaventa and was quoted out of context.

---------

Richard Sol lives in Gerber.

http://www.redbluffdailynews.com/opinion/ci_18884388

Tulare County responds to Grand Jury report

2011-09-19T21:00:00.000-07:00

Tulare County supervisors will recommend consolidating office space used by county agencies and seek alternative funding if they want to try to preserve short-term rail lines and improved traffic markers around a rural school. These are some of the responses they have to recommendations made by the Tulare County Grand Jury in a series of reports issued earlier this year.

On Tuesday, the board is expected to approve formal responses to some of the Grand Jury's reports on the following topics:

ª The Tulare County Association of Government's proposal to use $3 million in money raised through the Measure R sales tax to preserve the East Side Rail Line.

ª A review of the county Resource Management Agency's practices.

ª The safety of roadways and intersections near rural schools in the county.

ª Possible financial waste by the county leasing office and storage space.

ª A look at Tulare County jails and detention facilities.

The Grand Jury reviews the activities of county and city agencies, along with special districts, based on suggestions or requests for investigations from the public. Its members — all volunteers — also can initiate the reviews.

Those agencies reviewed can formally respond to the findings and recommendations of the Grand Jury. Here are some of the county's responses:

ª The Grand Jury suggested that some high-yield crops raised by county jail inmates be traded for other high-yield crops raised by jail farming programs in other counties. County officials said that they haven't found similar programs with which to trade. Still, the supervisors say they'll review the matter.

ª Tulare County should negotiate more favorable leases on office space and consolidate agencies to use less office space and reduce costs.

The county already negotiates lease prices based on the median price for comparable properties, the supervisors respond.

In addition, they state that they have a long-term goal to consolidate and they've set guidelines that agencies receiving county general fund money should be in county-owned buildings.

If a decision is made to preserve short-rail lines, the Tulare County Association of Governments and its members agencies should obtain funding other than Measure R dollars to purchase and repair those lines, the Grand Jury suggested.

Representatives from the county and TCAG are working with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, rail companies, shippers, and federal and state government agencies to seek such funding, the supervisors respond.

ª The supervisors will not follow the Grand Jury's recommendation to separate the county's code compliance division from its zoning and building inspection division.

"The RMA [Resource Management Agency] maintains and continues to recommend that a separate code compliance division is not practical due to current economic conditions," according to the board's response.

Board members also will not follow the Grand Jury's suggestion to form an independent task force with the county chief administrative officer to monitor RMA's performance. A task force isn't warranted, they say, because RMA's director provides regular updates on his department's performance.

ª School crossings where "SLOW SCHOOL CROSSING" painted on the pavement and crosswalk lines are fading and hard to see by drivers will be repainted within the next six months.

RMA also will review unmarked crossings to see if pavement markers should be added and check around rural schools to determine if school pedestrian signs are missing.

http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/article/20110912/NEWS01/109120304

Our view: Grand Jury should investigate (Monterey County) Youth Center

2011-09-19T20:57:00.000-07:00

The escape of eight young inmates this week — all known gang members — raises a host of questions about how Monterey County incarcerates dangerous youth.

Any argument about the real threat they pose would seem weak in light of the 10 bodies loaded into body bags on Salinas streets from gang shootings this year alone.

By the Probation Department's own acknowledgement, many in the Monterey County Youth Center are housed for violent crimes. Yet the gang members escaped by throwing a chair through a window — hardly a secure-sounding facility.

The Probation Department plans an internal investigation to answer the question, "How could this have happened?"

Not to sound flip, it happened by youth throwing a chair through a window. The question that should be asked is: "What do we need to do to ensure the safety of the public?"

An internal investigation is indeed in order, but we suggest the magnitude — both in the number of escapees and their violent gang affiliations — requires nothing short of a county Grand Jury investigation.

As of this printing, police and sheriff deputies have not apprehended the youth. Potentially there are eight more young triggermen at large ready to spray Salinas streets with bullets for little more than bragging rights.

Perhaps it's time to re-examine the threat level these youth represent.

The city of Salinas has sought the advice of experts at the Naval Postgraduate School on anti-insurgency techniques it uses to battle terrorists. That speaks volumes.

Should an investigation — internally, by the Grand Jury, or any other outside agency — disclose that security levels at the Youth Center are far too lax for the young but dangerous inmates held there, we urge the county to act swiftly to protect the community while these offenders are winding their way through the juvenile criminal justice system.

http://www.thecalifornian.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2011109090324

Officials defend (San Francisco) Central Subway

2011-09-19T20:56:00.000-07:00

With the Central Subway under attack just as it nears the federal funding finish line, city officials and business leaders launched a counteroffensive Wednesday, praising the project and attacking its critics.

In a press conference at the project's headquarters on Howard Street, Ed Reiskin, executive director of the Municipal Transportation Agency, and project manager John Funghi were joined by Jim Lazarus, senior vice president of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, and David Nadelman, president of the Union Square Business Improvement District.

Reiskin and Funghi defended the Central Subway against its critics, including the San Francisco Civil Grand Jury. Most of the criticism, which has been rekindled by the mayor's race, is the same old stuff being rehashed.

"The questions addressed in the (Grand Jury) report have been asked repeatedly," Funghi said. "It's good to ask, but they've been answered. It's time to move on."

Lazarus lambasted the project's opponents for "politicizing" the project "just because of a mayor's race."

The $1.6 billion project is counting on winning a $942 million full-funding grant agreement from the Federal Transit Administration. MTA officials, who believe they're on track to get the agreement, will submit their final application next week and could hear late this year or early next year if they get the funding guarantee.

Reiskin noted that the project was just awarded $20 million in federal New Starts money, a pot of competitive funding that's hard to snag. He said the project has survived several levels of federal review and that the Central Subway "came through the process as one of the nation's top projects."

Critics have said the project has poor connections to BART and other Muni Metro lines, has already swelled in cost and is so short in length that it isn't worth the price.

But city officials say it will serve the densest and most transit-dependent part of the city, replacing the slow-moving 30-Stockton bus line with a light-rail subway that will connect Chinatown with downtown, South of Market and (incorporating the T-Third line) run out Third Street to Visitacion Valley.

- Michael Cabanatuan

Polling data: Appointed Mayor Ed Lee is maintaining a commanding lead in his bid to be elected to a full term, securing 31 percent of first-choice votes with none of the other serious contenders earning more than 8 percent in the first round, according to a recent poll conducted for his campaign.

The poll by Benenson Strategy Group shows Lee winning after an unspecified number of rounds under the city's ranked-choice voting system, securing 51 percent of the vote while his closest competitors are still below 15 percent.

In that scenario, the three closest runners-up were state Sen. Leland Yee finishing at 14 percent, City Attorney Dennis Herrera at 13 percent and Public Defender Jeff Adachi with 12 percent.

The poll covered 700 likely voters and was conducted Aug. 15-17 - after Lee was blistered for a week by some rivals for abandoning his pledge not to run and for his ties to former Mayor Willie Brown and Chinatown powerbroker Rose Pak.

"They all combined their fire on Mayor Lee at the same time, but they're all just shooting blanks," said Tony Winnicker, Lee's campaign spokesman.

The poll by Joel Benenson, who was President Obama's lead pollster during the 2008 presidential campaign, found that 46 percent of respondents think San Francisco is going in the right direction, with 37 percent saying the city is on the wrong track.

The Benenson poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.7 percentage points.

Other polling around the same time has shown Lee with a similar lead.

- John Coté

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/09/07/BA4M1L1KCJ.DTL#ixzz1YSgLX8R2

El Dorado Hills Fire Department disputes grand jury's budget criticism

2011-09-19T20:55:00.001-07:00

By Carlos Alcalá
calcala@sacbee.com
Published: Thursday, Sep. 8, 2011 - 12:00 am | Page 3B

The El Dorado Hills Fire District issued its response Wednesday to June's El Dorado grand jury report, challenging the idea that its employees were too highly paid for a low volume of fire calls.

The district's response – by administrators, board and the firefighters' association – disagrees with some of the grand jury's findings, but mostly points out ways in which the district has already done what the investigative body suggested.

"Almost 90 percent of those changes had occurred in the department before their report was released," said Dave Roberts, El Dorado Hills fire chief.

The district worked to bring salaries and benefits into line, and has eliminated unnecessary job categories mentioned by the grand jury, according to the response.

For example, the district's most recent contract "has modified the education incentive pay and changed it from a percentage of salary to a flat stipend," the response says.

The response also charges that data used by the grand jury for comparisons with other fire departments were inaccurate, relying on surveys instead of documents like bargaining agreements.

"We actually went out and got the hard facts," Roberts said.

The revisions show the district in a better light.

Roberts did not dispute the idea that the district needed a leaner budget.

"We knew we had to save some money," he said.

He did take issue with two assertions in the June report, including a finding that the district hadn't met its budget.

The grand jury report's first sentence reads: "A County official advised the Grand Jury that the El Dorado Halls Fire Department (EDHFD) was overspending its budget despite receiving a disproportionate amount of property tax revenue."

"The District has not overspent its budget in any year," countered the district in its response.

At times, it budgeted expenditures above the level of revenue, but that was planned spending, Roberts said.

"That's what we've been saving for," Roberts said.

The fire district is in a unique situation as a special district, which gives it revenue rates not enjoyed by other agencies in El Dorado County, something the grand jury suggested might be remedied.

"The Proposition 13 tax revenue allocation to EDHFD needs to be re-evaluated," the grand jury recommended.

The district disagrees.

"Our tax rate is something we're going to protect as long as we possibly can," Roberts said.

Steve Baker, last year's grand jury foreman, could not be reached Wednesday.

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/09/08/3892649/el-dorado-hills-fire-department.html#ixzz1YSg4POXE

City staff rejects (Yolo County) grand jury's findings on response billing

2011-09-07T20:53:00.001-07:00

Dino Gay
• Mon, Sep 05, 2011

In typical fashion for this outgoing city manager and his staff, they won't admit to any faults in doing the people's business – in this case they reject the following findings of the Yolo County Grand Jury investigation into the City of Woodland's emergency response billing program:

• City Ordinance No. 1506 deprives“responsible” parties of their due process rights, as the billing process does not provide proper notice or a formal method of contesting findings of responsibility.
• “Responsible” parties are treated inequitably, depending upon their insurance coverage.
• Billings are linked to insurance policy language.
• City Ordinance No. 1506 is a form of double taxation for Woodland property taxpayers.
• Record-keeping by both FRUSA and WFD is inadequate and is not auditable.
• The time it takes WFD personnel to gather and submit pertinent data does not make economic sense given the important public safety demands on their time.

City staff admits in the report that the contract for the program has not met its financial goals. The report also states, "While staff continues to support response billing, members of the City Council have expressed some concerns regarding whether or not the program should continue. In recognition of these concerns, the City Attorney has drafted an ordinance for introduction on September 6 that would repeal Sections 9-12 and 9-13 of the Municipal Code related to user fees for emergency services." Funny how these city council concerns can be polled with no regard to the Brown Act... but that maneuver is also typical of this staff.

http://woodlandrecord.com/city-staff-rejects-grand-jurys-findings-on-response-billing-p2231-1.htm

San Joaquin County can’t afford new morgue

2011-09-07T20:51:00.000-07:00

Posted: Tuesday, September 6, 2011 12:00 am | Updated: 7:07 am, Tue Sep 6, 2011.

By Ross Farrow/News-Sentinel Staff Writer | 0 comments

San Joaquin County Sheriff Steve Moore said he agrees with the grand jury that a new morgue is needed, but there isn’t enough money in the county budget to build one.

The San Joaquin County Grand Jury determined in a report released in June that the morgue is small and outdated for a county with more than 640,000 residents. Built in the 1930s and converted into a morgue in the mid-1980s, the building can fit 23 bodies and six more in temporary storage, according to the grand jury.
*

“The (sheriff’s office) agrees with the grand jury’s recommendation to build a new facility,” Moore said in his official response to the jury. “A request for a new morgue was submitted via this year’s budget process for an estimated $35 million for construction. Unfortunately, the current budget situation precludes that from happening.”

Moore also talked with Stanislaus County about operating a joint morgue in Ripon, which is just north of the Stanislaus County line, but the project fell through because of the economy.

The Board of Supervisors officially approved Moore’s response last week.

Moore reported that the sheriff’s office has replaced an awning over the front door to the morgue because it had dry rot. The staff also relocated jars with a substance called formalin, which the grand jury described as carcinogenic and a hazard for people who work at or visit the morgue.

The formalin jars were moved from the autopsy suite to the columbarium, Moore wrote. Due to Occupational Health standards, the morgue staff now wears badges detecting formalin twice a year, with the results sent to the hospital to determine whether exposure levels are acceptable.

The last analysis, received by the sheriff’s office on July 25, showed that the formalin exposure was within safe levels, Moore reported.

Contact reporter Ross Farrow at rossf@lodinews.com.

http://www.lodinews.com/news/article_9f7c73d8-8ba7-5c98-ba46-7166d7646b5c.html

Diaz: San Francisco plans a subway to ... somewhere

2011-09-07T20:49:00.000-07:00

For years, San Francisco's plans to build a 1.7-mile subway from South of Market to Chinatown have glided forward with an air of inevitability, even as the route changed, cost projections soared, ridership estimates shrank and the dream of eventually extending the line to Fisherman's Wharf evaporated into pure fantasy.

The question that just about anyone in power in San Francisco prefers to avoid - is this still a good idea? - is about to become a prominent issue in the mayor's race.

Until now, only candidate Tony Hall, a former supervisor who has remained on the margins as the field of 11's Last Angry Man, has spoken out forcefully against the Central Subway.

The dynamics of the issue - and perhaps the mayor's race - change dramatically with City Attorney Dennis Herrera's conclusion that a recent civil grand jury report is right: The city needs to hit the pause button on a project that could rival Boston's "Big Dig" as an example of government waste.

Herrera's criticisms are significant in that he, as most of the city's establishment, has supported the project as it moved through the planning and design process for the past eight years.

"The plan that is on the boards now ... has ceased to be a prudent investment," mayoral candidate Herrera said in an interview Thursday. He planned to punctuate his opposition in a news release this week.

What changed his mind? Herrera cited the grand jury's report of the escalating cost - from $650 million in 2003 to $1.6 billion today - and the prospect that the city would be on the hook for any further cost overruns. He said the promise of a subway that would blend seamlessly with Muni and BART has been altered, partly due to engineering complications, into what the grand jury noted was an alignment that would serve Chinatown but leave passengers three football fields away from connections to transit on Market Street. He also noted that operation and maintenance of the 1.7-mile subway is projected to cost cash-strapped Muni $15 million a year.

Another top-tier candidate for mayor, Public Defender Jeff Adachi, last week expressed skepticism about the subway plan in the wake of the grand jury report.

"It seems like knowing what we know now ... this would be a bad deal for the city," Adachi said, suggesting the grand jury has raised "enough flags" to merit city hearings before asking for a federal funding commitment.

Actually, if the Central Subway becomes a major issue in the mayor's race - as Herrera's and Adachi's comments suggest it will - this train still could be stopped in its tracks. While San Francisco has spent about $180 million in planning and design - and is currently relocating utility lines at Union Square in anticipation of the tunnels - this project is not happening without the federal government's agreement to cover its share of nearly $1 billion. The city is scheduled to submit its application for a full-funding agreement from the Federal Transportation Administration this month, which would be followed by 60 days of congressional review.

The election of a mayor who campaigned against the Central Subway would almost certainly give Congress, especially the Republican-controlled House, all the reason it needed to halt federal support.

Ed Reiskin, the city's new transportation chief, suggested it would be a huge mistake to retreat from "an investment for the generations" when San Francisco was on the brink of securing federal funds for the bulk of construction costs. He expressed confidence that the $1.6 billion price tag was conservative, with little or no chance that the city would be socked with overrun costs.

"We have to build the capacity for the future," Reiskin said. "If downtown San Francisco becomes pure gridlock, then San Francisco doesn't work."

While Herrera maintained that his concerns were substantive - about leadership and sound public policy - the politics of the issue also offer delicious opportunity to draw votes from the left and right. A vigorous debate about the Central Subway inevitably would lead to a focus on interim Mayor Ed Lee's relationship with ex-Mayor Willie Brown and Chinatown powerbroker Rose Pak, two chief proponents of the project, and their allies who have enjoyed a slice of the contracts to date. It also would put Lee in the position of defending a potential boondoggle, undercutting his attempt to portray himself as a fiscal hawk. An added bonus to Herrera: It casts one clear policy distinction from state Sen. Leland Yee, a rival for the progressive voter bloc.

With Herrera and Adachi stepping forward in opposition, the Central Subway could become a defining issue in a campaign of 11 serious contenders that, to date, has mostly rested on platitudes and "me toos."

This is a civic debate that is overdue and necessary.
Central Subway: Visionary investment or big boondoggle?

Estimated

construction cost:

-- 2003: $650 million

-- Today: $1.6 billion

Who pays?

-- Federal government: $983 million

-- State government: $471 million

-- City: $123 million*

Length

-- 1.7 miles

Projected completion

-- 2019

*City is responsible for any cost overruns.

John Diaz is The Chronicle's editorial page editor. E-mail: jdiaz@sfchronicle.com. Follow him on Twitter: @johndiazchron.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/09/02/INLN1KU8H8.DTL#ixzz1XKUVqCrb

City responds to (Mendocino County) grand jury report on redevelopment agency agencies

2011-09-07T17:16:00.000-07:00

Ukiah Daily Journal Staff
Updated: 09/07/2011 12:00:03 AM PDT

City manager prepared to defend every person's salary'

The Daily Journal

The City of Ukiah prepared a response to a Mendocino County Grand Jury's report on local redevelopment agencies and will present it during the Ukiah City Council meeting tonight.

The cities of Ukiah, Willits and Fort Bragg and the county have redevelopment agencies, and in a finding not identified as specific to the Ukiah Redevelopment Agency, the grand jury notes that "employee salaries are paid with redevelopment agency funds disproportionate to the time spent on redevelopment agency business. More than one redevelopment agency employees' salary and benefits are paid 100 percent with redevelopment agency funds, even though they do not perform 100 percent redevelopment agency business."

The Ukiah Redevelopment Agency pays 100 percent of the salary of the city's project and grant administrator, Guy Mills, as well as 50 percent of City Manager Jane Chambers' and 80 percent of Assistant City Manager Sage Sangiacomo's.

"We are prepared to defend every person's salary," said Chambers when asked about the report, explaining that Mills' work on the Ukiah Skate Park and Anton Stadium renovation (neither project uses redevelopment funding) applies as redevelopment-related because "I consider those developments for the community."

In its official response, the city notes that it has "implemented a project/program code system that is utilized to track staff hours on redevelopment activities."

The grand jury also recommended that the Ukiah Redevelopment Agency and other local agencies "establish citizen advisory committees to allow for greater public input and oversight."

The grand jury describes those committees as groups that: collaborate "with the agencies throughout every step of the redevelopment process, from identifying a project area to construction and project completion," and "ensure that projects reflect community needs and priorities, and keep other community members informed about the progress of the project."

In its response, the city states that the Ukiah Redevelopment Agency "has and will continue to utilize both formally appointed committees and other groups of community members for public input, and in some cases oversight, to ensure that the projects/programs of the agency reflect the community needs and priorities."

The grand jury also recommended that the redevelopment agencies "partner with their local Code Enforcement Agency to compel owners of blighted properties to comply with Health and Safety Codes," and that "cities and counties develop alternative revenue streams to replace anticipated redevelopment agency revenue losses."

The city responds that the Ukiah Redevelopment Agency "has and will continue to work closely with code enforcement staff in the (city's) Planning and Community Development Department, Fire Department and Police Department," and that it will "continue to evaluate expenditure reduction measures and alternate revenue streams."

The grand jury reported that this year, the Ukiah Redevelopment Agency will pay the state $2.1 million of tax increment. The agency's anticipated revenue for 2010/11 was $808,288, with $640,401 for salaries and $66,247 for operations and maintenance.

Some past and present Ukiah Redevelopment Agency projects include: the Alex Rorabaugh Gymnasium and Activity Center; Redwood Business Park infrastructure; Orchard Avenue Bridge; 322 units of affordable housing (between 1990 and 2007) and the Downtown Beautification Project.

The city will present the report during tonight's Ukiah Redevelopment Agency meeting, which will follow the City Council meeting beginning at 6 p.m. in the council chambers at 300 Seminary Avenue.

http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/ci_18841048

Editorial: Support Mendocino County Grand Jury Recommendation

2011-09-06T20:41:00.000-07:00

Ukiah Daily Journal Staff
Updated: 09/05/2011 07:15:26 PM PDT

We appreciate Supervisor John McCowen's willingness to continue on his own to pursue an ordinance regulating medical marijuana dispensaries in the county now that none of the other supervisors either can or will help out. (Dan Hamburg was right to step aside since his daughter is looking to open a dispensary).

McCowen has an ordinance ready and waiting for comment. It was drawn up more than a year ago but shelved. The 2010-11 Mendocino County Grand Jury cited it in its own call for an ordinance and we think it is a fine starting place.

In fact we like that proposed ordinance as it is written with some recommended changes:

The age for marijuana dispensary employees ought to be raised from 18 to 21.

No one convicted of any felony - not just a "violent felony" as written in the ordinance - ought to be able to own or operate a marijuana dispensary.

We would add that anyone ever convicted of illegal marijuana cultivation should be barred from owning or operating a dispensary.

We would not allow the use of marijuana on the premises of any dispensary.

We would add a provision to the section in which dispensary owners must outline their energy sources for indoor marijuana cultivation to require that they also identify a legal and appropriate source of water for that cultivation.

We don't find in the ordinance as written provision for the sale of edible marijuana products. We believe that those products and their sale should be subject to whatever food safety and health rules are required for any business that cooks, creates or packages food products.

Finally, we believe marijuana dispensaries should be outlawed on any main business street of any town in the county where there is but one primary commercial avenue. Commercial zones in some small towns are very limited and we believe the main drag in the small towns in our county are not a good fit for dispensaries, where other small businesses are depending on tourism and where entire populations of people, including children, shop and hang out.

Like many other aspects of marijuana regulation, this county can lead the way into the future by creating an ordinance now that should satisfy both the medical marijuana sellers and the community at large. We think with some simple changes, the ordinance already on the table can be quickly enacted.

http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/ci_18831668

McCowen sets Sept. 9 for (Mendocino County) medical marijuana dispensary meeting

2011-09-03T21:23:00.000-07:00

Ukiah Daily Journal Staff
Updated: 09/01/2011 11:59:44 PM PDT

Mendocino County 2nd District Supervisor John McCowen on Thursday announced he will hold a meeting in September to begin crafting an ordinance to regulate medical marijuana dispensaries in the county.

McCowen and 5th District Supervisor Dan Hamburg were appointed in July to draft the regulations. Hamburg stepped down last month after announcing that his daughter is looking to open a dispensary, citing a desire to avoid a conflict of interest. The committee was disbanded when none of the three remaining county supervisors stepped up to take Hamburg's place.

"The board then gave approval for me to work independently with the community to develop draft dispensary regulations for the full board to consider," McCowen wrote in a Thursday statement.

He continued, "My intention is to work with the community to draft a model ordinance that balances the needs of patients and their caregivers to have safe access to medical marijuana, and the needs of residents and the community to be protected from public health, safety and nuisance impacts. A model ordinance can also help bridge the gap between rural and urban counties and discourage black market diversion and harmful environmental impacts."

The meeting is scheduled from 2 to 4 p.m. Sept. 9 in Conference Room C at the Mendocino County Administration Center, 501 Low Gap Road in Ukiah. McCowen stated it will be the first of several such meetings to be held at locations throughout the county.

The meeting's purpose is "to gather input on the range of issues that the public would like to see in a dispensary ordinance," according to McCowen.

The Mendocino County civil grand jury noted in its report this year that all an entrepreneur needs to open a medical marijuana dispensary is a business license.
Ten dispensaries exist in Mendocino County, and law enforcement officials stated previously that few, if any, complaints have been lodged.

McCowen writes, "The lack of problems has caused some to question the need for regulation. But others have expressed concern about the locations and conditions under which dispensaries may operate. Still others, including some within the medical marijuana community, see regulation as a way to provide greater legitimacy and stability."

Anyone who wishes to speak at the September meeting will be asked to fill out a speaker request form and to limit "initial comments" to three minutes per speaker to allow all other speakers a chance to speak. A roundtable discussion may follow if time allows after initial comments, according to McCowen's statement.

Written comments of any length may also be submitted. Formal minutes will not be kept, but a volunteer will take notes to be distributed to anyone who requests a copy.

http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/news/ci_18811311

Long Beach Taxpayers Association to File Complaint with Civil Grand Jury Against City for "Corruptive" Fiscal Practices

2011-08-29T22:14:00.000-07:00

7:00am | The Long

Beach Post has learned that the Long Beach Taxpayers Association will file a complaint this week with the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury seeking "judgment on years of corruptive practices that have resulted in the lack of fiscal discipline in managing the City’s finances," according to the Association's leaders Kathy Ryan and Tom Stout.

In a statement released to the Long Beach Post, Ryan and Stout claim, "The recent labor negotiation between the Police Officers Association and the City of Long Beach has added insult to injury. The lack of will by management to negotiate meaningful pension reform for the people became the last straw..."

The Civil Grand Jury, according to their web site, "acts in a 'watch-dog' capacity, by examining carefully and completely, the operations of various government agencies within Los Angeles County...Any private citizen, county official, or county employee may present a complaint in writing to the Civil Grand Jury. The Civil Grand Jury limits its investigations to possible felonies and to charges of malfeasance (wrong doing) or misfeasance (doing a lawful act in an unlawful manner) by public officials. Any request for an investigation must include detailed evidence supporting the complaint. If the grand jurors believe that the evidence submitted is sufficient, a detailed investigation will be held."

According to Ryan, the Association will present a complaint claiming that Long Beach city leaders:

- "Allowed the unfunded pension liability to get to an unmanageable $1.2 billion dollars without notifying the citizens of Long Beach before February of 2011."

- "Allowed the in-lieu pick up by the city/citizens to continue until the present, written into each subsequent contract, when it was meant as a concession in one contract instead of raises. This has cost the city/citizens millions over the years in services and infrastructure."

- "Approved new retirement ages in 2002, when the City Charter states the ages to retire to be 65 for miscellaneous employees and 55 for police and fire. Even though the options given by CalPERS, when the pensions were enhanced by the City Council in 2002 did not include retirement ages of 65 and 55, but the City Council had an alternative; they could have done nothing and left the status quo and not enhanced the pensions, leaving the retirement ages as is."

More to come...

http://www.lbpost.com/news/staffreports/12260

Claim denied: Wholesaler says (Siskiyou) Grand Jury report was incorrect

2011-08-29T22:12:00.000-07:00

By Jamie Gentner
Siskiyou Daily News
Posted Aug 29, 2011 @ 08:58 AM

Siskiyou County —

Though it has been a year since the incident began unfolding, the details surrounding a repossession of vehicles from the Yreka Auto Center (YAC) keep coming.
In a Thursday, Aug. 25 story, the Daily News outlined the 2010-2011 Siskiyou County Civil Grand Jury’s findings regarding the Aug. 26 incident as published in their report that was released Tuesday.
The Grand Jury investigated the situation after receiving a complaint contending that the Yreka Police Department and Siskiyou County District Attorney’s Office failed to adequately help YAC and several residents after cars were taken from the lot at 1425 S. Main St. in Yreka.
In the report, and detailed in the Daily News article, the Grand Jury says that a wholesaler who had six vehicles on the YAC lot to be sold became involved in a civil lawsuit with Express Auto Funding, the company that had loaned YAC money to buy cars to sell on its lot and ultimately ordered the repossession for lack of payment.
The report says the Grand Jury was advised in January 2011 that Express Auto won the lawsuit and was granted a writ of possession that resulted in Express Auto obtaining legal rights to the vehicles.
But the wholesaler – Todd Williamson of Williamson Motor Company – called the Daily News on Friday and denied the claim.
Williamson said he has not gone to court with Express Auto. Despite their efforts to obtain the titles to the vehicles, they have not, he said.
While Express Auto has not returned the cars, “I still possess the titles and ownership of the cars,” Williamson said.
He said Express Auto is scheduled for court appearances with YAC – set in Sonoma County Superior Court for a summary judgment conference Sept. 20 at 8:30 a.m., settlement conference Sept. 26 at 9 a.m. and trial Oct. 21 at 8:30 a.m. – and he is waiting to see how that case pans out before doing much more on his end.
Express Auto Funding Director David Lachtman told the Daily News Friday that, “Officially, we have no comment.”

A Grand Jury representative could not be contacted by press time to determine where the Grand Jury had received the information.

“Everything is still up in the air,” Williamson said.

– Jamie Gentner can be reached at jgentner@siskiyoudaily.com

City responds to (Orange County) Grand Jury report on salaries

2011-08-26T20:41:00.001-07:00

Salary information is more transparent on website, but city manager takes issue with other jury recommendations.

By Barbara Diamond, coastlinepilot@latimes.com

August 25, 2011 | 4:39 p.m.

Information about city employees' salaries are easier to find after the Orange County Grand Jury in June dinged the city for its lack of transparency.

The information, which was formerly available but scattered on the city's website, has been consolidated into a single-page format, with hyperlinks to help folks more easily find salaries and benefits.

But that doesn't mean the city agreed with all of the Grand Jury's conclusions or recommendations.

"It is important to question the amount spent on personnel and municipal services to ensure they are appropriate in the light of a city's particular service demands, the market, local economy and community preferences," said City Manager John Pietig. "However, to effectively compare personnel costs, the Grand Jury would have to undertake a more in-depth analysis of services provided by each city in Orange County."

Pietig's comments on the Grand Jury findings and recommendations were included in a response to the Orange County Superior Court, as requested by presiding Judge Thomas J. Borris.

The recommendations included conducting a review of the need for what the jury deemed a relatively high number of upper-level — or highly-paid — positions in relation to the city's population of less than 25,000.

Pietig responded that staffing and service levels are subject to annual review in the budget process.

Moreover, in the last three years, 10 positions have been eliminated, three of them with salaries of $95,000 or more a year, he said.

Pietig also took exception to the jury's conclusion that population was a proper basis for evaluating staffing levels. Pietig said an equitable evaluation must take into consideration the types and numbers of services provided and the number of people for whom the services are performed.

He pointed out in his response to Borris that Laguna is the only city in South County with its own year-round municipal transit system, among other services that many other cities do not provide.

"Residential population does not represent service population," Pietig said. "Laguna Beach frequently serves over 100,000 people a day."

The Grand Jury report also focused on possible abuses related to compensation paid to elected officials in the wake of the Bell financial scandal.

None were found.

http://www.coastlinepilot.com/news/tn-cpt-0826-salaries-20110825,0,679468.story