Trinity County: Drug sting appeal advances

BY SALLY MORRIS
THE TRINITY JOURNAL

A citizens group of former Trinity County grand jury members is happy with the progress of its appeal to the federal 9th Circuit Court seeking to halt the nationwide practice of reverse sting operations to nab drug dealers and manufacturers.

The appeals court has ruled that the case be filed and directed that the U.S. attorney representing the government agencies involved respond within 45 days.

A requested 75-day extension has been protested by the local group “and that’s where we are right now, but the judges’ ruling at least means they have agreed our case has merit and will be heard,” said former Trinity County grand jury foreman Dr. William Koch of Lewiston who has spent years pursuing the case.

It stems from reverse stings conducted by the California Department of Justice, Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement and Shasta Interagency Narcotics Task Force in 1995 and 1997 involving methamphetamine production and sales in Trinity and Shasta counties.

The defendants, Erwin and Michael Spruth and John Rowley, were ultimately convicted and sentenced to 25 years in federal prison for crimes that occurred after they were furnished by undercover BNE agents with ephedrine and other precursors for the production of methamphetamine.

In 1998, the Spruth brothers and Rowley sought to dismiss their convictions based on outrageous government conduct, but were not successful. They appealed that ruling to the 9th Circuit Court that also refused to overturn the convictions five years ago. Though in each case, the government agents’ conduct was called into question, the defendants’ convictions were upheld on different grounds.

They have now filed another appeal to the 9th Circuit claiming the government agencies committed fraud upon the lower courts and the Trinity County citizens group has filed an amicus curiae, friend of the court brief in support of the defendants’ latest appeal.

The former Trinity County grand jury members who investigated the reverse sting operations from 2003 to 2005 concluded that the true victims were the citizens impacted after the government’s sting operations resulted in the uncontrolled release of massive methamphetamine doses sold to the public and never recovered.

They also claimed that government agents knowingly watched as cancer-causing contaminants — the byproduct of methamphetamine production — were dumped into Summit Creek near Hayfork and never cleaned up.

“We want the judges to issue a stay on all of these illegal reverse stings nationwide. We contend that the sting was only a ploy by the government to get the money from the drug sales,” Koch said.

He added that he has filed a freedom of information request to obtain records of all the monetary transactions that transpired to offer the court as additional evidence.

He and others involved in the citizens group expect to appear in front of the appeal judges’ panel once the government’s response is in and the case is reheard.

“We’ve gone a long ways down this legal track and we’re happy with progress so far,” he said.

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

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.

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

Copyright © 2012, Los Angeles Times

Stanislaus County: Logan taking on county Judiciary in latest filings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.